The Republican cognoscenti know that we have a lower tax burden now than we've had since Truman was president. They know that billions in subsidies to big oil are very unpopular, even within their own party. They know that tax breaks for corporate jets make no sense to the American voter when teachers are being laid off. They know full well that during the recent debt ceiling debate, polls repeatedly showed that a majority of Republicans agreed that any debt deal should include tax increases on the wealthy.
But the Republicans in Congress would stand for none of it. Now, why is that? Are the Republicans so beholden to the Tea Party extremists that they will ignore the wishes of most of their voting base? Are they so blind to the polls? Certainly not! The Republicans are not stupid, they are quite well aware of all these. But that again begs the question: why would they ignore all the polls and stick unwaveringly to positions that are unpopular within their own party? The answer's easy: it's all about power.
America suffered with the Great Depression for three years under Herbert Hoover, and came out of it under FDR. Conservative historians argue (from a position of ignorance) that FDR prolonged the Depression. But the fact remains that FDR pulled us through the Depression and through WWII. America also remembers clearly that by the end of the Clinton era, we were running a budget surplus that would have paid off our entire national debt by 2012. They also remember what happened in the Bush years that followed.
So what would happen if President Obama were successful in pulling us all the way out of the great recession, and were somehow able to bring our budget even close to a surplus once more? If he did, in all upcoming elections the Democrats would have a nearly unbeatable talking point in that they would be able to show America what happens when Republicans have control, and how the Democrats had to be the ones to put out the fire, so to speak. Oh, the conservatives would try to explain away every little point, but they would not be able to overcome the obvious simplicity of:
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Kenn Jacobine
Glenn,
It seems Obama doesn't like to raise taxes either. First, he extended the Bush tax cuts last December and then after all of his rhetoric he agreed to raising the debt ceiling by $2 trillion without soaking the rich to pay for it. What goes?
And your prediction about Obama ending the recession and producing a surplus, what are you smoking? Since he has taken office and in spite of trillions spent all the numbers are going in the wrong direction. No, like FDR's America we will suffer for many years because of awful economic policies coming out of Washington.
2 - zingzing
"What goes?"
in both instances, the republican party held the nation hostage. in the first instance, they would not pass middle class tax breaks and unemployment extensions without continuing the debt-ballooning bush tax cuts, and in the second, they would only let the administration cut services to middle class and poor families instead of adding a few taxes on for the rich.
i really can't quite figure out why so many people in this country want to look out for the rich... i know that the republicans get most of their funding from the rich, and that's why they vote that way, but why do so many middle class and poor people vote for the republicans? (i do realize that social conservatism garners the republicans some votes as well, but goddamn those people.)
3 - Glenn Contrarian
Kenn -
The only reason that Obama agreed to not raise taxes was that extending the Bush tax cuts was the ONLY way he could get the Republicans to agree to extend unemployment benefits.
And I made NO prediction - look for the word 'if', willya? It's there at least twice.
And lastly, if you'd sincerely look at what happened in the years 1934-1936, you'd find that FDR had largely brought us OUT of the Depression by 1936. BUT he listened to the Republicans who were for austerity measures (just like what happened this year) and what happened? Down we went again, until we became the recipients of the biggest government-funded stimulus in our history - WWII - and it worked like a charm.
You're so desperate to deny the obvious history, to change history to fit what you believe the facts must be. And because there's so many people like you, we're in the middle of relearning what FDR learned after he listened to the Republicans in 1937.
Lastly, you're missing the point of the article - the Republicans have ZERO incentive to help Obama balance the budget, for by doing so, they'd cut their own political throats.
4 - zingzing
don't you know that things go in cycles/the way that obama is ampin like frankles.
5 - Kenn Jacobine
Obama never put up a bill to close loopholes and raise tax rates on the rich even when he had big majorities in Congress.
Secondly, you should read Burton Fulsom's "New Deal or Raw Deal". It brilliantly shows how FDR raised all sorts or excise taxes so he could pay for things like the NRA, WPA.... So while these agencies were keeping prices artificially high for consumers, he extracted even more money from the private sector.
FDR became so anti-business that even his Treasury Secretary Morganthau protested. By the end of the thrties he remarked that they spent a bunch of money and had very little to show for it.
Again, Obama is repeating many of the same mistakes that FDR made and that is why the economic numbers are deteriorating.
6 - Kenn Jacobine
zing,
What are you talking about? Republicans are about as big spenders on social welfare as Democrats. Johnson passed the "Great Society" Nixon financed it. Reagan increased our national debt by $1.9 trillion and raised taxes. Bush I raised taxes and lost reelection. Clinton actually ended welfare as we know it. Bush II was the biggest spender until Obama. He gave us the prescription plan and a lot of spending so that those who coudn't afford a house could buy one. When have Republicans ever abolished a welfare program?
7 - handyguy
Alan Simpson, on Lawrence O'Donnell's MSNBC show last night, pointed toward a way out of the paradoxical madness in which we seem to be trapped about spending and taxes.
He said he and the other members of the Bowles commission were shocked to discover just how many tax breaks are in the current code: tens of thousands, amounting to $1 trillion a year in potential revenue. And nearly all of these deductions/exemptions are used only by the top 4% of earners.
Get rid of these tax breaks, which Simpson called the equivalent of earmarks and pork spending, and you could lower the marginal rates [to between 8% and 26%] and still increase revenue for paying down the debt. That should, in theory, be appealing to both parties.
