An aerial view shows the pack of riders as they cycle along the coast during the 145,5 km third stage of the centenary Tour de France from Ajaccio to Calvi, on the French Mediterranean island of Corsica July 1, 2013. REUTERS/Pascal Pochard-Casabianca/Pool

Reuters Photojournalism

Our day's top images, in-depth photo essays and offbeat slices of life. See the best of Reuters photography.  See more | Photo caption 

Photo

Egypt's Mursi protests

Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi clings to office as protesters demand that he resign.  Slideshow 

Photo

Obama in Africa

President Obama is seeking to build a new economic partnership with Africa at the end of a tour of the fast-growing continent.  Slideshow 

Sponsored Links

Obama signals he may compromise on tax cuts

Related Video

Video

Obama signals tax stance

Sat, Nov 6 2010
President Barack Obama answers a question during a post-election news conference in the East Room of the White House in Washington, November 3, 2010. REUTERS/Larry Downing

President Barack Obama answers a question during a post-election news conference in the East Room of the White House in Washington, November 3, 2010.

Credit: Reuters/Larry Downing

WASHINGTON | Sun Nov 7, 2010 12:25am EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama gave his clearest signal yet on Saturday of a possible post-election compromise with resurgent Republicans that could prevent tax rates from rising for any American, even the wealthiest, come January.

Obama, in his first weekly radio address since his Democrats suffered big losses in Tuesday's congressional elections, reasserted that Bush-era tax cuts should be made permanent for the middle class before they expire at year-end.

But while insisting tax cuts for wealthier Americans should not become permanent because of a $700 billion impact on the deficit over the next decade, he left the door open to a temporary extension for higher income levels -- as long as it falls short of costing that much.

"I believe there's room for us to compromise and get it done together," Obama said, previewing his administration's negotiating stance when the current Congress returns later this month for its final session.

It was the latest sign that Obama might give ground in the high-stakes tax battle, which could test the new dynamic in Washington after Republicans won control of the House of Representatives and weakened the Democrats' Senate majority.

The conciliatory tone comes after Obama had argued fervently for months that the country could not afford to keep tax rates low on those with individual incomes above $200,000.

The possible makings of an agreement that the Democrats could support points to a permanent extension for the middle class coupled with a temporary extension -- possibly for a year or more -- of higher earners' tax cuts.

Republicans, emboldened by their election victories and vowing to block Obama's agenda, have taken a harder line on making permanent for all Americans, including the wealthiest, the tax cuts enacted under former President George W. Bush.

GRIDLOCK OR COMPROMISE

Obama, for his part, made clear he still does not want the rates for the wealthier Americans to be set permanently lower but stopped short of saying he would oppose a temporary fix.

"I believe we can't afford to borrow and spend another $700 billion on permanent tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires," he said. He will meet Democratic and Republican leaders at the White House on November 18 to discuss the issue.

The pressure for compromise is that neither party wants to alienate middle-class voters, who on Tuesday punished Democrats at the polls for Obama's economic policies that have failed to put much of a dent in persistently high unemployment.

"All of us want certainty for middle-class Americans," Obama said. "None of us want them to wake up on January 1st with a higher tax bill."

Lawmakers return the week after next for a post-election "lame duck" session. Until the new Congress convenes in January, Democrats will still be in charge in the House.

But gridlock is still possible, especially over sensitive tax policy in the context of a $1.3 trillion budget deficit. Republicans must now decide what their best option is -- take what they can get from Democrats now or wait until next year.

Republicans say small businesses would be hurt if taxes on the wealthiest rise. About 3 percent of small business would be impacted, but they account for about half of small business income, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. The lower rates for the wealthiest would impact about 3 percent of all Americans.

(Additional reporting by Kim Dixon; Editing by Eric Beech)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (7)
renojmc wrote:
I don’t believe Obama. But I have figured out how to tell when he’s lying…it’s when his lips are moving.

Nov 07, 2010 6:00am EST  --  Report as abuse
jalee wrote:
America is in dire financial straits due to the lack of common sense and ecomonic policies that this administration has pursued. The printing of more currency, the spend mentality, the overtaking of private investments, the health programs and the lavish life style exhibited by the White House is unbelievable!

Nov 07, 2010 11:41am EST  --  Report as abuse
ginchinchili wrote:
jalee: Apparently you just started paying attention. Our country was in a dire economic mess when Obama took office. Believe it or not, things have improved since then. And as far as his “spend” mentality, the difference between Obama and Bush is that Bush preferred spending our tax dollars on Iraqis. Obama has been spending on Americans, trying to get us out of the mess Bush got us into. Like it or not, those are the facts.

And, yes, something needs to be done about our healthcare system. Each administration passes the problem on to the next. Obama finally decided to tackle it. Ours is the most expensive healthcare in the world and we cover fewer people than any other industrialized nation. It’s controlled by the industry whose only interest is profit at the expense of millions of Americans. It’s insane. Good for Obama for having the courage to tackle it.

If our system is so great, why don’t other countries that have those horrible single payer systems want a system more like ours? For example, why aren’t Canadian politicians running on a platform promising to get rid of their government-run healthcare system in favor of a system like ours? Shouldn’t that sweep them into office? It’s because no one wants a system like ours, no one except American Republicans who are dictated to by the healthcare industry who donate to their campaigns. Then those Republican leaders turn around and tell people like you what to think. It works.

And lavish lifestyle? Give me a break. Obama’s lifestyle isn’t any more lavish than any other president. You just can’t stand seeing a black family in the White House enjoying all the perks that former white presidents have had. Of course you won’t admit it, but there’s no other explanation. The hatred directed at our president is shameful.

Bush’s tax cuts have been in place for about 8 years now and obviously haven’t made any difference in job production. What they have done is replace a pick axe with a steam shovel in digging our nation deeper into debt.

The disparity of wealth in this nation must be discussed rather than sidelined with cries of “class warfare”. Wealth distribution in America resembles that of Venezuela, Ecuador, Mozambique, Uganda, Sri Lanka, and China: http://myexposition.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/inequality-in-wealth-distribution/ This is not anything to celebrate. If you look at the periods in America’s history when our economy was thriving those periods directly correlate with periods when our wealth distribution was much more equal.

For the Republicans to win an election running on the promise to cut the deficit and lower our debt, but insist on extending the tax cuts for America’s wealthiest is, at best, disingenuous on the part of Republicans. More importantly, it only solidifies our our current economic disfunctionality and dooms us to more economic turmoil. What will happen politically is that Republicans will fail to keep their promise and blame it on Obama and the Democrats. A majority of Americans will probably believe them and we’ll continue our evolution into a Plutocracy and our digression into a third world economy.

Nov 07, 2010 6:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.