Reeling In The Years
Dave Weigel, in a column examining the Republican playbook and noting the differences between the Clinton 1993 stimulus package and the Obama 2009 package, notes the following:
3. The Clinton budget raised taxes; the Obama stimulus doesn’t. I think this is the most important distinction. The Clinton budget reconciliation increased income taxes, raised the corporate tax rate to 35 percent, and raised the gas tax by 4.3 cents per gallon. Basically, every American paid more taxes after the budget was passed. The Obama stimulus package doesn’t raise anyone’s taxes. It includes $275 billion of tax cuts. Are they poorly designed? Arguably. But they’re tax cuts! I literally cannot remember a time when the entire Republican conference in either house voted against tax cuts. In that Republican poll mentioned above, upwards of 60 percent of voters want tax cuts right now.
First time in my memory.
(via)
January 29, 2009 9:27 am
Posted in: Politics
39 Comments
39 Responses
Swervus - January 29, 2009 | 9:30 am · Link
They’re not real tax cuts if they come from a African American president though, didn’t you get the memo?
Just ask Rush, he’ll explain it to you.
Laura W - January 29, 2009 | 9:32 am · Link
(in a colum examining)
Now I think you’re just teasing me.
Face - January 29, 2009 | 9:36 am · Link
It’s not really a tax cut if a Dumbocrat proposes it. It’s just the Shifty-N#ggers-Paying-Less-Than-Their-Share Act. See the difference?
John Cole - January 29, 2009 | 9:37 am · Link
Enough with the race-baiting.
John Cole - January 29, 2009 | 9:38 am · Link
@Laura W: I don’t proof my posts too thoroughly, and I type like hell.
ed - January 29, 2009 | 9:39 am · Link
The Clinton budget reconciliation increased income taxes, raised the corporate tax rate to 35 percent, and raised the gas tax by 4.3 cents per gallon.
Those Democrat monsters! No wonder the economy tanked after that. Thank God we had George Bush, Jr. to get us out that economic quagmire!
Laura W - January 29, 2009 | 9:44 am · Link
@John Cole:
So
ifwhensince I get too annoying, you can ask me to cease and desist, you know. But ask nicely. I’m sensitive.(For a man who "types like hell", you are damn prolific.)
ppcli - January 29, 2009 | 9:47 am · Link
Clearly you missed the point. The Republicans want tax cuts on dead rich people (estate tax). Nobody said anything about tax cuts for living poor people. That’s just crazy talk!
Zifnab - January 29, 2009 | 9:51 am · Link
But they aren’t big enough, John. THEY AREN’T BIG ENOUGH!
If the tax cuts aren’t GOoPer approved size and target GOoPer approved audiences, you’ll actually hurt the economy. Tax cuts are like scalpels. You have to do them just right. I mean… oh… just put John McCain in office. He’ll get it right, I promise.
Svensker - January 29, 2009 | 9:52 am · Link
I know Pajamas has been good to you, John, but seeing those two ads for the anti-Muslim movies on the left is just sickening. Change all the Muslim references to Jewish ones and see how they read. Sweet Jesus.
Repubs are wankers. The sun also rises.
Lavocat - January 29, 2009 | 9:54 am · Link
The Republitards need a new mascot.
Some sort of iconic image of a massive herd of lemmings plunging off a cliff. Hopefully to their respective deaths.
The lead lemming can be a fat ass with a chronic oxycontin addiction.
Or something.
Seitz - January 29, 2009 | 9:56 am · Link
Wrong. If I’ve learned anything from commercials for republican congressional candidates over the last few years, it’s that there’s is no such thing as a vote against tax cuts. They are always "votes in favor of higher taxes".
Two years from now, if every single democratic congressional candidate challenging a republican incumbent doesn’t run an ad saying "so and so voted for higher taxes X times", then they’re idiots.
Punchy - January 29, 2009 | 9:57 am · Link
@John Cole: I’m assuming you’re directing this comment towards Rush Limbaugh, right? Cuz I’m pretty sure Face’s comment is about exactly what he’s been saying for 10 years or so.
sgwhiteinfla - January 29, 2009 | 9:58 am · Link
Remember John McCain’s assertion that he has never voted against tax cuts? Again I think that this vote in the house can be used very effectively in attack ads in 2010. If you put out an add saying Joe Blow voted against cutting taxes for regular Americans in 2009, what could possibly be their effective comeback? "Well I wanted to cut them more!" Some how I don’t think people will buy that.
