HERES WHY! What explains Obamas approach? When it comes to federal taxation, we have no liberal politics: // link // print // previous // next //
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2010
OReilly and Digby [heart] Hart: This Monday, a big know-nothing belly-acher stood up and gave Obama what-for about the state of the economy. Her name is Velma Hart.
On Tuesday, Hart appeared on Hardball and made one thing clearshe didnt have the first f*cking idea what she was talking about. She didnt have any idea what Obama could do to improve the economy; nor did she say a single word about the relentless Republican intransigence in this policy area.
But so what? In a typical reaction, Chris Matthews praised Hart for her hot dogs-and-beans rhetorical brilliance. By last night, Bill OReilly was heaping praise on Hart. She had stood up to Obama!
Pathetically, Digby was also finding ways to speak well of Harts performance. Boo hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo! Its fairly obvious why Digby felt the need to do this. But in her post, Digby even waxed sympathetic about this part of Harts self-pitying speech to Obama:
Boo hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo! After less than two years, Velma Hart is deeply disappointed! (Later, Hart told ABC News that shes upset about the state of her 401K.) But Digby was even prepared to sympathize with this passage from Hardball, the show where Hart made it clear that she has no clue what shes talking about:
Boo hoo hoo. Can we talk?
We have no idea what Harts politics might be. Professionally, she holds a rather upper-end position; she is National Finance Director/CFO of AMVETS, a major national organization. (Its amazing that a Finance Director would seem so clueless about the economy.) She says her husband is employed too; her two kids attend private schools. We dont know if Hart is a liberal, or if she even votes for Democrats. For all we know, she may be a Republicanwhich is perfectly acceptable, of course.
She has said that she voted for Obama. Of course, she also embarrassed Obama by telling him that she has no credit card. The next day, she called that a joke.
We would assume that Hart is a good, decent person in her daily dealings. Most people are.
But one thing is quite clear about Hart; whatever her politics may be, she would make a great pseudo-liberal. Obama entered the White House twenty months ago, facing the biggest economic meltdown since the Great Depression. And now, just twenty months later, Hart says she is exhausted and deeply disappointed. Shes tired of defending Obama; shes disappointed in his failure to wave a magic wand and make the meltdown disappear. (Hart is so exhausted and so disappointed, shes ready to stand up and embarrass Obama in public.) And please noteHart discussed the economy, nothing else, when she explained why shes so disappointed. She didnt complain about any other policy areas, where Obama may have failed to act on campaign promises. Twenty months into Obamas first term, this pampered voter is ready to trash him in public because he hasnt been able to make the biggest economic mess in seventy years go away.
She hasnt been able to get a new car, she told Matthews. Digby is sympathetic.
We would assume that Harts a good personbut shes a classic know-nothing belly-acher. She was very eager to embarrass Obamaand she didnt have a word to say about Republican conduct. Just a guess: Why does Digby sympathize so, even as she batters other voters around? Could it be a function of Digbys tortured pseudo-racial politics? Could it be because Hart is black?
We dont know how to answer that question, but Digby goes on to offer this ridiculous defense of Harts belly-aching performance. Truly, this is just sad:
What a pile of crap. Even as she notes Harts (ludicrously) outsized expectations, Digby scrambles and clambers about, looking for ways to defend her.
Digby is determined to make Harts belly-aching come out sounding right. For that reason, she compares Hart to the fearless crusaders who stood up for Clinton in real time, although nothing Hart has actually said takes us in that direction. As she does so, she even offers a crap-on-a-stick, Cokie Roberts-inspired account of why Gore had such a hard time. Truly, that passage is just pathetic. It is pure, 100 percent, press corps cant. Cokie couldnt bull-shit you better.
Velma Hart is likely a very nice person. But shes also a classic pampered pseudo-liberal, if shes a liberal at all. After twenty months, she has had enough; she cant wait to run off into the woods and take another long nap. These reactions help explain how Clinton got impeachedhow George W. Bush reached the White House. (Because of all that Clinton Fatigue!) But so what? Digby rushes and flails about, saying she understandsnothing more.
