Conservatives and corporate-owned Democrats are in a tizzy. The House is moving its version of healthcare reform forward, and it (gasp!) raises money by (double-gasp!) taxing rich folks. Not by very much, as these things go -- but you certainly wouldn't know that from hearing Republican politicians and their enablers in the news media. As far as they're concerned, Democrats are going to raise everyone's tax rates (yes, even YOURS!) until they rival Denmark's (complete with Fox News graphics, in case you missed the point). While the tactic is new, the strategy is an old one, and can be summed up as: "Who will stand up for the poor, poor millionaires and billionaires?"
You know what? I'm sick of this nonsense. I really am. Starting, first and foremost, with the term "class warfare." I keep waiting for some Democrat (Jim Webb would be a good choice, in my opinion) to stand up and say something like the following -- to either some clueless, overpaid, inside-the-Beltway media type, or some clueless, bought-and-paid-for Republican officeholder:
"I'm sorry, did you just say 'class warfare'? Your use of this term is highly offensive to me. In case you have forgotten, we are at war. We are currently waging war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The vice president's son is currently serving in a war zone, as are thousands of other brave American men and women who wear the uniform of the United States of America. And you have the gall to sit there and call a discussion of marginal tax rates 'warfare'? Please show me the video highlights of this war, if you would. Where are the clips of armed guerrillas laying siege to the Hamptons? Where are the battlelines where people are dying in the hills of Bel Air? Where are the armed insurrectionists? How many casualties has this class warfare cost? Where are the pitchforks and torches and mobs in the streets? If you don't have video of such battles raging right now to show me, then I would insist you not refer to a debate in Congress over making the ultra-wealthy pay the same tax rate they did under Bill Clinton -- a tax rate much lower than they paid under Ronald Reagan, I might add -- as any type of 'warfare,' because it insults me and it insults the men and women who are putting their lives on the line on foreign soil right this very minute to preserve your ability to say such repugnant things."
As I said, Senator Jim Webb would be my first choice for delivering this message, for obvious reasons. Sometimes, as Robert A. Heinlein said, you have to step on people's toes until they apologize.
A few facts are in order here. What is causing apoplexy in Republicans is a plan to raise the income tax rate for people making over $280,000 a year by one to five percentage points. Right now, the wealthiest of the wealthy in America pay 35 percent income tax. What is being proposed is raising this back to where it was before Bush lowered it -- to a high point of 39.6 percent. Not, as Republicans will tell you, "almost as high as Denmark's." Denmark's highest income tax rate is 60 percent. Plus (a fact they conveniently ignore), in Denmark you pay a "Value Added Tax" (or national sales tax) of 25 percent on everything you buy. So don't worry, nobody in America is going to be paying anything like what the Danish pay.
Nancy Pelosi has even already walked these numbers back. She's now proposing taxing only single people who make more than $500,000 and couples who make more than one million dollars every year. In other words, Joe The Plumber should relax, because his taxes aren't going up a dime. He would be part of the ninety-nine-percent-plus of the American workforce who would not have their taxes changed one tiny little bit under this plan.
This stuff seems obvious to me, but then I turn on the television, and listen to "journalists" who have apparently beamed in from Mars. Or Pluto, since they seem to be speaking Plutocrat as their first language. Ahem. Seriously, when is some Democrat (Al Franken springs to mind for this one) going to ask one of these blow-dried talking heads "Excuse me, but in the interests of full disclosure, you really should tell the viewers how much money you make per year. You seem to be championing low taxes for the ultra-wealthy, but I detect more than a hint of protecting your own self-interest in this discussion." I'd pay good money, so to speak, to hear someone (anyone!) say that to one of these "journalists" on television. It would put things in some sorely needed perspective. "Did you make more than a million bucks last year? How many millions did you make? Why didn't you share that with your viewers at the beginning of your comments?"
But perhaps that's a tad too confrontative, eh? OK, how about laying it on the line in a calm and rational manner, then. Democrats have been terrified -- absolutely terrified -- to raise any taxes at any time, because the Republicans have used it so effectively as an iron club, for so many years now. But healthcare reform has to be paid for somehow. Now that the House has thrown down the gauntlet, we need to hear a few Democrats defending this action, instead of eternally shying away from it. Democrats, so far, have seemed to think that if they don't talk about it, nobody will notice that they're raising taxes on the rich. This is wrong -- Republicans have been waiting to pounce on this particular issue ever since Nancy Pelosi was sworn in as Speaker of the House, and they are now gleefully doing so. The only way this is going advance politically is if a few Democrats defend the policy to the public, and calm everyone down a bit. Here's an example of what I'm suggesting:
"President Obama promised during his campaign not to raise taxes on people making less than a quarter of a million dollars per year. We are going to help him keep that promise. Others have been suggesting that we tax everyone's health care benefits to pay for health care reform. We're not going to do that, because it would affect union members and other hardworking Americans -- lots of policemen and firemen, and others who make up the backbone of the middle class in America. We think they've been taxed enough. We think that the millionaires and billionaires who have made out like bandits under Republican tax cuts for the past eight years can afford to go back to paying what they paid under Bill Clinton. We want to repeal the Bush tax cuts on the extremely wealthy, because we think it is more important to provide access to healthcare to all Americans than it is to help people like John McCain buy another house or airplane. Everyone is having to sacrifice in this economy. Millions have already sacrificed by losing their jobs. Millions have lost their health care. Millions of sick people are sacrificing their health, because they cannot pay for treatment. Millions more have had to take pay cuts, and are relieved just to still have a job. The American people have sacrificed, and continue to make tough decisions daily -- because some can't afford both medicine and food. And we simply do not think that asking millionaires to pay an extra few percent of their million-dollar incomes is asking too great a sacrifice from them. We think it's about time they sacrificed a little bit, for the good of the country, and gave back the Bush tax cuts."
