December 7, 2012

“Howard Dean: ‘The Truth Is Everybody Needs To Pay More Taxes, Not Just The Rich'”

Here. I’m posting this especially for slippyshod.  Behold!

“The only problem is — and this is initially going to seem like heresy from a progressive is — the truth is everybody needs to pay more taxes, not just the rich. And it’s a good start. But we’re not going to get out of this deficit problem unless we raise taxes across the board, to go back to what Bill Clinton had and his taxes. And if we don’t do that, the problem is the pressure is going to be on spending even more.”

If you watch the video, Dean goes on to say that he thinks going over the fiscal cliff is a better option than making a deal — as it returns us to the Clinton-era rates that as I pointed out not too long ago should be spun as giving the Democrats everything they wanted:  higher taxes on the wealthy, the Clinton-era tax rates, and cuts in defense spending.  Make them own it.

Howard Dean has just given John Boehner the cover he needs to make precisely the argument I suggested the Republicans make:  “elections have consequences,” the GOP leadership should say, “and we will honor the previous deal we made with the President over the debt ceiling. However, we think it’s a terrible idea to raise taxes in a struggling economy — a belief that Obama himself shared not too very long ago.”

Then, after the tax hikes hit, the House GOP — under what I hope will be new leadership — should begin introducing actual tax rate cuts across the board, with rate cuts higher in the two “middle class” brackets, as a way to jump start the economy and bring back those private sector jobs that are disappearing at an alarming rate even before the onerous new tax rates Democrats pushed for, and even before all the new taxes and compliance costs of ObamaCare kick in.

They should sell those cuts as championing the middle class.

I repeat:  Howard Dean has just articulated the real Democratic Party desire.  Use it.  Repeat it.  And most importantly, let them have it by honoring your prior deal and pointing out that even Howard Dean, a noted national progressive, doesn’t think Democrats should be cutting a deal to prevent us from going over the hyperbolic and largely fictional “fiscal cliff.”

There’s the path, boys, and it is an obvious one.  Which means, of course, there’s not a chance Boehner and Cantor, et al., will take it.  Frankly, they want a bigger government — and besides, they’re too busy taking on conservatives to do battle with Democrats…

Posted by Jeff G. @ 9:30am
67 comments | Trackback

Comments (67)

  1. There is something to be said for having people pay for the government that they keep voting to enlarge. The concept is apparently too theoretical otherwise.

  2. Political stochastics may be readying for a Democrat downtrend. If only Boehner was smart enough to grasp that.

  3. the sequestration cuts are the only cuts on the table

    team boehnerfag needs to pocket them then campaign to lower our taxes

    this is not a difficult thought puzzle

  4. Sure, let’s go back to Clinton’s taxes … including keeping capital gains at 15% AND go back to Clinton era spending levels (approx 17% of GDP v the 25% we have now)

    Funny how that Clinton spending stuff never gets discussed.

  5. No kidding, Darleen. When did Clinton become the Gold Standard for these guys?

  6. Howard Dean accidentally spoke the truth.

    Ooops.

  7. O/t, but I enjoy the irony of this:

    President Barack Obama will visit a suburban Detroit truck plant Monday afternoon, a visit an aide says is to part of an effort to make the case for raising tax rates on wealthier Americans.

    Obama will participate in “an event on the economy” at the Detroit Diesel plant in Redford Township, according to a White House statement Thursday.

    An administration official said earlier that the Michigan trip is part of Obama’s effort to get public backing for his positions and use that support to pressure Republicans to reach a deal on the “fiscal cliff.”

    The event will be closed to the public.

    Also, I’m sure to coincide with the Right to work stuff, to be signed (LORD PLEASE) on Tuesday.

  8. That was all quoted from Crains Detroit. Except the beginning and the last ‘graph.

  9. Carin

    So King Barry I’s definition of “public” doesn’t actually include, you know, actual public people.

    :::snort:::

  10. Howard Dean always looks like he’s trying to keep in a gigantic fart, and is clenching his cheeks as tightly as possible, to keep it in.

    He just looks like he’s about to explode from his massive flatulence.

  11. Obama knows the election is over, right? So why does he continue to hit the campaign trail to push whatever policy he proposing (and why do we have to pay for it?)?

  12. While I do love Howard Dean or The H-Dawg as those of us who know the secret handshake get to call him, he doesn’t speak for the current administration.

    Obama’s gonna just keep saying what he’s been saying, which is:

    First, if Congress does nothing, every family will see their income taxes automatically go up at the beginning of next year. A typical middle class family of four will see their income taxes rise by $2,200. We can’t let that happen. Our families can’t afford it, and neither can our economy.

