Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Like Penske, I don't usually respond to my own posts unless I'm off my meds, but Twitter just delivered this take on the deal which makes clear just how much the GOP gave up to help a few rich people:



Michael Meeropol, The Nation

Let's not get too giddy. If the economy improves, and unemployment falls, the GOP will credit the high earner tax cuts and argue that they need to be made permanent. I suspect they see that as a winning issue for them in two years.

If the economy doesn't improve, they will still have massive deficits, which they will blame on Obama "spending" which they also see as a winning issue.

In other words, I do think it is telling how much they gave up. But I don't think they see it as doing much to assure Obama's reelection.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

This is Stimulus II, just in a different form more palatable to the GOP. It's win win for everyone (other than the far left) and is basically what I said would happen week or so ago.

On some other forum? I do not recall you saying that here.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Adder

Let's not get too giddy. If the economy improves, and unemployment falls, the GOP will credit the high earner tax cuts and argue that they need to be made permanent. I suspect they see that as a winning issue for them in two years.

If the economy doesn't improve, they will still have massive deficits, which they will blame on Obama "spending" which they also see as a winning issue.

In other words, I do think it is telling how much they gave up. But I don't think they see it as doing much to assure Obama's reelection.

Bingo

But this may play well for Obama too. He should triangulate (ala Billy Boy) and paint himself as the reasonable one between the right and the left.

ETA: I'm agreeing with you far to often this week. Someone must have co-opted your login.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Better to tax something we don't want more of (carbon emissions) than something we do want more of (corporate income).

Indulge a rant: All tax policy is about equalization of the tax burden created by an expenditure policy. We The People have decided to spend X dollars on joint projects; now's a question of spreading X dollars across the people. The incentives idea behind modern tax policy is a side effect of the decision to use progressive income taxation, along with a conceptual divorce between the purposes of tax policy and the things on which taxes are spent. Elsewhere it makes no sense. Property taxes aren't truly seen as a disincentive to the acquisition of property -- quite the contrary, high property tax rates are frequently associated with jurisdictions with high property values -- but somehow progressive income tax rates are made out to be a matter of incentives to earn marginal income.

Using taxes to discourage antisocial behaviors (snacking, smoking, burning carbon, trying to leave a big-ass estate to your kids without giving a whole mess of it to a 501(c)(3), whatever) makes this worse because it leads people to believe that Tax Policy is one thing and Expenditure is another. We make bad purchasing decisions if we're led to think someone else is paying. Being frugal is of no value if you think it just means some obese rich smoker is paying less. Why are we promoting a way of using taxes that breaks the traditional connection between what the government takes and how it all gets sprinkled back upon us? (My guess is the U.S. never developed a mature concept of federal taxation because for the longest time we funded national expenditures by "other guy" taxes like tariffs and sin taxes on liquor etc.)

I would prefer that we get away from this tax=incentives talk, such as the carbon tax. To me, tax equals stake. I believe that our use of progressive taxation have played a role in our abysmal levels of political participation by low income families -- not only minorities and the politically disenfranchised (whatever that means) but also by youth. No skin in the game means you don't play the game -- hell, millions of people aren't even watching the damn game. Progressive taxation creates this vast gulf between people who don't pay much into government and don't care what it does, and others who pay a bunch into it and are ungracious about what they get in return because they think they should get a lot more back for their 20% of AGI.

I don't know that I'd necessarily like a flat tax -- I sure don't agree with the notion that it's required as a matter of fairness to rich folks -- but I do wonder about what our expenditure policies would look like if everybody had skin in the game. I'd like to see more serious consideration of taxes as social policy -- part of an ownership culture that includes public institutions. Incentive this and incentive that leaves me cold from a governance standpoint.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Let's not get too giddy. If the economy improves, and unemployment falls, the GOP will credit the high earner tax cuts and argue that they need to be made permanent. I suspect they see that as a winning issue for them in two years.

If the economy doesn't improve, they will still have massive deficits, which they will blame on Obama "spending" which they also see as a winning issue.

In other words, I do think it is telling how much they gave up. But I don't think they see it as doing much to assure Obama's reelection.

The state of the economy is the single most important factor in determining whether an incumbent wins an election. Nonetheless, there are big industries based on the premise that things like political tactics, advertisements and messaging make a huge difference.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I may have read the revised, post-game column, in which case he clung to the tendentious belaboring of Spygate and still couldn't find a way to mention the almost-undefeated-season.

