The Blame Game

    The following exchange took place at Friday's Press Briefing with Jay Carney at the White House:

Q    Jay, the Speaker is in Ohio this weekend.  The President has plans himself to go on holiday a week from today.  The deadline draws closer.  Is it the White House’s calculus that if the nation does in fact go off the fiscal cliff, the blame -- the burden of the blame will fall on the Republican side?  Secretary Geithner said not that long ago that absolutely, that there would be willingness to go off the cliff if there was no acceptable deal.
MR. CARNEY:  The President is not interested in apportioning blame.  He’s interested in reaching a deal...

    Apparently Jim Messina, writing at BarackObama.com on Wednesday, didn't get the memo:

If your taxes go up, there's only one reason why 

By Jim Messina on December 12, 2012 

This week, thousands of Americans picked up the phone to help the President prevent a tax hike on middle-class families. 

We can't stop now. Republican leadership in the House of Representatives is still refusing to allow a vote on a bill that would prevent 98 percent of American families from paying higher taxes next year. 

If your taxes go up by more than $2,000 in a couple weeks, there's only one reason: because a few dozen Republican representatives refuse to ask the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans to pay their fair share.

    I love this new tone in Washington.

The Ultimate in GovernmentSpeak: Keeping Tax Rates the Same Equals "Negative Savings"

    This morning, the Treasury tweeted a link to a graphic illustrating "how the President’s plan raises $1.6T in revenue."  Part of the graphic is a detailed listing of how the $1.6 trillion breaks down:

    There are several aspects of this chart worth noting.

    First, these "savings" are "10 year" savings, which comes to $160 billion per year.  For those keeping score at home, the last four years have seen deficits of $1 trillion or more per year, so these "savings" barely amount to addressing 15% of the annual budget deficit.

    Second, the term "savings" itself is dubious - almost all of the items listed here are tax increases.  Under what perverse reasoning could these be considered "savings"?

    The third and final item I want to highlight is the first item on the list which actually lists a negative $359 billion: "Tax cuts for families, individuals, and businesses." Notice the parenthetical after that: "(negative savings)".  George Orwell has got to be kicking himself over that one.  Does this make a tax increase a "positive savings"?  And what is next?  An increase in spending will be a "negative spending cut"?

    By the way, these "tax cuts for families, individuals, and businesses"?  These are nothing new, simply an extension of the "cuts" that have been in effect since 2001 and 2003 during the Bush administration.  And one final by the way... this $1.6 trillion is only concerned with federal income tax revenues.  Since payroll taxes (Social Security and Medi-care) fall outside of this definition, the "positive savings" (read "tax increase") that the Obama administration has planned by allowing the payroll tax holiday to expire doesn't need to be included in the above chart.  Surprise!