But Grover Norquist would brand the result "tax increases" if revenue went up.
8 - handyguy
Kenn says Obama did this or didn't do that as if he is an autocrat who can rule by fiat. Even when he had majorities in both houses, the American system does not work like a parliamentary system. Republican minorities plus a few conservative Dems effectively gummed up the works, helped by the 60-vote requirement in the Senate.
9 - Glenn Contrarian
Kenn -
Still tap-dancing? Yep.
And what you're missing in your claims about how bad Republicans were when it came to social programs...is the fact that with the advent of Bush 43, Republicans want the social programs but simply don't want to pay for them. They want good education but don't want to pay for it. They want good infrastructure but don't want to pay for it.
You get what you pay for, Kenn - and when you refuse to pay for what you need, then you're not going to get what you need.
And did you miss the FACT that under Obama, our tax burden has been less than under any president since Truman? Your fellow conservatives have been treating that particular talking point like a third rail - they won't touch it!
But AGAIN, let's redirect back to the fact that the Republicans have ZERO incentive to help with the economy, because by doing so, they would be cutting their own political throats. Why else are they so insistent on keeping tax breaks and subsidies that are unpopular even within their own party?
10 - handyguy
Conservatives such as Grover Norquist want to shrink the government. They see any revenue increases -- even accompanied by larger spending cuts -- as contributing to the unchecked growth of government.
Conservatives like Paul Ryan have demonstrated that they are indeed willing to cut big entitlement programs. There are quite a few like him in the House. They see the "close your eyes, hold your nose and vote for entitlements" stance of the Bush years as untenable.
But combined with the idiotic no-taxes pledge, these cuts have no chance of passing -- they would have to be too draconian if not accompanied by some new revenue.
And just to be fair, the liberals who scream bloody murder at the very notion of reforming entitlements in any way are also part of the problem.
11 - Kenn Jacobine
The top 10 percent pay 70 percent of all income taxes. About 51 percent of all Americans don't pay any income taxes. About 50 percent of Americans receive a government check. Yea, there are huge discrepancies in the system and given that government has grown enormously since the 1970s seems like a cut back to 1950-1960 levels is in order to bring about the same prosperity we ad in those days. Of course, this includes a gold standard so soud money can led the way.
12 - handyguy
Kenn must of course, process everything through his Austrian-model robot. No other ideas have any validity. Tunnel vision, cast in cement.
13 - troll
back on the end of the great depression topic:
consider Romer's explanation of what ended the it - an increase in aggregate demand based on capital flight from Europe in the mid 30s - which better fits with the numbers (such as US GNP grew at an average of about 9%/yr between '33 and '42...'37 was a blip...and unemployment was already down to 10% by '42) than do WWII and 'natural correction' theories
since it's not clear where an equivalent investment would come from today and with today's dismal GDP trend line how useful is the comparison?
14 - Jet Gardner
No Handy, he just watches Fox News a lot
15 - Igor
Kenn: ¨About 51 percent of all Americans don't pay any income taxes. ¨
Which includes newborns, small children, prisoners, retired, bedridden, fulltime housewives, hedge fund operators, etc., and a huge number of teens who worked too little at McDonalds to incur a tax.
So what?
16 - Jet Gardner
Dear God, Must I post this everywhere. GOP administration's tax rates...
Eisenhower - the rich paid 91% before their tax lawyers reduced them to nothing or less...
Nixon/Ford - the rich paid 70 before their tax lawyers reduced them to nothing or less...
Reagan/Bush - (everyone's Republican hero) the rich paid 50% before their tax lawyers reduced them to nothing or less...
Bush II - the rich paid 35% before their tax lawyers reduced them to nothing or less...
Now Obama wants to only raise it to 37% and the teabaggers are having childish hissy fits!
Is it race?
Is it politics?
Big business' taxes haven't been raised yet, so where are all the jobs they're supposed to be creating right now at THIS tax rate, that they would be creating if the "Party of No" succeeds in keeping their rate from going up?????
(sigh)
17 - Jet Gardner
Do you know how many millionaires and billionaires have publicly stated that they actually pay less taxes than their secretaries?
18 - Jet Gardner
Warren Buffett stated in 2006 (and has repeated the state similar times) that he paid an income tax of 15.5% on his income of $46 million while his secretary paid 30% as tax on her $60,000 income. He mentioned that a few of his friends calculated and compared their percentage of taxes with that of their lower level employees and the same conclusion was reached: the US tax system allows the rich to pay less than the poor, which further widens the income disparity among the rich and the poor. Buffett, while slamming the tax system, suggested the US government take appropriate measures and increase the tax rate for the high income groups
19 - Dr Dreadful
Ye god$! How do I get a job as Warren Buffett's secretary?
20 - handyguy
Paul Krugman says what we need is a new equivalent to the commercial use of the Internet, which led us to 7% growth during some quarters in the mid-90s. Of course some of that growth was illusory, a bubble which had to burst.
21 - handyguy
First you would have to move to Omaha, Doc.
22 - Jet Gardner
You'll need prettier legs doc...
23 - Dr Dreadful
I do actually have quite pretty legs, although they're probably a bit too hairy for Mr Buffett's taste.
24 - Jet Gardner
Pictures! send me pictures!
25 - Jet Gardner
To quote Winston Churchill: America eventually does what's right... after they've tried everything else.