Political Animal
Blog
President Obama has presented an economic agenda that appears pretty popular. Several recent polls show strong, bipartisan support, both for the job creation measures, and the ideas for debt reduction.
The NYT’s Matt Bai, however, urges caution, because the president now supports “a proposed tax increase on the wealthy.” Bai, who calls the tax push the president’s “signature issue,” argues, “No matter how popular such a tax increase may be in isolation, Obama’s proposal is very likely to affirm the fears of some sizable contingent of voters who pulled the lever for him last time — fears that he is, at bottom, a conventional liberal of the 1970s variety.”
There are quite a few problems with this analysis. For one thing, the tax provisions are not the president’s “signature issue,” at least not for those who view the plan outside the lens of Fox News. They’re part of a larger financing package, but if anything is the “signature issue,” it’s Obama’s near-constant talk about infrastructure, which he pushed again today along the Ohio-Kentucky border.
For another, even this focus on tax policy is overly narrow. Bai neglects to mention that while the White House is eyeing increased sacrifice from the very wealthy starting in 2013, the president is also calling for significant tax breaks for the middle class and small businesses almost immediately. Is this also reminiscent of “a conventional liberal of the 1970s variety”? Or are these provisions too often ignored because they fail to fit into the preferred media narrative about Obama being a “tax raiser” on “job creators”?
But perhaps the most jarring part of Bai’s observation is the notion that Obama will give voters the wrong impression by pursuing a tax policy that Bai concedes is “popular.” Once the electorate knows the president wants higher taxes on the rich, the argument goes, voters who reluctantly backed him in 2008 will be repulsed.
As Greg Sargent explained, there’s one big piece of evidence that points in the opposite direction: the 2008 presidential election.
The notion that Obama’s current push to raise taxes on the rich will alienate his own 2008 supporters is complicated a bit by the fact that Obama campaigned on tax hikes for the rich in 2008. Indeed, that was a topic of widespread analysis at the time: Many commentators noted that Obama appeared to be winning on the issue of taxes, even though Dems aren’t supposed to be able to do this. On the eve of the election, the Washington Post noted with wonderment that despite his call for letting the tax cut on those over $250,000 expire, “for the first time in decades, Democrats appear to have the upper hand in the debate over taxes.” […]
Obama is certainly going to lose a “sizable contingent of voters who pulled the lever for him last time,” but it’s hard to see why a primary impetus for this would be that he’s campaigning aggressively on the very same position he held when they voted for him last time. I’m open to the suggestion that Obama’s restatement of a position he’s held for years will suddenly revive fears of bad old conventional 1970s liberalism among his supporters, even though it didn’t last time around, but such a pronouncement is crying out for a bit of evidence to back it up.
Bai’s not the only one drawing these dubious conclusions, of course, but it is striking to see the disconnect between the American mainstream and pundits’ assumptions about the American mainstream.
Facebook
Twitter
ant on September 22, 2011 4:55 PM:
Taibbi nailed Bai's shtick back a while ago. Dude's a tool.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/matt-bais-post-partisanship-20101205
captcha sucks
Me and my friends on September 22, 2011 5:04 PM:
The corporate media only see the world as them and their rich friends.
Michael on September 22, 2011 5:10 PM:
"There’s a quite a few problems with this analysis."
The first being it's Matt Bai's analysis...
liam foote on September 22, 2011 5:14 PM:
Mr. Obama promised to let the Bush-era tax cuts for the rich expire and took some heat from his base when he was forced to extend them in 2010. He has vowed he will not extend them again, allowing them to sunset. This appears to be popular with his base, a majority of independents, and even a considerable number of Republicans. And how could anyone suggest that Obama's signature issue could be anything other than health care reform?
Ron Byers on September 22, 2011 5:15 PM:
Bai makes a series of incorrect assmptions and then announces the "logical" conclusion that he says follows. His assmptions are wrong, as is his logic. Raising taxes on the rich is popular because there is a growing belief the rich are being pampered and they aren't doing their part to revitalize the economy. Most of the richy rich are playing at the Wall Street casino. They aren't building or buying new things. They sure as hell aren't increasing demand for goods and services.
Sadly many of the richy rich own newspapers and television stations. Guys like Bai are just doing what they are paid to do. Outside the beltway the population is getting sick of the richy rich calling all the shots. The reality of their declining living standards are forcing most people to anger, an anger nobody in power seems interested in calming.
bobbo on September 22, 2011 5:18 PM:
Useful idiots like Bai are actively recruited specifically because of the disconnect between their assumptions about the American mainstream and the actual American mainstream.
T2 on September 22, 2011 5:23 PM:
off thread...Kos report Boner is doubling down, adding more to the offsets and yelling a the GOPers to pass it tonite. Wild ride instore.
Anonymous on September 22, 2011 5:27 PM:
We are where we are at this point. and Obama is in a good space. There is no use looking back. As long as Obama keeps on doing the same thing for the next 14 months that is all we can ask for at this point. We all know that the GOP will not let anything pass that will create jobs(perhaps only the payroll tax). So this is all Obama should do for the next 14 months. We are all going to have to get on the same page, put on the warpaint and gear up for an ugly battle.
