The art of obfuscation
Tuesday, August 24th, 2010
If you'd like to attend a master class in political obfuscation, look no further. Today's instructor is Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader. Join me in marveling at his myriad verbal pirouettes on Sunday's Meet The Press, where he doggedly defended the principle of tax cuts for the affluent without once answering the host's key question.
First, a little class prep: The Bush tax cuts, enacted in 2001 and 2003, are set to expire at year's end, and the GOP is horrified that the highest-income Americans would be compelled to dig a bit deeper into their deep pockets when their tax rates return to Clinton-era levels. Fiscal experts say that such a move is necessary – and, after all, the scheduled expiration is written into the law – because the federal government badly needs to whack the deficit with fresh revenue. If the richest Americans lose their Bush tax cuts (while 98 percent of Americans keep their cuts, as proposed by the Obama administration), tax policy wonks say that roughly $680 billion would be pumped into federal coffers over the next 10 years. That would surely help trim the deficit that Republicans constantly complain about.
And yet, when it comes to tax cuts for the rich, McConnell and his party mates somehow don't care a whit bout the federal deficit. They are typically averse to extending benefits for the jobless unless that money can be paid for in a way that won't deepen the deficit, but when the issue is a tax cut extension for the rich…well, this is where we join our program in progress.
Host David Gregory said to McConnell: "You and other Republicans would like to see the Bush-era tax cuts extended. The president, of course, wants to repeal them except for those on the wealthiest Americans; in other words, those taxes would go up. What are you prepared to do to pay, for an extension of tax cuts for everybody?"
McConnell: "This has been tax law in, in America for almost 10 years now, existing tax law. What the administration is proposing, and the majorities in the House and Senate, is to raise taxes on the top two brackets, which will affect 50 percent of small business income…"
Note how McConnell eluded the question; he never said how he 'd pay for the high-income tax cuts. He dodged by changing the subject. His first dodge was irrelevant (yes, it's been tax law for nearly a decade, but he failed to mention that the law was always set to expire at the end of '10), and his second dodge – about the impact on small business – was demonstrably false. Republicans have been claiming for weeks that tax hikes on the rich would hit "50 percent" of small business income; however, in the empirical world, tax experts have long pointed out that, at most, only three percent of small-business taxpayers are in the rich income brackets.
Anyway, Gregory tried to follow up: "But my question is, how do you pay for an extension of tax cuts? Because if you're concerned, as Republicans say they are, about cutting spending and the deficit, you have to acknowledge that tax cuts are not paid for."
McConnell: "Well, what, what, what, what are you talking about, 'paid for?' This is existing tax policy. It's been in place for 10 years. What they're talking about is raising taxes, impacting 50 percent of small business income…"
OK, this time McConnell varied the mix a bit. He repeated his irrelevant and inaccurate dodges ("existing tax policy" and "50 percent of small business income"), and salted them with a dash of defiance (how could anybody possibly insist that tax cuts for the rich should be paid for?).
Gregory soon tried again, by invoking the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office: "The CBO, senator, this week made it very clear that the long-term picture for the economy, for the deficit, is very dark if you extend the Bush-era tax cuts without somehow paying for them."
McConnell: "Look, what we're talking about here is, is tax increases in the middle of a recession."
Again, he didn't answer the question. Instead, he dodged by trotting out a party slogan ("tax increases in the middle of a recession"), the kind that falls apart upon close examination. Tax experts say that the economy can be boosted in the short term by allowing middle and lower-income people to keep their tax cuts, since most of them tend to spend their income as consumers; and it can be boosted by taking the enhanced tax levies from the rich, and using that money to fund job-creation programs.
So Gregory tried anew: "But, Senator, with respect, you're being unresponsive to a question, which is, are tax cuts paid for going forward, or is it borrowed money at a time when you and other Republican leaders say we must get serious about the deficit? It's a straightforward question."
McConnell: "I – yeah, I know. And I, and I gave you a straightforward answer. What we're talking about here is raising taxes in the middle of what most Americans think is a recession."
Another form of the dodge is to insist, contrary to all evidence, that there was no dodge. Then came the slogan again. Then McConnell went into an extended riff about the small businesses – I've spared you that one – all of which goaded the host to try yet again.
