White House predictions: Health-care reform passes, cap-and-trade doesn't
Last year's budget included space for both a health-care reform bill and a cap-and-trade bill. The revenues for cap-and-trade, in fact, paid for a substantial middle-class tax cut. But this year, the budget assumes that health-care reform passes and deletes cap-and-trade -- and the tax cut it would fund in the future -- entirely.
By
Ezra Klein
|
February 2, 2010; 12:58 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Lunch break
Next: Policy compromise is easy. Political compromise is impossible.
Posted by: ISOK | February 2, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse
I just want you to know, he tried harder for that middle-class tax cut he promised--he tried for that harder than anything else he ever had in his life. But, and the end of the day, with the Bush deficits . . . he wouldn't have made that middle-class tax cut campaign pledge, if had known how bad it would be. And also that he wouldn't get cap-and-trade taxes to pay for it. And then some.
Nothing against Obama. He's a fine fellow. But, irrespective about how you feel regarding tax cuts, nobody should ever take any Democrat who promises a tax cut seriously, ever. It'll never happen. Clinton promised a middle-class tax cut, and nothing. Obama promised a middle-class tax cut. Nada.
Of course, George Bush, Sr. pledged not to raise taxes while campaigning, and then did, so I suppose it cuts both ways.
Posted by: Kevin_Willis | February 2, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse
They're right on one and wrong on the other.
Health care reform died and remains dead, and so is cap and trade. I might add to this list regulatory reform, except I imagine something called "regulatory reform will see the president's desk, though I wouldnt bet a nickel on it having any real teeth.
God bless America!
Posted by: zeppelin003 | February 2, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse
Ezra - don't you think they're very quietly killing care reform in the back room while they sing us a soothing lullaby? And we're falling for it.
Posted by: Sophomore | February 2, 2010 6:12 PM | Report abuse
The comments to this entry are closed.
Hi Ezra,
Does this necessarily mean the Admin. is assuming no cap and trade? I thought the difference was due to the original assumption of 100% auctions. As the bills that have already passed do not call for 100% auctions (and there is basically no chance that any future bills will either), I thought this adjustment was just an acknowledgment of that fact.
Thanks,
ISOK