"Populism" is a word that gets thrown around with abandon by folks masquerading as journalists on television these days. Sarah Palin had the word used to describe her, and later, the entire Tea Party movement was labeled "populist" by the chattering classes. Today, President Obama unveiled a truly populist agenda, by proposing to tax millionaires at the same tax rate that middle-class Americans pay. By doing so, Obama will (hopefully) redefine the term "populism" in the political conversation. Or, to be technical, he will re-redefine the word back to what it originally meant.
Because while Sarah Palin can (barely) make the case that she's a populist (she did take on oil companies as governor), the Tea Party simply cannot make the same argument. Lazy inside-the-Beltway types began using the word "populism" to describe the Tea Party when they really should have said something like "popular movement," or even "grassroots." Washingtonians apparently were ready to slap the "populist" label onto any political action which took place outside the Beltway. The lesson to be learned is: spend five minutes researching a term, if you really don't know what it means. But it's a pretty safe bet this lesson will not, in fact, be learned by the media at large.
It's easy enough to see why the media get confused. Here's a snippet of a speech given at the very first Populist Party convention, in 1892:
We meet in the midst of a nation brought to the verge of moral, political, and material ruin. Corruption dominates the ballot-box, the Legislatures, the Congress... We seek to restore the government of the Republic to the hands of the 'plain people'.
This could easily be cheered at a Tea Party rally today, one might think. But when you examine what the Populists were actually for and against, you can see why this connection simply cannot be made (at least not with a straight face).
A little over a century ago, the Populist movement began. We differentiate between this original Populism and today's populists with proper capitalization. Populists back then ("big-P" Populists, in other words) were indeed a political movement to put power in the hands of the people. But that's where the likeness to today's Tea Partiers ends. Because Populists were not against big government, they were against corrupt government -- quite a large distinction to make. Populists were for direct election of senators, for instance, because of the cronyism in the statehouses at the time. Some Tea Partiers today champion getting rid of the Sixteenth Amendment, for reasons which surpass understanding. Populists were behind giving voters direct power, not only for electing senators but also for recalling politicians and the direct democracy of the ballot initiative. Populists were also for a graduated income tax -- so the wealthy would pay a higher percentage. The Right has for years been arguing for a "flat tax" which would do away with such Populist ideas.
But the main thrust of the Populist movement was economic. Populists were, quite bluntly, against big business, Wall Street, and East Coast banks. They were against monopolies such as the railroads of the era. They favored the federal government getting involved in this fight, and even favored a federal takeover of the rail system and the telegraph system (and they weren't talking about some namby-pamby "bailout," they were talking about straight-up, no-chaser "nationalization" of both). Populists were rabidly anti-big-business, whereas today's Tea Party seems to want to return to an era with no business regulations whatsoever. The Ayn-Randian, free-market-worshipping position of many Tea Partiers is exactly the opposite of Populism, in other words.
One thing the Populists and the Tea Partiers would undoubtedly see eye-to-eye on (to be fair, here) is Ron Paul's insistence on American returning to the gold standard. The Populists were around during the monumental fights over free coinage of silver (and the gold standard) back in the 1890s.
The Populists did have an ugly side, to be historically accurate. They were fiercely anti-immigrant, for example -- for the same reasons bandied about today ("They're taking our jobs!"). And the disgraceful leap from hating "Eastern bankers" to outright anti-Semitism was one which more than a few Populists made, as well. So while Populists did advance the progress of American democracy in many important ways, they were far from flawless when viewed through the lens of today's ethical and moral standards.
Enough history, though, let's get back to the announcement President Obama made today. Now, what Obama proposed today is not really anything new, in more than one sense. In the first place, Obama has spoken of taxing the wealthier among us at a slightly higher rate for years now. In the second place, Senator Charles Schumer has been pushing the idea of a "millionaires' tax" for months now. Obama has now embraced the idea fully, though, which is why he's making news. Campaign 2012 has begun, in other words, and Obama has staked out a mighty populist position from which to run.
Again, this should really come as no surprise to anyone, but I'm often astounded at how short the memories are in the Washington punditocracy. The president set this entire scene up last December, with the deal he cut to extend the Bush tax cuts. At the time, more attention was paid to the wailing of Democrats over the two-year extension, but what I found most interesting was the timing of it. Right after the deal was announced (which I was calling "The Deal" at the time), I wrote (emphasis in original):
It has been reported that the White House was the one to insist on a two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts for millionaires. I warned them not to do this, personally, because that puts the next giant tax cut fight right in the middle of the 2012 election season.
Obama, to put it in poker terms, has gone "all in" on this being a central fight during his re-election campaign. He didn't need to do so. He could have punted altogether by getting a three-year extension, which would have put the debate comfortably into the next presidential term. He could have forced the debate during the primary season, by getting a one-year extension. Obama did neither. The White House is calculating that this will be a great debate to have in 2012, when (assumably) the economy is doing better and people are feeling more positive about the future of the country. Obama is staking a lot on leading the Democratic side of this debate, right when American voters will be paying close attention.
This, to put it mildly, is a risky strategy.
At the time, I wondered if Democrats would have the president's back. I still wonder this, although there were hopeful signs from Schumer today, who was quoted in the Huffington Post:
This is a game changer in the tax debate. It will make the Republican position almost indefensible. The president has a winning hand, and he is going all in. And I believe Democrats will be behind him. ... Just about every Democrat will be behind him.
We'll see whether this proves to be true or not. Because, like it or not, Democrats are going to be presented with populism as the centerpiece of the 2012 campaign. The idea of taxing millionaires fairly is actually a very popular one (as well as being a truly populist one), as poll after poll shows. However, Democrats have not actually run on "tax the rich" in many a long year, so their populist skills may prove to be a bit rusty.
So far, about the most populist thing the Obama administration has done was to create the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and to elevate Elizabeth Warren to such stature that she can now make a viable run to reclaim Teddy Kennedy's Senate seat in Massachusetts. Her campaign will likely be a model example of how Democrats can run on a modern populist message.
President Obama knows, of course, that none of his tax ideas are ever going to see the light of day from the Republican House. His jobs plan may not fare much better, although it's at least conceivable that portions of it may be passed. No portion of his ideas on taxing millionaires will be, however. His announcement today -- which even included a veto threat -- was meant to define his upcoming campaign. By doing so, he may reclaim and redefine (or "define back to the original meaning") the term "populism." At its core, Populism was an economic movement. It was pro-tax (graduated income tax, with higher brackets for higher-paid earners), it was pro-regulation (don't let Wall Street get away with murder), and it was anti-monopoly. Today's Tea Partiers would have been horrified by the true Populists, to put it another way. The true Populists probably would have considered President Obama's "Buffett Rule" pretty weak beer, since it only evens the tax rate out between millionaires and average American workers, but they also would have seen it as a big step in the right direction.
Whether Obama's populist campaign works or not, maybe it'll at least stop the media from continuing their lazy habit of calling the Tea Partiers "populist" (which is, historically, quite laughable). That, too, would be a step in the right direction, in my opinion.
Chris Weigant blogs at: 
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on The Huffington Post
Follow Chris Weigant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChrisWeigant
James Zogby: Voters Are in a Deep Funk
Democrats Balk At Obama Tax Plan | Fox News
Republicans Accuse Obama Of Waging 'Class Warfare' With ...
Obama Plan to Cut Deficit Will Trim Spending by $3 Trillion ...
Obama Millionaire's Tax: President To Seek New Tax Rate For ...
So, they set up a system of government to protect the lambs right not to be lunch in spite of the wish of the majority. They also financed the federal government thru tariffs, as close to voluntary taxation as you can get. If you don't want to pay, buy local.
That's why overturning the 16th amendment is popular, the 16th amendment, for the first time, allowed the federal government to get into the theft ... err TAX business and although it was only supposed to hit the rich, we know how that worked out. The first step in a truly fair and populist tax system must be getting rid of the 16th. Chris' inability to understand something this simple is hardly surprising, anybody who absolutely refuses to find out anything about the Tea Parties isn't likely to bother to figure this out either.
This willful ignorance, present throughout the left, is one reason for my sig:
Atlas Shrugged was supposed to be a warning, NOT a newspaper!
The greatest economic SCANDAL of our times is that Billionaires can avoid taxation of their wealth by retaining earnings in corporations that they control while paying little or no DIVIDENDS. By doing this, they don't pay the top rate of 35% on their wealth accumulation. Rather, they can pay far less than 1% on their annual gains.
In 2008 Buffet had a net worth of 62B
In 2009 he had a net worth of 37B
Should he have gotten money back from the Gov because his net worth dropped 25 Billion?
In 2011 his net worth was back to 50B.
Just how would you tax a rise or fall in wealth? Can he carry over the loss from a previous year like a business can even though his INCOME remained relatively stable?
I own shares in stock mutual funds. Nothing on his scale of course. Every month since I was about 29 I put a little into the funds I own. At 48 I have a nice nest egg.
When I sell shares, I pay capital gains taxes because it is a realization of an actual money transfer to me (also some of the funds pass on taxable CG to me directly) . So does Buffet, but he gets a lot more because of scale and pays more total money.
As the "value" of my funds changes along with value on my homes and other investments my "net wealth" changes. But my income changes very little. Unless i sell those assets there is no income to be taxed. But on the other hand it is not like I can spend the money in the funds without selling them.
the change in net wealth is just paper and smoke.
But NOBODY pays ANY tax on wealth in America. Why should they?
here is an Example:
I graduated College at about 29, and started saving money. I put a little bit each month into good growth mutual funds (like 50 a month then). As my salary increased so did the amount I saved. I bought a house about a year after college, lived there a few years, then rented it out for ten years before selling it. I now have another property rented out in addition to my home.
Suppose someone else earned the same amount I did with the same increases of income over the years, but drank a lot, smoked, bought the latest electronic gadgets, I-phones, new cars etc.
After 20 years Who is going to have greater net wealth? Why tax me more simply because I made smarter life choices?
When I sold shares of my funds to buy my boat I paid Capital gains tax on the sale. But just because my net worth is going up and down every day because the value of my homes and investments change, the amount I earn is relatively stable and as the amount i EARN goes up so do my taxes.
The same is true with Buffet. he is taxed on income and capital gains realized not a change in wealth.
Obama, to put it in poker terms, has gone "all in" on this being a central fight during his re-election campaign. He didn't need to do so. He could have punted altogether by getting a three-year extension, which would have put the debate comfortably into the next presidential term. He could have forced the debate during the primary season, by getting a one-year extension. Obama did neither. The White House is calculating that this will be a great debate to have in 2012, when (assumably) the economy is doing better and people are feeling more positive about the future of the country. Obama is staking a lot on leading the Democratic side of this debate, right when American voters will be paying close attention.
This, to put it mildly, is a risky strategy."
.
That was Very perspicacious of you!
Now do you want to guess if unemployment will be over or under 8% in Nov 2012? Will the housing markets have rebounded? Will less people be in what passes for Poverty in America?
Do you predict that in Oct 2012 "feeling more positive about the future of the country."
They might have that feeling in Dec 2012 though.
"This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes and payroll taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.
Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay 15 percent of their income in federal taxes."
Here is a link to some facts and not campaign grovel.
http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-rich-taxed-less-secretaries-070642868.html
We are a constitutional Republic and not a Democracy.
Currently the people in every ballot initiative vote against Same sex marriage. Should the country continue to deny people the fundamental right to choose the consenting adult they wish to marry just because the mob mentality of the majority wants it? Can we start denying rights or deciding a host of ballot issues at the Federal Level based on ballots?
So we are not a democracy.
Further Most of the rich do not "pay much less than the average" they pay almost ALL the Federal Income tax Collected. In 2008 for example the top 25% of Americans in income paid 86% of all Federal income Tax collected.
Almost 50% of the US, (almost exclusively in the bottom of earnings), paid No Federal Income Tax (they do pay other taxes but we are talking about Income Taxes).
What is lower for people like Buffet is not the amount they pay, but the Percent they pay. But this is because they mostly get income on capital gains and that is taxed a t a flat rate. of course a rise in the capital gains rate effects middle americans , pensioners, and others on "fixed income retirement" also.
Don't count on it. I predict that they'll come to a deal to make 99% of the Bush/Obama tax cuts permanent. Obama will get the Buffett Rule, and Republicans will get everything they can think of to ask for, plus a few things Obama will preemptively cave on even though the Republicans hadn't thought to ask.
"Populists were also for a graduated income tax -- so the wealthy would pay a higher percentage. The Right has for years been arguing for a "flat tax" which would do away with such Populist ideas."
The key to the Flat Tax proposals is the elimination of ALL deductions and differing methods of counting "income". It is not the 'tax rate' that allows GE to pay no US Corporate Income Tax on Billions in Profit (all while having their CEO be an adviser to President Obama) it is all the deductions, tax gimmicks, and tax subsidies.
Further, the "Income" of people like the infamous Warren Buffet which are taxed at a low non-progressive rate currently. But many middle Income Americans have capital gains in most years. Change the rate of taxes on them is a tax increase on middle class Americans like me.
You can tax the income of 'Rich' people all you want, but is not the rate but how many deductions and how the income is counted that will make them pay less.
Finally. It is progressive because by not taxing the first 40-50K earned under a plan like the Forbes plan there would be two rates. Zero and a rate about 17%. But even more then that, you could do a tax where all the Federal exemptions, subsidies, loopholes and gimmicks are eliminated but has various percentages for income levels.
"Further, the "Income" of people like the infamous Warren Buffet which are taxed at a low non-progressive rate currently." that line should read:
"Further, the "Income" of people like the infamous Warren Buffet ARE MOSTLY CAPITAL GAINS which are taxed at a low non-progressive rate currently."
Was making brevity cuts and didnt proof before I hit Send.
Hey, that's OK, I can't even keep my amendments straight...
Heh.
-CW
you wote "Populists were for direct election of senators, for instance, because of the cronyism in the statehouses at the time. Some Tea Partiers today champion getting rid of the Sixteenth Amendment, for reasons which surpass understanding"
yes the 17th was direct elections of Senators.
the 16th was the dreaded Income Tax which many of us would replace with the Consumption tax with a prebate for the poor and needy called the Fair Tax.
Some people like the idea of state control of Federal Senators. My Senator represents 9.6 million people. My vote or concern is of very little consequence to him.
My state senator represents about 170,000 people. If he chooses a Federal Rep that is bad I have at least some influence over my State Senator. That is the typical reasoning of the 17th amendment repeal fans.
I hate the way the Income Tax is currently implemented and between that and the power of the Imperial Senate it breeds corruption in Gov which is what the Populists fought against.
However, I dont necessarily support the FAIR tax and repeal of the 16th or repeal of the 17th but I sympathize with the argument from those that do.
Whoops! Mea culpa. I'll try to fix it later today. I was originally going to include a comment about both the 16th and 17th, since Populists had a lot to do with both (they both were ratified within months of each other). But I decided not to reference the income tax one, and then when I wrote about the Senator thing, I typed the wrong number out. So, as I said, I'll fix it later today, sorry for the mixup.
You guys keep me honest, that's for sure! Mea culpa maxima.
:-)
-CW
Obama's words were chosen, as you say, to define an election campaign. They're campaign rhetoric: temporary window dressing, like his 2008 promises to promote a public option for health insurance (which he later unilaterally and summarily dropped), restore habeas corpus (on which, by extending instead of repealing the Patriot Act, he did a 180), end the Bush tax cuts (another 180), and find "comfortable walking shoes" in support of labor (when, instead, he publicly spoke one vaguely supportive eight-word sentence during the entire six months when union members and their neighbors by the tens of thousands were marching daily on the streets of Wisconsin, Ohio, Washington state and elsewhere to preserve collective bargaining rights in America).
Has Obama become an authentic populist? IMHO and in light of past experience, the net-negative poll numbers he's faced for months, and the Wall Street team he selected to rein in Wall Street, he's just testing out new campaign rhetoric--and, sadly, placing his own re-election ahead of sincerity, party and country.
You should consider taking this show on the road. Seriously.
Hijack the language & torture it until it gives. Thereby winning the arguement by changeing the definitions.
Anyone that reads Ayn Rand should also be required to read George Orwell.
I'm with you, on that last sentence in particular.
-CW
Numerous examples of Republican Newspeak abound. A state where you have almost no right to collectively bargain is called "Right to Work". They keep talking about "saving" Social Security and Medicare, by severely cutting it. GW passed a "clean water act" that lowered water quality standards. He also passed a "wetland protection act" that allowed for more development in wetlands and declared golf courses as wetlands. Prospecting for Oil production is now called "energy exploration".
They have dozens of think-tanks full of PR people coming up with marketing terms to make their otherwise objectionable policies palatable to the mindless masses.
Rest assured any bill they pass to "encourage job creation" will lead to shipping more jobs overseas.
BTW, you look like you can use another fan. F&F'd!
What we are talking about here, though, is President Obama's balanced, pro-growth approach to tax reform and one that should be a winning platform for Democrats everywhere in 2012. With a lot of luck, it will also translate into a Democratic majority in the House and a filibuster-proof Democrat majority in the Senate. Then we can talk about American progress.
Would you feel the same if Democrats rode this issue into taking back the House? Just curious.
-CW
I really have no loyalty to D or R, if that's what you're asking.
So he cooks up a Robin Hood angle out of the blue and it's "redefining populism".
This guy is mounting a distresses re election campaign after 3 years of alienating the people who elected him.
He'll say anything.
Um, OK. How many households who make $250K-plus PER YEAR do you think don't have a net worth of over a million? How many American workers would classify someone making $250K+ through $999K-plus -- again, per year -- as "not wealthy" or "not rich," in your estimation? These are folks in the top two-to-three percent of American wage-earners. So why is any of this false?
-CW
In New Jersey a High School Principal and a high school teacher who has been teaching for 15 years that are married to each other will make over 250K
Further, cost of living varies, by locale as you well know. Pull up any cost of living calculator or the web. Compare Cost of living between Savannah GA and San Fran CA.
A person making 145K a year in Savannah is equivalent of 250K in San Fransisco in quality of life.
My wife doesn't work outside the home, but if she did, we would easily make more the 145K and we are not rich.
So a person making 250K and living in San Fran would not be considered rich in my opinion.
In fact If i use the same calculator, and NYC (Manhattan) a person in NYC making 250K is equivalent cost of living to someone earning LESS then I do in Savannah GA. Yet you would hit them with the so called "millionaires" tax.