Gregory: "For a final time, I'll go back to my question…Do you have a plan to pay for that (tax cut) extension?
McConnell: "You're talking about current tax policy. Why did all it of a sudden become something that may be 'paid for'?…Raising taxes in the middle of a recession on the major job generator in America, small business, is a very, very bad idea."
It's all there, yet again. In chronological order: The irrelevant dodge, the defiance dodge, the slogan dodge, the fact-averse small-business dodge. All told, I doubt that McConnell moved the prevailing poll numbers; according to the latest CNN survey, 51 percent of Americans believe that the tax cuts should expire on schedule for the rich, with an extension for everyone else; only 31 percent want the rich to keep their cuts along with everyone else.
Actually, the GOP's core conundrum has persisted for weeks. On a Sunday show in early August, House party leader John Boehner was asked to square the Republican rhetoric about deficit reduction with the Republican desire to keep tax cuts for the rich. His response, such as it was: "Listen, what you’re trying to do is get into this Washington game and their funny accounting over there."
In other words, Boehner didn't have the faintest clue how to explain the party's fundamental disconnect. McConnell sounded like Cicero by comparison, but neither guy could explain why it's OK to run a bigger deficit to benefit deep-pocketed Americans, but not OK to help those whose pockets are empty. Perhaps because there's no way to sensibly explain it.
——-
On another front entirely: If you're also a film junkie, you might be interested in my new article on the 50th anniversary of Psycho.
Backdoor to amnesty?…from Houston and Texas News…"The Department of Homeland Security is systematically reviewing thousands of pending immigration cases and moving to dismiss those filed against suspected illegal immigrants who have no serious criminal records, according to several sources familiar with the efforts. Culling the immigration court system dockets of noncriminals started in earnest in Houston about a month ago and has stunned local immigration attorneys, who have reported coming to court anticipating clients' deportations only to learn that the government was dismissing their cases." Sure, this president is really serious about illegal immigration.
Welcome to the Recovery, during this Recovery Summer. New home sales fell 12.4% for July, while durable goods orders (expected to increase 3%) only increased 0.3%. Excluding transportation, durable goods orders actually fell 3.8%. Yeah, that hope n change is really working well, isn't it? But as Biden said yesterday, the economy is on the right path.
I haven't , or one of thbeen lauded by the fabled Columbia School of Left-wing operatives masquerading as journaliosts, or one of the finest political writers of our generation, but I will predict right now that Republicans win the House and Senate. Dick is still spilling the old conventional wisdom that it's anti-incumnbents. It's anti-gobvernment. It's CHANGE for real this time.
still_independent, another problem with the NJ tax system is the school taxes which SW Mike pays are used to fund schools in Camden, Newark and other "poorer" districts. The NJ Supremes ruled a few years ago that keeping a town's school taxes within that town/district was unconstitutional. They ruled that the school taxes needed to be distributed statewide so the poorer districts "got their fair share". Taxes soared when that decision was rendered. Now, to make you guys even sicker, my total school/property tax bill was $2,882 in 2009. Yeah, just sitting here on 1/2 acre of ground backing up to a creek, nice 4 bedroom home with full finished basement, no sales taxes, full coverage auto insurance with $100 deductible for three drivers at $2,160/year, and allowable federal itemized deductions on my state income tax. Gee I miss New Jersey.
Ah, this is jsut what we needed when Polman joined WHYY. Exactly the same unique perspective that Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann and Rachel maddow gave us, only a couple days later. The old echo chamber that becomes conventional wisdom. Boring.
These were all Democrats in the City Government………………"The City of Bell has become the poster child for bad government. Exorbitant salaries, lavish pension benefits, a looming default on $35 million in city bonds, and illegal property taxes have all come to light recently. And as a result, taxpayers across California are focusing new scrutiny on their own local officials.
The biggest long-term threat to taxpayers and budgets is the pension crisis. Bell City Manager Robert Rizzo was raking in a salary of nearly $800,000, and a total compensation package of more than $1.5 million that included benefits such as 28 weeks worth of vacation and sick time. That puts taxpayers on the hook for over $600,000 a year for Rizzo’s pension—for the rest of his life—when he retires. "
http://reason.com/archives/2010/08/24/lessons-from-the-bell-californ
So does that mean you're considering yourself lucky to be in Swedesboro?!?!? LOL. That's insane.
