President Obama picks a political fight on taxes
Posted by Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake at 06:30 AM ET, 09/19/2011
WashPost
When President Obama unveils his deficit-reduction plan this morning in the Rose Garden, the proposal sure to draw the most attention is his call for people making $1 million or more to pay more in taxes.
Obama is touting the proposal as the “Buffett Rule”, an homage to billionaire investor Warren Buffett who has repeatedly insisted the wealthy should be paying more taxes.
And there are (smart) politics everywhere in it. Here’s why.
1. Polling: The numbers on taxing the wealthy are very clear. In a July Washington Post/ABC poll, 72 percent of those tested supported raising taxes on those making $250,000 or more as a means of reducing the debt. And, in an August CNN poll, 62 percent said taxes on the wealthy should be kept high “so the government can use their money for programs to help lower-income people.” In our 50-50 political world, those numbers are as close as you can get to a political slam dunk.
2. Populism: Obama is an awkward populist, at best, but the frame that he and his advisors are putting on this proposal is unmistakably reminiscent of the famous Al Gore (aka “The Goreacle) construct of “the people versus the powerful”. If ever there was a time when populism could sell, it’s now as economic anxiety has combined with widespread distrust with institutions to make most voters feel like David facing down an intractable Goliath every day. Need more evidence of the current power of populism? Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s rise has been fueled by his I-talk-like-regular-people-talk appeal and a background of humble roots that he regularly uses to not only connect with voters but also draw a stark contrast with the more patrician Mitt Romney.
3. Middle class: These earners are, without question, the swing vote of the 2012 presidential election. Households with incomes between $30,000 and $99,000 — our working, if broad, definition of the middle class — comprised 55 percent of the electorate in the 2008 election and will likely represent a similar share in 2012. Winning that group then becomes of paramount importance to Obama’s chances. And at a time when many members of the middle class are feeling more and more squeezed economically, the idea of getting the wealthy to pay more will seem to many of them like a political no-brainer.
(More here.)
WashPost
When President Obama unveils his deficit-reduction plan this morning in the Rose Garden, the proposal sure to draw the most attention is his call for people making $1 million or more to pay more in taxes.
Obama is touting the proposal as the “Buffett Rule”, an homage to billionaire investor Warren Buffett who has repeatedly insisted the wealthy should be paying more taxes.
And there are (smart) politics everywhere in it. Here’s why.
1. Polling: The numbers on taxing the wealthy are very clear. In a July Washington Post/ABC poll, 72 percent of those tested supported raising taxes on those making $250,000 or more as a means of reducing the debt. And, in an August CNN poll, 62 percent said taxes on the wealthy should be kept high “so the government can use their money for programs to help lower-income people.” In our 50-50 political world, those numbers are as close as you can get to a political slam dunk.
2. Populism: Obama is an awkward populist, at best, but the frame that he and his advisors are putting on this proposal is unmistakably reminiscent of the famous Al Gore (aka “The Goreacle) construct of “the people versus the powerful”. If ever there was a time when populism could sell, it’s now as economic anxiety has combined with widespread distrust with institutions to make most voters feel like David facing down an intractable Goliath every day. Need more evidence of the current power of populism? Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s rise has been fueled by his I-talk-like-regular-people-talk appeal and a background of humble roots that he regularly uses to not only connect with voters but also draw a stark contrast with the more patrician Mitt Romney.
3. Middle class: These earners are, without question, the swing vote of the 2012 presidential election. Households with incomes between $30,000 and $99,000 — our working, if broad, definition of the middle class — comprised 55 percent of the electorate in the 2008 election and will likely represent a similar share in 2012. Winning that group then becomes of paramount importance to Obama’s chances. And at a time when many members of the middle class are feeling more and more squeezed economically, the idea of getting the wealthy to pay more will seem to many of them like a political no-brainer.
(More here.)
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home