How can you tell when an idea is really popular across the political spectrum? When both the Democratic and Republican candidates for president feel they must give it at least lip service in order to attract voters. So it is with the idea that rich people should pay taxes.
First, on the Democratic side, President Obama:
“You can’t reduce the deficit unless you take a balanced approach that says, ‘We’ve got to make government leaner and more efficient,’” the president told CBS’s Scott Pelley. “But we’ve also got to ask people –like me or Gov. Romney, who have done better than anybody else over the course of the last decade, and whose taxes are just about lower than they’ve been in the last 50 years – to do a little bit more.”
Obama said he would be willing to make “some adjustments to Medicare and Medicaid that would strengthen the programs.” “The way to do that is to keep health care costs low. It’s not to ‘voucherize’ programs so that suddenly seniors are the ones who are finding their expenses much higher.”
That was a reference to Mitt Romney and running mate Paul Ryan. The Republicans have proposed a plan that would transform Medicare by giving the elderly voucher-style payments they could use to purchase health insurance. They say it would rein in runaway health care costs. But Democrats — and the impartial Congressional Budget Office — say it would eventually shift much of the burden of health care costs to the elderly.
Even as Romney’s surrogates responded with a blistering reply, Romney himself was stating something that would have been unthinkable for him as recently as a month ago — namely, the notion that rich people should pay taxes:
Mitt Romney rejected claims by President Barack Obama that he would sign off on more tax breaks for the wealthy if elected president, but again declined to offer specifics on how exactly he would accomplish his goal of lowering taxes for other Americans while also balancing the budget.
In an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Romney said he would offset his proposed 20 percent tax cut for all Americans by eliminating loopholes and deductions for high-income earners. He argued that his plan would in effect lower taxes for middle class Americans while keeping tax rates the same for wealthy Americans.
“People at the high end, high income taxpayers, are going to have fewer deductions and exemptions. Those numbers are going to come down. Otherwise they’d get a tax break,” Romney told NBC. “And I want to make sure people understand, despite what the Democrats said at their convention, I am not reducing taxes on high income taxpayers.”
This tells me two things: First, that Romney knows he can’t win from the Republican base alone. Second, that making rich people pay taxes is so universally popular that Romney feels he must blow off a huge chunk of his base in order to chase general-elections voters who like the idea of the rich paying taxes. Hoocouldanode?




27 Comments

The headline is that Rommey now says you can get a,sense of how he will govern from his,principles I’m thrilled bc I know he and Ryan are so principled. Onward,into the randian future I say.
“Feint.” Yes, that is the correct word on this subject. A feint is all it is, by either candidate. Neither one of them really REALLY means it.
Obama’s word is not trustworthy.
Romney will ASK the rich to do “a little bit more” while taking a lot more away from the rest of us in order to make the government leaner — except the military, which will get more overblown than ever. He will also gut the regulatory agencies so the big corporations can plunder without consequences.
This has already happened.
Both Candidates, Both Parties have bought (been bought) into the idea that the cure for a bad economy is Austerity for the Commons and “Job-Creating” Tax Cuts for the Corporations.
This is the Herbert Hoover cure.
We know how that panned out.
They called it “The Great Depression”.
I guess that is your ‘sense’ of what he will do. But is that what John Galt would do?
This from Romney is a flatout giveaway:
In other words, Romney will
1.) Cut the income tax RATE (what really counts) for the rich FURTHER; and
2.) Eliminate loopholes/deductions for the rich (used as a foil to say that they are increasing taxes for the rich, when in fact the net effect of 1. and 2. will be lower taxes for the rich)
Income taxes currently are perhaps the most highly effective tax on the rich because they are HIGHLY progressive (ie. the higher your income, not only do you pay more in absolute amount, but the PERCENTAGE you are taxed also goes up. Check out the meaning of “progressive” vs. “regressive” taxation, and you will see what Obama and Romney are up to in restructuring society in favor of the rich, which prior presidents have not done to this extent.) I think a key component of the neoliberal rich’s campaign is to restructure the highly progressive income tax, and replace it with sales tax or VAT tax or something. (Hence eg. Forbes’ calling for the flat tax.) So the moment a politician–Obama and Romney–say they will reduce the income tax RATE on the rich, they are in fact restructuring taxes in favor of the rich, by reducing its progressive nature. And you know they have a radical agenda–for the rich. They know exactly what they are doing.
What Romney’s statement also tells me is that Obama’s tax plan is also EXACTLY IDENTICAL to Romney’s! ie. Obama is GWBush II/a Republican. cf. Bowles Simpson plan, which Obama will be pushing full steam ahead if he gets reelected, and which Bowles is already starting to aggressively push for.
