home

Rewriting History

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 02:24:03 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Here is Beltway Blogger Ezra Klein rewriting history in order to pretend raising taxes is juuust tooo hard:

As we've seen a couple of times now, when deficit reduction comes into conflict with tax cuts, tax cuts win. They win, in fact, every time, and have won every time since Ronald Reagan.

That's just false. Of course Bill Clinton raised taxes, and on the rich. Now Ezra Klein knows this. What is his interest in writing this falsehood? My guess is it is to excuse the "Grand Bargain" he suspects the Obama Administration may be embarking upon.

And in order to do this, Ezra Klein has to pretend Bill Clinton's 1993 tax increases on the rich never happened.

Speaking for me only

< "Progressive" Blindspot: Tax Policy | Overrated, Underrated, Properly Rated >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Rewriting History | 27 comments (27 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Tax cuts didn't even win throughout Reagan's term (none / 0) (#1)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 02:37:18 PM EST
    I bet Ezra gets a lot of mail on that whopper.

    not true. (none / 0) (#13)
    by cpinva on Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 05:16:12 PM EST
    Tax cuts didn't even win throughout Reagan's term

    the 1981 tax act included across the board decreases in marginal rates, for both individuals & corporations. unfortunately (and completely expectedly), it resulted in such a decrease in revenues, he had to raise them again. everyone conveniently forgets about this.

    Parent

    That's what I meant (none / 0) (#23)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 10:41:53 PM EST
    but did not say very well using Ezra's words. I should have said his own tax cuts did not even survive his term.

    Parent
    Is Ezra giving a taste of the new narrative? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 02:41:02 PM EST
    The democrats have concluded that they have a PR problem and that they need more and better lies?

    It's not possible he's mistaken? (none / 0) (#4)
    by wsn on Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 03:21:46 PM EST
    I think making the claim that "politicians are scared to raise taxes" is an accurate statement of the world today.

    I don't think the fact that the Democrats lost big in 1994 makes 1993 likely to stiffen the spine of potential tax raisers on the fence.

    No (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 03:30:39 PM EST
    It is not possible he's mistaken.

    Come on.

    Parent

    Come on? (none / 0) (#6)
    by wsn on Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 03:41:51 PM EST
    Uh ok, this is clearly and obviously deliberate falsification of the historical record.

    There's no way a blogger could make a mistake. I stand corrected.

    Parent

    Indeed it was (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 03:47:31 PM EST
    In fact, I think that is the more charitable interpretation.

    Your defense of Ezra is that he does not know that Bill Clinton raised taxes on the rich.

    My gawd, if that is true, he is an incompetent.

    Parent

    More like... (none / 0) (#8)
    by wsn on Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 04:00:22 PM EST
    ...he could have made the same overall point by tweaking the wording - adding that Clinton raised taxes (but Dems lost big), maybe that Bush I did too (but was vilified by his party for it and didn't even win reelection).

    So I just don't see a motive for lying, when glossing over something he probably doesn't care about (what with a "blind spot" and all) as much to make the central point provides a much more plausible explanation.

    Parent

    Absurd (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 04:09:12 PM EST
    "[T]ax cuts win. They win, in fact, every time, and have won every time since Ronald Reagan."

    "tweaking" won't fix that.

    That is flat out false.

    I picked Clinton because people might not know that Bush 41 raised taxes. Though a political analyst should have remembered.

    Of course Reagan also raised taxes too.

    Oh BTW on the politics, Bill Clinton won a landslide reelection. Yeah I know people like to pretend he didn't, but he did. He won by a bigger margin than Reagan did over Carter. And everyone called that a landslide.

    Parent

    re: absurd (none / 0) (#10)
    by wsn on Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 04:22:56 PM EST
    Hey, I agree taxes should be raised!

    And I agree that that phrase is a false statement!

    And I agree that politicians are vastly underrating the blowback from raising taxes, especially when they pass out goodies!

    For me, adding the provisos that (1) Bush I raised taxes (but was vilified in his own party) and (2) Clinton raised taxes (but dems lost big in the next election) don't really undercut his major premise, and their inclusions would be "tweaks" rather than something else.  And so I don't see "deliberately falsifying the historical record" a more compelling explanation than "was sloppy with his minor premise."

    Parent

    don't really undercut his major premise (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 04:33:18 PM EST
    Except that his major premise is false.

