The NYT Calls Out Obama, Hillary and McCain
On taxes, no less. On the editorial page.
One of the toughest questions that will face the next president is what to do about taxes. There can be no real progress on health care, rebuilding the military or any other major issue without dealing with rising budget deficits and mounting debt from nearly eight years of profligate spending and tax breaks for the wealthy.
And that is why it has been so distressing to see all three of the presidential hopefuls pretend they can make good on their promises without broadly raising taxes.
My interests in much better fiscal accountability by both government and politicians seems to often make me something of a minority in my Progressive community. For me, this is less about keeping your house in order (although that is a requirement) than it is about honesty. People who will lie to and try to bamboozle you about the status of your money are simply going to be toxic to you. Can you imagine your bank or brokerage providing an accounting of your funds that is a fantasy?
This is not a post asking for more or fewer taxes. It is asking for more leadership from these candidates (and all other pols) to take up a serious conversation of what their promises cost — whether it is a discussion of what services you no longer get if taxes are cut (or not keeping up with real costs) or a discussion of the bill for a new program or service. What I am tired of is the game — hiding increases in “fees”, handwaving about paying for stuff from “efficiencies”, and an end to the simpleton ideology that would ignore the real vicissitudes of a seriously stressed economy just to score points. Americans deserve to see their financial picture dealt with in a more grownup manner,with all of the tradeoffs clearly spelled out, in order to make grownup decisions — not just about what we want as a society, but what we can truly afford.
Tags: 2008 Presidential, Budget, Politicians
Sorry Cassandra. We have more important things to worry about, like flag pins.
Seriously though, good post. For some reason we Americans can’t seem to handle the truth, whether it’s about war, jobs, or our money.
This is another area where Republicans have poisoned the well of civil discourse. The nation has been suckerd into regarding the Dave Burris/Grover Norquist ideal of an ever shrinking government as legitimate.
Of course they’ve been abetted by DLC Democrats and our brainless press corps along the way, but the “simpleton ideology” has taken firm root.
The McCain and Obama campaigns can endure being chastised by the NYT – but they can’t endure the idiot talking head riot that would ensue if they mentioned raising taxes.
The good news is that at least Democrats are talking about fiscal responsibility now. McCain, of course, still lives in a fantasy land i which the Iraq war does not cost anything.
Yes, I can imagine an institution being untruthful about funding levels.
As most of in the airline industry found out pensions which were “fully funded” during the 1990’s were in reality maybe 40-60% funded. In fact, the paper we relied on for our retirement was based on unrealistic rates of returns which allowed companies to no contribute to pension plans duirng parts of the 1990’s.
In the end it was all a house of cards. No worker in America has a safe pension. Neither private or public sector employee is safe at this point.
Pandora, I agree with you. What most upsets me about all three candidates is that not a single one of them has proposed anything that would reduce America’s military spending or its vast empire of hundreds of foreign bases–even Obama is calling for the size of the Army and Marines to be increased by nearly 100,000.
Why can’t we attract a candidate in either major political party willing to show the leadership to take the US into a non-interventionist foreign policy and to being the necessary work of shutting down (or at the very least trimming back) the military-industrial complex?
I confess I shamelessly voted for myself as hottest blogger but only because I seldom vote for myself for anything.
Mind you, not that I am uncomfortable w/ voting for a list of men but (clearing my throat) aren’t there any female bloggers we can vote on?
(Also, Tyler Nixon blogs on Steve’s site. he’s a good-looking guy and might give Donviti a run for his money.)
Mr. Newton, a phased withdrawl of troops from Iraq is supported by both DEMs, Obama’s being the most rapid at 18 vs Clinton’s 24 month plan.
I would suspect that that includes a significant reduction on the military outlay as well.
Well, of course: Senator Clinton’s favorite husband showed the way in 1992, campaign on a middle-class tax cut that you have no intention at all of seeking, and then, bam! once you’re elected — and in President Clinton’s example, before you are even inaugerated — go back on your word.
The last guy who campaigned on a promise to raise taxes was Walter Mondale, in 1984; need I remind you how many states he carried?
Garret,
that was a wasted vote! whatsamatta you?
and raising taxes was SOOOOO awful. I remember those days. When FEMA responded right away. Bridges didn’t drop out of the sky. When we had a surplus and a balanced budget…
god those days were awful!
Dana, weren’t you one of the guys that couldn’t tell me how you have benefitted from the Bush tax cuts?
And, of course, the biggest lie is, “We’re going to make those big ol’ corporations pay their fair share,” as though corporate taxes aren’t passed right on down to the end consumer.