    Right now, Congress can pass a law that would prevent a tax hike on the first $250,000 of everybody’s income. Everybody. That means that 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small businesses wouldn’t see their income taxes go up at all. And even the wealthiest Americans would get a tax cut on the first $250,000 of their incomes.

    Congress can do that right now. They can give families like yours a sense of security going into the New Year. They can give companies like this one some certainty about what to expect down the road. And with the issue behind us, we’ll have more time to work out a plan to bring down our deficits in a balanced way – including by asking the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more, so we can still invest in the things that make our nation strong, like education and research.

    So let’s begin by doing what we all agree on. Both parties say we should keep middle-class taxes low. The Senate has already passed a bill to keep income taxes from going up on middle-class families. Democrats in the House are ready to do the same thing. And if we can just get a few House Republicans on board, I’ll sign this bill as soon as Congress sends it my way.

    But it’s unacceptable for some Republicans in Congress to hold middle class tax cuts hostage simply because they refuse to let tax rates go up on the wealthiest Americans. And if you agree with me, then I could use your help. Let your congressman know what $2,000 means to you.

    There’s a chance too that H-Dawg is playing bad cop saying, “Everyone’s taxes should go up.” to let O-man play good cop. “Nah, let’s just raise them for rich people and give ‘regular folks’ a break.”

  13. the truth is everybody needs to pay more taxes

    No, everybody needs to pay taxes, not “more taxes” by which Dean means higher tax rates not higher tax revenue. This is the crucial distinction which seemingly always fails to be made. To that point.

    That’s the situation Governor Rick Snyder inherited when he took office in 2011. Wasting no time, he pursued aggressive tax reform. Working with the new Republican legislature, he immediately scrapped the state’s unwieldy business tax, instead imposing a flat 6 percent corporate rate. The reform cut taxes on businesses by around $1.6 billion, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
    […]
    Though Snyder has been in office for less than two years, the initial results have been impressive. Last year, Michigan’s job growth outpaced the rest of the country’s. Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that throughout Snyder’s first 22 months, the state has added almost 80,000 jobs. … The economy is expanding, too. Last year, it grew 2.3 percent — the sixth-best figure among the states, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
    […]
    Furthermore, since the reforms, tax revenues have consistently been higher than projected. During his first year in office, Snyder used both spending cuts and tax reform to balance the budget. It worked so well that last year he didn’t have to cut spending, and his spokesman said no cuts are expected in the next budget either. Snyder and the Republican legislature have also begun saving money for unfunded pension liabilities,

    Higher tax rates generally lower economic activity which lowers tax revenue, they do increase one thing which is the power/control that the politicians and the bureaucracy have over the private sector and that control leads to uncertainty since what happens in the future is based on what a few persons decide to do, which can change overnight.

    one business-tax provision was repealed less than 24 hours after it was enacted, contributing to a pervasive mood of uncertainty

    Rather than the “invisible hand” of the overall market which acts in a more predictable fashion.

    High tax rates, high government control, and day to day uncertainty crush economic activity. Democrats know this as well as we do, they just think it is a good thing and it is for the political class and cronies.

  14. Doesn’t matter: he speaks to what the Dems want to do. We should quote him and quote him and quote him and quote him. We should note that we are honoring the deal the President signed onto that gives him the military cuts he wants and raises taxes on the wealthy. It also takes us back to the salad days of Bill Clinton and the spooged up cocktail dress.

    Own it.

    Forward!

  15. Editorial comment added to slippery slope’s Obama quote:

    Right now, Congress can pass a law that would prevent a tax hike on the first $250,000 of everybody’s income. Everybody. That means that 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small businesses wouldn’t see their income taxes go up at all. [this is a statistical slight of hand. There are many paper-businesses, etc, which drive that 97 number up to look relevant. BUT IT’S NOT. ] And even the wealthiest Americans would get a tax cut on the first $250,000 of their incomes.

    Congress can do that right now. They can give families like yours a sense of security going into the New Year. [Oh, unless you’re unemployed or underemployed, or are making 40% than you were a bit ago. There is no sense of security for you.] They can give companies like this one some certainty about what to expect down the road. [HA – except for that Obamacare shit and new regulations coming down the road. Oh and the overall economic uncertainty] And with the issue behind us, we’ll have more time to work out a plan to bring down our deficits in a balanced way [Fat chance of that, after Obama gets what he wants, he’s not gonna cut shit] – including by asking the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more, so we can still invest in the things that make our nation strong, like education and research [ you means, wasting money on pet projects and rewarding donors and friends?].

