The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Michael Maiello's picture

    Ending The "Bush Tax Cuts"

    By Michael Maiello on Fri, 07/15/2011 - 4:28pm | Politics

    I used to think that the most lasting effects that a President can have on the country are his appointments to the federal courts.  But George W. Bush has changed my mind about that.  If you really want to have a lasting voice in the national conversation, just put your name on a big, fundamental piece of legislation and make it sunset after you're out of office.  The "Bush Tax Cuts," designed from the start to expire after Bush's two terms were, were a devious trap, set to explode in the face of the next president, preferably a Democrat.

    Now, we all know that these cuts mainly benefited the wealthiest Americans in absolute terms.  Anytime something is percentage based, this is going to happen.  If I knock 3 percentage points off of what I was going to take from that $200,000 you have, then I save you six grand.  I knock the same amount off of $50,000, I only save you $1,500.

    Thing is, our hypothetical person with $50,000 needs that $1,500 a lot more than our hypothetical person who is making so much money than $200K of it is being taxed at the top rate needs $6,000.  There's the tax cut jiu jitsu -- if you take away the $6,000 that our rich taxpayer barely even notices, you also take away the money that our more average taxpayer was going to use to pay for braces for the kid.

    This is why I bristle when I read liberal writers complaining that Obama only wants to "end 1/5th of the Bush tax cuts."  I'm using made up numbers above, but the tax savings for middle class payer is nontrivial.  That's why Obama has said since 2010 that he wanted to keep rates as they are now for couples who make below $250,000 a year.  The president is correct here.  Given the wealth disparity in the U.S., I might even advocate cutting taxes for individuals making below $100,000 a year and raising them more sharply above $250,000 and treating investment income as the, you know, actual income that it actually is.  But, that's just me and that's never going to happen.

    A funny thing we forget, by the way, is that our system is progressive.  If you make $300,00 a year, you don't pay the top rate on all $300,000.  To get to the top rate you have to go through all of the other rates first.  If the majority of your income is taxed at the top rate well, then, you just might be a very rich person.

    I'm digressing into territory that's been well covered here and is almost a non-issue since it's all debts and deficits now.  But in 2013 the "Bush Tax Cuts" expire again -- five years after the guy left office.  How do we reclaim the tax code in a fair and rational way?

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    The best way to end the "Bush" tax cuts for the rich would be to elect a Democratic President in 2012.  Unfortunately, we don't have that choice as we are limited to voting for a Republican posing as a Democrat vs some completely off the chain right wing extremist Republican.

    It is no longer accurate to call them the Bush tax cuts for the rich.  Because of his support for the tax cuts they must now be called the Bush/Obama tax cuts for the rich.  That is the only accurate label for those budget busting tax cuts for people who don't need them.  Anyone still naive enough to believe that Obama had no choice but to extend the tax cuts at the end of last year and thus help the extreme right create the faux budget and debt limit crisis is fooling only themselves.

    It is now irrefutable after Obama once again offered and will give the Republicans more than they asked for by reviving his despised Catfood Commission recommendations for cutting Social Security and Medicare, that he is actually in agreement with the Republicans about what our federal priorities ought to be and jobs isn't on that list.  The only real reason that they haven't already consummated the despicable "grand bargain" of Obama's to cut Social Security, Medicare and many other needed federal programs is because the teabaggers are so stupid and consumed by their racism they are unable to admit that they have won the day so they continue to fight after President Weakling has surrendered in advance once again. 

    I don't see how anyone can vote for Obama's re-election after this.  Those who make the argument that a Republican would be worse assume that statement is true on its face, but given Obama's tenure so far I don't know how anyone can make that argument with a straight face. Had we elected McCain we would be right where we are now in terms of the imperialist wars that they have no intention of ending, the Bush/Obama tax cuts, out of control militarism destroying the economy and wrecking the federal budget, etc...  There really is no difference and the reform of DADT is not enough reason to reelect a liar like Obama.  He only did that because the GLBT community forced him to do it.  Had they sat silently like the rest of the progressives he would have screwed them too.  Obama has been an unbelievable nightmare for the Democratic Party and has caused more damage, particularly to the bulwark Democratic programs of Social Security and Medicare than any Republican could ever have done.  The only way to stop the DLC/Republican wing of the Democratic Party which Obama leads is to stop supporting him.  Progressives who think going along with his Republican policies is the best strategy have misplaced priorities indeed are complicit in the dismantling of the foundation of the Democratic Party and the stability and prosperity Democrats have provided the nations poor and elderly since 1932.  Winning for the sake of winning is not the object of electing political leaders.  If our political and policy objectives are no different than those of the opposing party then what is the point of the election to begin with?  It's akin to living in a one party state like the old Soviet Union where votes are cast but mean nothing because the outcome is always the same.  Progressives should not support any candidate, Republican or Democratic who is opposed to their fundamental beliefs and policy priorities and thus, no progressive who wants to make a difference and stop the Republican/corporate wing of the Democratic Party can, in good conscience, cast another vote for Obama for President.


    by oleeb on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 11:25am

    For starters, we re-elect the President and re-take the house and then actually behave like democrats.

    To blame this all on Obama is ridiculous. He had a house that wasn't "really" his, and senate that wasn't either, although right now it is all that stands in the way of the repubs having their way with the whole country.