"As much as I might want to hire new salespeople, engineers and marketing staff in an effort to grow, I would be increasing my company's vulnerability to government," Michael Fleischer, president of Bogen Communications Inc., wrote in The Wall Street Journal.
Nothing more effectively freezes business in place than what economist and historian Robert Higgs calls "regime uncertainty."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/08/25/where_are_the_new_jobs_106876.html
Baloney. Fleisher is using a newly minted cop out for not hiring. It's rampant in big business right now. Profits are soaring and companies are not hiring anyone. They've decided to get more work out of less people so the corporate coffers continue to grow further distancing themselves from the rabble of the down line employee.
Don't believe me? Take a look at the traffic on 295 at 5:30am these days. It's getting more and more busy every morning as people are going to work earlier or commuting longer distances. So please spare me Fleisher's bullshart whining.
What are your reasons for not hiring? Arms too tired from holding Fleischer's coat?
Talk about detached from reality. Tell me, TSGINTR, are you a business man hiring people? What is you expertise to allow you to make such a bold statement?
The quote is taken out of context. So what does it really mean? It could be taken several ways. It is also taken out of context in the article, but we hope that the journalist kept it true to the context.
Uh, the article in question was an oped written by Mr. Fleischer so I don't know how anything could be taken out of context. Do you always just make stuff up Landscape?
swedesboromike: oddly enough, I can't reply to you. The button is there but there's no text and it doesn't respond. wonder if this blog software only lets you get "n" level deep…. Anyway, my point is that there are $450k houses in say, Cherry Hill, paying the same thing you are. That's a very "D" town in perhaps the most "D" county historically in NJ. The difference? Large township, large school distict. Economy of scale. Aside from your township, if you're looking for statewide blame, then NJ itself is to blame, regardless of which party is in power. I had horrific property tax increases under Ms. Todd. NJ is a corrupt, pay-to-play, multiple-jobs-for-the-pension, things-are-legal-here-and-nowhere-else state. That kind of corruption really doesn't have any party affiliation.
I think the problem is too many municipalities. Each with their own school system. In our township we did combine police departments so they are trying to find ways to share services. The broader point I was making on taxes is that we never get a tax break. We get taxed so many different ways and at so many different levels of government that we have no idea what taxes we pay. So when someone wants to bring up 91% federal tax rates of the 1950's as some economic panacea I see it as a major distortion. Property taxes were lower and taxes on untilities and fuel were lower. And the highest tax bracket only applied on income of $ 400,000 and up. In my view the left can take all of George Soros's money as they want but stop lumping people with $ 250,000 a year in household income with the uber rich.
no argument with any of that. 91% top tax rate is nuts – i'm not a believer in the Laffer curve, but even i'd postulate that 91% is a pretty big dis-incentive. $250k in income is not anything approaching rich (comfortable, yes). But also keep in mind that $250k is adjusted income. If you have $250k in income after deductions for property tax, mortgage interest, children, charity, 401k/IRA, healthcare premiums (if employer provided) etc., then I'm not going to cry for you, either. Oh, and capital gains don't count against that total…. All that being said, now is not the time to raise income taxes. … And yes, one of NJ's many structural issues is the preponderance of municipalities and schoold districts. And on that front, it looks that some municipalities are trying to at least dip their toes into the "consolidation pond" by trying shared services for things like trash collection. A baby step, but a positive one
Dick, I think you do a fine job of showing the Republican hypocrisy towards the deficit. Moreover, I am generally in favor of a progressive tax policy. Nevertheless, you brush off very quickly the "middle of recession" comment from McConnell as a party line. It might be, but it is based in some truth. This is why I would very much like to see the "tax experts" and other experts that you mention but do not cite. Many articles that I read speak of uncertainty in the economic community as to whether now is the right time to raise taxes. Even the quote you bring out from Gregory (and by extension the CBO) talks about "long term picture" and "deficit" – and not the here and now. At some point, the country should return to pre-Bush tax levels, IMO. The question is… is now the time? As much as I personally would like to believe it, I, for one, have not seen such a clear cut, indisputable picture from the "tax experts" regarding the short term boost under Obama's proposal. Next time, please show more proof.
or you could repeal the health care bill, eliminate the office of homeland security, and the prescription drug plan as well as cutting off foreign aid. Just a thought. Spend at no more than the consumer price index and you'll balance the budget in a few years.
foil, can't both positions be correct? Personally, I'm not in favor of raising anyone's taxes right now, given the state of the economy. That doesn't make tax cuts pay for themselves, though. The scary thing is that all of the CBO's long-term budget projections (which are horrific) assume that all of the tax cuts will expire.
