POLITICS OCTOBER 30, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
SHIPPENSBURG, Pa. -- Emily Daywalt decided to go to the first political rally of her life because she wanted to cheer Sarah Palin, who was here a few days ago to inspire the faithful. Daywalt said she likes it that Palin "hunts and that she believes in God and that she is a strong, independent woman."
But ask the 19-year-old from South Mountain, Pa., why she is voting against Barack Obama, and she hones right in on John McCain's closing argument. Obama, Daywalt said, "wants to spread the wealth," which she interprets as meaning that he'd "give it to people who don't do anything."
For all of the McCain campaign's relentless use of guilt-by-association techniques right to the end, the 2008 campaign is concluding on a remarkably substantive argument. It is a debate about what constitutes social fairness and whether a top-down or a bottom-up approach to economic growth will define the country's future.
Obama is often described as cautious, but he has been bold and unrelenting in his criticisms of trickle-down economics and tax cuts concentrated on the wealthy. He used Thursday's negative numbers on economic growth to press his case against theories that conservatives have been touting for decades.
"The decline in our GDP didn't happen by accident," Obama said. "It is a direct result of the Bush administration's trickle-down, Wall Street-first, Main Street-last policies that John McCain has embraced for the last eight years."
Yes, economic populism is thriving right now and if Obama wins, his election would not simply be a non-ideological verdict against the status quo. It would be a clear repudiation of conservative economic ideas and of McCain's claim that a more-egalitarian approach to growth constitutes "socialism." McCain's attacks on Obama's thinking have been so forceful and direct that they require this election to be seen as a referendum that will settle a long-running philosophical argument.
Obama has presented McCain with a problem. By endorsing tax cuts for Americans earning less than $200,000 a year--i.e., the vast majority of taxpayers--Obama has complicated the typical Republican claim that Democrats always support raising taxes.
Obama is candid in saying that he thinks the wealthy should pay more so that most Americans can pay less. He also thinks the government can help vulnerable members of the middle class and the poor secure health care and go to college.
This has complicated McCain's effort to root his argument on taxes in middle-class self-interest, since Obama already has that covered. So McCain has actually had to defend giving large tax benefits to the wealthy and to business, and engage in a wholesale argument against any sort of redistribution.
McCain regularly charges that Obama wants to be the "redistributor in chief." Speaking at the rally here at Shippensburg University, Palin was forced to say this about Obama's support for a variety of tax credits aimed at helping the poor and middle class: "He says that he is for a tax credit, which is when government takes your money in order to give it away to someone else."
That is, of course, a mighty peculiar definition of tax credits. It is also an odd argument from a ticket that itself is committed to a research-and-development tax credit for corporations.
It's true that Obama favors "refundable" tax credits to help low-income workers, including some who may pay no income taxes but do pay many other taxes. McCain has argued that Obama's refundable tax credits amount to "welfare." That, too, is a strange claim, since McCain favors refundable credits as part of his health plan. But the whole idea is to persuade voters such as Emily Daywalt that Obama really is just out to help those "who don't do anything."
And that is why Obama's 30-minute advertisement on Wednesday night was targeted directly to voters such as Daywalt, or at least to those like her who are still persuadable. It was Obama's tribute to the country's working people who seek nothing more than decent incomes, health care and a chance to see their children succeed. It was less a political ad than a documentary about the value of work and the responsibilities of family life.
For years, Republicans have argued that the way to help struggling working people is to give more money to the wealthy. Obama is saying that we should cut out the middleman and help working people directly. My hunch is that Obama's argument will prevail, and that conservatives will then work overtime to try to deny the judgment the people have rendered.
E.J. Dionne, Jr. is the author of the recently published Souled Out: Reclaiming Faith and Politics After the Religious Right. He is a Washington Post columnist, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and a professor at Georgetown University.
By E.J. Dionne, Jr.
11 comments
"For years, Republicans have argued that the way to help struggling working people is to give more money to the wealthy." I have never understood how anyone can support this BS argument. Give money to the wealthy so they can start new businesses and put people to work? ... except this is never what happens. In fact, there are precious few examples throughout human history that would support such a stupid argument. History does, however, show time and again that working people have traditionally been used and abused by the wealthy. A strong, vibrant, healthy, well-educated, well-paid middle class is the key to every successful society. It is only when that balance shifts in the favor of the wealthy that successful societies fail.
- Paul
October 31, 2008 at 10:58am
Emily Daywalt, future truck stop waitress of America. In 5 years, after she produces her own litter, she will be thankful that Obama was elected, that there will be preschools for her children, healthcare for her family, opportunity for her own future. Right now, she is just a stupid girl who knows nothing of adult life. Palin hunting, being independent, or anything else has nothing to do with good governance.
- blackton
October 31, 2008 at 11:32am
There is no "long-running philosophical argument," just a desperate candidate willing to lie about anything. Until Joe the Plumber became the centerpiece of McCain's campaign, progressive taxes had been agreed to be fair, appropriate and even "American" by Democrats and mainstream Republicans alike(including socialists like Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, and some candidate from 2000 named John McCain). It's amazing what poor poll numbers can do to the Straight Talk Express.
- Gerry in SD
October 31, 2008 at 12:44pm
I am very concerned about Obama's plan to "spread the wealth." I was lucky enough to come from a good home, get a good education and go to some fancy elite Ivy League schools. Now I make more than 98% of Americans. And, sure, I worked hard along the way. Obama now wants to raise taxes on me and "redistribute it" to teachers, cops, firefighters, auto workers, nurses, and other Americans who make less than $250,000 a year so that it'll be easier for them to pay their mortgages, get health care and pay for their kids' college. It's so disgusting and un-American.