    So let’s begin by doing what we all [?] agree on. Both parties say we should keep middle-class taxes low. The Senate has already passed a bill to keep income taxes from going up on middle-class families. Democrats in the House are ready to do the same thing. And if we can just get a few House Republicans on board, I’ll sign this bill as soon as Congress sends it my way.

    But it’s unacceptable for some Republicans in Congress to hold middle class tax cuts hostage simply because they refuse to let tax rates go up on the wealthiest Americans [ yea, bucko, that’s not why you lying piece of shit]. And if you agree with me, then I could use your help. Let your congressman know what $2,000 means to you. [ I’d like to tell him what $3,6000 means to me – that’s how much my health insurance has gone up since the Afforadable Care Act passed]

  16. It ain’t Republicans “holding hostage”, it’s Obama who KNOWS that tax rate hikes on “the rich” will not raise any revenue that is holding America hostage so he can get his punishment of the 2% in.

    As Bill Whittle said, we don’t have a government we have a tumor.

    http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&aref=ur0&mpid=56&load=7782

  17. Charles Krauthammer at NRO.

    What should Republicans do? Stop giving stuff away. If Obama remains intransigent, let him be the one to take us over the cliff. And then let the new House, which is sworn in weeks before the president, immediately introduce and pass a full across-the-board restoration of the Bush tax cuts.

    Obama will counter with the usual all-but-the-rich tax cut — as the markets gyrate and the economy begins to wobble under his feet.

    Result? We’re back to square one, but with a more level playing field. The risk to Obama will be rising and the debt ceiling will be looming. Most important of all, however, Republicans will still be in possession of their unity, their self-respect — and their trousers.

  18. Looks like Charles is finally paying attention, geoff B.

  19. Slipshod, be honest…do you think we have a revenue problem, or a spending problem?

    Or, to be more pointed, do you really believe increasing taxes on people making $250k and up will bring in more revenue, and Obama, given his increase, will reduce real spending?

  20. Obama’s gonna just keep saying what he’s been saying, which is

    …his usual pack of lies. Howlin’ Howie may not speak for the maladministration, but he’s telling the truth that slippy and his Little God-King won’t.

  21. Here’s a primer for ya.

  22. OT, sorta, but if you love the drones, this outta give you a woody

  23. We can’t talk about Clintonian spending because 1) Spending origniates in the House (which would point out that the Dem controlled Senate refuses to pass a budget) 2) It would give lie to Clinton’s spending and point out it was GINGRICH’s spending and 3) Most importantly, it obfuscates the fact that current spending is wildly out of whack.

  24. Higher tax rates generally lower economic activity which lowers tax revenue

    Depending on where you are on the laffer curve. Doesn’t really matter though in this case, we’re not talking about much change in taxes by letting them rise a little on the top 2%.

    Doesn’t matter: he speaks to what the Dems want to do. We should quote him and quote him and quote him and quote him.

    Fair enough. We try hard to arc-weld you to guys like Tony Perkins, Pat Robertson, and Todd Akin.

    We should note that we are honoring the deal the President signed onto that gives him the military cuts he wants and raises taxes on the wealthy. It also takes us back to the salad days of Bill Clinton and the spooged up cocktail dress.

    Please, try that. That would be wonderful. I’d love to be the moderator on a Sunday morning talk show when a Republican throws that one out there.

    It ain’t Republicans “holding hostage”, it’s Obama who KNOWS that tax rate hikes on “the rich” will not raise any revenue that is holding America hostage so he can get his punishment of the 2% in.

    Shhh! That’s got a lot more impact than Jeff’s plan. I’d prefer you not tell too many people that one.

    Slipshod, be honest…do you think we have a revenue problem, or a spending problem?

    We have a growth problem. Cutting spending would make it worse. Raising taxes would make it worse. Raising taxes on the top 2% and offsetting that with increased spending does nothing economically, but it does make the Republicans self destruct.

    Or, to be more pointed, do you really believe increasing taxes on people making $250k and up will bring in more revenue

    Yes

    and Obama, given his increase, will reduce real spending?

    No

  25. We have a growth problem. Cutting spending would make it worse. Raising taxes would make it worse. Raising taxes on the top 2% and offsetting that with increased spending does nothing economically, but it does make the Republicans self destruct.

    Care to show your math on that?

    Or, to be more pointed, do you really believe increasing taxes on people making $250k and up will bring in more revenue

    Yes

    Ah. Nevermind. Your maths is worthless.

  26. everybody needs to pay taxes, not “more taxes”

    The question is how. The answer is not by taxing personal income but by taxing voluntary use of the economy. The former is crowd control — and in my view unconstitutional by its means and ends — while the latter is fair.

