The New Republic

And Jonathan Chait tells us that the Median Voter Theorem is wildly overrated while he labels failing to give massive tax cuts to those earning $250K/yr. or less (and marginal tax cuts to those earning more than $250K/yr. -- i.e., see new 10% bracket) "political suicide." ...

- jimbomoron

September 23, 2010 at 2:23pm

"Just one of the nuttiest decisions, on pure political grounds, I've ever seen." Seriously. I thought the "Free Lunch Theory" always holds. Then again, since my name has never appeared on a ballot (well, except for Student Council President), what do I know about politics? Maybe House Dems want to expose a new theory called the "Free Lunch Fallacy of Politics."

- jimbomoron

September 23, 2010 at 2:28pm

This is what Obama wants, for all the Bush tax cuts to expire, as he anticipates an improving economy going into the 2012 election. He laid out a political position, extending the tax cuts for those earning under $250,000, but he did so in a manner, tying it to the Bush tax cuts, that effectively tied the House Democrats in a knot. He's either one of the dumbest (in a political sense) presidents ever, or one of the bravest ever, risking the Party and his administration for what he believes is a better policy for the nation.

- rayward

September 23, 2010 at 2:46pm

"He's either one of the dumbest (in a political sense) presidents ever ..." A black man who won against 1) a Clinton, and 2) a decorated and tortured War Hero and his Moosemama Floozie ... "politically dumb" he ain't.

- icarusr

September 23, 2010 at 4:02pm

I respectfully disagree. What the Dems have decided is to not deal with taxes before the election. They don't want to extend all the tax cuts. If they hold a vote on just the sub 250K brackets pre-election the Reps will scream that the Dems are raising taxes in the middle of a recession. Most Americans will be confused. The Tea Partiers will go nutty (er nuttier). And absolutely no one will give the Dems credit for extending tax cuts (which, as you say, is bad policy). If they hold off until after the election, different Dems can take different positions as to what will happen post-election and the Reps can't say much of anything other than the Dems are delaying a vote.

- bradigan

September 23, 2010 at 4:05pm

This is political seppuku.

- liberal reformer

September 23, 2010 at 4:18pm

Bradigan, I think Chait is right on this, that the Democrats have thrown away their best shot at tripping up the GOP before the election. But for all our sakes, I hope you're right.

- benjamin81

September 23, 2010 at 4:27pm

The democrats have no initiative, no creativity, and no leadership. Yes, let the Bush tax cuts expire: they were sold under false pretenses and badly designed. To replace them, propose a new set of Obama tax policies, targeted towards employment income. Isn't it bad enough to get slaughtered on the tax issue, we also have to have zombie Bush policies doing them in?

- stanalama

September 23, 2010 at 5:11pm

I'm disappointed in this development, but not exactly surprised. Moderate Democrats are probably correct that a vote to cut taxes for some will be portrayed by the GOP as a vote to raise taxes, but so would a vote to honor the Philadelphia Phillies, a vote to change the font on the menu in the Congressional cafeteria, and a vote to adjourn without voting on extending the tax cuts for the rich. These cretins know that screaming "Democrats want higher taxes, higher taxes, higher taxes!" strokes a default belief their party has carefully nurtured in the body politic for the last 50 years and that they can get away with making that claim regardless of the evidence or even in the total absence of same. (All Democrats have in return is "Republicans are racist, racist, racist!" which is only effective with certain kinds of issues and, unlike higher taxes, is not yet a guaranteed political loser across the broad spectrum of American voters.) The real political thornbush is that Obama said, with his own mouth, in every single Presidential debate during the '08 season and many times since, that he was bound and determined *not* to raise tax rates on Americans making less than $250,000 a year. The economic merits of addressing the budget deficit at the current moment are debatable -- although from what I've been hearing, the side of the debate with all the non-sellout economists is the one that says "it's not time yet" -- but the political merits of making a bold pronouncement that you won't raise taxes and then doing exactly that were demonstrated during George H.W. Bush's 1992 re-election campaign. Bradigan is correct that this can be addressed in a lame duck session between November and December, but I don't see how losing an election to a taxophobic Republican is supposed to stiffen the spines of moderate Democrats, who will be making plans to go back to their various districts and start new careers, many of them in politics. "Remember me? I'm the Congressman who got beaten by 12 points in the 2010 election and then voted to raise tax rates on wealthy donors like yourself in the lame duck session. I'm running for governor next year and I'm hoping I can count on--" *click*

- austinexpat

September 23, 2010 at 5:14pm

I wonder of if the people who decide this heard of your suggestion? Did they know it, and just not want to follow it, or did they never think of it? Obama is very strategic and patient. I wonder if he's just using the Blue Dogs to get what he really wants, an end to all tax cuts?