- Tom
October 31, 2008 at 12:55pm
The problem is that the voters McCain has targeted with his epithets of "socialist," 'Marxist" and "Redistributor in Chief" generally do not understand what the substantive debate is. They do not understand that what McCain is labeling "socialist," i.e., progressive tax rates and tax credits, have long been a bedrock of our tax regime and have redounded to the benefit of those who are now being persuaded by McCain that Obama's proposed tax policies are radical and involve taking money from working people like "Joe the Plumber" and giving it to people who don't work. So it is difficult to be optimistic about a "substantive" discussion where the only substance is coming from Obama, and the rejoinder is disengenuous name-calling. Let's take the example of "Joe the Plumber." Obama gave Joe W a long, thoughtful and resepectul explanation of his tax policy (which, as it turns out, would be highly favorable to Joe W's economic interests), and used the phrase "spread the wealth around" in explaining that a slightly higher tax rate on those in the upper 5% would assist some of those among the 95% to develop their own businesses and/or give them more money to use as consumers and to perhaps pay for Joe W's services (assuming Joe W ever does own his own plumbing business). But Joe W was not persuaded by Obama's substantive explanation. Rather, he is persuaded by McCain's name-calling and is out "on the stump" agitating for policies that are directly opposed to his own interests. Is that because he is just plain stupid? Is it because he is blinded by prejudice? Or does he really believe that there should be a flat tax (even though that would result in his tax rate being increased) and that there should be no such thing as a tax credit? I don't know the answer to that question, but I fear that "Joe the Plumber" represents a large portion of the voters who will not be persuaded by a substantive discussion as long as McCain is willing to engage in distortion and to not come clean about what he is actually defending by attacking Obama as a "socialist."
- Daniel
October 31, 2008 at 1:36pm
Five seconds of thought is enough to reveal "trickle-down economics" as a transparent oxymoron. The basis of this "theory" -- moving more capital to the wealthy because this lets the wealthy invest and create jobs -- is just absurd. Capital is capital, whether you put it in the hands of Joe the Unemployed Plumber or Donald Trump. The poor person invests money every day just as surely as the mogul. When Joe spends his food-stamp money on milk and Ramen noodles, that money goes to the grocer, who pays the trucker, who pays the agribusiness, who pays the banker, and what do you know -- the money gets back to Wall Street after all. Only it also nourishes a family, which grows healthier, happier and more productive, thereby benefitting all of society. Now of course there's a limit to how much you should redistribute wealth before you start killing off incentive. But the U.S. has never been close enough to that point to see it through a telescope, and it ain't going to happen anytime soon. So please quit your whining, rich people. Those extra tax dollars you spend are the best investment in your portfolio.
- beejeez
October 31, 2008 at 1:53pm
I agree and this economic argument is one of the many reasons I support Sen. Obama. It stuns and saddens me when I watch Sen. McCain's rallies and he pushes 'cutting the Capital Gains Tax' to those who, I doubt would benefit from such a reduction (as those in attendance probably don't have large stock holdings and/or other investments that would lead to them having massive 'capital gains' taxed in the first place). Joe The Plumber should have done his homework before going on the trail for McCain, as he certainly didn't get richer under Bush's tax cuts (of which he seems to still owe taxes regardless of whatever 'cuts' he might or might not have gotten) and he surely will do better under an Obama Economic Plan (so he could theoretically save even more money to start the business that the GOP has brainwashed him into thinking will turn him into a millionaire virtually overnight). In any event, I deeply hope that the citizens of this great nation will finally reject the GOP's politics of fear and division -- in favor of the politics of hope and inclusion as practiced by Sen. Obama.
- Jeff Taplin
October 31, 2008 at 4:25pm
Yes, it's a BS argument because it doesn't happen. You don't "give more money to the wealthy," you simply don't take more money away from them. You should not be "giving" more money to any group - that's what redistributive systems do. Instead, you should be ensuring a healthy economy that will support additional employment - raising taxes on any group won't do that. E.J. is a sloppy writer and thinker. Refundable tax credits *are* redistributive because they give money to people that didn't earn it. The reason Obama's speeches about "tax cuts" for low wage earners rings untrue is because they don't pay income taxes. No one should have payroll tax refunds - it's for a defined benefit system that is already asymmetric in its payouts when the time comes. This is what angers me the most about Obama's tax plans - they're disingenuous and you get sloppy people like this author performing mental gymnastics to support them. The only reason that the Bush tax cuts were largely for high earners is because they were true non-redistributive "tax cuts" and it is the high earners of this country that pay the lion's share of tax revenues. If you want a progressive tax system then you are locked into an asymmetric benefit if a tax cut comes.
- reb
October 31, 2008 at 7:12pm
Yeah, you could say that's substantive, or you could say that it's actually just another form of race-baiting. Obama wants to "redistribute" the money to black people, "people who don't do anything"... it's dredging up old fears about welfare queens. Though TNR (and the rest of us) would like it to be, this probably isn't as substantive as it seems on the surface.
- Golden11
October 31, 2008 at 11:57pm
One problem is that the republicans don't believe that the wealthy are "given" anything. They've enjoyed success in countering that they "earn it" and that the taxing liberals should leave them alone. M Many people who earn no passive income buy this argument because of the belief that maybe, someday, they can join the wealthy in obtaining this "american dream." I think Obama has been more successful than most in shifting the debate to the value of labor vs. capital, and by voicing the argument that the laboring class should be able to keep more of what they earn.
- Phil B.
November 1, 2008 at 9:50pm
There are as many lazy rich through accident of birth as the poor. Specifically with regards to capital gains, arriving not via earned income but via existing wealth "doing the work" for them.
- Enzamatic
November 4, 2008 at 11:35am