Dem "Strategists": Use These 8 Points and Learn How to Discuss Taxes or Don't Go on TV

As the economy becomes the paramount issue in the election, more of the discussion is going to focus on taxes.

The Republicans will lie. They will claim that Obama is going to raise everyone's taxes. They will claim that lowering taxes increases revenues. They will claim that our fiscal problems are all due to spending. They will claim that the wealthy are not really that wealthy, and that raising taxes on the top bracket back to where they were will kill the economy. And, they will say that Democrats just love to tax.

They will repeat these points over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Democrats, as usual, walk right into their trap. Today, I happened to have various news channels on, and several people dubbed as "Democratic strategists" just fell for it. Worse, by their silence, they tacitly accepted the Republicans' implication that they like to tax.

Here is a little tutorial for Democratic "strategists" on taxes.

1. First, begin EVERY comment about taxes by saying something to the effect of, "no one wants to pay taxes or have their taxes raised. No one in politics wants to raise taxes." Without such a context, it does sound as if Democrats are only trying to raise taxes on the wealthy just because they like taxes. But, add, the Republicans are just about borrow-and-spend, and give the bill to our children."

2. Next, indicate that Bush and the Republican Congress have spent us into oblivion. We had a $5 trillion surplus, they've turned into a $4 trillion deficit, a $9 trillion turnaround, the greatest financial mismanagement in the history of the world. And, repeat, "in the history of the world." No one has ever done worse, ever, anywhere. They borrow and spend. (Yes, repetition!).

3. That's immoral. It puts huge obligations on our children and grandchildren. Every child born today inherits more than a $30,000 debt on the day of their birth. That is wrong.

4. Not only that, the American people have needs -- for healthcare, for education so the children with that debt can compete, for a new energy economy, for our veterans....all needs neglected, sometimes criminally, by Bush and Republican Congress.

5. Therefore, we ONLY go to increase taxes on the wealthy to pay for those needs and to reverse the Bush/McCain-Republican mismanagement of our debt. We raise taxes because we need the revenues, not because anyone wants to. And, if Bush and the Republicans had not been so negligent, we would not have the problems we have today with the economy.

6. And emphasize, the increase is ONLY to the levels they were in the '90s, 4-5%, and say, "don't tell us that 4-5% is going to impact the economy, we have proof from the '90s that it did not."

7. On no account accept that reducing taxes increases revenues:

a. Reference Bush's Treasury Secretary Paulson who said that tax cuts do not pay for themselves;
b. If tax cuts did pay for themselves, or even better, actually increase revenues, then shouldn't we ask "why then do we have so much debt?"

8. Finally, not only are the wealthy the best place to go to increase tax revenues, it is also not going to hurt them -- they can afford it, the top 1% own a greater percentage of our wealth than they did at any time since 1929 -- and we all know what happened in 1929!

By the way it so happens that raising taxes by 4-5% on the wealthy, and keeping a lid on spending, the dollar would rise, the price of oil in dollars would fall, and the "tax" we are all paying to the oil companies in increased pump prices would improve the economy, reduce inflation, and likely provide the wealthy a much greater increase in their wealth than they "lose" in paying more taxes.

But this is too complicated. Stick to the script above.

If anyone knows a "strategist," please pass this along.

Comments

[nypoet22]

There are 3 main lies beneath every neo-con tax scheme.

The first lie is that taxes are simple. Taxes are complicated.

(this is self-evident to anyone who has ever tried reading even a small portion of the tax code.)

The second lie is that taxes affect everyone equally.

(neo-con talking heads always cite overall numbers or isolated cases. they never compare the average cost or savings for the middle class and the ultra-rich. this practice hides their true intentions.)

The third lie is that every tax makes you poorer.

(some stuff the government can get cheaper. if you save a dollar in taxes but have to pay a hundred in goods and services, are you richer or poorer?)

in essence, the "more government vs. less government" argument is based on a false choice. we don't necessarily need to grow it or shrink it, we just need it to make it better.

[georgiaR]

I would not mind paying more taxes if I thought the government was good at spending our money - but there is so much waste. I just read "Atlas Shrugged". What happens when the "rich" get tired of supporting the "poor"?

[PaulAbrams]

Yes, there is waste. What is hard to know is that there is "so much" waste. What about waste in the private sector--how do we know what to compare it to?
The Republicans controlled all 3 branches for 6 years--I didn't see a lot of waste being found. In fact, they were so corrupt, they created more waste.
For example, Medicare spends about 2-pennies on administration for every dollar of healthcare; the private insurance companies spend between 20 and 30 pennies out of every dollar. That's a pretty good tradeoff.
The US has 900 allegations by private firms' employees not pursued---the allegations are for fraud against the Government.

