Brighten their holiday. Enrich their everyday.Give The Atlantic

Chart Of The Day


by Patrick Appel

Howard Gleckman reads a new paper (pdf) by Adam Looney on the Bush tax cuts:

Keep in mind that Obama’s plan to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for nearly all--as opposed to allwould still add trillions to the deficit over the next decade. When Adam says the Obama plan would make a “small down payment toward fiscal responsibility” he means it would make the deficit less badrelative to current lawthan extending the tax cuts for everyone, including the highest earners. Still, in today’s political environment, adding $3 trillion to the deficit over the next decade is better than adding $3.7 trillion.

My view (which Adam does not necessarily share) is that given budget realities, Obama is wrong to propose extending the Bush tax cuts indefinitely for as many people as he does. I'd lower the threshold even further--perhaps to $150,000--and continue the tax cuts for only a year or two. But in any event, do we really want to extend them for a handful of the very highest earners as well?