“Old Habits Die Hard”: Cutting Taxes Doesn’t Cut It For Republicans
If the GOP pushes the economy over the fiscal cliff, the party will go over too. The longer Republicans push for tax breaks for bankers and billionaires, the more trouble they’ll get themselves into. Republicans have enough problems morphing into the Tea Party, now the GOP is becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of the Fortune 500.
The Election Day national exit survey demonstrates the fact that the GOP doesn’t have a good message for Americans who worry about the economy. The voters have spoken and the poll tells us what they have to say about the economy and taxes. Republicans will not like what they hear.
Voters heard the questions that Mitt Romney asked about the president’s handling of the economy, but the GOP nominee didn’t follow up with the answers. It should have been a plus for the challenger that almost half (45 percent) of the voters felt the economy was “not so good.” However, a majority (55 percent to 42 percent) of these distressed voters actually went for Barack Obama over Mitt Romney. Another illustration of the GOP’s failure to address middle class economic concerns was that nine of 10 voters (90 percent) who gave the economy a positive rating voted to re-elect the president but only six out of every 10 (60 percent) voters who gave the economy a negative rating voted for his challenger.
Cutting taxes doesn’t cut it for Republicans. There were more voters who worried about unemployment (38 percent) and rising prices (37 percent) than there were who were concerned about cutting taxes (14 percent). The good news for the GOP was that voters who worried about taxes voted overwhelmingly for Romney. The bad news was that there were too few of these voters to make much of a difference in the outcome. Along the same lines, almost half (47 percent) of the voters wanted to raise taxes on the wealthy and another small group (13 percent) favored raising everybody’s taxes. That’s six out of 10 voters who are open to raising taxes to stabilize the economy. Only a third (35 percent) of the voters wanted to hold the line on taxes.
The failure of Romney and the GOP to come up with anything but cutting taxes leaves Republicans in the lurch. Nature abhors a vacuum and the party’s neglect of jobs and inflation gives voters the chance to fill that vacuum with their feelings about the last Republican president. This isn’t good news for Republicans because a large majority (53 percent to 38 percent) of the electorate blames George W. Bush not Barack Obama for the condition of today’s economy.
Voters want to fight a class war and the president’s populist approach to the economy is just what they wanted. Trickle-down economics was a disaster for Romney and will continue to tarnish the Republican brand if the party doesn’t craft a more comprehensive economic message. More than half (53 percent) of the voters feel that the American economic system favors the rich and only a third (34 percent) think the system is fair to all Americans. A majority (55 percent to 39 percent) of voters also believe that Romney’s policies would have favored the rich over the middle class. A fifth (21 percent) of the voters wanted a president who cares about people and those voters supported the incumbent overwhelmingly (81 percent to 18 percent).
The party’s fixation on taxes means the GOP is riding a one trick pony into the ground. The debate on taxes only focuses attention on the GOP’s inability to come up with anything new. Old habits die hard so President Obama doesn’t have to worry that Republicans will come up with something that works better.
By: Brad Bannon, U. S. News and World Report, November 26, 2012
“Focusing On The Wrong Things”: Why We Should Stop Obsessing About The Federal Budget Deficit
I wish President Obama and the Democrats would explain to the nation that the federal budget deficit isn’t the nation’s major economic problem and deficit reduction shouldn’t be our major goal. Our problem is lack of good jobs and sufficient growth, and our goal must be to revive both.
Deficit reduction leads us in the opposite direction—away from jobs and growth. The reason the “fiscal cliff” is dangerous (and, yes, I know—it’s not really a “cliff” but more like a hill) is because it’s too much deficit reduction, too quickly. It would suck too much demand out of the economy.
But more jobs and growth will help reduce the deficit. With more jobs and faster growth, the deficit will shrink as a proportion of the overall economy. Recall the 1990s when the Clinton administration balanced the budget ahead of the schedule it had set with Congress because of faster job growth than anyone expected—bringing in more tax revenues than anyone had forecast. Europe offers the same lesson in reverse: Their deficits are ballooning because their austerity policies have caused their economies to sink.
The best way to generate jobs and growth is for the government to spend more, not less. And for taxes to stay low—or become even lower—on the middle class.
(Higher taxes on the rich won’t slow the economy because the rich will keep spending anyway. After all, being rich means spending whatever you want to spend. By the same token, higher taxes won’t reduce their incentive to save and invest because they’re already doing as much saving and investing as they want. Remember: they’re taking home a near record share of the nation’s total income and have a record share of total wealth.)
Why don’t our politicians and media get this? Because an entire deficit-cutting political industry has grown up in recent years—starting with Ross Perot’s third party in the 1992 election, extending through Peter Petersen’s Institute and other think-tanks funded by Wall Street and big business, embracing the eat-your-spinach deficit hawk crowd in the Democratic Party, and culminating in the Simpson-Bowles Commission that President Obama created in order to appease the hawks but which only legitimized them further.
