The tax-cut president
The Philadelphia Inquirer Blog - American Debate
The tax-cut president
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
Now that President Obama has signed the economic stimulus package, let us highlight an interesting fact that has been largely underplayed in the news coverage:
A Democratic chief executive has signed into law the largest two-year federal tax cut in history...yet virtually the entire Republican caucus on Capitol Hill voted against it.
To repeat: A liberal Democrat has signed into law a bill mandating $282 billion in tax cuts over the next two years - dwarfing George W. Bush's $174 billion in tax cuts during his first two years - yet the party that typically invokes "tax cuts" as its ideological mantra decided to vote No. There are 219 Republicans in the House and Senate; 216 voted against a tax cut that's bigger than the Bush cut.
Republicans have been busy lately spiking the ball in the end zone, and posting triumphalist videos about their alleged comeback (to the tune of Aerosmith's "Back in the Saddle," although Aerosmith told them yesterday to knock it off). Their behavior has been fascinating, given the fact that the voters have treated them as roadkill in two straight elections, and that their persistent attacks on the stimulus package have netted them zilch in the national polls. In Orwellian fashion, they have somehow convinced themselves - or, rather, the conservative base to which they are beholden has convinced itself - that defeat is victory, that reflexive opposition is tantamount to wisdom.
Indeed, they're so proud of saying No that they seem not to recognize the inherent political risks. Which brings us to this massive tax cut:
Do they not recognize how badly they have been rolled, how the Democrats may well have swiped one of their signature issues?
Thinking ahead to the 2010 and 2012 elections, the political-messaging shorthand goes like this: Obama in his campaign promised a huge tax cut for the American people. Within weeks of his inauguration, Obama and the Democrats delivered a huge tax cut for the American people. And virtually all the Republicans voted against it.
Democratic congressmen in swing districts can use that argument to defend themselves; more importantly, Democratic challengers in swing districts can use that argument against vulnerable Republican incumbents, pointing to the record. And Obama, in a re-election campaign, can use that argument to remind voters that his party delivered the big tax cut with no help from the other side.
Yeah, I know the counter-arguments. Republicans no doubt would argue that the big tax cut was subsumed by all the big expenditures, and so therefore it was not really a tax cut worthy of support. They'd argue that they stood tall and refused to be hoodwinked by a massive socialist spending package that burdens our children and our children's children and all children beyond. (They'll overlook the fact that the stimulus bill was backed by the eminently capitalist U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the National Association of Manufacturers.) But the big flaw in this likely GOP argument is obvious: the minority party - by spending so lavishly and spreading so much red ink on the federal ledger during the Bush era, thereby burdening future generations - has forfeited its image as the party of fiscal prudence.
In politics, you never want to be playing defense. A Republican who has to explain why he or she voted No on a big tax cut is playing defense. Worse yet for the GOP, this tax cut has been heavily targeted to working and middle class families (just as Obama promised in '08) - unlike the Bush tax cuts, which were skewed toward the more affluent. According to the exit polls last November, Obama easily outperformed John McCain among voters earning between $30,000 and $75,000. It's hard to see how the Democrats will lose ground among those workers in 2010 by arguing that they delivered a promised, targeted tax cut - and that the Republicans voted against it.
The Republicans appear to be boxed in, to the point where they have to pin their dreams of a comeback on the prospect of greater misery for more Americans. In fact, if Obama's recovery efforts start to pay off down the road, they won't even be able to argue that it's the good ole Republican-style tax cut which is really fueling the recovery...because they did nothing to make the tax cut happen.
Do the Republicans recognize this predicament? Probably not. As usual these days, they appear to be flying on auto-pilot, way too close to the ground.