    The country has had a small taste of what repub rule really looks like across the country.

    Lawrence O'Donnell has a theory that it will be BECAUSE of the squawking from the way left that the President comes out looking like such a rational choice. I hope he's right.


    by stillidealistic on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 11:58am

    It was Obama's weak, vascillating, pro-Wall Street, pro-conservative policies that lost the US House for us last year.  It is Obama offering to cut Social Security and Medicare without Republicans even asking for such conessions.  After the years of clear, irrefutable evidence of Obama's lies, decptions and betrayals I can only conclude you are delusional Stilli and willfully. 

    As for Whorence O'Donnell, there could not be a commentator more steeped in the status quo and the establishment of Washington DC than that guy.  He and his ilk have been responsible for the decline of the Democratic Party over the past 30 years and during all the long years they have driven the stake into the heart of our party they have blamed the left and liberals for it.  That is a friggin lie.  It has been those who cleave to the status quo who delivered Reagan's tax cuts and budget cuts, the Bush/Obama tax cuts for the rich, the Patriot Act, the imperialist wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia and a long, long laundry list of outrages none of which would ever been accomplished without the faction O'Donnel gives voice to.  It was "centrist" Democrats after all who provided the votes for all those rotten things.  And despite the glaringly obvious truth of it all, folks like you continue to refuse to acknowledge reality and provide votes and support to the very people screwing you and the rest of the country over.  Wow!


    by oleeb on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 12:12pm

    Until the left part of our party can pull the center further left, I deal with the reality I have, not the fantasy you want to be real.

    In terms of what we want, you and I are not that far apart. It's how we get there that is the issue. You have this fantasy that far left folks can get elected in conservative districts, and that just flies in the face of reality. Ain't gunna happen no matter how much you want it, until there is a wholesale acceptance of liberal values. The "left" of our party would have a hard time pulling a coup d'etat the way the tea party has, because our party lacks discipline.

    The key is in education (or brain-washing, if you prefer) and the conservatives (lead by the tea party and enabled by the rest of the party) are winning that battle thus far. It is my belief that in the process the country is pulling further right, although there are some pockets of leftist beliefs where we are making headway. The majority of the population now believes that gays are born that way, and deserve the same rights as everyone else, rather than it being a "crazy" choice some people make. But, fiscally, I don't think Nixon or even Reagan could get elected as a repub these days.

    But, I think the left  screaming and screaming loudly, is a good thing, as long as in the end, they don't allow the repubs to take over. If they do, we will ALL have to live with the repercussions, and that will not be a good thing.

    So, oleeb, keep screaming. And if by some wild chance your fantasy comes true, I will happily, very happily, admit I was wrong, and give you all the credit.

     


    by stillidealistic on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 2:06pm

    I became a Democrat at the Harvard Business School.

    In the second half of the first year we took  a course in which we read and discussed landmark judicial cases where there were split decisions.

    The liberal and conservative justices made their arguments brilliantly. I found myself agreeing with the liberals not because their positions were better argued  but because I wanted to live in the sort of world that would result if their approaches prevailed.

    At the start  the instructor had a show of hands. A small majority , not including me, identified themselves as Democrats. At the end he had another. A strong majority, not including me, identfied themselves as Republicans.

    Of course education is good. It's dangerous to live in a world where a majority is uneducated. But education didn't turn my class mates into liberals, rather it allowed them to bring their political positions into line with their gut feeling about how the world should work. The feelings which had caused them to go there in the first place. ( I only went to HBS because I was rejected by the grad program I really wanted) .

    My guess is that it's hopeless to expect our ideas to prevail.. That there's a permanent majority for rewarding the successful possibly combined with a vague hope that their efforts will lift all boats. But to reward them even if its clear is that the only boats that are lifted are those of the rich.


    by Flavius on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 12:06am

    There is a generational change that is going on with politics.  Young people is having a different experience watching their parents struggle.  They find it hard to get a job and this will have a life time effect on their politics, just like it did on my democratic parents, who grew up in the 1930's.  Many of them spend hours on the internet and gravitate to watching and commenting on liberal streaming.  Look how popular Cenk Uygar is with his internet show The Young Turks.  I don't have cable or internet service but my neighbor wifi is unsecured.  I sit on my porch to watch my favorite liberal news shows on my computer that is being streamed by young techs in a interactive format.  There is very little firebagging going on and very few trolls.  I guess the trolls would never do anything illegal because God might be watching.  I like their comments because it shows they are paying attention and not just typing talking points and snarks.  

    Our ideals are going to remain in the next generation of voters.   

    trkingmomoe    

          


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 3:09am

    I want to live in the world that democrats imagine, as well, but it took me a long time to get there. For many years I believed in trickle down. It was logical to think that when the rich bought things, it would create jobs for us little guys. But now those things are made elsewhere, so if there ever was a chance trickle down would work, it is certainly gone now, yet for many, the thought that the wealthy will take care of us persists.

    Plus, I believe the rich have changed. I heard a commentary on the depression, where a person said that in those days, it was "unseemly" to be greedy. Many people today have no shame; they want more, more, more, and don't care who they have to step on to get it.

    The thing that continues to tear at me, and I don't think I will ever understand why, is that the party that the majority of "Christians" turn to is the party turning a blind eye to the plight of the poor.


    by stillidealistic on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 11:07am