John Cole - January 29, 2009 | 10:00 am · Link
@Punchy: No, I am saying there are a number of reasons republicans may have voted against these tax cuts, most of them involving bad faith, none of them involving race. Injecting race into this is silly and stupid.
demimondian - January 29, 2009 | 10:18 am · Link
@John Cole: Sorry, John, but there’s evidence against you here:
(h/t Think Progress, also Balloon Juice.)
Binkyboy - January 29, 2009 | 10:19 am · Link
Lower class is predominantly minorities. Tax cuts for lower class => tax cuts for minorities.
Therefore Republicans voted against minorities. See, it is about race.
John Cole - January 29, 2009 | 10:22 am · Link
What does Limbaugh have to do with this post? I understand tying the two together, but this post doesn’t even mention Limbaugh.
The Grand Panjandrum - January 29, 2009 | 10:28 am · Link
John you and Weigel are WRONG! According to that Very Serious Person Mark Halperin, Obama got his bill passed BUT that is bad news for him, because NOT ONE Republicans voted for the bil1. That evidently makes sense to establishment journalists.
Actually most of this is just hype right now. The bill next goes to the Senate where it will most certainly be changed. Then back to Conference Committee to get it in final form to pass in both chambers. Let’s wait and see how many of these Folks vote against it when it’s in final form. That’s when it really counts. I guarantee at least a few of the R’s vote for it on the House side.
Waingro - January 29, 2009 | 10:28 am · Link
Race isn’t the main reason for opposing lower-income tax relief, but race is always there as a subtext. Most GOP voters have no problem with government programs per se, just programs that help those they deem ‘undeserving’.
If this country were 95% white and all the same religion, we would most likely have a far stronger social safety net. Just because they aren’t burning crosses with hoods over their heads doesn’t mean racial factors don’t play into their political calculations. This shit is subtle-yes, sometimes race isn’t relevant, but lots of people in this country are scared of black folk. Obama just had the Bill Cosby/ He’s One of the Good Ones thing working in his favor.
JGabriel - January 29, 2009 | 10:30 am · Link
Meh. Post deleted by author because intended joke couldn’t work due to whitespace formatting restrictions.
.
cleek - January 29, 2009 | 10:36 am · Link
they think bi-partisan support is an end unto itself, rather than a desirable means to a much-needed end. or, at least setting it up that way makes it fun and easy to write bitchy little stories about Obama getting put in his place by the big tough GOP daddies.
Napoleon - January 29, 2009 | 10:43 am · Link
@Waingro:
Which is exactly why the Republicans were all over TV yesterday claiming, falsely, that the tax cuts were going to those that didn’t pay the taxes and didn’t work. Seriously. They all but wheeled the Cadillac welfare mother out of retirement.
jnfr - January 29, 2009 | 10:43 am · Link
Please don’t ask reporters to think about policy issues! It’s so unbecoming.
Fulcanelli - January 29, 2009 | 10:44 am · Link
More like Pretzel Logic, actually…
The Grand Panjandrum - January 29, 2009 | 10:46 am · Link
@cleek: Of course. They are trying to create dramatic tension when none really exists. Jesus F. Christ! Eleven Democrats voted against this bill as well, and it still passed. That should be the story. The Democrats have such an overwhelming majority that they really don’t need the R’s to get anything done. Yet the President still made the effort. Good for him.
As I wrote before, the final bill is what really counts. This is mostly symbolic. Halperin and the rest of the Very Serious Journalists are inventing dramatic tension to create a story line that does not exist.
Napoleon - January 29, 2009 | 10:48 am · Link
Including that clown Cooper out of Tenn who stabbed Clinton’s healthcare push in the back. It really did Obama a lot of good to suck up to that clown who then took the first opportunity to stab Obama in the back.
