Obama's Debt Plan Sets Sights on Wealthy Americans

With the next 2012 Presidential election coming sooner rather than later, potential Republican contenders to face Obama for the White House are currently battling it out amongst each other. Meanwhile the President has his own hurdles to overcome before he even has time to think about who he’ll eventually be running against. With pressure mounting to create jobs, ease the struggling economy and ultimately slash trillions in debt, Obama is facing the challenge with an almost uncharacteristically bold approach. That is, a call for over $1.5 trillion in new taxes with an overarching goal to rid $3.2 trillion of the country’s debt over the next decade. While the President has taken some criticism in the past for being “soft” among his constituents, he seems to be taking a firm stance on two particular notions; tax the wealthy and keep the safety net of social security intact.

As one may imagine, response to this proposal has been mixed to say the least.

“I will not support any plan that puts all the burden for closing our deficit on ordinary Americans,” Obama stated during his recent speech at the Rose Garden. “We are not going to have a one-sided deal that hurts the folks who are most vulnerable.” Republican opposition has described Obama’s plan to tax the wealthy as nothing more than “class warfare.” Such opposition also perpetuates the notion that to tax the wealthy is to tax those who are helping the economy to thrive in the first place, and to weaken such individuals and companies to be a potentially costly mistake. Meanwhile, Democratic supporters to Obama’s plan agree that such taxes would simply be “fair,” and that the millionaires and billionaires in question should be paying at least the same tax rate as the people working for them.

Obama recently butted heads with Speaker of the House John Boehner who vehemently opposed the decision to increase taxes as a means of debt reduction. Boehner himself stated “The government has a spending problem and I don’t believe it makes any sense to tax the people we expect to invest in our economy.” Boehner has been one of the many accusing the President of practicing “class warfare,” meanwhile the President himself responded to such criticism stating “This is not class warfare. It’s math.”

Obama describes his plan to reduce the debt as a “balanced” approach. The plan includes limiting loopholes for companies making over $250,000 as well as closing loopholes for special interest companies. A cut in defense spending is also in the cards, with a drawback of troops from the Middle East to potentially result in $1.1 trillion in savings. These cutbacks and slashes and spending stem from the reduction talks that got truly heated over the summer with the rise of the debt ceiling, yet one can’t help but ask the age-old question when it comes to Washington; will these cuts become more than just talk? Obama is showing some fire that we haven’t seen in quite some time, recently blasting back at Republicans playing the card of “class warfare,” stating that they were the ones waging warfare on behalf of the wealthy. Such rhetoric, fighting for jobs and the lower-to-middle-class represents what Obama will need to do if he stands a chance at reelection. He has plenty working against him, and whether you’re of the opinion that the President picked up what George W. Bush left behind or has made his own mess, as it were, nobody can deny that the upcoming election will indeed be a fight. Americans are angry. Americans are out of work. Americans want jobs.

Who’s going to bring them what they want?

There are many battles going on Washington right now. Taxes, regulations, debt, and everything in between. There’s so much at stake with the livelihood of everyday Americans and their small businesses hanging in the balance. The culmination of the fight ultimately comes in 2012, but what sort of changes and economic relief can we look forward to until then? Will higher taxes put America back on its feet? Is class warfare the name of the game? We’ll see.