What "Obama tax cuts"?

Why are the media referring to the deal President Obama made with the Republicans as the "Obama tax cut" or, for that matter, a tax cut at all? Here is a grab from Google News today.

Michael Graham explains,

Where to begin?

First - show me the tax cut! Anyone’s tax cut. The tax deal Democrats keep claiming will “cut taxes for the rich” doesn’t cut taxes at all. It keeps rates the same. Unchanged. As in, “not lower than they are now.”

Of course I realize that tax rates are scheduled to rise, but not letting them rise isn’t a “cut” anywhere outside Washington. I’ve never seen an advertisement that said “C’mon down for big savings at the ‘We were going to raise prices but decided not to!’ sale!”

Congressman Lynch, I will happily donate $1,000 to the Fisher House charity in your name if you can show me a single dollar in income tax cuts for any tax bracket in the “tax cut” plan you oppose.

What is happening is that Obama has agreed to keep the Bush tax cuts in place. And the Bush tax cuts really were tax cuts, meaning that the people who actually paid taxes (barely a majority today) really did see their tax rates decline. The "Obama tax cuts" are in truth just the continuation of the Bush tax cuts.

In fact, everyone's rate went down, no matter their economic class. The more money you made, the more your rate fell. This had the Dems screaming bloody murder, of course, since they think the gummint should have prior claim on every dollar earned. Americans, you see, should live on an government-set allowance. (Hillary Clinton pretty much said so in 2004. Speaking at a $10K-per-person fundraiser, Hillary said,

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Not "ask," take. But I digress. Even though the tax rates for the well-off fell under the Bush tax cuts, the percentage of total taxes paid fell for the lower 44 percent of filers and rose for the top 56 percent.

The Dems also say that the government "can't afford" to keep the Bush rates in place, even though the lower rates made more money for government coffers. As Graham explains, "And as for those evil Bush tax cuts “costing us” billions, federal revenues increased 14.5 percent in 2005 and 11.8 percent in 2006, the fastest rise since 1981."

Bush was no fiscal conservative, to be sure. Quite apart from the costs of the war thrust upon us on 9/11/01, federal spending went skyward during his presidency. While the federal deficit shrank year after year, even increased tax revenues did not cover expenditures.

Expiring the Bush tax rates will decrease federal tax revenues, not increase them. But even so, spending was and remains the problem.

But maybe the so-called "Obama tax cut deal" will work out for Obama politically.

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's tax-cut deal with Republican lawmakers may help him lay the groundwork for his political revival heading into his 2012 re-election campaign - if it strengthens the economy as intended.

And if not, there's the old standby, all-purpose Obama excuse for everything:

Update: Who creates more jobs - government or wealthy people? Can this even be a serious question?