Brian J - January 29, 2009 | 11:02 am · Link
I wish they had done some tax transfers, like substituting some payroll taxes for a gas tax, at least for a short period of time. It would have probably favored urban and possibly suburban voters more, but would rural voters have been worse off, or just the same? My guess is the latter.
I also think it’s necessary to believe that taxes are going up in the coming years, no matter who is in office. Perhaps Obama can figure fundamental tax reform into his plans so that the system becomes a little more efficient and a little more equitable.
But yeah, the Republicans voted against tax cuts. Maybe some Democratic political operative could make a note of this to use in the coming elections.
Xecklothxayyquou Gilchrist - January 29, 2009 | 11:08 am · Link
@Napoleon: Eleven Democrats voted against this bill as well, and it still passed.
And I’m mighty annoyed with those Dems. The weird thing was that my congressman, mega-blue-dog Jim Matheson of Utah, wasn’t one of them. So yay for him.
AkaDad - January 29, 2009 | 11:21 am · Link
I, for one, would really appreciate having a bigger package.
sgwhiteinfla - January 29, 2009 | 11:24 am · Link
John Cole
Who do you think told the GOP to vote against the bill?
Comrade Dread - January 29, 2009 | 11:26 am · Link
The only way this makes sense is that the Republicans:
1. Hope that their helpful media toadies will present this as a failure of Obama’s, instead of an act of GOP recalcitrance.
2. Hope that the stimulus doesn’t work so they can try and paint themselves as knowledgeable on the economy despite being about 90% responsible for steering us into the iceberg in the first place.
3. Hope that they can get enough Democrats to oppose it in the Senate to not get a closure vote and hope the rest of the Democrats don’t call them on it and make them filibuster. And then hope the media again paints that whole affair as an Obama failure instead of the GOP saying "Fuck you" to the majority of Americans that want this.
ksmiami - January 29, 2009 | 11:46 am · Link
Just a question… Do semi-alert people still pay attention to the MSM? I mean seems like if people took it as seriously as they think it is, then McCain would have been elected. I gave up on the MSM in 2002 and never went back and I think I am smarter for it. I mean why listen to Cokie Roberts explain the economy when you can head straight to Calculated Risk, or Brad DeLong…
I mean I know the GOP is still obsessed with media framing and all, but I gotta say that the 06 and 08 elections certainly showed the media for the hackocracy they represent. Plu the media gives so much air time to the same people who have fucked everything up…
Anyone have an answer?
Zuzu's Petals - January 29, 2009 | 11:57 am · Link
@Seitz:
I was just about to say, this ought to be the new meme.
Even just saying they voted against a tax cut…fine, hammer it home.
Chris Johnson - January 29, 2009 | 12:03 pm · Link
Musta been tax cuts for the poor or vanishing middle class. Simple really.
VonDoom - January 29, 2009 | 12:06 pm · Link
Haven’t the Republicans argued in the past, whenever there is an election, that voting against a tax cut is identically the same as voting to raise taxes?
The GOP - they ALL (with not a single exception) want to raise your taxes! It’s YOUR money, after all!
Martin - January 29, 2009 | 1:17 pm · Link
Well, here’s where I’m really lost…
The GOP don’t like this bill because they’re concerned that the deficit spending is expanding out of control, but their solution is to cut taxes more than this bill does, resulting in precisely the same level of deficit spending.
I mean, I can appreciate a disingenuous argument as much as the next guy, but they’re arguing against their own plan in the same breath as they’re promoting their plan.
Swervus - January 29, 2009 | 6:46 pm · Link
@ John,
I’m pretty sure that somewhere on this blog you have made a point or two hundred about how Rush controls the GOP (‘scuse me: PARTY OF THE CONFEDERACY) policy shop these days, and I think the point can be advanced that Rush is a pretty successful race-baiter when it comes to anything Obama. I wasn’t being pissy or petty up above, I was calling current Republican subtexts what they are.
Done and done.
nannor - January 29, 2009 | 7:03 pm · Link
After 8 years of Republican tax cuts, we now stand with the largest unemployment rate in almost 40 years; and jobs are being eliminated by the 10s of thousands daily. How can anybody in their right mind believe that tax cuts will create jobs.