Hart was willing to embarrass Obama about the economy, without saying a word about the GOP. And Digby, boo-hoo-hooing, clambers over desks and chairs to defend her clueless approach. But then, O’Reilly loved Velma Hart too. So did hapless Matthews.
PART 3DUH/HERES WHY (permalink): On Monday morning, E. J. Dionne just couldnt figure it out. It's remarkable how timidity leads Democrats to fight this year's campaign on Republican terms, the Sage of Safe Harbor declared (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 9/21/10). Nowhere is this more obvious than on taxes, where the entire debate revolves around what to do about the cuts enacted under George W. Bush.
E. J. couldnt figure it out: Why is Obama proposing the extension of Bushs tax cuts? Why not propose extending his own? In what follows, E. J. Dionne was declaring himself the biggest fake in the whole world:
Surely, Dionne isnt really that dumb. Surely, this nonsense reflects his desire to avoid stating the obvious: We now live in a nation which has no liberal politics.
Why hasnt Obama proposed extending his own tax cuts? We cant necessarily tell you, of course. But for a first approach to this problem, consider a question Ezra Klein raised on his blog this week (just click here).
Ezra presented the chart seen belowa chart recording the number of people who think their federal income tax is too high. Why did the number hold steady under Reagan? he asked. Why did it drop under Bush?
We will ask a different question, then well provide a fairly obvious answer: Why did the number hold steady under Reagan? Why did it jump under Clinton?
Why did the number hold steady under Reagan? Why did it then jump under Clinton? One possible answer seems fairly obvious: By 1993, the American age of disinformation had already reached full flower. In fact, Clintons hike in the federal income tax rate affected only the top one or two percent of households. But Rush Limbaugh had been screeching and yellingthen screeching some moreabout the biggest tax increase in American history.
In August, as the plan neared approval, Joe Montague reported the publics clueless state in USA Today. Middle-class families would barely be nicked by Clintons proposed tax hikes, he reported. But Joe Sixpack thought different:
That same day, Richard Benedetto discussed the same topic, also on USA Todays front page. A key problem for Clinton, he wrote. Despite claims the wealthy pay most new taxes, 68% believe the middle-class is hit most.
(Note the way this ranking scribe hid behind a key word: claims.)
Back to the chart Klein posted: Why did that number jump under Clinton? Why did so many additional people suddenly think they were paying too much federal income tax? The age of disinformation had startedthe age of conservative disinformation. The screeching and yelling continued through Clintons first term; so did the massive dissembling, along with the massive cowardice of the mainstream press corps. Result? By May 1997, the Age of Disinformed Lunacy had settled down upon us. You can see the fruit of that disordered age in that remarkable tape from Politically Incorrect, in which two conservatives screech for Clintons impeachmenteight months before anybody had heard of Miss Lewinsky. (To watch that remarkable tape, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 9/22/10.)
An age of disinformation had arrived, producing an age of political lunacy. This was also the age in which any semblance of liberal politics died in this tormented land. Why would Obama work from Bushs tax framework, not from his own? Has E. J. Dionne been alive on this planet? Does Dionne have any knowledge of the politics of taxation?
Duh. Long before Limbaugh, aggressive, well-funded plutocrat think tanks began to develop highly potent messaging on the subject of taxes. As this happened, Potemkin liberals like Dionne diddled themselves, ate at nice restaurants, took long naps and played. By now, any president lives in a world which is dominated by the talking-points churned by these skillful spin tanks.
How do American voters understand taxes? Let us count the ways:
How Americans understand taxes:
For decades, voters have been told that they are overtaxed. Theyre overtaxed because of those tax and spend liberals, who dont care about debt and deficits.
Why are voters being overtaxed? Because of the liberals and the federal bureaucrats, who enjoy spending other folks money!
During the Reagan and Clinton years, voters were often told where their overtaxed money was going. Their taxes were being spent on Reagans welfare queens.
