« | »

WH: Obama Gives Dems ‘Cover’ On Taxes

From the Politico:

White House lays out case for taxes

By: Carol E. Lee
September 16, 2010

The White House is circulating two polling memos on Capitol Hill to bolster Democrats’ attack on Republicans over President Barack Obama’s position on the Bush-era tax cuts.

According to copies obtained by POLITICO, the memos — one by Democratic pollsters John Anzalone and Mark Keida and another by Democratic pollster Geoff Garin — argue that Obama’s support for making the Bush tax cuts permanent for the middle class while ending the breaks for top earners is politically viable, particularly when trying to appeal to independent voters.

Didn’t White House approved pollsters claim that a vote for healthcare reform would be a sure winner for Congressional candidates in the fall?

Written Monday and Tuesday, the memos are the song sheets congressional Democrats will use starting Wednesday and as the debate continues.

Anzalone and Keida detail four reasons why Democrats should keep hammering Republicans on the tax cuts issue.

“The president’s recent proposal to extend tax cuts for the middle class, while letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthy, is a smart political move for a number of reasons,” they write. “1) It enjoys rising public support; 2) it protects against the loss of swing independents; 3) it allows Democrats to drive a contrast with the GOP; and 4) it allows Democrats to address voters’ overlapping economic concerns.”

Notice that there is no mention of how raising taxes on ‘the rich’ will affect the economy or jobs – which we are constantly told is Mr. Obama’s paramount concern.

In truth, everyone knows that raising taxes on the people with capital, the people who create jobs, will dramatically hurt the economy. But since that won’t happen until after the elections, who cares? 

Both polling memos acknowledge that while most Americans want tax cuts for the middle class to be made permanent, they’re more divided on whether to also extend those for the wealthy, as Republicans want. But the memos say the way Obama has framed the issue gives Democrats cover.

And giving Democrat candidates “cover” is all that matters here. Not what is good or bad for the country.

In his memo, Garin writes that “more than a few” congressional Democrats “have suggested that cuts in the top tax rate should be extended for a year or two, while most Republicans want to make cuts for those at the top permanent.” Obama’s approach to the issue, he writes, “anticipates and welcomes this discussion, with only one proviso — that it occurs on a separate track so that it does not stand in the way of securing the middle-class tax cuts.”

That position, according to Garin, “captures these two aspects of the debate perfectly.”

What sophistry. Of course once the ‘middle class tax cuts’ are signed into law we won’t hear another word about extending the Bush tax cuts for the employers and drivers of the economy. That will be considered ‘old business.’

Whether it’s effective, however, will depend on how well Democrats can convey the White House’s message.

“Ultimately, Democrats must be exceedingly disciplined in their messaging,” Anzalone and Keida write, adding that “reminding voters at every step that the president’s plan puts money into the pockets of families and small businesses, takes a responsible course on the budget deficit and, most important, presents a stark choice between the Democrats, who are siding with the middle class, and the Republicans, who are siding with millionaires and proposing the same economic policies that drove our economy into a ditch.”

Everything is propaganda with these people. And the truth be damned.

And speaking of propaganda, lest we forget, during the Bush years these very tax cuts were universally pilloried by the media and the rest of the Democrat Party machinery as ‘tax cuts for the rich.’

But suddenly they have been miraculously transformed into ‘middle class tax cuts’ by the healing hands of the Messiah and his lickspittle media minions.

Isn’t it wonderful what fulltime professional propagandists can do?

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, September 16th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

9 Responses to “WH: Obama Gives Dems ‘Cover’ On Taxes”

  1. AcornsRNutz says:

    Just heard another version of this, one of the pollsters (CNN I think) came up with 52% support tax increases for the rich and 44% opposed, presumably the differenec had no opinion. While many may take that as “Rising public support” as the pollsters in the article seem to, I look at it a bit differently. First, I doubt highly that the uber-rich were represented in this poll, and certainly were not when you factor in their influence on the economy and politics as a percentage of a whole. And yet, 44% don’t approve. You cannot tell me that all of those 44% polled are uber rich, or even 250K and up earners, and yet they don’t approve. What I take from that is that the class envy strategy is falling flat, and the people are hardly fooled into thinking that the “rich” can support the bloated welfare state’s debt and bankrupt entitlement programs. Further, they are not buying that the economy will benefit from such a tax plan. This is heartening, as I am sure this was a gerrymandered poll anyway, and that the country at large is smart enough to realize that they will feel the crunch of ANY tax increases as they always have, but that in the current economy the results would be devastating.

