PLANK NOVEMBER 14, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Will President Obama and congressional Republicans make a deal on taxes before January 1, when the Bush tax cuts are set to expire? Will they let a set of automatic spending cuts take effect? Will they find a new way to boost job growth this coming year—or, at least, renew temporary boosters like extended unemployment insurance? I have no idea. Nobody in Washington does.
But after Wednesday’s press conference at the White House, I’m even more convinced that Obama isn’t treating this political confrontation the way he did the last two, in the winter of 2010 and the summer of 2011. This time, he has leverage over congressional Republicans. And on the question of the Bush tax cuts, the issue that has sparked the most controversy so far, he is using it.
To review the positions quickly: Republicans want to extend all of those cuts indefinitely. Obama and his Democratic allies want to extend only those that apply to low and middle incomes. They want the tax cuts that apply to incomes above $250,000—cuts that would benefit only the wealthiest Americans—to lapse.
Ending those high-end tax cuts has always been Obama’s preference, going back to his 2008 campaign. But in late 2010 he agreed to extend them for two years. At the time, Obama said it was a one-time deal, necessary to concessions like the extended unemployment insurance. Many of us have wondered whether he’d live up to that promise and, at Wednesday’s press conference, CNN’s Jessica Yellin channeled those doubts into a blunt, but fair question:
Two years ago, sir, you said that you wouldn’t extend the Bush-era tax cuts, but at the end of the day, you did. So, respectfully, sir, why should the American people and the Republicans believe that you won’t cave again this time?
Obama’s answer was unambiguous:
...what I said at the time is what I meant, which is this was a one-time proposition. And what I have told leaders privately as well as publicly is that we cannot afford to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. What we can do is make sure that middle-class taxes don’t go up.
Obama restated that position at several other points in the press conference, albeit in different ways. He called upon the Republican-controlled House to pass a bill, which the Senate has already approved, extending the low- and middle-income tax cuts. He noted that failing to act quickly on middle-income tax cuts might dampen holiday shopping—a clear signal he wants a deal now, not two months from now. And he warned the Republicans in Congress not to take the middle class “hostage” by refusing to accept his position—which, he reminded them, commanded support from an even larger majority than voted for him last week.
Did he leave any wiggle room? In the last few days, Republican congressional leaders have suggested they might embrace a deal that raised revenue, but only if the new revenue came from closing loopholes and assumptions of high growth—in other words, anything but letting the top rates go back up. And on Wednesday, Obama did say:
I am open to new ideas. If Republican counterparts or some Democrats have a great idea for us to raise revenue, maintain progressivity, make sure the middle class isn’t getting hit, reduces our deficit, encourages growth, I’m not going to just slam the door in their face. I want to hear ideas from everybody.
But this was less of a concession that it might have sounded because, as Obama pointed out, the Republican alternatives won’t simply generate enough revenue. "It’s very difficult to see how you make up that trillion dollars—if we’re serious about deficit reduction—just by closing loopholes and deductions," the president said. "The math tends not to work." Obama reiterated that point later on, emphasizing that if the wealthy don't pay more now then everybody else will pay more later.
What I will not do is to have a process that is vague, that says we're going to sort of, kind of, raise revenue through dynamic scoring or closing loopholes that have not been identified. And the reason I won't do that is because I don’t want to find ourselves in a position six months from now or a year from now where, lo and behold, the only way to close the deficit is to sock it to middle-class families, or to burden families that have disabled kids or have a parent in a nursing home, or suddenly we've got to cut more out of our basic research budget that is the key to growing the economy in the long term.
You don't have to take my word for it. After the press conference I checked in with some Democratic Hill staffers who, in the past, criticized Obama for ceding too much ground to the Republicans. I heard no such criticism this time, nor have I in the last few days. "I think it was exactly right," one senior House aide told me. "He left a little room but made it crystal clear that top two rates had to increase."
