CT News Junkie

A Connecticut news site that understands the usual media offerings just…aren’t…enough.

One In Four Senate Candidates Pans Obama’s Middle Class Tax Cut

by | Jul 10, 2012 5:30am () Comments | Commenting has expired | Share
Posted to: Congress, Election 2012, White House

All four candidates for the U.S. Senate in Connecticut responded Monday to President Barack Obama’s plan to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for the wealthiest Americans, while keeping them in place for one year for the middle class. But surprisingly only one in four panned the proposal.

“I just believe that anybody making over $250,000 a year should go back to the income tax rates we were paying under Bill Clinton—back when our economy created nearly 23 million new jobs, the biggest budget surplus in history, and plenty of millionaires to boot,” Obama said during his noon press conference in the East Room of the White House.

Republican candidate Linda McMahon agreed. Seven-minutes after his press conference aired, McMahon put out a press release touting her proposal to extend the tax cuts to the middle class.

“President Obama and I agree that Congress must extend the current tax rates for the middle class,” McMahon said. “Last week’s jobs numbers reminded us that no matter what career politicians may say, our economy is still sluggish and middle-class families are hurting. We should not be raising taxes on anyone right now.“

She said that’s why middle class tax relief is the centerpiece of her economic plan, which proposes decreasing the middle class tax rate from 25 to 15 percent. However, it should be noted that unlike Obama, McMahon wants to maintain the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals, while cutting taxes for the middle class.

Her Republican opponent, former U.S. Rep. Chris Shays, couldn’t disagree more with what Obama said Monday.

“The only way to describe the President’s press conference today is insanity,” Shays said. “It makes no sense to raise taxes when the economy continues to falter. It is simply the wrong approach that will actually make our economy worse.”

Shays accused Obama of playing “class warfare.”

“Class warfare may win an election, but it divides our country and hurts our economy,” Shays said.

He suggested focusing on getting the country’s fiscal house in order and simplifying the tax code as the path toward economic growth.

Democratic candidates Susan Bysiewicz and Chris Murphy both applauded Obama’s proposal.

“Extending these cuts for the middle class and small businesses are an important way to make the tax code work for the middle class,” Bysiewicz said.

Sticking with her anti-Wall Street theme, Bysiewicz said Congress needs to “end corporate welfare by eliminating all special interest tax breaks and the hedge fund loophole that allows speculators to pay a lower tax rate than the middle class, end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and fix the alternative minimum tax, which makes many middle class families pay a higher tax rate than the wealthiest Americans.”

Murphy, who had to cancel a campaign stop in New Haven Monday morning, issued a brief statement in support of the president’s proposal.

“I’ve always believed that Congress should preserve tax cuts for the overwhelming majority of Americans while it works on broader tax reform that will ask the wealthiest amongst us to pay a little bit more to help bring down our deficit,” Murphy said in a statement.

We want to know what you think about Obama’s proposal. Use the comment section below to share your views.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |


(7) Archived Comments

posted by: GoatBoyPHD | July 10, 2012  6:31am


The GOP was quick to point out that the range of other taxes including capital gains and property and state income taxes are not the same as under Clinton. The effective tax for all tax brackets will be higher in 2014.

posted by: GoatBoyPHD | July 10, 2012  6:35am


What we haven’t seen from the Obama administration yet is the tax rate to balance the budget.

If the GOP runs on that scenario, a 50% deficit where we collect $2.6 Trillion and spend $3.9 trillion or 50% more than we take in at the Federal level, then we get a real picture of the two solutions. Would the Democrats seriously propose a 50% tax increase and no cuts to balance the budget?

posted by: perturbed | July 10, 2012  7:34am


You may find it “surprising,” Christine, that “only” one in four panned the proposal (an opinion expressed in the article), but I find it amazing that anyone would.

Let’s put this whole discussion in a little context, from Wikipedia:

Historical marginal tax rates for the lowest and highest income earners in the United States.

(As if high taxes for top earners now are the problem…)


posted by: GoatBoyPHD | July 10, 2012  10:28am


Perturbed, that’s Fed income tax only.

A better current picture comes from the Wall Street Journal


Of course historical would be better. To be truly meaningful it also requires an offset of income transfers from Medicaid, education (per student), city services (police, fire, and other city expenditures) to get atrue historical net which includes income transfers. By tiself income tax is not that meaningful particularly when including war time taxes.

posted by: DrHunterSThompson | July 10, 2012  10:14pm

it’s official, Shays has not chance.


posted by: SocialButterfly | July 12, 2012  12:46pm

Chris Shays is right. Obama’s press conference was INSANITY - and our “elected dictator” is practicing class warfare to win the election!

posted by: 2012.07 | July 13, 2012  1:12am

The Dem candidates are completely out of touch with reality! What shocks and amazes me is that they actually believe their own Party Propaganda.  If you really want an original set of ideas for the Federal government and are drawn to the idea of a Senator that is the antithesis of a career politico, then find out more about the Libertarian candidate.  Search for Paul Passarelli on Facebook, and post your questions directly.

Social Networks We Use

Connecticut Network


Our Partners

Sponsored Messages