Most of the media have bought into the narrative that our economic problems stem from an out-of-control budget deficit. They’re repeating this hokum even now, when we’re staring at a fiscal cliff that illustrates just how dangerous deficit reduction can be.
Deficit hawks routinely warn unless the deficit is trimmed we’ll fall prey to inflation and rising interest rates. But there’s no sign of inflation anywhere. The world is awash in underutilized capacity As for interest rates, the yield on the ten-year Treasury bill is now around 1.26 percent—lower than it’s been in living memory.
In fact, if there was ever a time for America to borrow more in order to put our people back to work repairing our crumbling infrastructure and rebuilding our schools, it’s now.
Public investments that spur future job-growth and productivity shouldn’t even be included in measures of government spending to begin with. They’re justifiable as long as the return on those investments – a more educated and productive workforce, and a more efficient infrastructure, both generating more and better goods and services with fewer scarce resources – is higher than the cost of those investments.
In fact, we’d be nuts not to make these investments under these circumstances. No sane family equates spending on vacations with investing in their kids’ education. Yet that’s what we do in our federal budget.
Finally, the biggest driver of future deficits is overstated—rising health-care costs that underlie projections for Medicare and Medicaid spending. The rate of growth of health-care costs is slowing because of the Affordable Care Act and increasing pressures on health providers to hold down costs. Yet projections of future budget deficits haven’t yet factored in this slowdown.
So can we please stop obsessing about future budget deficits? They’re distracting our attention from what we should be obsessing about—jobs and growth.
BY: Robert Reich, The American Prospect, November 21, 2012
“It’s Time To Grow Up Now”: An Idea For Our Conservative Friends
First, in 2008, back at the Guardian, you told me what an inexperienced loser Obama was, in addition to all the more nefarious things, and how there was no chance on earth he’d ever beat Hillary.
Then he did, and you said well, those Democrats are insane anyway, but now it’s a general, and that man will never be elected president.
After he won, you said that was a fluke and aberration, and he was doomed to be a failure and a one-termer, and I was in dreamland if I even began to think otherwise.
And now here we are, the morning after quite frankly an easy reelection. The race wasn’t always easy, of course, but the margin was. Eight of nine battleground states. Won the popular vote by nearly two percent. Won. Going. Away.
And now I’m sure you’ll have a list of other excuses. I’m sure Fox and Friends is providing a list of them now.
Here’s an idea. Why don’t you consider accepting the notions that: he is legitimately the president; that your party is right now, for whatever reason, a minority party (actually, I’d be interested in seeing you all debate the whys and wherefores of that, and by “debate” I don’t mean deciding whether it’s the media’s fault or Nate Silver’s); that the economy is in fact improving, and you might as well now cheer for it to improve, cheer every job; and that your party has some soul-searching to do, and that does mean just nominating a “true conservative” next time.
It’d be nice to hear sincere, self-critical reflections from you instead of the usual bombast. America rejects you, rejects your view of Obama, rejects your policies. Are you ready to grow up now and have real conversations about the substance of things?
By: Michael Tomasky, The Daily Beast, November 7, 2012
“A Foundation Of Evasions And Lies”: Can A “Post-Truth” Candidate Be Elected President?
Not long ago, Jay Rosen memorably dubbed Mitt Romney’s bid for the presidency a “post truth” campaign. Within 48 hours, we may find out whether a “post truth” candidate can be elected president.
If there is one constant to this campaign, it’s that Romney has startled many observers by operating from the basic premise that there is literally no set of boundaries he needs to follow when it comes to the veracity of his assertions, the transparency he provides about his fundraising and finances, and the specificity of his plans for the country. On the dishonesty front, this has grown more pronounced in recent days, with Romney’s embrace of the Jeep-to-China lie as a closing argument in Ohio and his absurd attacks on Obama for urging people to vote.
But the key to this is how elemental it has long been to his campaign. Romney’s entire bid for the presidency rests on a foundation of evasions and lies. David Corn explains:
The Republican presidential candidate built much of his campaign on basic untruths about the president. Romney blasted Obama for breaking a “promise” to keep unemployment below 8 percent. He claimed the president was “apologizing for America abroad.” He accused Obama of adding “nearly as much debt as all the previous presidents combined” and of cutting $500 million from Medicare. None of this was true. (See here, here, here, and here.)
All of these apocryphal statements have been essential parts of Romney’s fundamental case against Obama: He’s failed to revive the economy and he’s placed the nation at risk. Rather than stick to a discourse premised on actual differences (he believes in government investments and would raise taxes on the wealthy to fund them; I want to shrink government and cut taxes) — and bend the truth within acceptable boundaries to bolster the argument — Romney has repeatedly relied on elemental falsehoods.