    So I say let the Dems crow away, and let obama stick to his guns. If he does we will soon pry them from his cold, politcally dead hands, to coin a phrase.

  2. Rusty Shackleford says:

    As I said months ago, this is all in the plan.

    1)they spend all the money and cause us to go broke and blame it on republicans
    2)they then see that the coffers are empty and in true Romanesque fashion determine that it is time to raise taxes
    3)then, in order to appear fiscally “responsible” to their voter base, they decide to cut funding to what are really essentials like military spending, infrastructure while actually boosting spending on give-away programs like welfare, drug rehab, needle and condom give-aways, etc.

    To them it’s responsible if it gives the appearance of being responsible. To a socialist, appearances are everything

    • hushpuppy says:

      I wonder if these idiots have ever read anything by Machiavelli, or are they just naturally evil, cynical and manipulative?

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Not sure, though that’s an interesting point.

      I have chosen to think that in the category of history repeating itself, every society runs cycles of corruption. That is to say, it’s possibly “our turn”. The most shocking thing of all is that those people who behave this way always seem acutely unaware that it’s all been done before. The history books are full of people just like them, yet they see not the folly of their own actions.

      It’s—-all—–been—-done—-before.

      Yet every so many generations, humankind repeatedly runs into these types of people and not only allow them their failings but actually encourage them. It’s bang-my-head-against-the-wall unbelievable. Even if people don’t read history, do they truly not see that what they do can have dire consequences, or, like you say, do they just perhaps not care?

      It truly does stagger the mind. And, perhaps, again given the insular world of Washington politics, perhaps they never have to eat their own cooking. Along with that, they look upon themselves as the ruling class and who must “tend to the children” meaning us.

      In the last 40+ years or so, I am afraid that what I’ve seen is a shameful arrangement of a government aligning itself more and more against the people who elect them. And we come to where we are now where the veneer is paper thin and they expose themselves more often than they don’t. Yet they are surprised from what they hear from their constituents. Naturally, their egos do not allow them for a moment to believe they are at fault.

      But also, their ideas about what’s important get sorely skewed the longer they stay in DC. The only analogy I can think of is if the head coach is never at the games his team is playing that day. He’s instead, off someplace else and gets a phone call about what the other side is doing and he doesn’t even turn on the TV to tell the coordinator what to do. He makes an arbitrary decision and the team ends up all over the place and losing by 1000 points but then the head coach says, “wasn’t my fault….”

      Meanwhile, at the NFL end-of-season dinner, all the other head coaches and his own team praise him for the excellent job he did.

      Naturally, such a thing would never happen. Why then, does it happen in Washington? A greater disconnect cannot be found.

    • hushpuppy says:

      Hmm. That made me think of the ‘Cycles of Democracy’ and a quote out of the Bible.

      “The following unverified quotation has been attributed to Tytler, most notably as part of a longer piece which began circulating on the Internet shortly after the 2000 U.S. Presidential Election.”

      “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:”

      * From bondage to spiritual faith;
      * From spiritual faith to great courage;
      * From courage to liberty;
      * From liberty to abundance;
      * From abundance to complacency;
      * From complacency to apathy;
      * From apathy to dependence;
      * From dependence back into bondage.

      “There is no reliable record of Alexander Tytler’s having made the statement.In fact, this passage actually comprises two quotations, which didn’t begin to appear together until the 1970s. The first portion (italicized above) first appeared on December 9, 1951, as part of what appears to be an op-ed piece in The Daily Oklahoman under the byline Elmer T. Peterson. The original version was as follows:

      Two centuries ago, a somewhat obscure Scotsman named Tytler made this profound observation: “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.”

      The list beginning “From bondage to spiritual faith” is commonly known as the “Tytler Cycle” or the “Fatal Sequence”. Its first known appearance is in a 1943 speech “Industrial Management in a Republic” by H. W. Prentis, president of the Armstrong Cork Company and former president of the National Association of Manufacturers, and appears to be original to Prentis.”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Fraser_Tytler

      Or, as King Solomon said a very long time ago:

      Ecclesiastes 1:9-14 NIV

      9 What has been will be again,
      what has been done will be done again;
      there is nothing new under the sun.

      10 Is there anything of which one can say,
      “Look! This is something new”?
      It was here already, long ago;
      it was here before our time.