So now we are officially out of the Bush recession. Welcome to the Obama depression. Thanks Obama for fixing the economy! Welcome to recovery summer! What a joke that Democrats actually think this guy is smart.
Whats so amusing about all these right wingnuts blathering on about fiscal policy is the FACT that under conservative rule, GOP fiscal policy has demonstrably and spectacularly FAILED. They can bleat all they want about tax this and spend that, but at the end of the day, trickle down voodoo economics has been proven conclusively to be nothing but a vehicle to speed the wealth disparity in the US. Spending is just FINE with them (war, prescription drug program, etc…) when it suits their need to pander. Instead of attempting to rely on tired, old, failed policy, the GOP resorts to obfuscation and more and more pandering, racing to the bottom denominator of their own "base". Thanks Dick Polman for highlighting this disgraceful behavior in your timely column.
Democrats have been running the show for nearly 4 years now dude. Moreover I didn't get a tax decrease. Maybe I saved 3% on the federal but then i got walloped by the liberals here in New Jersey with their property taxes. Try again portly
Swedes,
you live in a township of 2,000 people. Your school district has all of 900 students in it (only 200 come from swedesboro). That's why you pay ridiculous property taxes. Don't blame either party – it's where you CHOOSE to live.
I expect more from you Still. At least have the correct amount of residents for Woolwich.
Establishment Dems are, for the most part, every bit as bad as every GOPer in office. They can't "run" things in DC while the party of NO holds sway with their tactics of obfuscation, aka: the McConnell/Boehner Axis of Evil. Please tell us you have some actual IDEAS, smike? Not just "NO" and "spend less"…
Portly, you said " Please tell us you have some actual IDEAS, smike? Not just "NO" and "spend less"……. What a silly index card talking point. I am not in congress but my view is to find a way to keep spending in line with the rate of inflation. Stop hiring govt workers. Eliminate or combine some federal departments. Repeal the health care bill and set up a system of honest competition that will bring rates down. Lower taxes for small businesses. The only way we are going to improve be able to deal with the debt, deficits, and the economy is to reign in government largesse and create a system where the private sector can flourish. What we have now is so much uncertaintly that no one wants to hire.
Portly smart. Everyone else stupid. Get it?
I hope all of the readers and especially posters who followed Mr Polman from Philly.com are members of WHYY. If not, make a contribution today!
nah, take it out of the $ 14000 a year I pay in property taxes
You have to do it yourself Mike.
Since WHYY isn't currently located in Swedesboro they can't take it out of your property taxes. But you could always move to a place with lower property taxes. At least you have a choice in the matter.
Not until they practice a little DIVERSITY and look more like America.
I think we should put taxes back to the level they were at during the Eisenhower administration, the most prosperous decade in the history of America. Then we might even be able to afford to rebuild all the roads and bridges that got built back then and have since fallen apart. And, I think it was truly an inspired bit of juxtaposition to plug an article on Psycho right after the commentary on Republican tax policies!
Back when property taxes were low and gas prices were 25 cents. ??? I'll take that
You mean back when the top tax rate was 91% ? That will help erase the deficit. And won't congress have a great time spending all that!
on taxable income over 400,00. Most people weren't paying that much in taxes because average income was below $ 20,000 a year. Property taxes were measured in hundreds not thousands. Gas wasn't taxed, state income taxes and sales taxes were lower. If you think 91% will help the country then by all means please send Uncle Sam 91% of your income.
Congress didn't build re-election strategy on spend, spend, spend then either
If you'd like to attend a master class in political obfuscation, look no further. Today's instructor is Robert Gibbs. ….. This would have been a better way to start the article. This clown has been the master of misinformation, obfuscation, and tap dancing.
