The Retreat From Clintonism

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 10:47:15 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Via John Cole, Ezra Klein writes:

[I]t'[s . . .] worth taking a moment to appreciate how far Democrats have backslid on th[e tax] issue since Bill Clinton. Clinton, of course, raised taxes in the face of large deficits. The Obama campaign, by contrast, swore not to raise taxes on any family making less than $250,000, and Democrats might now effectively raise that to $1,000,000. In setting up the expectation that taxes can't go up for anyone but millionaires, Democrats take most of them off the table. And given that Republicans have no interest in taxes, either, that basically removes them as a tool of fiscal policy going forward.

What Ezra does not mention is that Clinton cut taxes on the working poor by significantly increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit. As regular readers know, I have long believed that letting the Bush tax cuts expire was the most important issue of this Congress. For all the talk of the "most progressive legislation" in 50 years, I've always felt that the most important progressive achievement President Obama could present after this Congress was the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. But it appears that Democrats have retreated from Clintonism on tax policy.

Speaking for me only

< Someone On The Internet Was Mean To Me | "Pragmatists," Like Centrists" And "Moderates," Are People Who Agree With Me >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Retreat From Clintonism | 14 comments (14 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

they've retreated on EVERY "ism"... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by Dadler on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 11:07:18 AM EST

...except cynicism.

the utter lack of imagination never ceases to amaze me, exceeded only by a level of stasis/corruption that would sell its own grandmother for a few campaign dollars.

how hard is it to say that you stand for free markets with enforced rules that allow wealth to be created while at the same time assuring that the average worker doesn't get screwed? not the average worker is given a cadillac and a mansion, but that they simply make a living plus wage and have enough to live securely enough so that deprivation and chaos do not prevail. We want a game with fair rules for those who never seem to get them.

but what do i know?

You forgot the best "ism" of all: (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by Anne on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 11:35:37 AM EST

elitism - and rather than retreat from it, it seems to me they're making an all-out effort to secure the domination of the elite class for the forseeable future.

We're becoming very much a let-them-eat-cake society, and I cannot tell you how much it pains me that Democrats in power have made only the most token of efforts to look out for the 98% of us who aren't in the elite class, apparently deciding that joining the cause of the elite is much more rewarding to their careers and their bottom lines.

It shouldn't be hard to make policy decisions that lift up those with the least and still benefit those with the most, but first, you have to believe that those with the least deserve the opportunity to improve their lives - and I think far too many in power don't believe that. I mean, listen to the rhetoric: the foreclosure/mortgage mess isn't about predatory lending or fraudulent activity or greed on the part of the banks or Wall Street - it's about the deadbeats who don't deserve to seek redress. The unemployment problem isn't about the failure of policy, it's about people who might be enjoying a little too much getting those unemployment checks.

Some days, I can't believe it's this bad, but it is - and it's only going to get worse for so many, to the benefit of a relative few.

I could not be more disgusted.


My wife is on unemployment... (none / 0) (#12)
by Dadler on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 06:20:52 PM EST

...for the first time in her life, it's all new and irritating and necessary and a pittance.

but we're much better off than others, mostly because we sold our house at about the peak and DIDN'T buy bigger. We knew it was a joke, kept our money, and have been renters for seven years.

as bright as i like to think i am, however, i'm not so callous as to think ALL those who made worse decisions somehow deserve to be bankrupt and homeless and shamed.


: People so often think (none / 0) (#14)
by christinep on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 07:58:15 PM EST

that there is a choice on certain things. When my dad was laid off--as he was raising my sister & myself after our mother died in the recession of the 1950s--he strived, wept, and fought for his family. Eventually, it all worked out. We never forgot that pain, fear.
Employment loss can and does happen to anyone, and in the most unexpected circumstances. And, I hope with all the memory of what it is that your employment reality will shortly improve and that you will both pursue your goals again.

no compromise (none / 0) (#5)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 11:24:50 AM EST

on High Broderism


Huh (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by lilburro on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 11:14:17 AM EST

So those struggling members of the middle class making between $250,001 and $999,999

emphasis mine.

Thank god we can pay for the additional $400 billion cost with that few billion we saved on the federal pay freeze.

Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#6)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 11:28:25 AM EST

could have, and still could IMO, beaten the republicans to a bloody pulp with the idea of refusing to extend unemployment benefits unless they are paid for but insisting on tax cuts for millionaires that are not paid for.

forget tax cuts for the middle class. he could have killed them with that.

: Capt, that's just one of the huge differences. (5.00 / 3) (#8)
by jeffinalabama on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 12:45:37 PM EST

Clinton would be on the airwaves, out at gatherings, and he'd have his people out there also.
Names fromt the past like Panetta, Carville, Begala, Reich, Panetta, Ickes, DeeDee Myers, even Geroge Stephanopolous. They could and did take matters to the people. Always succesful? nope. But people knew where the Clinton Administration stood.
Like his policies or hate them, Clinton had his finger on the pulse of the nation, and he was strong enough to put it in the face of the Republicans.
Whom do we have out there now?

What is so progressive about (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by cpa1 on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 01:11:06 PM EST

letting the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy expire? I think it's the most conservative thing that can be done because of huge deficts were created because of these tax cuts?

Keep in mind, before Reagan and Bush and besides the Hoover tax cuts, wealthy Americans paid from a much higher tax bracket than did the middle and upper middle classes. What Reagan and Bush did was not only radical but toally illogical.

We need to get rid of the EIC and the only way to do that is to stimulate business to get people better jobs. We cannot do it with this trickle down stagnation. As a matter of fact, after thirty years of hearing about trickling down, I think the concept needs a urologist because trickle is an overstatement. There is no multipier effect, as the trickle is not causing business to invest in employees and equipment.

why? (none / 0) (#10)
by sj on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 05:01:54 PM EST

We need to get rid of the EIC...

: Because people that qualify (none / 0) (#11)
by jeffinalabama on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 05:08:19 PM EST

for the EIC don't usually need to hire CPA's? just spitballing here...

Do you think they are waiting for the Repubs (none / 0) (#2)
by Buckeye on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 11:12:50 AM EST

to take over Congress so they can trap them into an unpopular vote with their base (the "Tea Party" express that put them into the majority)?

Asking a Dem controlled lame duck Congress to vote for a tax plan does very litte to hurt Repubs (they can unanimously vote against it with only one or two in the Senate clearing the filibuster hurdle). But putting on the table a tax plan that raises rates on the wealthy while keeping them in place for the middle class will be a tough vote for a Repub congress. Vote yes, their base splinters into Establishment/moderate Repubs vs. Tea Party Repubs. Vote no, and they lose the American people. I am wondering if the Obama admin is just stalling so he can trap the new Repub Congress before they even get their feet on the ground.

Wake me up (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 11:16:24 AM EST

when that happens.


: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz....... (none / 0) (#13)
by Dadler on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 06:22:12 PM EST