      11 There is no remembrance of men of old,
      and even those who are yet to come
      will not be remembered
      by those who follow.

  3. proreason says:

    Well, you know what is right has to be the exact opposite of what the marxists want, and of course, it is.

    What should happen is that taxes on the top tiers should be REDUCED, and taxes on the lower 40% should be RAISED, so that they pay something instead of nothing.

    That way, the “rich” will create jobs and the “poor” will have to take them instead of living on tax credits and crime. Maybe we wouldn’t even need illegal immigrants to do the work of people who won’t today because their tax credits are enough to get by.

    Then, as the economy begins to improve, Middle Class taxes should be cut as well.

    • hushpuppy says:

      So how then does The One and his Missus see themselves? Rich? Not rich enough? Evidently She Who thinks America is a ‘mean country’, and only recently came to see that for the first time in her adult life she was proud of her country (whilst others are terrified for the first time in their adult lives)..

      ya know it really must be difficult to be First Gargoyle. All those vacations, free food and lodgings, all those parties at the WH, all that kobe beef, all those freebies, gifts and perqs.etc… and now word has it that she said to Mme. Carla Bruni-Sarkozy that life at the WH is ‘hell’.

      So of course the WH spinmeisters are spinning like crazy denying Mooch-hell ever said that:

      Michelle Obama Denies Telling French First Lady Life Is ‘Hell’

      Published September 16, 2010| FoxNews.com
      http://tinyurl.com/23hkuuo

      First lady Michelle Obama’s office and the French Embassy both denied on Thursday that Obama ever told French first lady Carla Bruni that being first lady of the United States is “hell,” as reported in an eye-catching excerpt of a new biography of Bruni.

      “The first lady never said that,” Obama’s press secretary, Katie McCormick Lelyveld, said.

      The U.K. Daily Mail newspaper revealed the quote in a review of “Carla and the Ambitious” in Thursday editions.

      U.K. Daily Mail Online article:
      http://tinyurl.com/2c57d8f

      “Don’t ask! It’s hell. I can’t stand it!” Michelle Obama was said to have told Bruni during a private conversation at the White House during an official visit by France’s president, Nicolas Sarkozy, last March.

    • proreason says:

      “So how then does The One and his Missus see themselves? Rich? Not rich enough?”

      It’s clear that arrogant bastards like the Obamy’s see themselves as exempt from any and all of the rules that they impose on the other 99.9% of the world.

      It’s a demonstrable fact. Geithner, Gore, John Edwards, Traitor Kerry, Pelosi, and on and on. There is far far too much evidence of their assumption of dispensation to believe anything else. And going back millenia, the self-styled rulers have aways exempted themselves. If their con continues to succeed, the lifestyles of the 99.9% will degrade by at least an order of magnitude, whereas the lifestyle of the ‘rulers’ will continue to increase forever. That’s how they did it in the first civilizations in the Fertile Crescent and China and India. That’s how they did it in Greece, Rome and Persia. That’s how they did it in the age of popes and their designated devine right kings. That’s how the Russian, Chinese and Cuban commisars did it. That’s how Chavez and the African dictators do it today. And that is how it will be if the Obamyites prevail. To deny it is to deny 10,000 years of history.

      Forget what they say. Look at what has happened for 10 millenia. What has ALWAYS happened.

      And remember, the age of freedom has lasted precisely 230 years out of those 10 millenia. 2.3% of history. We are incredibly lucky to have been born into the only era in all of human history where the 99.9% could emerge from serfdom. But it’s an eyeblink in history that is tottering on the edge of becoming a footnote.

      If you doubt this, you doubt the entire history of civilization.

      If you think it has been bad since 2008, brother, you ain’t seen nothin yet. (ps: we would be there already if it was not for WWII.)

  4. Reality Bytes says:

    Let’s get something straight! When you keep taxes the same, that’s not a tax cut! When taxes go up for some people, THAT’S A TAX INCREASE!!!

    What the Hell do they smoke at Harvard anyway?!@*&%#$)(


« Front Page | To Top
« | »