Existing home sales dropped 27% in July to their lowest level since 1995, and Biden today told an audience the economy is on the right track. Talk about clueless.
At least Obama fixed the economy. How long until election day?
So, the tax cuts for those making more than $250K would cost the treasury $36 Billion in 2011. The tax cuts for those making less than $250K will cost the treasury $202 Billion in 2011. So, according to liberals/Democrats, we cannot afford the cuts for those making more than $250K with borrowed money, but we can afford the cuts for those making less than $250K with borrowed money, is that correct? Also, spending has increased more than 38% since Dems took control of Congress in January, 2007, all with borrowed money. So, we can afford to borrow $862 Billion for the failed stimulus bill, Billions more for bailouts of Fannie and Freddie (off budget to boot), and Billions more for Dodd/Frank bill, healthcare subsidies, green energy subsidies, and "race to the top". Have I got that right? BTW Logathis, Greenspan wants all the tax cuts repealed, not just those on greater than $250K.
All of the tax cuts should be repealed. We pay far too little in taxes. I want to pay more taxes. The question David Gregory posed was 'Do tax cuts pay for themselves?' Greenspan correctly answered that they do not. Not surprisingly, no officeholding Republican would ever utter such a sensible statement.
You can pay more in taxes if you want. Just send the government more of your money when you file.
Here's the link to the government's secure site where you can pay more taxes, Logathis. While you're at it throw a little extra in for me too. https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?agencyFormId=23779454
It's a rob peter to pay paul argument. The money they think they will receive in tax money will be that much less money in the economy. As Jon Corzine found out the hard way, a tax increase can lead to less revenue not more. What they really need is for the economy to improve. Only when that improves will tax revenue improve. If Dems think the best way to improve the economy is to increase our taxes then look out. You think the economy is bad now- wait until they increase our taxes. How in the world does a family or business owner with household income of 250K get lumped in with Warren Buffet, John Kerry, and Oprah Winfrey. $ 250 K in a major city is not rich.
Hey supply-siders, here's your guru trashing the latest GOP talking point:
MR. GREENSPAN: Look, I'm very much in favor of tax cuts, but not with borrowed money. And the problem that we've gotten into in recent years is spending programs with borrowed money, tax cuts with borrowed money, and at the end of the day, that proves disastrous. And my view is I don't think we can play subtle policy here on it.
MR. GREGORY: You don't agree with Republican leaders who say tax cuts pay for themselves?
MR. GREENSPAN: They do not.
That was Alan Greenspan Aug. 1st, 2010 on Meet The Press. Man, I am on a hot streak of using the words of prominent Republicans to completely gut the arguments of other Republicans! Priceless!
Uh, Greenspan is an Independent. Greenspan also makes the point quite clearly that spending is the problem. The current administration is running $1400 billion deficits per year and Polman's tax policy wonks say the repeal of the Bush tax cuts will pump $680 billion over TEN years ($68 billion per year for the math challenged) into the federal coffers. You do the rest of the math Mr. I'm-on-a-hot-streak.
Another choice quote from Mr Greenspan in 2007 courtesy of that liberal rag The Wall Street Journal:
Mr. Greenspan, who calls himself a "lifelong libertarian Republican," writes that he advised the White House to veto some bills to curb "out-of-control" spending while the Republicans controlled Congress. He says President Bush's failure to do so "was a major mistake." Republicans in Congress, he writes, "swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118978549183327730.html
Greenspan is right in this case. And the same thing is going to happen to the Democrats.
Thanks for making my point – spending is the problem.
It's funny how you elect a guy because the last guy spent too much. Then, when the new guy spends even more, his sycophants blame the last guy. But in all seriousness, since Logathis is such a serious guy, why do the liberals ALWAYS want to raise a tax or a fee and NEVER cut spending. Remember Obama saying he was going to go through the budget with a fine tooth comb. Just another statement that proves what a fraud and liar he is. There is no budget, because it's too politically difficult for Democrats. At least the last guy stood on principles even if you didn't agree with them. This guy is a wishy-washy piece of fluff flapping this way and that in the political winds.