    And indeed you major premise is wrong, at least as to Clinton.

    Or you have an alternate theory - Clinton did what no other Preisdent will ever again achieve.

    It's absurd.

    Parent

    OT but important to me (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 07:10:07 PM EST
    Just wanted to pass it along.  Merscorp's CEO is gone, and now the Secretary is being replaced by General Counsel Sharon Horstkamp.

    Parent
    Bush I (none / 0) (#27)
    by cal1942 on Sat Feb 19, 2011 at 11:18:47 AM EST
    lost because of the economy.

    The right likes to say it's because he raised taxes.  They want everyone to be afraid to raise taxes.

    Obama's 'DEAL' was, IMO, extremely foolish.

    Then again I believe that the deal was a reflection of his own beliefs.

    Parent

    My Gawd! (none / 0) (#12)
    by NYShooter on Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 04:59:32 PM EST
    How many times must we say it?

    If the debate is allowed to be framed by simpletons, for simpletons: "HE will Raise Your Taxes, I Will Cut Your taxes," then raising taxes is a loser.

    But, if you begin with the premise that some plurality of voters have functioning brains and explain that the reason we're in fiscal trouble and the middle class is in free-fall is that The Rich aren't paying their fair share and if they were we'd have a balamced budget, millions of jobs available, and a steady rise in our stadard of living.......well the question then is quite redundant, isn't it.

    One of my biggest disappointments in Obama is, with his gifted speaking ability, he could sell sno-cones to eskimos, but I guess his definition of what a Democrat is is different than mine.

    well, there's your first mistake: (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by cpinva on Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 05:20:39 PM EST
    But, if you begin with the premise that some plurality of voters have functioning brains

    the average voter is woefully uninformed, helped along by 30 years of misinformation by the republican party and a pliant media.

    so no, that premise just doesn't fly.

    Parent

    Now hold on there. (none / 0) (#16)
    by NYShooter on Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 05:32:05 PM EST
    I said "have functioning brains," not "filled with knowledge" brains.

    Its the most maddening thing to see how the Democrats simply refuse to "educate" voters.

    I mean, I wouldn't change America's name to "Mensa-Land" just yet, but I think the potential is there.

    The R's get it, The D's don't. (and if they do, they choose to remain silent)

    Parent

    The R's get that simple and stupid sells (none / 0) (#21)
    by Raskolnikov on Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 07:38:01 PM EST
    because there's a lot of simple and stupid out there.  Liberal arguments are often more nuanced and a vast segment of our population is incapable of nuance.  We just work so hard to indoctrinate people into understanding things in terms of binaries that its hard to break out of.  Never underestimate the stupidity of the American voter, regardless of how obvious or simple our side may seem.  I'm sure somebody here knows or has heard of the study where they gave people an IQ test, then asked people where they thought they were.  The bottom thought they were near the top, and the top thought they were near the middle.  So it goes..

    Parent
    Well, I'd like to get past (none / 0) (#25)
    by NYShooter on Sat Feb 19, 2011 at 03:02:53 AM EST
    these generalizations and try something that hasn't been tried before.

    You know there isn't any such thing as "THE American people." generally speaking the country breaks down pretty much 50/50% Republican/Democrat. And I would say that not all 100% fit your description of "simple and stupid." Certainly many are, and most of them are unreachable. But elections are won "on the margins," and I also contend that there are enough simply mistreated, uninformed voters that could be persuaded.

    After my life in business, the last couple of decades as chief negotiator for a large household name company, I've come to believe in one irrefutable truth: Something profound happens to a person when you address them in a dignified, respectful, and intelligent manner. It's like the wind being knocked out of them, their belligerence disappearse, their jaw drops, their eyes open and look into yours, and that quizzicle look on their face tells you they've never been addressed this way before.

    people tend to behave in direct response to how they're treated. Why not try and talk to them as fellow brothers and sister, with honesty, and empathy, and truthfulness?

    If anyone could do it, Obama could. I know it would work; you wouldn't have to convince everybody, just enough to give us a permanent majority, and new hope for our futures. As i said, obama could do it.

    The question is, does he want to?

    Parent

    Before we go wishin' and hopin' that (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Anne on Sat Feb 19, 2011 at 08:55:53 AM EST
    Obama takes on the dignified and respectful education of America, it might be a good idea to have some kind of reassurance that he'd be bringing the reluctant over to the Democratic worldview as most of us long-time Democrats see it, and based on the last two+ years of seeing Obama in action, I'm not all that sure - in fact, not sure at all - that he could do that, because - and here's the important part - that's not how he sees it, and not what he believes.

