"Radical" Russ
Radical Writ header image 2

  Obama’s gonna raise your taxes! Well, not YOUR taxes…

September 13th, 2008 · 4 Comments

This post isn’t for me.  My taxes will go down.

It’s not a post for my wife, my family, my friends, or anybody I know or have ever met.  They’re taxes will go down.

It’s not even a post for my married couple friends who both make a six-figure income - each - own their home, and have no kids or major debts to think of… two people I consider to be the most “well-off” people I know, the kind of people who can just buy two first class plane tickets, a hotel room, a rental car, and two scalped tickets at Lambeau Field to see Green Bay play Seattle last year in the playoffs, on a whim, on the Wednesday before the game.  Their taxes will stay the same.

In fact, I would love it if this post were for ANYONE who reads my blog or listens to my show, and I’d ask them to make a little PayPal donation in the box at the top left and help support this struggling liberal broadcaster.  If the title of this post applies to you - if you make more than $603,403 per year, please leave a comment and let me know.

Otherwise, this crazy belief that Obama is going to raise YOUR taxes needs to stop right now.  This graphic comes from The Washington Post:

Under Obama, I’m looking at an extra $1,042, under McCain, about a third that ($319).  But McCain’s wife, under Obama, has to pay an extra 11.5%, while her hubby’s plan cuts the hundred-millionairess’s taxes by 4.4%.

Democrats really need to learn how to talk about taxes.  Repugs have framed it with words like “tax burden”, the cure for which is “tax relief”.  Dems need to talk about “tax responsibility”, as in “our plan will reduce the average American’s tax responsibility while asking the fortunate top 1% in the country to return to paying their fair share of tax responsibility.”

“Asking” + “fair share” + “responsibility” casts those who would refuse such a reasonable request as not being fair, as shirking responsibility.  We need to turn the Top 1% into tax cheats who are irresponsible, as anti-American for not being fair.  They should be ashamed for buying their ninth home while children go without health care because the Top 1% won’t pay their fair share of tax responsibility.

Casting it as responsibility doesn’t make paying taxes any more fun, but it makes it a duty, a chore, a requirement of admittance to society.  It makes people think about doing their chores and becoming angry that others won’t do theirs.

Now, the Right will respond with junk about “The top 1% pays 40% of all taxes” or “Don’t punish the creators of jobs and wealth” or “They’ll just pass taxes on to the consumer”.  Don’t get lost in the weeds with that crap, just return it to the issue.  ”Being rich doesn’t mean you get to shirk your full tax responsibility”, “creating jobs and wealth doesn’t mean you get to avoid paying your fair share”, and “How they choose to price their products doesn’t change their responsibility to pay their fair share.”

Extend the irresponsible metaphor.  It’s irresponsible to write checks with no money in the bank - Wealthy irresponsible tax cheats want to spend your children’s inheritence because they don’t want to pay their fair share.  It’s irresponsible and reckless to send our children to war when the Top 1% wants to cheat taxpayers by avoiding paying their fair share.

Democrats need to learn that elections are not about facts and issues, they are about stories and frames.  People don’t vote for the smartest guy with the best plan, they vote for someone who represents what they think is the best in themselves.

Tags: Money (That's What I Want) · Repugnicans and Demonicrats

4 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Adam Graham // Sep 13, 2008 at 9:25 pm

    Yeah, I guess we can kind of ignore Obama actually voting for total repeal of the Bush tax cuts and tax increases for everybody while in the Senate…

    You know who else promised a Middle Class Tax Cut? Bill Clinton? Do you know how it worked out?

    Tax increase.

  • 2 Adam Graham // Sep 13, 2008 at 10:21 pm

    By the way, according to the AP, Obama said he would delay rescinding Bush’s tax cuts if the economy were in recession because it could further hurt the economy.

    So when is hurting the economy a good idea?

  • 3 "Radical" Russ // Sep 14, 2008 at 6:01 pm

    Adam, it is the height of irony for you to be defending Republican economic policy with today’s notice that Lehman will be filing bankruptcy. 6.1% unemployment. Failing banks. Decreasing value of the dollar.

    Oh, and speaking of Bill Clinton:

    Ronald Reagan = $200B deficit
    George HW Bush = $300B deficit
    Bill Clinton = $200B surplus
    George W Bush = $468B deficit

    How’s that for “fiscal conservatism”?

  • 4 Adam Graham // Sep 14, 2008 at 7:38 pm

    6.1% unemployment is pretty darn good historically. And the value of Dollar has actually been trending up.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601116&sid=axkUTM_PPxJE&refer=africa

    (You need to ask Howard Dean for new talking points.)

    As for blaming the President for everything to happen in the economy:

    It wasn’t Clinton’s fault when investors put billions of dollars into dot com stocks that never had returned a profit and then these stocks sunk like a lead weight. (Though Clinton and the 1990s economy sure benefited from the inventions of people like Bill Gates that spurred the economy on.)

    It’s also not Bush’s fault that some lenders got greedy and some buyers got impatient and agreed to stupid loans.

    The question is how are you going to fix it. Barack Obama’s got no plan to balance the budget. None. James Pethokoukis of U.S. News and World Report calls the Obama plan as it is, “Half billion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.”

    The question is who can turn this sucker around and it’s not Mr. “I’ll Make Life Fair and Give You Free Stuff.” It’s John McCain, the guy whose never asked for an earmark in his life.

    The differnce between McCain and Bush on the deficit is Bush was a lucky Governor who stepped in the magical land of 1990s Governors and could increase spending and cut taxes because of an expanding economy. When he was President, he wouldn’t stand up to a Republican Congress for a fear of ticking off his fellow Republicans. McCain has no problem with that.

You must log in to post a comment.