Waving Goodbye to Reaganism: Terms of the Tax Debate Continue to Tectonically Shift

by: David Sirota

Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 17:30


There's a pretty intense (and terrific) fight brewing over budgetary issues right now - a fight whose contours are tilting the terms of debate away from Reaganism and toward progressive policy goals.

Over the last few weeks, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) has been escalating her demand for the Obama administration to back an immediate repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the top one percent of all income earners. Like progressive leaders in states across the country, Pelosi is fearlessly using her bully pulpit to try to shift the terms of the tax debate away from the fringe right's framing and toward the real center of American public opinion, which supports efforts to make taxes more fair and better fund public priorities.

Obama aides have countered by being, well, ambivalent on the issue - first flip-flopping, then by spinning out of any kind of clear answer.

The Bush tax cuts are set to expire in two years, so it's easy to think that this isn't really that big of an issue. Why not just avoid the fight over repeal, as Obama wants? What's two years, right? Well, sure - two years may be a relatively short period of time, but as Citizens for Tax Justice data shows, it's not a relatively small amount of money. Indeed, the Bush tax cuts are set to give a whopping $226 billion to the top 1 percent of income earners in that time. That's $226 billion that could be spent on pressing priorities.

David Sirota :: Waving Goodbye to Reaganism: Terms of the Tax Debate Continue to Tectonically Shift
At a time when top Democrats on Capitol Hill are telling us the Obama administration is prioritizing more tax cuts over critical mass transit funding, and at a time when Obama has tried to focus deficit concerns almost exclusively on Social Security and Medicare while simultaneously pushing a massive bailout for Wall Street, simply ignoring a fight over $226 billion because it's politically easier to let Bush's tax cuts expire rather than repeal them is irresponsible, to say the least. That's especially true considering the data that says we could much more effectively spend that tax money on public infrastructure spending rather than tax cuts.

That said, while Obama's economic team is wrong on taxes, there's something to be excited about. What's different in this new political era is how the terms of the debate have radically shifted. The debate is now about whether to let the Bush tax cuts expire, or whether to repeal them right now - not about whether to extend them or let them expire, or worse, whether to extend them as is, or expand them. The latter set of arguments would undoubtedly be center-stage had John McCain won the presidency.

I hope Pelosi keeps pushing hard for legislation to repeal Bush's tax cuts - and I hope Obama's economic team stops embracing conservatives' discredited ideology that says any tax increases on the super rich would hurt the economy. $225 billion could go a long way to, say, universal health care. But while we push for immediate action, let's take a moment and recognize that  


Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Agree 100% (4.00 / 5)
I was very happy to see Pelosi arguing in favor of higher taxes on the rich when she went on Larry King yesterday.

In 2010 and 2012, Obama is going to need some real achievements to point to when justifying massive deficit spending. Saying "things would have been worse", which is the current excuse for TARP, won't cut it. He will need to be able to say "We have improved X schools, reinforced X bridges, laid down X miles of train tracks, generated X amount of energy from clean sources", etc. Saying "we've insured X number of kids" would also be great, but Americans want infrastructure spending and the Dems better deliver.


dream on (4.00 / 3)
What is brewing is not a collapse of the Puke agenda, and not the triumph of the Unitary Obama Administration that you fear, but a massive, concerted, all out counter-attack by a Republican/Right-Wing power structure that finally senses that it is in real danger. The Republicans spent the first couple months of the Clinton administration interfering with even Clinton's management of internal white-house staff, forcing him to give up on appointees, and making him back down on promises. Once they established the whip-hand, Clinton spent 8 years on defense. There is zero doubt that faced with the much more determined Obama administration and without the pile of pardons that GHW Bush left to protect his accomplices, and with the entire corporate money structure shaking, that the corporate media and republican congress and judiciary and dug in civil service and security wingers will fight now before Obama has a chance to complete the transition or to make any serious changes.


cornered rats (4.00 / 1)
doubtless they'll fight like cornered rats, but you make it sound like they've already won just because they will fight.

[ Parent ]
i don't think that they have won (4.00 / 2)
But I do think that it is not really time to celebrate victory. There is no way that the next step will be easy.