    Oh, he may say that he does, but his actions say something else.  And maybe what those actions say is, "gee, I'd really like to help you out, but, see, if I do, then these really important, savvy "folks" not only won't like me, but they won't give me money so I can keep being the Most Important and Interesting Man in the World, and - I'm sorry - but I have a deep-seated need to prove my father was wrong to abandon me, so it's important that I court the affections of those who are least likely to ever align with me, even if, in the end, no matter what I do, they prove once again that I wasn't good enough for my father to stick around for."

    No, what we need is someone who believes what too many people were deluded into thinking Obama believed, and who can respectfully educate America on why that's the better way.

    I don't, of course, know who that is, but I do know that it isn't Obama.

    Parent

    as always, Anne (none / 0) (#28)
    by NYShooter on Sat Feb 19, 2011 at 03:04:50 PM EST
    your thinking is clear headed, and I agree with everything you've said.

    My statement was that Obama "could" do it, meaning he has the skills to do it. But, I think you give him more credit than he deserves as to what he "wants" to do. He "wants" to do whatever brings praise and glory upon himself and what would open the the gates of acceptance he so desperately craves.

    Right now he craves the acceptance of the Oppressors because he believes that's where the power lies. But, as Egypt has shown us, that dynamic can change. And if, by some means, the "grass roots" armed itself with information and organization Obama would flip like a weathervane on a barn roof.

    We know he has no core values, he's a leaf in the wind. In his campaign he was happy with "the people" and their $1 donations.......untill wall St. and their countless millions came-a-knocking. Out went his promise of public financing, and he showed what some of us suspected from the get-go, he's just another political prostitute sell-out.

    Parent

    I would say (none / 0) (#22)
    by CoralGables on Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 08:57:07 PM EST
    the first part of your statement is correct and the second part is probably wrong.

    "the average voter is woefully uninformed, helped along by 30 years of misinformation by the republican party and a pliant media."

    The general public believes what they choose to believe. The majority get their information from those that spout the pre-chosen mantra.

    Parent

    Ezra gives me heartburn, which is not the (none / 0) (#15)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 05:25:21 PM EST
    way I like to end the work week and start the weekend.

    Call me old-fashioned, but I think if someone is going to veer from opinion to fact, it's important to get the facts right; in this case, it really isn't all that hard to do, but I guess facts are the first victim when one has a point to make and the facts just don't work unless you fiddle with them.

    And frankly, I'm a little tired of it.

    Making a note to self to check next February, to see how Ezra re-writes the history of this next year, which I think is going to be a festival of pain and hardship for the common folk.  I'm thinking he'll wax poetic about the booming stock market and the record corporate profits, talk about Obama's courage, and ignore what's happening at the middle to lower end of the spectrum.

    Hey. maybe as long as I have heartburn, I should go see what Booman has to say...urp...or maybe not; no sense spoiling this Friday evening glass of wine.

    If it is a good red (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 06:23:37 PM EST
    and the eyes of your beloved are before you.  I would do it tomorrow morning before I go outside to scoop dogpoop.

    Parent
    Actually, it was white - the reds have been (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 07:31:25 PM EST
    triggering headaches lately...

    And my beloved is watching something about the Alaska Gold Rush and giving me the blow-by-blow on hand-tieing flies now that fishing season is almost upon us...

    I can't read Booman - just can't.  The boy has a crush on Obama that is so bad it has rendered him stupid.

    You know that feeling you get when you read old yearbooks or journals you kept when you were 15?  Well, someday Booman is going to read over his old posts and won't be able to comprehend how lovesick he really was.

    Parent

    Check if the headachy wines (none / 0) (#24)
    by Towanda on Sat Feb 19, 2011 at 12:02:43 AM EST
    are from the U.S. or elsewhere.  I started getting headaches, and a physician friend said to check whether I was drinking California wines.  Yes, I was.  The friend said that's becoming more common, and he suspects that it's something sprayed on the grapes in California but not used elsewhere.  I'm fine now with foreign wines, white or red.  Weird.

    Parent
    Hmmmmm (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 06:28:31 PM EST
    It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.


    Rewriting History | 27 comments (27 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment