In a WSJ editorial this morning Obama economic advisors Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee unveiled details of Obama’s economic plan. It contained some surprises (capital gains of 20%, not 25% as had been widely assumed). And at least one provision that the GOP latched onto as detrimental to marriage (Obama would raise taxes on couples making more than $250,000 combined and individuals making $200,000 – thus making it expensive for two people earning more than $200,000 apiece to get married). There’s a conference call at noon, so more to come.
Update:
The Obama folks explained their plan a little more detail on the conference call. First, they said that they expect to save $90 billion ending the war in Iraq by the end of Obama’s fourth year in office, a “very conservative estimate,” Furman noted, less than half of what the CBO assumes the U.S. will spend that year on continuing operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and the War on Terror. This is a key point, as commentator Duvall notes, because Obama offsets much of his spending on ending the war.
Second, the great Ryan Donmoyer noted this morning that the Obama campaign had never said if an increase in Social Security payrolls taxes (Obama proposes a 4% increase evenly split between employer and employee after a donut hole between $90,000 and $250,000) would also result in an increase in benefits. After all, one of the great selling points to Republicans for this system is that every puts in and everyone takes out – the more the rich are taxed to subsidize the poor the more the GOP will accuse Dems of turning the program into welfare. Furman said they have made no decisions on benefits yet and would work with Congress on this issue.
Third, the Obama folks have said they would continue Bush’s annual AMT fixes rather than attempting a larger solution to the problem. I don’t know if they’re doing this to spite Rangel (anyone notice he’s not speaking at the convention?) but it seems odd given how much bipartisan consensus there is to deal with this issue – and how much middle class angst revolves around the AMT. Even McCain wants to fix it.
Fourth, Furman attempted to explain why yuppies looking to marry wouldn’t see a tax hit but I couldn’t follow him. Instead here’s a letter, after the jump, that they’re sending to the Sun explaining it themselves. (Why he didn’t just argue that there are few that care about rich yuppies taking a tax hit, I don’t know).
Finally, the McCain folks held a conference call of their own refuting Obama’s plan. Their main message seems to be that Obama has changed his position a lot on taxes. “His shifting rhetoric over time driven by his ambition to be President of the United States” has led to “huge credibility problems,” said Carly Fiorina. Two notes on this, 1) given McCain’s shift on the Bush tax cuts, isn’t this the pot calling the kettle black? And, 2) How can you on the one hand say Obama is completely lacking substance, a hollow celebrity, and then hit him for changing his substance?