[ Parent ]
It's not 1993... (3.00 / 4)
The differences between then and now are like night and day, and the republicans feel it... Repbublicans were apologizing for voting against the second half of the TARP money to Obama... apologizing!  They want to obstruct, but are hesitant to do so... I've never seen that before!

The big test comes next week... The republicans will go to Obama with their complaints about the stimulus bill.  Will Obama stand firm or cave?  The implications are huge!  If he caves, the Reaganomics philosophy lives on... If he doesn't, then we can finally move forwards and away from trickle-down...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
many differences and I think Obama is far more determined than Clinton (4.00 / 2)
But what we've seen this week is a realization that they did not succeed in winning over Obama to DC consensus and that he is serious about restoring rule of law - they are absolutely shitting themselves about what Holder will do in particular.
Next week they will attack hard. CNN is already running "time running out for Obama" stories.

[ Parent ]
Critical Time (4.00 / 5)
It is great that Nancy Pelosi will fight to repeal the Bush tax cuts. The government needs the $225 billion. But more importantly, the rich have made out like bandits for the past 30 years while everyone else has been screwed. Democracy cannot survive the current incredibly vast inequities between the rich and poor.

Wanna fix the next to last paragraph? (4.00 / 1)
Looks like an incomplete first sentence. Was there a point you forgot to add in?

$225 Billion (4.00 / 2)
Indeed, the Bush tax cuts are set to give a whopping $226 billion to the top 1 percent of income earners in that time. That's $225 billion that could be spent on pressing priorities.

Remember the good ol' days when $225 billion seemed like a lot of money?


Moving the goalposts back (4.00 / 3)
It is a sign of the extent to which Reagan and Bush succeded that we are talking about moving tax rates back to where they were under Clinton as some kind of victory.  Have we forgotten about Reagan's initial set of tax cuts, and where the top rate used to be?  Given that economic growth rates were higher in the 50's and 60's than they have been at any time after Reagan's tax cuts, and given that the highest sustained rates of growth since Reagan came under Clinton, after he raised taxes, what argument is there that we should keep the upper bracket tax rate in the 30-40% range?  Why not higher, like it used to be?  Why not higher, like it is in almost every other 1st world country?

We have to make huge investments in green technology and infrastructure, have to come up with a universal health plan when we aren't doing a good job funding medicare, have to stimulate the economy out of the worst economic downturn since the depression and then once we get back to the situation we had before the housing bubble burst we have to deal with the problems that existed before it like rising poverty.  Does anyone really think Clinton era tax policy is going to be sufficient?


The rich stole it... (4.00 / 2)
...fuck them.

[ Parent ]
It's a start... (0.00 / 0)
30 years of Reaganomics isn't going to be changed overnight.  Too many Americans still believe that trickle down is gospel.  It will take both effort and time to undo the damage.  After all, 30 years of propaganda isn't easy to overcome.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
When will the American people get the message? (4.00 / 1)
The Republican party, no matter who it hides behind, the Religious Right or the NRA or whomeever, is the party of the rich.

And what we are seeing today is the culmination of Bush II's taking the country into extreme Reaganism. It is my belief that Bush II thinks he will find a positive legacy in history because of his uberReaganist policies.

Let's face it: when you can get poor people to vote for the wealthy, you have to believe that Bush II's Reaganism was highly successful.

But today, it is average people who are finding their retirement funds depleted and their home values in the drink, not the wealthy.



Please Consider Two Additional Points to Make (4.00 / 1)
1. Putting/keeping more money in the hands of the wealthy means more dollars get put into risky and speculative investments.  These "investments" de-stabilize functional markets and either will throw off-course the recovery that should be coming (note: should) or will create a post-recovery bubble that sends us right back into the same place.  Tax cuts for the rich are destructive to the economy.  

2. Tax cuts and "infrastructure" are not the only ways to spend money.  We need to make critical investments in "soft infrastructure" like higher and K12 education (both buildings and people), healthcare facilities and people (umm, we have a huge nursing shortage), child care, etc.  This is not only a vital part of our economy both now and into the future, but also an investment in "permanent" jobs; construction jobs are cyclical while these kinds of jobs are long-term.  Also, as a straight, white male that is big man who has worked construction, let me tell you that I think it's total BS that we're only talking about a phallic stimulus package right now.


Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search