- RHSerlin

September 23, 2010 at 5:17pm

I'm not so sure this is political suicide because this is probably the most defensible position on the issue. Bush the Lesser and The GOP Cronies had 6-ish years to make these tax cuts permanent and they didn't. And their current posturings leave them with pretty much no excuse as to why. Yeah, they can throw the GOP circa 2000-2008 under the bus along with Bush the Lesser and run on a platform of "should, woulda, and about to correct that mistake" but that puts them on the hook and allows Dems to lambaste and cherry pick instead.

- GSpinks

September 23, 2010 at 5:44pm

When the Republicans are done with the national debt, it will be so big its own mother won't recognize it.

- Nusholtz

September 23, 2010 at 5:53pm

How could someone who Republicans have been claiming for months now is dead in the water possibly commit suicide? Amidst all the Republican histrionics lately I really don't see this getting much traction, Democrats are Commie Nazis Terrorists spending way too much, oh, and by the way, they won't make permanent Bush's tax cuts. Democrats are still holding the winning hand. Republicans will have to deal either now or later on Democrats terms or they get nothing, and if they get nothing the Deficit will shrink as the economy picks up steam. And if they do cave to the Democrats then the deficit might stay higher than it should as the economy still picks up steam, but the Republicans, as holders of the purse string, will have to own the blame. Losing the house might not be so bad after all, especially if we can get rid of these feckless and clueless blue dogs (have they supported anything Democratic?)

- blackton

September 23, 2010 at 6:28pm

Absolutely hilarious, nush.

- liberal reformer

September 23, 2010 at 6:49pm

"or one of the bravest ever, risking the Party and his administration for what he believes is a better policy for the nation". Of course, the president makes decisions with better information than the rest of us, at least I hope so. His former budget director, supposedly a deficit hawk, advised to extend all of the Bush tax cuts for two years. Nope. His more politically sensitive economic advisors recommended a payroll tax holiday (my hobbyhorse). Nope. Obama has decided that the deficit is more important, and chose to neither extend (any of) the Bush tax cuts nor propose his own tax cut (my hobbyhorse). For all of us, I hope he is right.

- rayward

September 23, 2010 at 6:53pm

Congress should let the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule. In other news, Gail Sheehy paid $100 to see/hear Obama at the Roosevelt Hotel. Sheehy says 450 in a 650 person venue. Obama could not get 650 people in MANHATTAN to pay $100, with food????? Some turnout model. http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-09-23/obamas-fire-sa... I did not read the third email they sent me, so I did not know the price was dropping from the initial $1,000. The fact that I even got three emails for this made me think they had a list of thousands since that email address was from 2008 when I donated $150 to the DemSenate campaign. I am on the "D" list??? THAT means the Democrats are DOOMED :)

- K2K

September 23, 2010 at 9:41pm

Actually, I think this strategy does have balls. Congress will allow the tax cuts to expire which is the correct policy position and then Obama can negotiate with the new Republican majority a set of tax cuts according to his parameters. (In the meantime revenues go up to help balance the budget.) It would have been nice for the Democratic majority to have passed some other reforms (like cap and trade) but the lion's share of their work has already been done and won't be reversed, Republican threats to the contrary notwithstanding. I liked the more direct strategy but there is some method to this madness.

- poldpf

September 24, 2010 at 11:50am

I don't understand the notion that married couples that earn $250,000 a year are "rich." $250,000 is in the Northeast and California -- maybe elsewhere as well -- roughly the combined salary of, say, a couple consisting of a middle school principal and a registered nurse earning overtime. Comfortable -- maybe depending on their circumstances (payments for child care, help to parents, property taxes, etc.) but hardly "rich." Even the junior partner in a successful law firm earning $350,000 and working 2300 billable hours a year, or a family practice MD in a very successful practice earning $275,000, both of whom are still paying off huge student loans and interest on those loans, are hardly rich. If you want to tax the truly very well off, put a surcharge on incomes over $800,000 and more. Those are the people who are accumulating relatively serious money and can afford to help pay for the government services and programs that make their incomes possible.

- PeteBeck

September 25, 2010 at 10:14am