CNNMoney: 'White House Staff Safe From Obama Tax Hike'

Doesn't the title of this story from CNNMoney.Com make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside? "White House Staff Safe From Obama Tax Hike." I bet you were biting your fingernails in worry about whether White House staffers would be hit with the higher taxes that President Obama promised would only happen to those making over $250,000 per year. Here is the "reassurance" from CNNMoney that the White House staffers won't be burdened by higher taxes due to Obama's sacred pledge:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Barack Obama's White House staff appears to be safe from a tax increase, for now.

The White House on Wednesday issued its annual report to Congress listing the salaries of all staff, revealing that everyone gets paid less than $200,000.

During the election campaign, Obama promised no income tax increase for anyone making under $250,000.

Uh-oh. That "for now" in the first sentence sounds somewhat ominous. Sort of like when Hugo Chavez of Venezuela says "por ahora." More on that later but "por ahora" let us revel in the fact that White House staffers won't be paying higher taxes according to CNNMoney:

The report, which did not include the president's salary, showed that David Marcozzi, the director of public health policy, is the top paid White House staffer at $192,934 a year, with better-known figures such as Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Senior Advisor David Axelrod getting $172,200.

Obama froze all salaries above $100,000 upon taking office, affecting 146 staff members including his personal aide Reggie Love, who is paid $102,000 a year.

Other notables are Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, and National Economic Council director Lawrence Summers -- both at $172,200- - and Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House office for health care reform, at $158,500.

Unfortunately for the White House staffers...and most of the rest of us...all of Obama's promises have an expiration date. And the expiration date for his "no new taxes" pledge for those earning under $250,000 appears to be arriving soon. Both David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs have recently hinted that the Obama tax pledge is about to the thrown under the bus. And CNNMoney in another story, contradicting their fairy tale above, has told us Why taxes will need to go up:

"Ultimately, the long-term budget outlook will necessitate serious tax and spending changes," says the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which is led by tax and budget experts from the left and the right.

And "ultimately" really means ASAP, say some tax experts. That's because the financial and economic crises have exacerbated an already tough budget outlook.

...Obama has promised to make permanent the tax cuts for everyone except high-income households. It's an expensive promise. The federal coffers will see roughly $2.1 trillion less in revenue over the next 10 years than it would if the tax cuts expired for everyone, according to estimates from the Joint Committee on Taxation.

...But the pay-for debate over health care will be a mere warm-up to the resistance Congress will face if it tries to put the budget on more stable footing.

Politicians understand the issue behind closed doors, Gale said. But when they're in front of the cameras, he noted, "Republicans say 'no new taxes.' And Democrats say 'no new taxes for 95% of all households.' Neither one of those is a starting position for sensible fiscal reform."

 ...Without making significant changes to lessen the country's debt burden, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said, "we face the real threat of a fiscal and economic crisis more severe than what we've already endured."

Of course, the most important "significant change" will mean tax increases for those making under $250,000 per year. Any idea of cutting spending is simply out of the question for the Obama administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress. 

And the worst aspect of Obama breaking his pledge would be the increased tax burden on the White House staffers. This "tragedy" almost takes your mind off the wall-to-wall news coverage of Michael Jackson.