So why is Obama being so much more aggressive this time around? The obvious answer is that he can be. The economy is stronger, his job approval numbers are higher, and he just won reelection with votes to spare. Also, Republicans simply don't have the policy leverage they did previously—when, for example, doing nothing caused the nation to reach its debt ceiling.
But other factors may be at work. For one thing, he’s simply gotten better at navigating this terrain. The opening of Wednesday’s press conference was virtually identical to the remarks he made on Friday, in his first public appearance since the election. That’s boring—and effective. It’s the kind of message discipline he frequently lacked during his first term.
It's also possible—and this is pure speculation—that Obama’s goals have changed. For better or worse, depending on your perspective, Obama has always thought of himself as a transformational leader, somebody who can do what no other political leader could. And for much of his first term, one transformation that he seemed to covet was an end to traditional partisan rancor. If that meant conceding a little extra ground in order to get a deal on spending and deficits—say, by accepting more spending cuts for just token amounts of revenue—he seemed willing to do it.
Political circumstances demanded some bipartisanship then, just as they do now. Republicans still control the House and wield a filibuster in the Senate. But Obama’s strong language and his insistence that the wealthy effectively cough up nearly $1 trillion in new revenue suggest the actual terms of a deal matter a little more to him this time around. The transformation he seeks isn't a coming together of the parties. It’s a crushing of Republican opposition to higher taxes on the wealthy—and a significant reduction in the deficit.
Or maybe not. Maybe Obama will start giving a lot more ground if Republicans don't. Or maybe Obama will make other concessions, agreeing to cut Medicare benefits or giving up essential job boosters like extended unemployment insurance, for the sake of a grand bargain that has liberals exasperated all over again. At the moment, though, Obama is acting like somebody ready to fight for progressive values. It's what he did throughout the presidential campaign—and partly why he won.
Update: I changed an early reference to make clear the current controversy is about only the Bush tax cuts. The future of other tax breaks, such as the temporary payroll tax break, hasn't gotten much attention. And as Matthew Yglesias very properly points out, renewing the payroll tax holiday—or finding some suitable substitute—is critical for sustaining the recovery. Obama has spoken in general terms about the need to keep the economy going; it was actually the first thing he said in his prepared remarks on Wednesday, just as it was last Friday. But the payroll tax specifically has received virtually no mention either from politicians or pundits.
38 comments
What ground does he have to give up? He literally has to do nothing for rates to rise and then he can blame Republicans for the rates rising, they are the ones who have to put forward a proposal he can sign and that can pass both the House and Senate. What are Republicans going to do, blame Harry Reid? And Reid can simply point to his bill that passed the Senate and push Republicans to pass it in the house. Hell, maybe Obama go on a foreign trip (maybe visit Israel, no Republican would dare criticize him for that) and let the Republicans twist in the wind.
- blackton
November 14, 2012 at 11:57pm
He's got leverage. He's using it. That's what he was elected to do,so thank god. Good enough? $1 trillion is roughly what two wars cost us. Very fair to ask the wealthy to pay the rest of us cover on that. It's what their grandparents did after WWII after all, and without all the Tea Party / Ayn Rand John Galt nonsense. They don't like it? Move to Texas and secede, form your objectivist utopia. We are quite tired of hearing about it.
- dcwood10
November 15, 2012 at 2:29am
Excellent press conference by Obama. Fact-filled, with toughness and some humility--a great contrast to 43's arrogant and semi-literate responses to reporters' questions. One possibility for Obama is to force taxes for the rich up a couple of points for one year, while going hard after loopholes. This would give the Republicans some feeling of victory--for a year. Then lower the hammer in 2014, an election year, and let the GOP know that at least 60% of Americans want taxes on the rich raised even more, back to the Clinton-Era rates. That should do it.
- magboy47.