The last guy who campaigned on a balanced-budget promise that he had no intention of keeping was Reagan… need I remind you how that turned out?
At least the other supply-side liars that followed Reagan were smart enough not to mention balanced budgets in their campaigns.
bam! once you’re elected — and in President Clinton’s example, before you are even inaugerated — go back on your word.
Conveniently forgetting how Clinton was left to clean up the structural deficits inherited from Reagan. Thank you Bill Clinton, it was a good run.
The last guy who campaigned on a promise to raise taxes was Walter Mondale, in 1984; need I remind you how many states he carried?
This is what I mean by the simpleton ideology — even Reagan’s policy was that tax increases were undesirable, but sometimes necessary. You already know that prices for darn near everything is going up. Citizens ought to be engaged in a conversation of what they want to pay for, not in the childish (and dangerous) avoidance behavior that is no new taxes or we will pay for everything by letting tax cuts expire.
As I noted, this is not to advocate for either tax cuts or tax increases, just some adult behavior when it comes to the country’s finances. Or do you think that a nation that is accustomed to living on credit cards is no longer capable of that conversation?
I sadly believe we are no longer capable of adult conversation.
Everything is: Good vs evil, blue collar vs intellectual, blind patriotism vs hate America, etc.
Ideology trumps reason. So taxes are bad, no matter what.
I seem to remember that Clinton raised taxes in 1993 with the help of one vote and that was a rep from Pa the next year not only did she lose her seat but the dem’s lost both houses of Congress best part John McCain’s now economic adviser is xsenator Gram of Texas in case anyone forgot it was he who predicted that Clinton’s tax package would lead to a recession or Depression if passed. Now we all know what our 401 k’s looked liked in the 90’s not to mention a balance budget and a surplus and most of all the price of a gallon of milk or gasoline.
Every Repub voted against the 1993 budget package. Al Gore broke a tie in the Senate, and the House passed it 219-213.
You are right about Gramm.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1993#Legislative_history
Donviti wrote:
Oh, no, Mr Hottest Blogger. In fact, I have mentioned it, many times.
I have a year 2000 Form 1040 at home, 2000 being the last year before the Bush tax cuts. Being the obsessive/compulsive type that I am, I ran my 2006 and 2007 income through that 2000 1040, and over the two years, my family saved $12,905 in federal income tax.
Now, I’m a concrete plant manager, the kind of guy who wears jeans and workshirts and boots to work. I run a loader and a forklift and occasionally a shovel; I get to clean out baghouses and grease machinery and work outside when it’s 90º F or 10º F. Mty wife is a registered nurse. We are a thoroughly working class couple, not the super-rich living off trust funds, and we saved $12,905 in federal income taxes in just two years. (I haven’t run 2001-2005 through the 2000 form.)
By any chance do you know how your family’s portion of the federal debt changed in that period?
Umm… you might want to your local tax share. Ouch!
Excellent question, J.
I hate the word “at”! Let me try again: you might want to look AT your local taxes.
Dana since 2000 did you buy a house or get a home equity refi? Have any kids?
Yes, actually, but I’m not comparing my 2007 income with my 2000 income. Rather, I ran my 2006 and 2007 numbers through a year 2000 Form 1040, to make the comparisons as valid as possible, and the tax savings I listed above are from the years indicated had I been filing under the 2000 tax laws.
As it turns out, I did pay more in taxes in 2000 than in either 2006 and 2007, despite a significantly lower AGI in 2000, but, as anan’s question indicates, that by itself wouldn’t be a fair comparison.
Pandora suggested that I might want to check my local tax share. In 2002, Ed Rendell ran for governor, promising to raise our state income taxes, but, not to worry! he was gong to lower our property taxes, so Pennsylvanians wouldnt really be hurt. I knew that that was a lie, and anybody with any sense at all knew it was a lie, because while the governor and state legislature do control the state income tax rate, they do not control property taxes, which are levied by localities and school districts.
But the GOP ran the third lamest candidate in history, and Mr Rendell is a popular, charismatic guy, and he
bamboozled the voterswon the election. And yup, he kept half of his promise: the state income tax was raised from 2.9% to 3.07%, but, golly, somehow the property tax cut we were romised never materialized.Jason: my family’s portion of the national debt decreased, because with population growth, there are more families amongst which the debt would be apportioned. 🙂
Now, if you meant: did the national debt increase on a per family basis during the last 7½ years, why yes, it did. That’s a function of spending too much money on wasteful social programs. If I had my way, it would be very simple: if you don’t work, then you don’t eat, simple as that.