I heartily recommend this post from Megan Carpentier at Glamocracy, the news blog of Glamour magazine. In it, Carpentier makes the crucial--but frequently missed--distinction between raising taxes generally and raising taxes on you specifically. She notes, for example, that as a young woman living on a modest income, she'd benefit a lot from Barack Obama's tax plan but only a little from John McCain's.
Her basis for this is a recent report by the highly respected Tax Policy Center. It's worth checking out if you haven't read it yet. But the main point comes across pretty clearly in this graph, which you may also have seen.
Note who benefits most from Obama's tax plan (the poor and middle class) and who benefits most from McCain's (the wealthy). Or, to put it more crudely, the Obama plan shifts money down the income scale, while the McCain plan shifts it further up (further, because that's what the Bush tax plans did).
Ezra Klein is worried the media won't get this distinction. I do, too--in part because I've seen this happen before. It was in 1993, after President Bill Clinton proposed his first budget. As I wrote at the time, in an article for the American Prospect (where I was then employed):
Recall that while the
president proposed to raise some $305 billion in taxes, nearly
all of it was to come from the very
wealthy. For 15 million working Americans he offered a tax
break (in the form of an expanded
earned income tax credit); the middle class would pay an energy
tax costing the average family
only $200 a year. The gas tax was eventually reduced to a
pittance, yet polls show as many as 70
percent of Americans still think Clinton raised taxes on the
The New Republic's Michael Kinsley, among others, has
suggested that the nation's
intellectual and media elite may have been the source of this
misconception; after all, many of
them were among the 1.2 percent of Americans hit by the income
tax hike. That would certainly
explain the cover of Newsweek on March 1, 1993.
Following the president's budget speech,
the editors ran a cover with the words "tax," "spend," and
"cut" stacked on top of each other. No
problem there, perhaps, except that the word "tax" ran in
286-point type, or about four inches high
and extending across the entire page. The word "cut" appeared
in 36-point type, which is less than
half an inch high and barely an inch wide. Clinton had actually
promised spending cuts of $270
billion, and only households making more than $140,000 a year
faced increased income tax rates.
Is it any wonder millions of Newsweek readers and many
others who spotted the cover in
bookstores or the supermarket came away with a different
Let's hope they--er, we, since I'm part of the media, too--get it right this time.