November 15, 2012 at 2:36am
Cohn is good at what he does because he, like the hedge hog, can focus on one big thing, unlike Obama, at least the Obama from the first term (after the passage of HCR), who, like the fox, pursues many little things. If Cohn is correct in his assessment of the "new Obama", he too will be more like the hedge hog. I relate to the hedge hog because I am one, as anybody who obsessively reads these comments could attest. Can Obama be a hedge hog? I am encouraged by his approach to HCR. One will recall that, during the 2008 campaign, he focused almost exclusively on universal coverage achieved through subsidies for the almost poor, even to the exclusion of other little things like coverage for pre-existing conditions achieved through the mandate (he opposed the mandate). I am discouraged by his approach to a more equitable apportionment of the tax burden, which has been to rely on the Bush tax reform as the foundation, achieved through a partial extension of the Bush tax rates, rather than his own "Obama tax plan" with its own foundation, including more not fewer tax brackets, higher not lower marginal rates for upper income taxpayers, and integration of the two tax systems (the income tax system for the wealthy and the payroll tax system for the poor and middle income) for a more progressive overall tax system. My prediction is that we will see more of Obama the fox if the Republicans and VSPs goad him into a tax compromise before expiration of the Bush tax rates, or more of Obama the hedge hog if Cohn and other opinion leaders goad him into waiting and offering up the "Obama tax reform".
- rayward
November 15, 2012 at 7:35am
I have some difficulty with talking about taxing the "wealthy," because conceptually it creates a group targeted by government. I would rather the argument was made as a matter of common sense, as in "Economists say that higher rates at this level will not hurt the economy and are vital to reducing the deficit." or "The Congressional Research Service has said that since 1945 they did not find evidence that lower top rates create growth," or "the capital gains and dividends preference has not helped create jobs in 12 years and we can't afford it anymore."
- Nusholtz
November 15, 2012 at 8:09am
One additional possibility is that, having been rolled by this House THREE TIMES in 2011 when they threatened to shut down the Government or the Economy, Obama realizes that their "Give Us A Compromise!" language is a lie. I admit, I was appalled that it took him 3 whole years to figure this out, but maybe this time he's figured it out. The only way to move this House of Representatives is to stake out a position and stand firm -- if he offers them a so-called "compromise", they'll take that as a given and STILL not agree until they get everything they want -- a damaged economy, reduced "entitlements", and even further tax-cuts. That, and the fact that "going over the fiscal cliff" and letting ALL the Bush tax-cuts expire isn't really that bad. One more time -- tax-cuts do not stimulate the economy, and tax increases (especially on the wealthy) do not cause recession. Changes in spending can do those things -- so the sooner we raise taxes so we can afford the spending, the better.
- AllanL5
November 15, 2012 at 8:38am
My biggest fear is that Boehner will get the House to pass the Senate bill extending the Bush cuts on incomes under $250K, and having done that, the Republicans swallow hard and go back to their business of obstruction and government wrecking to prepare themselves for 2014 and 2016. It's certainly true that Obama has leverage on this one issue, but once that's gone, what does he have to prevent more brinkmanship? Sequestration is just as disastrous for Democratic priorities as it is for Republican - it was designed to be a gun to both heads. Frankly, it's more potent against the Democrats in some ways, because they won't want to take the fall for defense cuts. If the Republicans have not yet learned that responsible governance means negotiating and compromising, they have all the tools they need to wreak havoc in their mission to destroy the Federal government for another couple of years, I'm afraid.
- IowaBeauty
November 15, 2012 at 9:37am
Since Boehner has reiterated that he's willing to accept "new revenue" but absolutely positively NOT from "higher taxes", I think it's a pretty safe bet that Obama needs to be willing to go over the fiscal cliff -- because Boehner is signalling he's certainly willing to do so. Since the one thing we need to do to address the current deficit IS "higher taxes", folding on this issue is not an option. It's not a good option, anyway. The nice thing about this game of "Chicken" is that going over the fiscal cliff hurts Republicans more than it hurts the country. The Government gets more revenue. The military gets less spending. And subsequent bills can then lower taxes -- something Republicans might possibly get behind, even if they think it's on "the wrong people".