He didn't mention it in the original (print) version I read. It was particularly odd for him to claim that the fall began with Spygate. As I recall, the Pats won 17 straight games after it was revealed.

Anyway, putting aside the merits of the article, it seems particularly unwarranted to pull and revise an article--without explanation--apparently in response to subsequent events calling into question the validity of the opinions expressed. What's next--pull some of those pre-Iraq op-eds about WMD and let the Bush folks revise them?

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Adder

On some other forum? I do not recall you saying that here.

I said it in response to GGG's advice for Obama to fight. Told him he'd make a horrible advisor, that there would be a compromise, and it would be win win. That then turned into a whole discussion for how I'm a hypocrite because this would blow a hole in the budget, etc. etc.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Bingo

But this may play well for Obama too. He should triangulate (ala Billy Boy) and paint himself as the reasonable one between the right and the left.

ETA: I'm agreeing with you far to often this week. Someone must have co-opted your login.

That seems to be what he is doing. Or trying to do. I think complaining from the left is a little bonus out of this deal, and that his press conference rant (which has been weirdly criticized by folks who should know better) is part of that.

But I do think the GOP gave up more than they would have had to (EITC, ee side payroll tax - which while some conservative commentators had floated it, wasn't GOP policy, only two year on the high earner cuts).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Property taxes aren't truly seen as a disincentive to the acquisition of property -- quite the contrary, high property tax rates are frequently associated with jurisdictions with high property values -- but somehow progressive income tax rates are made out to be a matter of incentives to earn marginal income.

Indulge a partial reply. This sentence is misguided. Whether or not taxes are "truly seen" as a disincentive to acquire property, that's what they are, since they make acquiring the property more expensive. Of course it's no surprise that high property tax rates are associated with jurisdictions with high property values, since people who have the money to drop on expensive housing also have the money to drop on local services.

Carry on.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Adder

But I do think the GOP gave up more than they would have had to (EITC, ee side payroll tax - which while some conservative commentators had floated it, wasn't GOP policy, only two year on the high earner cuts).

Maybe (especially EITC), but I think both sides knew there needed to be some compromise given the election. I think the Rs, Obama, and the middle to right Ds got the shit scared out of them in November and I am cautiously optimistic that we are entering into a somewhat cooperative period for the next 12 months (pre-2012 election cycle), the need for which is based on mutually assured distruction if they don't.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

but somehow progressive income tax rates are made out to be a matter of incentives to earn marginal income.

Well, when the marginal rate is 90%, it might be.

I would prefer that we get away from this tax=incentives talk

The trick, though, is that incentive actually do matter in the real world.

I believe that our use of progressive taxation have played a role in our abysmal levels of political participation by low income families -- not only minorities and the politically disenfranchised (whatever that means) but also by youth.

Maybe, but I'm not sure taxing them into caring is an improvement either.

Progressive taxation creates this vast gulf between people who don't pay much into government and don't care what it does

Now I think you have gone to far. The people you are talking about also largely have no voice. No matter how much they care, they aren't cutting checks to campaigns, so they don't really matter. The most they can do for a politician is add a vote, and maybe influence a few other voters. That counts way less than a check for two grand.

ETA: Also, FICA should count as skin in the game.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

That seems to be what he is doing. Or trying to do. I think complaining from the left is a little bonus out of this deal, and that his press conference rant (which has been weirdly criticized by folks who should know better) is part of that.

He won with high turn-out. Pissing off the base is not the way to try to repeat.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I said it in response to GGG's advice for Obama to fight. Told him he'd make a horrible advisor, that there would be a compromise, and it would be win win. That then turned into a whole discussion for how I'm a hypocrite because this would blow a hole in the budget, etc. etc.

the problem with this board is that the only people with real political experience is you and me (maybe sebby or penske too). So you have all these fans that read blogs and "know more than us" because they read several blogs every day, but their "opinions" are informed by the blogs. blogs do not gain traction if written to be mindful or reality or compromise. blogs get page hits by being strident, you or I can read them and realize that. Ty/ggg not so much

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

He won with high turn-out. Pissing off the base is not the way to try to repeat.

qed

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I am cautiously optimistic that we are entering into a somewhat cooperative period for the next 12 months (pre-2012 election cycle),

Let's hope so. I would have said no way last week, but it recent developments have me reconsidering.

That said, I think they have very, very serious work to do in those 12 months, as they need to start addressing the mid to long term budget issues. I worry that they may not.