Obama’s Bowles Simpson plan, which is to be the basis of Obama’s plan for action post-election, proposes to:
1.) Cut the income tax RATE (what really counts) for the rich FURTHER (Obama’s Bowles Simpson proposes to CUT the TOP income tax rate from 34% to 25% (!!!)–thus reducing the progressiveness of the taxation–the most meaningful tax on the rich); and
2.) Eliminate loopholes/deductions for the rich (used as a foil to say that they are increasing taxes for the rich, when in fact the net effect of 1. and 2. will be lower taxes for the rich)
So again, as in so many other things, Romney’s and Obama’s tax plans are identical. Are both tax plans identically leftwing, or are they identically rightwing? Is Romney is a lefty, or is Obama is a righty? You tell me.
How in the world do you know that?
So, are they agreeing to disagree towards an agreement? Or, are they in disagreement over the agreement to disagree.
These two are like Tweedledee and Tweedledum. The debates will either be funny as hell or excruciatingly boring, as the two try to outflank each other by agreeing to the obvious while ignoring, or refusing to acknowledge, the truly painful crises that are destroying us: constant war via the national security state and climate change inaction.
Where did Obama say he would reduce taxes on the rich or did you find that?
Book Salon up with Greg Palast and Ted Rall’s Billionaires & Ballot Bandits: How to Steal an Election in 9 Easy Steps hosted by WaterTiger
Tangential– Speaking of a 1%er acknowledgment of a idea whose time has come despite their patronizing, authoritarain objections, did you see the Rmoney/fRyem’ kizeme of a kizeme on marijuana?
Paul Ryan On Medical Marijuana Legalization: ‘Let The States Decide’ (VIDEO) | HuffingtonPost.Com, Sept. 9, 2012
I’m guessing the comment should refer to the *corporate* tax rate, which both Obama and Romney want to lower from 35% to 25-28%.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/07/news/economy/corporate-taxes/index.html
Obama and Romney:
Lurch to the Left, re-balance and crush from the Right.
Actually that could make sense. But that is another discussiob.
How much leaner can it get? Government spending is at its lowest since 1968. Someone needs to tell Obama that.
I support the left, thought I’m leaning to the right.
Obama and Romney agree on something??? I’m shocked!
Taxing the rich a few dollars is an obvious bait and switch scam that correctly assumes the middle everything can;t juggle two thoughts simultaneously .The royalty tax gives the chumps an emotional rescue while serving as an austerity justification for savaging entitlements and literally murdering the most vulnerable .The salt in the wound will be when the suckers realize what should be an axiom :taxes are fluid and cuts are forever .Whatever superficial tax that is distrained from the rich today will be reinstated by lobbyists tomorrow .If our thinking has been etherized by the corporate state ,how can rail against it now that it has become a command economy run by monopoly collectives ?Viva corporate communism .
someone who friended me on facebook – probably from school politics issues – asked me to be civil and not calling lying yuppie scum like 0bummer lying yuppie scum … I told him to go after the stealing fascists, or their sell out ivy’d yuppie scum sell out enablers –
OR – yawn – unfriend me.
listening to obama is like listening to raygun – fucking phantasy world.
rmm.
Sorry about the post typos — I had several screens open while typing this thing.
It’s the Pete Peterson hypnosis that so many DLC/Blue Dog types have fallen for (especially since the corporate donors whose support they need more than ever now because of Citizens United like it so much).
OB–
Spot on.
Blue
chef–
I think a key component of the neoliberal rich’s campaign is to restructure the highly progressive income tax, and replace it with sales tax or VAT tax or something.
You nailed it.
Blue
bluedot12–
Please, read this, before you accept that thinking. (Section II, of The Plan)
The Moment of Truth (PDF), December 2010 (Bowles-Simpson)
http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf
Blue
On Meet the Press yesterday, Romney said that he would close tax loopholes for the rich (good luck with that) and not raise taxes on the “middle class” (whatever that means).
Mitt also said that he would make sure people with pre-existing conditions could get health insurance coverage and allow families to keep their children on their health insurance for “however long they wished.”
The final point puts him to the left of Obama, doesn’t it? (I have a pesky habit of judging people by their actions, so Obama gets no points for breaking a 2008 campaign promise about raising taxes on those making over $250K a year, then having the cajones to run on the exact same promise this time.)
In reply to Bluedot, you can find Obama’s proposal to cut incomes taxes for the rich in the Bowles Simpson chairmen’s report:
http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf
I refer you in particular to page 29 and 30 of the Bowles Simpson report:
Bowles Simpson proposes to cut the top income tax RATE, which is only 33%-35% for billionaires currently, FURTHER, to between 23%-29%!!! What kind of a Democrat is Obama?? He is a treacherous economic Republican. It is as though George W. Bush would appoint a Democrat and a Labor Representative to his Deficit Reduction Commission which then aggressively pushes to increase top income taxes from 35% to 43% !!! Be afraid of Obama, very afraid. He is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and he does not seem to be acting in the interests of most people.
(And yes, OBAMA ALSO proposes to cut corporate taxes, from 35 to 25% or something! So Obama proposes to cut the income tax rate for the rich. So there.)