- AllanL5
November 15, 2012 at 10:33am
Does anyone have any idea how much revenue would be raised by treating capital gains as ordinary income; or alternatively, how much everyone's rates could be lowered?
- stanmvp48
November 15, 2012 at 10:47am
Personally, I have no objection to raising taxes on the wealthy, but how much leverage does Obama really have here? The untold story of the 2012 election is that 12 million fewer people voted in 2012 than in 2008. About 2 million fewer Republicans voted and about 10 million fewer Democrats. Overall, most of the people who didn't vote were white. The 2 million drop in GOP votes can probably be accounted for by conservative Republicans who found Romney too moderate, too inconsistent on issues, or who objected to him because he was a Mormon. The drop of 10 million in Democratic votes indicates that a signficant share of 2008 Democratic voters had lost faith in Obama and would have considered an alternative, but Obama's relentlessly negative campaign dissuaded them from voting for Romney. McConnell and Boehner can read the tea leaves. They know they have some bridges to build to minority voters, but that's a longer range project. In the near term future, they know that there are millions of voters who are very dissatisfied with Obama, who didn't vote GOP in 2012 but who could vote GOP in 2014 and 2016. My guess is that Obama doesn't have much of a mandate, that he's skating on pretty thin ice.
- Spengler47
November 15, 2012 at 1:23pm
It was a great press conference. Obama seems like a different guy. His defense of Susan Rice was correct, inspiring and impressive. Maybe he's finally realized that, guess what, he's the President of the US. He started projecting this kind of confidence during the second and third debates and also when he met with Governor Christie. Maybe, when you're not born to power and privilege (unlike Mitt) it takes a while for it all to sink it. Being POTUS, for an ordinary person - however gifted - just seems completely surreal? Anyway, as to Watergazi, McCain and Graham are a disgrace. So is the GOP if it continues to obstruct economic, social and environmental progress. Enough already.
- Sophia
November 15, 2012 at 1:25pm
I think spengler47 is wrong. If "white people" don't feel like voting fine. As for Mitt being too moderate, give us a break please. The hard right disgusts most Americans. And Obama's campaign may have seemed negative but that's because Mitt and Ryan and the GOP message simply awful, period, and exposing it for what it is was vital. It's hard to be inspiring when you have this millstone around your neck known as the Dark Ages, complete with hovering vultures.
- Sophia
November 15, 2012 at 1:28pm
"Does anyone have any idea how much revenue would be raised by treating capital gains as ordinary income; or alternatively, how much everyone's rates could be lowered?" Last year the CBO estimated that raising the capital gains rate by two points would raise $10 billion over 5 years and $48 billion over 10 years. (see http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12085/03-10-reducingthedeficit.pdf). So closing the entire differential would be something more than that.
- VAliberal
November 15, 2012 at 1:37pm
Calling the top 2% rich and targeting them alone for tax rate increases while calling everyone below that "middle class" is a political ploy aimed at reducing the proportion of the electorate that is willing to deliberate about income tax increases and government growth now and in the future. Targeting the top 2% for more tax rate increases in the future---that is the plan, right?---leaves the vast majority of households untouched and seems like a politically viable strategy for the majority to exploit the success of the minority. That does not seem right. This is precisely why I would favor expanding the targeted group, thereby expanding the proportion of wage earners with a stake in tax policy while raising more revenue. Hence, if the empirical, rather than political, middle class of the income distribution tops out at about 105k, why not increase rates for everyone above that figure, namely the top 20% or so. Or even the top 15%. Or target the top 20, 15, or 10% and pursue an alternative. WSJ (11/15) reports that the Tax Policy Center claims that capping annual deductions at $50k would raise $750 billion and and capping at $25k would raise $1.3 trillion over 10 years, the latter being more than Obama wanted (but didn't get) in 2011. I am sure the cap figure could be adjusted so that most of the tax increase would hit the top 20% of the income distribution.