But this goes well beyond Romney’s claims about Obama. It also concerns what he would do as president. Romney’s own campaign has proven unable to back up the promises in his 12 million jobs plan, even though it is the centerpiece of his governing agenda and his response to the most pressing problem facing the nation. And that’s only the beginning. Jonathan Cohn:
Here we are, a day left in the campaign, and Romney still hasn’t told us how he’d offset the cost of his massive tax cut — except to say he’d do it through deductions without raising taxes on the middle class, an approach that independent analysts have said is mathematically impossible. Romney still hasn’t provided details on his “five-point plan” to boost the economy, even though his central claim as a candidate is that he’d do more to improve growth. Romney still hasn’t told us which programs he’d cut in order to cap non-defense federal spending at 16 percent, even though independent analysts have suggested doing so would require draconian cuts few Americans would find acceptable. Even in the spotlight of a nationally televised debate, when confronted with these questions, Romney wouldn’t answer.
And let’s throw Romney’s “47 percent” comments into the mix. Within 48 hours, we may find out whether it’s possible to get elected president after advancing a set of policy proposals that amount to a sham; after openly refusing to share basic governing intentions until after the election; after shifting positions relentlessly on virtually every issue the campaign has touched upon, including the one (health care) that once was seen as central to his case for national office; after refusing to share the most basic info about his own massive fortune and about the mega-bundlers that are fueling his enormous campaign expenditures; and after writing off nearly half the nation as freeloaders.
By: Greg Sargent, The Washington Post Plum Line, November 5, 2012
“Shooting Yourself In The Face”: Why And How The Romney Campaign Screwed Up
In the last week or so, Mitt Romney has accused Barack Obama of focusing his campaign on “small things,” but let’s be honest—at this point, everybody is focused on small things. And these small things are unlikely to make much of a difference with so little time left. Which is why it was odd to see the Romney campaign stumble so badly with the Jeeps being built in China attack. How did they manage to take a criticism that would likely have just glanced off Obama anyway, and turn it into something that not only had everyone talking about Obama’s best case to Ohio voters (the auto bailout), but also made Romney look cynical and dishonest?
Here’s what I think happened. They heard the first, somewhat unclear report that Chrysler was going to be manufacturing Jeeps in China, without quite understanding what it meant, namely that they will be making them for the Chinese market (because of Chinese tarriffs, Chrysler would only be able to sell the Jeeps there if they make them there). By the time they figured out all the facts, Romney had already mentioned it on the stump, saying inaccurately that the company was “thinking of moving all production to China.” So the campaign probably figured, we can still use this to try to discredit the bailout, we’ll just be careful about the words we use.
And that’s where they didn’t quite grasp the implications of what they were doing. If you look at the ad they made, you’ll see that though it’s obviously meant to deceive people into thinking American jobs are being sent to China as a result of the bailout, the words are literally true. “Obama took GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy,” the ad says, “and sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps [pause for effect] in China.” The Romney campaign thought they could play by the ordinary campaign rules, which say that if you say something true but intentionally misleading, you will usually be judged not guilty. Reporters will discuss the issue in the he said/she said format, with you saying you’re telling the truth and your opponent saying you aren’t, and you can declare victory.
But that’s not what happened. Instead, Romney got a wave of negative coverage over the issue, with journalist after journalist saying forthrightly in their stories that the Romney attack is misleading or deceptive. This was particularly true in Michigan and Ohio, where the state of the auto industry is kind of important. Why did they do that? Two reasons, I think. The first and less important one is that after so many shamelessly false statements by Romney and his campaign, journalists’ tolerance for this stuff may have run out. But the more important reason is the car companies stepped up to act as third-party validators of the truth. The Chrysler CEO wrote an emphatic letter to the company’s employees assuring them no American jobs were moving to China, and a GM spokesperson criticized the ad as well.
Which, if the Romney campaign had been a bit more thoughtful, they might have expected. Don’t forget that Chrysler and GM have their own interest in maintaining support for the bailout. They got lots of help from American taxpayers, and they want those taxpayers to see the bailout as a success story, continue to feel good about American car companies, and continue to buy their cars. They might stay silent while Republicans criticize the bailout, but if you accuse them of a specific act that they aren’t guilty of, they’re going to speak up. Romney stepped over a line from attacking Barack Obama to attacking Chrysler, and he should have anticipated that Chrysler wouldn’t take it lying down. When Chrysler spoke up and explained the facts, that gave the press permission to step out of the he said/she said bind and report accurately that Romney was being misleading.
And that’s how, just a few days before the election, Romney shot himself in the foot in the one state he absolutely, positively can’t afford to lose.
By: Paul Waldman, Contributing Editor, The American Prospect, November 5, 2012
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 