[nomobull]

which is what the republicans don't get

[john456]

I don't believe that your last paragraph is too complicated. It is quite simple. Anyone who receives their income, regardless of the source, in dollars has been "taxed" far more than even a draconian tax increase that would pay for the deficit might cost an individual. The devaluation of the dollar costs far more than any of the proposed tax increases. Also, the Chinese have now given up trying to hold the yaun to dollar exchange rate constant. I suspect far more than food and petroleum products will soon rise dramatically. Consequently, your last arguement should appeal to everyone, rich and poor alike.

[Ides]

Dems panic when it comes to taxes. Is it because the spokespersons make so much money that they don't believe what they're saying? They should hire me to do it, I'd spin tax talk all day for three meals and a roof. Maybe a sexy sportscar.

[nyawker]

I think you've made the message way too long. I would reduce it to this:

It is not a hardship for a person who makes 300,000 dollars a year to pay an extra 4% in taxes on the last 50,000. It is hardship for a family of 4 to pay $12,000 a year for health insurance that doesn't cover preexisting conditions.

If you wanted to throw in something extra, you could say: People making $40,000 a year pay 300% more in Social Security taxes than people who make $300,000 per year and this evens it out.

[policyadvisor]

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

RE: Economic Recovery Act of 2008.

From 1974 until 1994, I served as an economic advisor to Senator and Secretary of the Treasury Lloyd Bentsen of Texas.

Without going into great detail at this point this is the Treasury policy I would recommend to him at this time if he were still alive. here are 2 of 10 federal income tax policies need to be implemented retroactive to January 1, 2008. First, temporarily stop the purchase of crude oil for the Strategic National Oil Reserve ( this has been done since I originally sent this to Cramer back in April.)

I'm only allowed 250 words here. Balance of provisions n separate post.

1 Iraq War Debt Reduction Act – 10% surtax on personal and corporate net taxable income over $250,000 and an additional 5% surtax on net taxable earnings over 2 million per year. Sunset expiration 5 years after implementation. ( this has to be same for individuals Schedule c and Corporate to be fair to unicorporated small business).
2 Temporary Fossil Fuels Extraction Provision – Allow for immediate write off of all exploration costs ( no costs would be capitalized) for exploration on the millions acres of existing leases held by oil companies. Allow the sale of existing leases on currently restricted offshore federal lands with the provision that company can drill one exploration well in the currently restricted area for each well drilled on an existing government lease after July 1, 2008.

[PaulAbrams]

THe message IS brief. The non-bolded is explanation, color, etc.
Basically, it's "No one wants to pay taxes. The Bush Administration and Republican Congress has spent us into the worst debt in WORLD HISTORY. That's immoral, the debt falls to our children. We have major needs--healthcare, education, new energy ecnomy, vets benefits--and we have to pay for them. THat's why we raise taxes, and we go to those who can afford it--the wealthy."

Comeback to reducing taxes increases revenues: "taxcuts do not pay for themselves. Just ask Hank Paulson, Bush's Treasury Secretary. If they did pay for themselves, why is our debt so high?"

[AnalogKid]

Answer to your Point #7 Part B:

Because of spending.

A simple cursory glance at the incoming numbers versus the outgoing numbers will show this. You can demand the spinningest spinmeisters spin the spin at Speed Metal rotational velocity, but the numbers don’t lie.

Just as they show the increase in revenues collected post tax cuts, they show an increase in spending, running into deficit.

Also, on your Point #2, do try to be at least a little intellectually honest and say that the $5 Trillion “surplus” was only projected and not an actual surplus.

[nyawker]

They speak in soundbites; you speak in paragraphs. That's why Dem strategists look so lame. They haven't worked out the sound bites.

[Gma11]

I can hardly stand to watch Dem spokespersons on television. They are so incredibly lame.

[magen]

Too complicated for most idiot Americans.

Ya gotta splian it Robin Hood style.

"We're gonna take from the rich and give to the middle-class."

"The rich have been stealing from us for too long"

Can't get more simple than that.

[eCon]

Magen is absolutely right. Taxes are government sanctioned theft. The problem is that the money never quite gets back to the "middle class," does it?

[wornsmooth]

eCon,
We will never get the balance of taxation/services right, but it has grown starkly out of whack under the recent years of Republican oversight and control. The basic problem is that we have been taxing the wrong area under the Repubs, namely, labor. Almost all the tax breaks have gone towards wealth, rather than labor. Stock trading adds zero wealth to the economy. Wealth,from a national viewpoint, is created by labor and ,to some degree, investment in labor production. We have it skewed backwards by giving tax breaks to money that is diverted from these areas, and to money that is only made by virtue of having money. A very screwed up system that has developed only recently.
The current crowd in office has trumped even this tax and switch game. They then take the money that is paid in taxes by labor, and GIVE it to those whose wealth comes from money through govt spending on such worthwhile ventures as no bid contracts to Haliburton etc.(defense profit margin is over 25%!). It has been one of the most stunning transfer of wealth schemes ever for this country. Labor will someday have to repay the debt run up by the wealthiest 1% in this country in 1.direct dollars ,2. fixing the infrastructure built by the preceeding generation(with tax money) and 3.less social services and safety nets for them. We will slowly become economically paralyzed for the the same reasons the former USSR did.

[wolfgangmo]

Son,

You are on the wrong board to be peddling that snake oil.

Taxes are taxes, the pooling of resources to pay for things that individuals or companies cannot or will not pay for but which the society as a whole has decided are necessary. Examples would be schools, police, military, et. al..

If you believe the bull poop you are selling here then you also believe that the military should be completely and immediately disbanded, but you don't, do you?

[nyawker]

I know it's difficult to comprehend when you're passionately devoted to a cause, but when you begin an argument by calling people thieves (even when it's true), you alienate people you need on your side. That's how Republicans have managed to get the trailer parks of poor white America to turn out for them while they pick their pockets.

[littlenoodles]

At some point your Republican counterpart will imply (or state flat out) that lowering taxes raises revenue. Just point out that this standard Republican line about taxes is a lie.

A classic lie built around a grain of truth. Back in '81, when Reagan cut taxes, marginal tax rates *were* very high. The somewhat unintuitive claim that you could take in more revenue by lowering the top rate turned out to have been true under those conditions. But the Republicans will claim that *any* tax cut will increase revenue. That's absurd on its face. Will cutting the tax rate to 0% increase revenue?

Then go to the specifics. Bill Clinton reversed some of the tax cuts at the top, and not only did revenue go up, the budget was brought into balance. Bush reversed Clinton, and brought back deficits ever since. Acknowledge that it's possible to set the tax rate too high, but also point out that Clinton 'found the sweet spot' where you could raise the revenue you need without hurting the economy.

Oh sure, they'll claim that Bush's tax cuts raised revenue too. But keep the focus on those deficits. Ohe of Bush's tax cuts was a tax holiday on foreign profits of U.S. companies that brought in new revenue briefly, but not because of the low rate. That kind of one-time game proves nothing. The new revenue was the result of substituting one tax avoidance loophole for another one.

[eCon]

Who cares?

Conservatives (most Republicans) want LESS money in the hands of government, not more. The less those grimy congressmen touch of our money the better.

I'll pay for my own health care and retirement thank you very much.

[wolfgangmo]

What are you talking about?

Pedophiles [mostly Republicans] want less government interference with their underwear.

Just because you want something doesn't make it so. That argument has the emotional depth of a 2 year old.

And to add to your limited list, you will also be paying for your road, your cop, your fire department, your gas [how is THAT going for ya?], your FDIC [unless you are paying for your mattress], your military, your sewer lines, your water, your electricity, your internet, your phone lines, your radio, your .... well you get the idea.

Or maybe you don't get it.

[nyawker]

Yes, but who'll pay for the war? Right now, nobody is paying for it, and even if you cut every single welfare program you hate so much it won't be enough to pay for it and the normal defense budget. Your problem is that you suffer from the same problem as those grimy congressmen you complain about. You're avaricious. That doesn't make you a bad guy, but it hardly makes you someone who's willing to sacrifice anything at all to put the country in better shape. My parents taught me to pay my way.

[DMSmith]

First of all, you assume you'll always be able to pay for it. Don't be so sure.

In addition, if you do, you'll be living in a sick and disabled world that cannot function because of your unwillingness to look at the general good of your own society as a part of your concern. Trust me, it is your concern.

Your lovely gated community won't protect you when nobody else can live off what they have. Without all of us paying the costs of a secure and educated and healthy society we won't live in one.

This is why 'conservatives (most Republicans)' are so sadly and desperately wrong.

[nyawker]

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=203

Check out the years from the Bush tax cuts on. Then compare the years after the Clinton program, which raised taxes on those in the higher bracket. The economy zoomed through the nineties and Federal revenues increased, which got us back into surplus. We all know what happened after the Bush tax cuts. If you check out the website, use the first column, which is federal revenues from individual income taxes.

[nypoet22]

I like the "Nobody likes taxes," mantra, but the rest is TOO COMPLICATED!

Try following it up with this:

"...but republicans always lie about taxes." THIS line needs to be rinsed and repeated until everyone knows it. Some follow-ups would be,

"They lower your tax by one dollar and play dumb when your bills to go up by ten dollars

"They take pennies from the penniless and give millions to the millionaires,

"They cut and cap the taxes of CEO's and raise the relative tax rates of their employees.

"They spend money on investment in oil companies, but they won't fund investment in education.

"They let our roads and bridges fall apart, and pass on the savings to the guys who fly private jets to work,

"They talk about creating jobs, then pocket most of the money and lay you off anyway."

just for starters.

[PuppaX]

Beautiful. In marketing?

[nypoet22]

nope, middle school teacher.

[eCon]

Wow. Where to begin...

First of all, you are giving lessons on how to lie with a straight face. How is that not "immoral?" When Republicans say that Obama will raise everyone's taxes, it is only a slight exaggeration. If you add the word "nearly" before "everyone's," then it is perfectly correct. Nice try.

While Obama's proposals to increase social security taxes, death taxes, estate taxes, capital gains taxes, corporate taxes, and others may not affect "everyone"--which is debatable--there is one tax hike that 99% of America will feel poignantly: The taxes on Oil Companies. Strike two.

Also, if you are ONLY raises taxes to the levels they were in the 90's, they will return to the highest level they have been in the ENTIRE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY. Looks like you've struck out, my friend.

The fundamental flaw in the whole argument is not that we can't afford government programs without raising taxes... it is that we should never have these programs in the first place!!! Education, healthcare, energy... the federal government has no business being involved in any of it!!!

An honest person would not be teaching novice democratic economists how to "spin," but rather discovering that his position is logically, intellectually, politically, and economically indefensible. You, my friend, are the one who is engulfed in lies and deception. And while many Republicans may exaggerate the truth, Democrats never had it in the first place.

[wayoutleft]

obama's tax plan:
http://oba­ma.3cdn.ne­t/b7be3b7c­d08e587dca­_v852mv8ja­.pdf

capital gains
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/uploadedpdf/1000588_taxfacts_011904.pdf

whether the government should be involved in anything is a question of political philosophy. econ is entitled to his opinion. everything else he says is a lie.
but i'm not convinced there's a way to sell higher taxes.

[wayoutleft]

sorry about the dead obama link. this is better:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/18/obama.taxplan/index.html

[eCon]

Look. Taxes are very simple.

No man is an island when it comes to taxes. If you raise taxes on the rich, it affects prices of commodities and products for the poor. If you tax the dead, the living can't spend the money themselves. If you tax corporations, their products and services increase in price for your middle-class people and investment goes down (investment grows our economy).

So regardless of Obama's populist attempt to satisfy the poor and middle class with promises of lower taxes, the net effect is an increase on taxes for the economy as a whole. When you tax the economy you take money from the private sector and give it to the public sector.

So, there is one simple question to ask: Is the government better at handling money than the private sector? Anyone who says that they are is a liar.

[FirstShirt]

No no. Don't warn them. They think few people make six figure income now after 8 years of republican leadership. They think that taxing the public will be welcomed as the "politics of hope". They want to replace corporations with government. After all, government has done such a good job up to now.

Keep dreaming, my socialist colleagues.

[wolfgangmo]

Dear Hairshirt,

First of all, who are "they?"

Second of all, I don't think anyone here wants to replace corporations with government but rather get corporations off of the public payroll. If they can't EARN their way, just like small and mid sized companies then they deserve to die off. Isn't that capitalism, comrade?

[BillZBubb]

I would add one additional backup point: The Republicans lie that 9/11 was the cause of the deficits. Texas airhead Kay Bailey Hutchison repeats this baloney with every breath. The Democratic "experts" need to know that less than 25% of the Bush/Republican debt orgy can be attributed to 9/11, Homeland Security, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

[FirstShirt]

So let me see if I understand your reasoning. The trashing of the airline industry, the invasion of afganistan and iraq, and the general depression of a world wide conflict with terrorism have not had an economic impact? Where did you go to school, the Jimmy Carter school of economics?

[wolfgangmo]

I was going to reply to this but then I realized that Huffpo doesn't provide closed captioning for the thinking impaired.

[BillZBubb]

Too funny, and where did you go to school, Mrs. Klinks School for the Mentally Challenged?