- halaby
November 15, 2012 at 2:36pm
Do readers honestly believe that the top two percent of wage-earners are not paying their fair share? And, if you do, you are effectively saying that what the government will be with the incremental dollars received from the wealthy will be better, overall, for the country than what the wealthy would do if they kept the money. My AGI is typically about $1.5 million, netting me (under current law) about $1,050,000, after federal income and social security taxes. I pay another $50,000 in state property taxes, and 8+ percent on all purchases of non-food items. We pay our costs from what is left, including: sending our housekeeper's children to private school; paying our housekeeper more than $15/hour; paying our barn-helper/handyman $15/hour; supporting the American Cancer Society; investing in the small company that I own (we have created 16 jobs in the last three years); buying goods and services that are supplied by Americans who want and need the jobs associated with our purchases; and, etc. If I pay $1 more in taxes, I tend to believe that the government will spend another $1.40, perhaps helping fund foreign-based, green energy companies. I am sorry, I believe that my spending is better for this country than what the government would do if it takes more dollars from me. I believe the people that we employ in good jobs agree.
- horsefly
November 15, 2012 at 3:24pm
"I am sorry, I believe that my spending is better for this country than what the government would do if it takes more dollars from me. I believe the people that we employ in good jobs agree." Horsefly: we are talking about eliminating the deficit, a large part of which is interest payments, which is to say, payment on expenditure already made. Chunks of that expenditure - unfunded - are historical (as in, two wars) and chunks are historical-actual (as in Medicare Part D, and Bush's tax cuts). No amount of cutting - gutting is more like it - is likely to solve the deficit problem; you need additional revenue. This is where your post - I assume you are genuine - is baffling. First, an additional dollar from you means quite a lot less to you than an additional dollar from your housekeeper. This is the insight of marginal tax rates - basic insight of economics in fact. Second, to the extent that you care about the deficit and debt, whether it is an additional dollar from you or your housekeeper, the value to the government is the same: it reduced the deficit (or pays for existing services). Third, you do not spend the entirety of your $1 million in income; your housekeeper spends practically the entirety of her $30,000 pre-tax income (around $25,000 after tax). And so, from a fairness and economic perspective, raising the additional revenue required to balance the budget from you makes more sense than raising taxes on your housekeeper. This is how public policy is analysed.
- icarus-r
November 15, 2012 at 3:40pm
I don't know if I am supposed to believe horsefly's disclosures, but I happen to believe that investors who invest overseas or pay money to other investors (for purchase of investment assets like stocks) do not help our economy as much as when government pays teachers or spends on infrastructure. But I have another question, now that we are dealing with the post election issues, where are all those helpful issue 501(c)(4) adverstisements telling us to call "so and so" and tell them how we feel? Well, Mr. Justices, what happened to said free speech? Hmmm? Or was that really about money as free speech as opposed to just being bribes?
- Nusholtz
November 15, 2012 at 3:44pm
"If I pay $1 more in taxes, I tend to believe that the government will spend another $1.40, perhaps helping fund foreign-based, green energy companies." This sentence makes no sense either as a proposition in a discussion of taxes or as a description of U.S. government investment in energy research, and the implied connection between the two is tenuous to non-existent. "Tending to believe" something is not really a basis for argument on the facts, and the suggestion that the government funds "foreign-based" (meaning?) companies seems to be either deliberately misleading, or it needs some clarification.
- ironyroad
November 15, 2012 at 4:11pm
The rich already pay most of the tax base. The rich already pay their fair share & the fair share of Obama's housing project/welfare momma'crackhead/want to to go to cosmetology school but too low IQ base. No one at TNR has the nerve/IQ/brains to answer a simple question: An individual cannot rob you w/o breaking the law. An individual cannot take your money legally. How does the big FedGov get the right to steal/tax/confiscate your income? If it is wrong for an individual to steal your/my money, why is it right forObama to redistribute income to his homies? Don't blather about a Social Contract, a progressive fiction. Just explain why my money belongs to Obama/TNR for redistribution. And how it fits into the US Constitution.
- raygun
November 15, 2012 at 7:29pm
"I am sorry, I believe that my spending is better for this country than what the government would do if it takes more dollars from me. I believe the people that we employ in good jobs agree." horsefly, 60% of Americans want taxes raised on rich people. Under Obama rich people are making more money than they've ever made. And they can't give up a few more percent of their record incomes? That's the epitome of anti-American, cowardly greed. They didn't get that bonanza of bucks in a vacuum. They depended on others to help them rake it in. And they should have some gratitude to society as a whole just to be given the opportunity to roll in dough. But even though they're taking advantage of the community in society, they refuse to participate in community. That's the difference between the rich supporters of Democrats and Republicans. The former recognize their debt to society, the latter don't. Outlaws, they. They are not creators; they are destroyers. They and their Wall Street buds nearly destroyed our economy and jacked up the deficit, and now they don't even want to pay a little extra to help fix the damage they did. Cowards, they.
- magboy47.
November 15, 2012 at 7:51pm
raygun, America: Love It or Leave It. A solid majority of Americans believe in the Social Contract, and I believe that trumps anarchy in a democracy. Progressive fiction, eh? The Social Contract is the only reason you and I ain't dead yet. You imply that those on the Left aren't too bright. Well, you Radical Rightists aren't that high on the evolutionary ladder either.
- magboy47.
November 15, 2012 at 8:12pm
mag: regarding your response to horesefly: 60%. If 60% of Americans wanted to eliminate magboy's ethnicit ywould it be ok w/you because of majority rule? As an illiterate, you don't know that America's limited govt is meant to protect the rights of the minority against the depredations of a mindless (you) majority. If you think a majority of Americans have ever heard of the Social Contract or Rousseau, or that 60% endorse something they never heard of, you are deluded but appropriate for this site. And you haven't addressed my simple question: Why can the Obama mobocracy do what would be criminal for individuals to do--steal, plunder, grab?
- raygun
November 15, 2012 at 8:29pm
Congress has the power to levy taxes and duties (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1).
- ironyroad
November 15, 2012 at 9:04pm
Raygun: "How does the big FedGov get the right to steal/tax/confiscate your income?" Umm... that would be through the constitution (see Article 1, section 8: "The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, ...", and the 16th amendement: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration"), and the enabling laws passed by Congress pursuant to this authority. In other words, the same document that gives Federal and state legislatures the power to prohibit YOU from stealing my money, gives them the power to take it as a tax. If you're a US citizen, you have two choices: accept the form of government and the results that the Constitution and laws create, or renounce your citizenship and leave. If you staty, you can agitate and vote to elect legislators who will use that power the way you wish, but failing in that, there really is no middle ground that allows you to follow or respect the parts you like, and ignore or disrespect the parts you don't. And, please, should the second course recommend itself to you, don't let me get in your way.
- IowaBeauty
November 15, 2012 at 9:22pm
Iowa: read all of art 1 sec 8. It enumerates the very few tasks of FedGov. And general welfare means the well-being of society by limiting intrusive govt. It does not mean the New Deal or Great Society programs that Obama's handout-addicted supporters crave. There aren't enough rich people to pay for all the "folks" w/their hands out. (see "I got me a free Obamaphone" on youtube)
- raygun
November 16, 2012 at 8:33am
Raygun, First, you're changing the subject. You asked by what authority the Federal government takes your money. They take it by their power to tax. Nothing in section 8 limits that power to tax beyond the apportionment restriction. That is overriden by Amendment 16, which extends the power to tax to taxes on incomes. Your interpretation of the general welfare clause notwithstanding, Congress has under that clause and the commerce clause, for nearly 200 years, undertaken sweeping initiatives that involved transfer of Federal assets to individuals and corporations. You might want to look at the Preemption Act of 1841, the Homestead act of 1862, and the various railroad grants of the last half of the 19th century. The Homestead act is particularly interesting, because it involved the direct transfer of money collected by the Federal government (mostly through duties and imposts) to purchase Louisiana territory, which was then GIVEN, subject only to settlement requirements, to both US citizens and immigrants. So, get off your high horse here. You can dislike the actions of the government all you want; the claim that they are either novel or unconstitutional is utterly groundless.