Ahh, the taxcut spin. What is not mentioned is that this really isn't a tax cut, but a subsidy to those who don't pay income taxes.More like a welfare payment. Granted, everybody pays the payroll tax (social security), but much of the income tax "reduction" is a transfer payment to non income tax payers. In reality, it is an increase in welfare payments. Speaking of flying low, how is the nespaper business working out these days? Could reduced readership be a result of such skewed reporting ? Hmmm? Socialism only works as long as there are people left to steal money from. Someday, there won't be any of us productive folks left to tax.— georgel
Wow, George - try explaining that to the average American, who doesn't much past a quick talking point. Let's see - "welfare increased due to the way this was done" or "I fullfilled a promise and mostr Americans got a tax cut." Given Obama has the bully pulpit, who's going to win that argument? As to your newspaper comment, why is it that most of the web sites (including, Drudge, Huffington, and all sites on the ideological spectrum) link to newspaper web sites for info? Because the medium is changing from paper to web; not because of ideology. And as a reality check, aren't you looking at Polman through a web site, on a blog that is not published (except on occasion) in the paper itself?— Lynx
repubs right now remind me of those godaddy chimps turning the declining profits chart upside down and partying like its 1999.— potus- This what is left of the Republican party - a group whose sole leadership consists of talk-show hosts (Rush, Hannity) and whose response to the problems of 2009 is to say, gee 1981 was a great year because Ronald Reagan took office. They have become nothing but the party of 'no' - and that is about how voters will respond to them in 2010. They had the opportunity to join in with the Dems, and grudgingly vote for the stimulus bill; had they done so, and things did get worse, they could have said, 'look, we held our noses and went along, tried it their way and it didn't work, so now try our way.' But they instead took their ball and went home, and have nothing to show but obstructionism, nothing to hope for but the total collapse of America (so much for good old conservative patriotism) and nothing to point to, except a fetish for worshipping the dead.— what is truth?
Comment removed.- Oh Richard, economist you are not. Tax cuts for the sake of tax cuts does not always work. Anyway, you forget all that pork. If the pork-ladden non-stimulus actually can create "4 million jobs", that means each job cost USA taxpayers $233,000 for each job. Quite a price tag. Somehow, The Chosen One has managed to double the deficit with a non-starter of a non-stimulus bill. By his own conduct, Obama has turned the Bush Recession into the Obama Depression.— CD75
- Richard, are you on the Obama propaganda and spin team? Sounds like classic Tass News Agency.— CD75
- what is truth--The party of no?...good grief. Do you take your marching orders from the media? How about a party that is getting back to its principles of smaller gov't? How about they cam to the realization that this spending bill was chock full of earmarks and unnecessary spending and entitlement programs and needed to have opposition for the American public's sake? Of course anyone who views this bill negatively is labeled an obstructionist and told to get out of the way. That's funny, when the dems opposed the Iraq War, they said dissent was patriotic too...Hmmm...the hypocrisy is overflowing— camtheman
- I don't know what the future holds but it seems to me that the Republicans are doomed to wander the desert for the foreseeable future. Nixon and Watergate couldn't do it but the current GOP's obstructionism may finally fate the party to permanent minority status. Here's hoping!
- The strange thing about Georgel's comment about the part of the bill that includes a refundable tax credit--he scorns it as "welfare"--is that this is exactly what Milton Friedman and Barry Goldwater (last I looked were gods to conservatives) recommended as a way to restructure government welfare-type payments. Just to push this point home, if you agree that the little guy needs some cash help in this crisis (and who could disagree?) then the conservative republican method of doing this is through a refundable tax credit,just as Obama has done it. No social workers, no government interference in your privacy or family matters, etc.— liberal
- I like the $650,000,000 for digital-to-analog tv coupons. It probably will create hundreds of well paying jobs and poor can still watch TV!— jwad56
- CD--"The Chosen One," "Tass news agency," etc., More classy, nuanced, philosophic musing from the republicans.— liberal
- How about $300,000,000 for grants to combat violence against women? Certainly a worthy cause and a sure fire job producer.— jwad56
- Yeah, cam, we can always rely on the Republican party to speak out for the "American public's sake." I cant believe you said that with a straight face. And, CD, Bush's administration tried to take us to Communism; but, maybe that is why you harp so much on it now?— Master Dreamz
- Tax cut? What rate was cut? It was a tax credit, phased out at $75K for single and $150K for married filers. It was reduced from $500 to $400 by Congress. It amounts to $13 per week this year and $7.70 per week next year. Do you really think anybody will notice this "cut"? Besides, a family of three making $30K already receives back all of their federal income taxes and all but about $1,000 of their payroll taxes thanks to the child tax credit and the earned income credit (which was also expanded). This is not so much a tax cut as a tax rebate, which has already been shown to not work (see 2001 and 2008). Lastly, this cut is not aimed at anybody who will use it to stimulate the economy, not that you could stimulate much for $13 per week. Polman is really reaching with this spin.— tom - wilmington, de
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