For instance, Democrats changing their registration to Republican and voting for Perry. Why don't Democrats do this?It is perfectly legal. Because they do not want to go down to Republican standards? Before politics used to be more civilized, but now it is take no prisoners. It is kill or be killed.
Vince on September 22, 2011 6:03 PM:
I love the SB feels compelled to defend Obama from being "a conventional liberal of the 1970s variety." I guess that would be horrible if he were actually liberal, and apparently, Steve feels the need to defend him from being too liberal by saying that Obama has proposed tax cuts. Steve has also shown the chart indicating that Obama has cut taxes even more than Bush did.
So, it's fine being a conventional "liberal" ala Bill Clinton (I know that Clinton raised taxes slightly on the upper brackets, but most of the rest of his economic policies were Republican policies) or Ronald Reagan. But, following liberal policies that might actually work just isn't done.
Guys, I don't know if any one has noticed, but tax cuts and trade deals and deregulation and privatization, policies that Obama has backed, haven't worked all that well in the past 30 years. I'm not a liberal because I have a little checklist that I just like to check off. The Republican economic policies of the last 30 years have been an unmitigated disaster for the country as a whole and the middle class in particular. Sure would be nice to have a Democratic party that championed liberal policies that might actually work better.
So, SB, is right, Obama certainly isn't a liberal, in a 70's sense or any other sense.
Sam on September 22, 2011 7:54 PM:
Who knew Warren Buffett was a 1970s liberal?
Doug on September 22, 2011 8:30 PM:
Vince, perhaps you were day-dreaming when "context" was discussed in English Lit/Composition?
The argument is whether the Republican/Teabaggers will try to revive the 1970s smear claiming all liberals do is "tax and spend", NOT whether President Obama qualifies as a "liberal".
Furthermore, if you, having seen the legislation passed so far by this administration, don't consider President Obama to be a "liberal", you might want to re-read the dictionary definition.
For instance, tax cuts during bad economic times, certainly qualify as "liberal". I have nolidea what you're referring to when you mention "deregulation and privatization", as neither have been promoted by the President. Scrutiny of NEW proposed regulations for their economic impact is neither "liberal" nor "conservative", it's simply an intelligent way to assess the costs of a regulation, whether financial or human. As to to "privatization", the only thing even remotely close to that I can recall is a story about severing any direct ties to the government Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac may have, while they still retain their briefs.
Is President Obama a liberal? Well, if someone walks like a liberal, talks like a liberal and acts like a liberal, then I guess that person IS a liberal. We come in all shades, you know...
Robert Waldmann on September 23, 2011 2:55 AM:
The disconnect is amazing. It is also not new.
Popular support for higher taxes on rich people isn't new. It is currently no where near the level of 1992 when a plurality supported higher taxes on the rich to pay for more "waste fraud and abuse" (this is an internal Clinton campaign poll -- my information is based on a well informed source who may or may not wish to be identified).
There has been a huge gigantic gap between public opinion about taxes on the rich and elite opinion about public opinion. The only change is that there have been many polls on the issue so that some commentators have noticed the plain fact that most US adults want higher taxes on income over 250,000 per family per year.
Progress is being made. Now Brooks, Penn and Bai have plainly false beliefs about public opinion on taxes on the rich. Not so long ago, I had to explain the facts to Felix Salmon and Kevin Drum (who being Kevin Drum, a national treasure and your worthy predecessor immediately wrote a new post noting that he had been confused and that I was right
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/06/taxes-and-rich-take-two).
Sean Scallon on September 23, 2011 6:44 AM:
"but it is striking to see the disconnect between the American mainstream and pundits’ assumptions about the American mainstream."
Not really because as time has shown political reporters and pundits are incredibly lazy and and work off assumptions and analysis which may well be out of date or completely wrong in the face of what people really think. Like generals, they always are fighting the last war, and the one before that and the one before that.
Karen on September 23, 2011 8:02 AM:
This would be a step towards progress. I fully support Obama's initiative! I wonder if there would be some sudden enexpected offence against it.
K.
biggerbox on September 23, 2011 10:48 AM:
I'm shocked, SHOCKED! to find insipid analysis from Matt Bai.
If I understand correctly, Bai thinks Obama may alienate voters who voted for him before by pursuing policies that are widely popular, which he campaigned on before election.
Riiight.
Next?
skeptonomist on September 23, 2011 3:18 PM:
The tax-the-rich issue is an obvious winner for Obama and Democrats, if they press it. There is really no reason for this to change. But the rich will spend their money to change the subject and make this issue disappear before the 2012 election. This will involve direct campaign advertising (which will be more abundant than ever), pressure on the media and direct pressure on candidates, who depend on corporations and rich people for their own campaign money and for lobbying jobs after their political careers are over.
david pak on September 23, 2011 3:36 PM:
When Republicans cry "class warfare", I think some historical perspective is needed -- a return to Clinton era rates for the highest tax bracket isn't that extreme. The Buffett Rule puts and end to loopholes exploited by many who earn more than $1 million annually. I do wish Obama focused on taxing capital gains & dividends as ordinary income -- it is more progressive and much more efficient.
For visuals on historical income & cpaital gains tax rates + the Buffet Rule in one chart, see these charts.