- IowaBeauty
November 16, 2012 at 9:30am
Raygun: It is not often that long for Seattle's return, but at least he's sane. You've managed to outdo Rush and O'Reilly, and make Romney look good, in your rank racism:
But what is interesting is not your racism, but your utter stupidity and ignorance. Others have taught you grade three civics, but speaking of low IQs, do you really have to demonstrate yours (in the low double digits, I should imagine) by writing drivel like this: First, as to whether "an individual cannot take your money legally" - of coure they can: it depends on what you mean by "take" and what the law requires. If you hit someone, the law provides that the indivudual you have hit take your money legally. As all taxes are paid by law in order to maintain government running by law, the whole premise of your asinine question is, well, asinine. Second, and more important, the very notion of property is defined by, er, law. You "own" what you think you own because the law provides for its delimitation and its protection. The same law, as a matter of policy, may provide for its taxation. This is political philosophy 101 - even a braindead Randian would know the basic premise of property. If I were you, I would not holler quite so loudly about matters that you clearly have no understanding of; more to the point, I would get a jar and, like the Sibyl, scream your putrid racism into that, instead of polluting these pages.- icarus-r
November 16, 2012 at 10:51am
Even in Iowa they must know that there was no income tax before the 20th Century; that land distribution is not a tax; that art 1 sec 8 still says what it says about limited functions of the fedgov despite what you read in Saul Alinsky. Your understanding of it is the usual socialist distortion. Racism sure does exist: see Investor's Business Daily for Nov 8: "Obama to unleash racial-preference juggernaut."
- raygun
November 16, 2012 at 11:24am
Who the hell cares about Saul Alinsky? I studied and taught political philosophy, and until Gingrich, had never heard about this character. And why do you have to insist on being obtuse? Authority to taxis different from authority to spend, and both are different from jurisdiction to legislate. You asked about taxation: the authority of Congress to tax is pretty much unlimited. For the last two hundred and odd years, the authority of Congress to spend has also been found to be unlimited - that is why you have shared-cost programs in areas of state jurisdiction. The limited functions of Congress - even taking them at the most limited - say nothing at all about taxing and spending, and more to the point, do not turn taxation into theft. The position you advance is sound in neither political nor economic theory; your invocation of Alinsky demonstrates you to be a wingnut; we have already established you a raving racist. At this point, the question is not whether, but how much more, you are likely to embarrass yourself by posting again. Go ahead, make my day :). Saul Alinsky ... sheesh ... unless your other name is New Gingrich you need a brain transplant.
- icarus-r
November 16, 2012 at 11:49am
"Even in Iowa they must know that there was no income tax before the 20th Century" There was no air force before the 20th century either.
- ironyroad
November 16, 2012 at 11:52am
Raygun, I am tempted to write that I can't follow your logic, but I fear attributing logic to your thoughts may be an unfair mischaracterization of them. So, first, your history is wrong: the first national income tax was levied during the Civil War, not in the 20th century. We know that, even in Iowa. Second, my point was not comparing land distribution to a tax, it was answering to your plaint that "It [the general welfare clause] does not mean the New Deal or Great Society programs that Obama's handout-addicted supporters crave." The general welfare clause was sufficient to cover giving away government purchased land in order to promote the general welfare. Let's repeat that - the government of 1841 and again in 1862 looked around at the population, citizen and immigrant alike, of the United States, and asked itself how they could best provide for the sustenance of that population, and determined that GIVING them land was the answer. We actually know quite a bit about that out here in fly-over country - one of my great-grandfathers, e.g., was a homesteader in Minnesota. I'd be interested in an explanation of how that would differ from the government paying for higher education, in order to make it's citizens and residents as productive as possible, e.g.