    And the myth that we must never, ever tax the corporation? One of the right’s sacred cows and absolutely dead wrong. That myth is aimed at some foolish pragmatism about how taxing production companies will come back to us as higher prices.

    Ridiculous. This is not a zero sum game. This is a deadly serious match for personal liberty.

  27. Or, to be more pointed, do you really believe increasing taxes on people making $250k and up will bring in more revenue

    Yes

    I think I place us, where we are now on the Laffer Curve, at a different spot than you…

  28. I was thinking Bell curve.

  29. Someone has to anchor the left-hand side of the Bell curve. For that, we have slipshod.

  30. He’s beyond even the substandard deviation.

  31. Raising taxes on the top 2% and offsetting that with increased spending does nothing economically

    So, you take more money from the private sector from which taxes derive, filter it through government where it is skimmed and redirected to political targets instead of economic ones, and it will have no effect economically.

    Funny guy…

  32. According to Michael Barone, we’re spending 25% of GDP today and at best Clinton’s tax rates only brought in %20 –and that was at the height of the dotcom bubble.

  33. we’re spending 25% of GDP today and at best Clinton’s tax rates only brought in %20

    That’s only 5% difference Ernst, walking around money for a couple of millionaires and billionaires (also 1/4 millionaires and 1/5 millionaires, if you’re single).

    What we need is growth! Those numbers should be 50% and 45%, respectively. (sound about right slipshod?)

  34. That myth is aimed at some foolish pragmatism about how taxing production companies will come back to us as higher prices.

    Really, JH? myth, you say?

  35. This 2 percent thing is kinda tarded given the huge percent of disabled food stamper failmericans what pay zilch income taxes

    That percent should be figured as a percentage of people what actually pay income tax. It just makes more sense

  36. Really, JH? myth, you say?

    First, I said the notion that personal income tax was defensible was the right’s myth. It is.

    Of course taxing corporations comes back as higher prices, which are more than offset by the personal savings — as if that somehow needing pointing out — and the profound savings in tax infrastructure. And which doesn’t mention liberties regained by diverting taxation back to where it belongs, they being priceless.

    Second, you linked an example of that same pragmatic cause-and-effect thing in action, only this time by bad leftist econ.

    But Republicans will be Republicans and Paying Your Fair Share is Patriotic™, blah, blah, blah. These valid conservative points are perpetually lost on both parties.

  37. Businesses always pass costs on to the customer. That includes not only corporate taxes but all costs of regulatory compliance, whether tax-related or otherwise. Anything that increases the cost of doing business also increases your cost of living.

    Business accounting is zero-sum; it’s the only way businesses can operate.

  38. Businesses always pass costs on to the customer. Anything that increases the cost of doing business also increases your cost of living.

    Business accounting is zero-sum; it’s the only way businesses can operate.

    Incorrect — COL does not factor net income — but carry on with that pragmatism.

    In a fair tax system presumed higher prices are more than offset by personal tax savings while on a normal fair tax planet the vast savings in tax infrastructure and the associated reduction in corporate special interests influencing DC to screw you hollow add to that savings probably well up into double digit percentages.

    And then there’s that whole personal liberty thing, which I’m told is added goodness.

  39. So, the top 2% need to pay their fair share, while 49% or so don’t pay any income taxes at all. I fail to see the fairness here. Not to mention the fact that the math doesn’t make any sense in OJugears statements, no matter how often he repeats it or insists that it makes sense.

    It sounds to be like the tyranny of the majority is A-okay when we’re talking about picking people’s pockets.

    Compare this to the ‘fairness’ arguments about gay marriage. 2% of the population wants to hold the rest of the population hostage to its reinvention of a timeless covenant between man and God. 98% of the population who are not homosexual are just supposed to say ‘Okay’ to the tyranny of the 2% and their demands.

    Someone needs to shake up the snowglobe again or just stop the world, I want to get off.

  40. We have a growth problem. Cutting spending would make it worse.

    Wasn’t there a post not that long ago, linking to an item about how Obama’s geniuses spent 5 dollars and change in order to create one dollar in economic growth?

  41. There have been a number of articles written about that Ernst. Or course, they are written in business journals and not worthy of attention. /s

  42. 49% or so don’t pay any income taxes at all.

    Ah, the beauty of the progressive income tax system. Which incidentally would all go away if everybody just paid only a national sales tax.

    And which the hurtful perceived hurt of which would hurt them, that being some useful legislative pressure. More, you know, then getting money back from the government every year! Right there we can see why we were sold all this bullshit about income tax, personal. And paying it before the fact.