(Such overtly racial language has largely disappeared from the upper-end discourse. But in the past year, a substitute was offered, as conservatives began to complain about the large percentage of people who pay no taxesby which they meant, no federal income taxes.)
Where is all that money going? Increasingly, voters have been told that the over-spending has gone into something called earmarks, another bête noire which is endlessly flogged to create a powerful image of tax dollars being sent down a drain.
Why are liberals and federal bureaucrats willing to spend so much money? Because they dont sit around the kitchen table and prepare their budget, the way your family does.
What kinds of social attitudes lay behind this over-taxation? For decades, voters have heard that liberals like to levy taxes because they want to punish success. They are engaged in class warfare, a class war aimed at the rich. In the past year, voters have increasingly been told that these liberals are actually socialists.
Then theres all the attendant crap which makes tax policy seem very easy:
For decades, voters have been told that if we would lower the tax rate, we would get extra revenue. Just like under President Kennedy, they have endlessly heard.
For decades, voters have been told that the payroll taxes they have submitted have been lootedthat Social Security is about to go bankrupt or broke because their money has already been spent.
For decades, voters have been told that the estate tax is really the death tax, and that this onerous tax represents a form of double taxation. All manner of bogus claims have been spread concerning the way this brutal tax wipes out family farms and modest family businesses.
In the past two decades, voters heard all manner of nonsense about the so-called flat tax. In truth, its hard to make any real sense of these claims, though the only effect of actual flat tax proposals has been to lower the tax rate on high-end earners. (In 1996, the flat tax proposed by Candidate Forbes would have lowered the marginal rate from 39.6 percent to 17. This was sold as a form of tax simplification.)
There! So it has gone, for many decades, as voters get disinformed about taxes. As this war of disinformation occurred, people like Dionne sat in mahoganied Washington suites. They failed to address, confront or challenge this massive campaign of deception.
On Monday, E. J. couldnt understand why Obama was working from Bushs tax framework, rather than from his own. Obviously, we cant answer that question. But some possible answers are obvious:
In the quote Dionne presented, John Podesta said that Obamas tax cuts are exclusively focused on middle-class families. That, of course, is baldly untrue; even Dionne was willing to note that some of Obamas provisions were especially helpful to lower-income families. In fact, some of those provisions were especially helpful to poverty families, though Dionne was too dainty to say such a word. (Those provisions are helpful to families earning $12,850 to $16,333, many of which include a parent working full time for minimum wage.)
We cant tell you why Obama hasnt suggested extending these proposalsproposals which were buried (and thus largely hidden) inside his massive stimulus plan. But is it possible that Dionne doesnt understand the politics of such proposals?
Its easy to work from Bushs framework because Bush is a man of the right. His frameworks about taxation are thus assumed to be basically sensible.
It would be hard to work from Obamas framework; four decades of unanswered disinformation and dogma stand in the way of any proposal designed to help the poor. (Sorrydesigned to help middle-class families, to use Podestas euphemism.) Think tanks of the right have churned disinformation; Potemkins like Dionne have politely stared into space as these dceceptions occurred. More broadly, the liberal world has utterly failed to create an opposing view of taxationan opposing set of frameworks and understandings.
Everyones hit with the crap from the right. Very little is heard from the left.
Above, weve offered a quick review of the messaging which has come from the right. No countervailing web of messaging has ever emerged from the left. Your liberal journals have sat and diddledand every Democratic president plays on this tilted field.
Your liberal leaders have sat and stared as this garbage rained down on voters heads. This Monday, Dionne pretended he just doesnt get it; the next day, Richard Cohen sang a similar tune. Alas! Dionne and Cohen have been good boys, the kept boys of a high Washington class. Through the decades, as disinformation took hold, they have been well-paid Potemkins.
Look around! Gaze on the world their kind has created! Tomorrow, well start to review the way the liberal side is forced to argue in the absence of a real liberal politics.
Tomorrow: How liberals argue in lieu of a liberal politics