- IowaBeauty
November 16, 2012 at 12:55pm
"Racism sure does exist: see Investor's Business Daily for Nov 8: "Obama to unleash racial-preference juggernaut."" I have a policy not to reply to any sentence that contains a combination Obama, unleash and juggernaut. I have another policy in respect of anyone who attacks affirmative action, out of context, as "racism" - even though in principle I am against affirmative action, and while there are sound reasons to critique its application, to call it racism or reverse racism or such other Rushism demonstrates an addled mind. Finally, I am at a loss to see how for example the "racism" of racial preferences justifies your racist rants. I mean, to justify your racism by reference to that of others suggests to me a deeply disturbed mind: I am ad idem with Iowa on looking for logic in your droolings. But let me take the bait. What juggernaut, where and how?
- icarus-r
November 16, 2012 at 2:45pm
Iowa: Clearly your Sandanista polisci teacher in high school (the one who died of AIDS) told you all you ever needed to know about taxes, but left out the teeny point that all 19th C taxes were short term/expired or declared unconstitutional. So I am still right about Fed taxes being a 20th C invention of socialists of the ilk of Edwin House, adviser to Woodrow Wilson. One of the finest 1980s folkies was Bonnie Koloc, from Iowa but living in Chicago. One of her nice acapella songs was "Iowa, Beautiful Land." I feel like burning it now, but the vinyl would stink worse than you. Icarus: As a lazy zygote who can't respond but can only emit "racist" diarrhea, you apparently don't know the influence of Alinsky on Obama . I have a policy not to google Icarus/placenta.
- raygun
November 16, 2012 at 5:09pm
Ray -Wow, must be one tough-assed bad acid trip you're reliving. Your rants are not only psychedelic, they are themselves acidic.
- IowaBeauty
November 16, 2012 at 6:46pm
"Clearly your Sandanista polisci teacher in high school (the one who died of AIDS) ... As a lazy zygote who can't respond but can only emit "racist" diarrhea, " Ray: Awesome man - thanks. I laughed so hard I peed in my pants. :) ... This one was one of the best Michael Richards imitations I have ever seen, anywhere. Even RedState commentators can't touch you. As performance art, it is one of the best I have read in these pages. I salute you my man. (I am known to pen poison posts, usually to highlight the idiocy of wingnuts, but I can't top your brilliant satire.) And zygote that emits diarrhoea? I mean, biologically impossible and logically nonsensical, but the imagery ... cool! I did not get the placenta reference, but probably a riff on the wingnuts' obsession with female reproductive organs. Just brilliant. My strong advice to you is to carry on. Post as often as you can - and in this same vein. Make sure, at every turn, to refer to Alinsky, leftists who die of AIDS, and Obama's affirmative action welfare bum homies. Use the word "lazy" a lot - the other Republicans on this site love that word, especially when it refers to a Black person. And, of course, repeat at the beginning and at the end of each post that you are a dues-paying Republican. And thanks again. You made my evening!
- icarus-r
November 16, 2012 at 7:01pm
To TNR Editors: I nominate Raygun's posts on this board for "Comment of the Year". In six years on these boards, I have not seen their equal.
- icarus-r
November 16, 2012 at 7:04pm
To TNR Editors: I nominate Raygun's posts on this board for "Comment of the Year". In six years on these boards, I have not seen their equal.
- icarus-r
November 16, 2012 at 7:04pm
Looks like we're done here. Someone switch the light out and lock up? OK. Oh ray, your car's blocking the exit again . . .
- ironyroad
November 16, 2012 at 9:45pm