    Let’s stop buying it. It is paramount to leftist control.

  43. Sucks doesn’t it, JHo? I’ve been advocating for a national sales tax, with no indexing for state, city, county, etal for years. 17% would make everyone participate at an even rate; rate of participation, not rate of actual tax collected per citizen since citizens with more disposible income would of course spend more.

    As far as not buying goes, I’m there too. I buy fuel, food and clothing and it ends about there.

  44. Raising taxes on the top 2% and offsetting that with increased spending does nothing economically, but it does make the Republicans self destruct.

    Inadvertent honesty. Proof they are fundamentally unserious.

  45. I recall reading in the USC (I’ve forgotten which section) that congress is required by law to provide us, the People, with an accounting of how much they are spending and on what.

    It would be useful if someone would compile such a list and publish loud and proud before the end of the year. Surely the Senate has such a committee already at their disposal or could cobble one together out of the many committees they already have.

    I think We The People would like to see a financial accounting report on what they are doing with our hardearned coin.

  46. From that bit of O’Blather slippy quoted:

    if Congress does nothing, every family will see their income taxes automatically go up at the beginning of next year. A typical middle class family of four will see their income taxes rise by $2,200. We can’t let that happen. Our families can’t afford it, and neither can our economy.

    Right now, Congress can pass a law that would prevent a tax hike on the first $250,000 of everybody’s income. Everybody. That means that 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small businesses wouldn’t see their income taxes go up at all. And even the wealthiest Americans would get a tax cut on the first $250,000 of their incomes.

    The bolded bit is what matters. Either that’s true, or it isn’t true. The House pass a law making the Bush tax rates permanent. Then they should adjourn.

    Barak Obama would rather see taxes go up on everybody than see them stay the same for everybody? Why yes, yes he would.

    Why does Barak Obama hate the producers?

  47. Also, let’s look at this piece of fiction:

    “And even the wealthiest Americans would get a tax cut on the first $250,000 of their incomes.”

    What tax cut?

  48. He’s jealous Ernst. Obama has never produced anything. He even plagarizes his speeches.

  49. If you’re using the moving goal posts baseline budgeting, I guess.

    Baseline budgeting begins at zero and doesn’t include phony ‘savings’ from the not-wars we’re still not-fighting.

  50. If you’re using the moving goal posts baseline budgeting, I guess.

    I’m not and the Republicans in Congress shouldn’t either.

    What tax cut is on the table as of now?

  51. Obama’s non-public attempt to sway the public reminds me of something I read once about Steven Spielberg, that he understood what the public wanted so well that he made enough money that he doesn’t actually have to interact with them anymore.

  52. So, now that we (at least) are clear that tax cuts are not on the table, in any shape manner of form, the question to the sophistryslope and those of his ilk is this: Why do the 97-98% get to keep their current tax rate, and the remaining 2-3% don’t?

  53. For teh Fairness™, silly.

  54. One of the Obamabots was on NPR this afternoon, in another moment of brief honesty he said that the tax hikes weren’t about the budget, they were important because of teh economic justice.

    Fuck the rich, with government supplied condoms.

  55. It doesn’t seem to have crossed the minds of these geniuses that the rich have the means to move to somewhere more tax-friendly.

    Years ago, the state (Commonwealth?) of Maryland passed some legislation to tax the crap out of the rich. The rich said Fuck you, and moved to different states.

  56. OT: Barrett Brown has been indicted again.

  57. How is raising tax rates for some while leaving the rates of others alone either fair or just?

  58. It isn’t. It’s stupid and should be voted down.

  59. What’s that, leigh? Tax rates affect behavior? High tax rates fail to generate promised revenue? The rich can afford to move to avoid high taxes?

    It’s not there’s a current example or anything…

  60. H-Dawg is playing bad cop… to let O-man play good cop.

    Capital M, please, folks.

    *putt*

  61. How is raising tax rates for some while leaving the rates of others alone either fair or just?

    That you even have to ask that question proves you are either a racist or a fascist, or probably both.

  62. COL does not factor net income

    And why would a cost item factor income? They are on separate sides of the ledger. For good reason.

  63. As for pragmatism, it’s possible to live a wildly idealistic life while also following GAAP. The principles of accounting deal in concrete numbers only.

    But when one’s policy prescriptions are built on the idea that accounting principles are a living document, you’re headed for trouble.

  64. OT: Barrett Brown has been indicted again.

    We are legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Also, we’re really a bunch of pussies and we’re pissed that Mom forgot to get more Mountain Dew.

Leave a Reply