Obama: Debate Taxes

This is the moment of the debate (full transcript) I'm lingering on most this morning:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Would you take the same pledge? ["I am absolutely committed to not raising a single tax on middle- class Americans, people making less than $250,000 a year." -Sen. Clinton]

OBAMA: Well, I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes, I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes.

...

GIBSON: Senator Obama, you both have now just taken this pledge on people under $250,000 -- and 200-and-what? $250,000?

OBAMA: Well, it depends on how you calculate it, but it would be between $200,000 and $250,000.

Okay... sounds like good news and a chance to solve the argument I've been having around the office about exactly what nebulous phrases like "I wont raise taxes on the middle class" actually means. Thanks, a hard number for me to consider before November. Oh... wait... Sen. Obama is talking about raising the capital gains tax. Oh, what's that, Charlie?

GIBSON: But, Senator, but that's a tax. That's a tax...

OBAMA: Well, no, no, look...

GIBSON: ... on people under $250,000.

OBAMA: Let me finish my point here, Charlie. Senator Clinton said she certainly wouldn't do this, this was a bad idea. In Iowa, when she was outside of camera range, said to an individual there she'd certainly consider the idea and then that was recorded. And she apparently wasn't aware that it was being recorded.

So this is an option that I would strongly consider, because the alternatives, like raising the retirement age or cutting benefits or raising the payroll tax on everybody, including people who make less than $97,000 a year...

GIBSON: But there's a heck of a lot of...

OBAMA: ... those are not good policy options.

GIBSON: There's a heck of a lot of people between $97,000 and $200,000 and $250,000. If you raise the payroll taxes...

OBAMA: And that's...

GIBSON: ... that's going to raise taxes on them.

OBAMA: And that's why I've said, Charlie, that I would look at potentially exempting those who are in between.

But the point is we're going to have to capture some revenue in order to stabilize the Social Security system. You can't get something for nothing. And if we care about Social Security, which I do, and if we are firm in our commitment to make sure that it's going to be there for the next generation, and not just for our generation, then we have an obligation to figure out how to stabilize the system.

And I think we should be honest in presenting our ideas in terms of how we're going to do that and not just say that we're going to form a commission and try to solve the problem some other way.

Emphasis my own. Ignoring whether one thinks the capital gains tax actually should be raised beyond that cap, I find it amazing that in the span of a few questions Sen. Obama is so quick to suggest raising taxes on the income level he just pledged not to raise taxes on. And the reasoning for doing so is solid and something I actually agree with: You can't get something for nothing. That includes (from Sen. Obama's website):

• He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven
• Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.
• Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress.
• Obama believes that a critical step in restoring fiscal discipline is enforcing pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting rules which require new spending commitments or tax changes to be paid for by cuts to other programs or new revenue.

I guess that "you can't get something for nothing" + programs = higher taxes for people he pledged to lower taxes for.