Until and unless Democrats start saying things like this, this tax increase is simply not going to happen. Democrats have to get over their knee-jerk reaction to being labeled "tax and spenders" by their opposition. Democrats have to stop scurrying away from the issue like cockroaches when the light hits them, and get out there and defend it. If higher taxes for millionaires are the way to pay for healthcare reform, then let everyone know it, and know why.
The poor, poor millionaires already have plenty of people beating their chests and rending their garments in public. Republicans and mainstream media "journalists" are already doing a dandy job of this. Democrats have to stand up and say, in response, "I'm for the little guy. I don't want to tax the average worker any more than they already are taxed, so I do not support taxing the middle class' healthcare benefits. Instead, I think the ultra-wealthy can pay a few percent more each year to fix the healthcare system in America. I don't think that's too much to ask of them, and I will fight any attempt to move this tax burden away from the wealthy down to the little guys. That may have worked in the past, but it's not going to work this time!"
Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com
.
Anyone getting hungry?
For technical reasons, Chris is not able to post and answer comments here so you might want to visit his own site and join in the conversation over there:
http://www.chrisweigant.com/
An enclosed system can implement hard choices such as how much of GDP we want to spend. Until we have an equitable system that covers everyone that question is premature. Having achieved universal access it becomes the most important question. Rather than incentivizing insurance executives to abuse sick people we need a very serious conversation about how far we're willing to go towards "doing everything." Our current non-system is clumsy at setting limits. The uninsured get too many limits. For the rest it's very haphazard. In the end we can decide on a reasonable basic package to which everyone is entitled. Beyond that you gotta pay out of your own pocket.
Despite its financing challenges Medicare (universal care for the elderly) has been a popular success. How can we remain blind to this fact and not extend the same benefit to all citizens?
We have got to start undoing the redistribution of wealth that began under Reagan. The vast inequality of wealth in the US is not good for America, it's not good for democracy, and it's not even good for capitalism.
Farmers don't pile up fertilizer in the middle of a field with the hope that it will "trickle down" to all of the plants. Money is far more stimulative when it is spread evenly throughout the populace.
Capitalism and democracy make great partners, but unrestrained capitalism will ruin this country unless we do something to stop it.
Progressives need to regain the public debate on this very point. For it is progressive policies, paradoxically, that will save the capitalist market driven system, and not right-wing laissez-faire policies.
I AM THE NEW AMERICAN who is sick of carrying the tax burden. Very few American Corporations pay a dime in taxes. A change in the tax codes will bring Healthcare to all Americans. We have to stand up.
I think the way to humiliate and shame Republicans on the issue of raising taxes is to remind them we went to war in two countries and CUT taxes, with many on the right telling people to go shopping. While our troops had to scour in Baghdad junkyards to uparmor their vehicles, we were told to go shopping.
I think when the Republican says "It's your money," tell them "it's our troops."
I have had all I can stand of taxes. Being a small business owner, I pay 15% social security tax. I pay 35% income tax. I pay 4% income tax to my state and a 1% income tax to my city. I pay property taxes on my house and my cars. I pay tax on my cell phone, cable and internet bill. I pay 7.5% sales tax on everything I buy. I pay 7.5% FICA tax for my employee. I pay taxes to the city for my business license.
When one robs from Peter to pay Paul, one can always count on the support of Paul.
Who is looking out for me, Peter?
I know this, my month starts with a really big check to the IRS each month.
My landlord would suffer as well, because he would have more vacant office space. My suppliers would suffer, as they would have one fewer customer.
The only one who wouldn't suffer is the congressmen and women who passed all the taxes.
Our national debt was moderately sized and steady up until Reagan was inaugerated. Under Reagan and Bush 41 our debt more than tripled and the momentum of our massive deficit was still pushing our debt skyward when Clinton took office.
When Clinton took office the momentum of the deficit was still pushing our debt upwards. During the middle of his two terms he actually managed to balance the budget and our debt had finally plateued. Our debt stopped growing under Clinton. Not only that he left office with a budget surplus, which meant that we were paying off our already $6 Trillion debt.
This is when the GOP starting complaining we had a budget surplus. They tried to make it look like the dems were hoarding money. In fact, the dems were paying off their bloated debt.
In 2000, GWB took office and within the first year our debt skyrocketed upwards at an extreme and unprecedented rate. We had a budget surplus after all (and a $6 Trillion debt).
George W Bush left office with a national debt well over $10 Trillion.
From Reagan to GW Bush our debt went from $2 Trillion to $10 Trillion. The only plateau and balanced budget during that 28 year period was while the only democrat was president.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png
To give full credit to Mr. Clinton would be a misrepresentation of what happened. In 1994, ideologically conservative republicans swept control of both houses of congress. The years that followed brought about the tech bubble that created great wealth and drove tax revenue higher than anyone expected.
I'm not sure what Republican take over of all Congress has to do with defecit reduction or tech bubble.
Four years.
The stimulus package was signed only five months ago... 1/12 as much time.
I can see stuff being stripped out that benefits everyone to help a few...read the bills
When will people realize that the "News" is not on their side? "Journalists" are paid by the rich to lie for them. These so called reports and polls of the public losing interest in NHC are a joke.
According to the CORPORATE owned MSM the PUBLIC does not support a PUBLIC healthcare option that would help the PUBLIC and hurt CORPORATIONS greedy profiteering.
When the fight begins in earnest you will see the trappings of insurgency and counter insurgency.