Bush's destruction of the dollar has done more to kill the airline industry than terrorism. The dollar price of fuel is out of control.

The invasion of Iraq was a foolish war of choice by the Crawford Cretin.

There has been no "general depression" nor any "world wide conflict with terrorism". Those claims are as inane as they are laughable. The US economy, and the economy of most of the world has grown since 9/11. The US is the only country throwing money down the rathole of Iraq.

Even with all that, of the Trillions in debt Bush has added, only 25% or so can be attributed to costs associated with 9/11 and it's aftermath--and that includes the debacle in Iraq.

[nyawker]

1.3 trillion tax cut. 600 billion war in Iraq (off budget, so it doesn't even show up on the deficit). There's 2 trillion dollars right there. Falling dollar caused by irresponsible fiscal policies (the ones you defend). I'd be willing to bet that you couldn't tell me one true thing about the economic conditions that led to Jimmy Carter's problems. Jimmy Carter cost himself the presidency by the honorable act of appointing a man who told him ahead of time what he was going to do to fix the economy and how long it would take (Paul Volcker). You think you're making cute and glib points but you're just telling us what your favorite TV station is.

[Beamreach]

How about saying that it is time for the wealthy to INVEST in this country again? Taxes are an investment in the future of this country(eg., education), an investment in infrastucture (eg., roads, sewers, water supply, etc.) an investment in security ( eg., military, homeland security) and so on.

What's wrong with saying that those who have benefited the most from what this country has provided ought to feel good about paying a little more to make sure it stays strong for their children?

How about saying that paying taxes is PATRIOTIC! Everyone should be proud to pay taxes and contribute to THEIR government.

[PaulAbrams]

I completely agree.
I've used this in other settings.
I would put it like this, "the wealthy are just as patriotic as anyone else, and it is an insult to them to say that they would not willingly invest in America's future"....

[timm0]

But Paul, does that really resonate with erstwhile Republicans (that is, not extremist neocon types who are a lost cause at jump)? In the context of paying for new spending on GI Bill, better vet care, health care, and energy independence efforts, I can see it playing well. But too many even moderate Republicans don't associate govt spending with things like that - they reflexively picture the "welfare queen." We need to convert the image into pictures of, oh, Mrs. McCain - she's received more welfare from the bush tax cuts than anyone else!

I guess part of any of these equations is a genuine, plausible solution (promise?) to crush earmark and other spending. As I've said in other venues, as an example, we eliminate all federal highway dollar expenditures for new roads. Mass transit and repairs are what we'll fund with federal dollars for at least a few years.

As long as you are cutting "bad" spending, adding "good" spending, and targeting taxes to those with the means, you have a winning platform.

[ChristopherLib]

Even in this age of Gays and Guns hysteria the GOP still has no better wedge issue than Taxes. The way they distort the issue and smear Democrats with it and make Democrats capitulate at least somewhat to their side is really something to behold. Democrats are scared to talk about this issue in the reasonable way this article suggests; though I would go farther and say the top 5% should be taxed at higher rates than they were under the Clinton Administration, if you really want to do something about the defecit and paying down the National Debt in addition to needs like healthcare and education. Unless you want to seriously cut the defense budget which is definetly doable but Democrats are even more scared to talk about that than they are about taxes.

[rwe]

Even before Hillary's cold frozen body was out of the primary, Barack had 4 tax increases on the board that would hurt every man woman child and business regardless of race ,creed or geography...Barack Obama for 20 years a student of the Chicago political organization.... Chicago highest sales taxes outside of Denmark 10.25%. Highest gas prices , most corrupt region of country including DC.. Every branch of Democrat offices are under federal investigations... Todd Stroger, Daley ,Blagojovich, Emil Jones.

[timm0]

"Barack had 4 tax increases on the board that would hurt every man woman child and business regardless of race ,creed or geography"

OK sparky, so how do we pay off the multi-tril­lion-dolla­r debt? Libertarian pixie dust?

[wolfgangmo]

Bwahahahah­ahahahahah­ahaha.

Stop it. I can't breath.

Pixie dust. Bwahahahahahahaha. Choke. Snort.

[PaulAbrams]

What do Chicago's taxes have to do w Obama's proposals?
And, please be specific about the 4 tax increases that would "hurt" everyone. I'd like to see them.

[Gondo]

Higher taxes hurt everyone. When they raise taxes on business,big or small, who do you think pays these taxes? The very people the left says they want to help thats who. Republican policies have not driven corporations out of America, higher taxes and unions have.