Actually, I wouldn't mind Geithener and others on Obama Economic Team resigning: they are tone deaf to the jobless situation and seem incapable of getting it right. They should resign a.s.a.p.; Boehner * McConnell's calls for extension of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy is just crazy. Crazy.
Loretta, you can't be serious. Obama has been trying to extend jobless benefits and finally got it done after months of stalling and filibustering by Repubs. So your answer to stonewalling Repubs is to have Dems resign?!?
Bartender, I'll have what she's having just make it a double!
jmc – surly you jest. You DO understand that taxes are revenue. Everyone pays them. The Bush tax cuts have been in place for a decade and have not stimulated the economy in any significant way – in fact the same period has been the lowest job-creation decade since WWII. Combined with the HUGE corporate tax breaks. Can you name me a major corp during the Bush years that hired a significant number of employees with those tax cuts (just one, please)? The Big Corps and the wealthy held on to their tax cuts and did not put them back into the economy. And then got their comeuppance for their greed, ironically, because of failed GOP pro-big-biz/wealthy policies. They may pay more in income tax (rightfully), but they also get to reap tax-free, high interest on their investments and tax shelters – so spare me the faux outrage. You may not agree with the tax code in this country, so go vote someone in who can change it (LOL!). Repubs and Dems both manipulate the tax issue, not for political gain (neither constituency benefits from it in any meaningful way – it’s all pretty soundbites for the media to put into our ears), but for power – in the form of campaign contributions and now thanks to the Roberts SCOTUS – entire candidates can be purchased by big business. Constituencies no longer matter. Where’s your outrage at that?
The average unemployment rate through Bush's 8 years in office was 5.2 percent, which is nearly identical to the rate during Clinton's two terms and is considered close to full employment. As to the rest of Auntie's musings, they aren't worth the pixels it takes to display or refute them.
The dodge here is on both parties part. I agree that there is a fundamental disconnect in the Republican camp at this moment in time. You can't cry about deficits in the coming years and still insist that there be no tax hike to generate revenue. This is merely the first little movement in a dance that is to be played out over the next few years. The budget is so far out of balance and there are so many unfunded liabilities approaching that taxes will have to be raised. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar, plain and simple.
The American people are beginning to realize that the liberal democratic agenda is wrong for America. the uncertainty caused by the HCR and Financial reform has caused companies to sit on their cash instead of hiring. Not to mention the beat down they have received from the president from his bully pulpit. Let's see, if you increase taxes, increase govt. mandates, increase govt. deficit spending and increase govt. involvement (at great expense) in Americans everyday lives how exactly is that going to create jobs & get the economy moving again? I said at the beginning of this term that liberal economic theory as a viable national option is being given a last test run at governing the country. And by the looks of it, it has failed miserably and will end come November.
It's an asinine question. The government does not have the money at this moment, nor have they had it for the last 10 years. The government is not paying for anything by extending the cuts. Everything remains as it is. It's idiotic in the first place to suggest that a return of tax revenue to those who earn it is somehow a government expenditure. This is part of the leftist delusion that this money actually belongs to the government. The government doesn't earn anything, it takes. Not one dime of the monies that the government has ever possessed has been their money. It is our money. And since the top 1% of earners pay almost 40% of all income taxes, any tax cuts will and should benefit those who have paid the most into the system. To think otherwise is moronic.
Another GOP FAIL: “No matter what kind of fake tan you slap on it Boehner has the same washed up policies that only benefit Wall Street and the very rich.” From Twitter … http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvwkdXNQfw4&feature=player_embedded
You got THAT right, Auntie! Can you beLIEVE the Repubs are putting that orange-skinned dude up as the face of the party!?! The GOPers are looking forward to having THAT bozo as the Speaker of the House?? OMG!!
uum, Wall Street is doing great with the Dems in charge. Thats why Goldman Sachs was a major donor to Obama and the Democrats. I love these false narratives were get from the libbies on a daily basis.
We're not likely to see a change in taxes that affects simply the 'rich'. There isn't enough to be raised just by targeting the upper end and somewhere along the line it's going to be diluted to include everyone else who has taxable income (read: middle class)The economy is a mess and taxing everyone to a greater level will be meaningless unless we lasso the clowns in Congress to stop spending everything we take in plus 25%