Associated Press
During last week's debate, Paul Ryan insisted that the ridiculous Romney/Ryan budget plan is "mathematically possible" and has "been done before." When Vice President Biden protested, the congressman said, "Jack Kennedy lowered tax rates, increased growth," prompting Biden to say incredulously, "Oh, now you're Jack Kennedy?"
It was an entertaining exchange, but there's a larger question here: what's up with Republican support for JFK's tax plan?
This comes up quite regularly, and the Bush/Cheney administration pushed the "we're just following Kennedy's lead" line during their major tax-break campaigns in 2001 and 2003, and now Romney and Ryan are doing the same thing. Do Republicans have a point on this?
As long-time readers may recall, the argument is deeply flawed.
Let's set the record straight. When Kennedy cut taxes, he lowered the top marginal tax from 91% to 65%. At the time, many congressional Republicans balked -- they said it was more important to reduce the debt than to cut taxes. By 2012 standards, this seems almost amusing, but a half-century ago, some Republicans were quite serious about fiscal responsibility.
Kennedy overcame GOP objections, noting that the higher rates, instituted during World War II, were no longer necessary. For that matter, the debt was quite modest -- Eisenhower, thankfully, kept taxes high throughout the 1950s, which helped the nation's finances secure -- and the deficit when Kennedy took office was only about $3 billion.
But what really matters here is how the cuts were shaped. Unlike contemporary Republican policy, JFK's cuts were deliberately crafted so that the rich wouldn't be the sole beneficiaries. As the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation explained at the time, the bottom 85% of the population received 59% of the benefits of Kennedy's tax cut; the top 2.4% received 17.4% of the tax cut; and the top 0.4% received just 6% of it.
Paul Ryan would have voters believe that Romney is somehow a natural descendant of the Kennedy policy legacy. That's just absurd.
Leave a Comment:
Kennedy, but not Bush!
Thank you for bringing up Kennedy.
The difficulty with most Democrat politicians is that they can't understand how to call BS using a sound bite - something Biden has no problem doing.
Examples:
If you don't print or tax money then you need to borrow it or rub a magic lamp.
Money has to come from somewhere. Romney says he will get the money by cutting spending. Budget cuts are called austerity, which works like this:
The other thing that Romney said is that they will close "tax loop holds". The last time someone closed a "tax loop hold" was when the IRS banned deducting interest from credit cards and automobile loans. One of the largest "tax loop holds" is the home mortgage deduction that reduces tax revenue by hundreds of billions of dollars.
Romney and Ryan can't say they will eliminate interest deductions for home mortgage interest because that is the only way most people can afford to prepare for retirement by buying a home.
Romney will automatically loose if he tells people he will eliminate the home mortgage deduction.
Romney and Ryan say they can't explain their economic plan because "it's complicated".
It's only complicated because you can't explain a lie, and the lie will only become more obvious as you give more information.
Like the killing of the Libyan ambassador was also complicated.
Republicans in the house of representatives cut $450 million from embassy security in 2011 and 2012. We have about 180 embassies and several hundred consul facilities.
This cut corresponds to about a platoon of marines per embassy and a squad per consul (about 6,000 people).
That would have been enough to protect the ambassador.
Conservatives claim that Obama is responsible using this claim.
Kennedy understood how to defeat this and Franklin Delano explained it Sooooo well.
So powerful and so compact that nobody has a problem remembering it or understanding it.
I need to hear President O do something like this during each and every debate.
I disagree on only one point- regarding embassy security. Since it is now apparent that the terrorists planned the attack - they undoubtably had details of the embassy's security and the unintentional or intentional assistance of the Libyan security forces. If security had been increased by 30, the terrorists would simply have designed an attack to counter those forces. (Plane, car bomb, human bomb etc.) It becomes an interesting problem of diplomacy if your embassy appears to be a military outpost.
The additional security would still be helpful as a deterrent against the general protests that seem to be on the rise against our embassies.
It's a little jarring to try to compare Romney's Leveraged Buy Out approach to government to JFK's - "ask not..."
Thanks, Benen, for the sunlight on this issue. It further illustrates why Ryan so richly deserved to have his talking points treated as what they are - laughable.
So this is what the modern KKK sounds like.
All hate and false information.
Wow.
Thank you Steve B.
Outstanding post.
Yes, I agree, from outside the fence.
Apparently, billy jack-off thought his evidence-free ramble was so good he needed to post the stupidity twice. So I'll post the response to it twice:
Billy Jack -- do you see the irony of your meme ?
Tom Laughlin was a rather outstanding Democrat back in the day. Here's a sample from WikiPedia-
In recent years, Laughlin has turned his attention to politics. In 1992, as a protest[12] he sought the Democratic Party nomination for President.[5] He told the Milwaukee Sentinel, "I am the least qualified person I know to be President, except George Bush."[57]
I love that second line, there....
Pick a more 'appropriate' meme, perhaps... or look like a fool... your choice
Thank you for deleting the "billy jack" racism.
Do you folks not understand Romney's plan is identical to the Alternative Minimum Tax? If that's too much for you all to comprehend, leave the tax rates where they've been for the last decade.
so if it's identical to then why repeal?
PS. Kennedy's rates were 76 and 70% not 65%. If Benen can't even get the rates right, the rest of his points are suspect.
Er no. The 91% rate is correct. The 65% one though you are correct about. In this case the initial tax cut that Kennedy wanted to have passed in 1963 was down to 65%, but the final bill that passed in 1994 under LBJ (after Kennedy was assassinated) dropped it from 91% to 70%. That was an adjustment from congress.
But you are incorrect in stating that if 1 element is wrong that means the whole post is wrong. By this logic your incorrect assertion of the 76% rate would make you wrong and therefore you would've just debunked yourself ;-). Hypocrisy has it's drawbacks, no?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1964
Aiiiirrballl, Aiiiirrballl, Aiiiirrballl, Aiiiirrballl, Aiiiirrballl,...
The Romney-Ryan plan is a joke. Anybody paying attention knows this. Mitt Romney and his little fraudulent buddy, Paul Ryan are liars.
Even the six "studies" (they're not) don't support what they say. Read all about it:
The Final Word on Mitt Romney's Tax Plan - Bloomberg
It was disappointing that Biden didn't point out the ridiculousness of comparing Kennedy with Romney-Ryan by pointing out the numbers and exposing the stupidity of the Republican interpretation of the Laffer curve. But it was a "debate" and he was under pressure to confront a whole host of lies during the Ryan Gish Gallop so you can't get on ol' Joe too much.
Do you folks not understand Romney's plan is identical to the Alternative Minimum Tax?
You say that like Romney actually has a plan...He doesn't. He has series of un-connected promises that don't add up to squat.
Of course, the AMT is rife with problems, so equating Romney's plan with the AMT isn't doing you any favors.
The tax rates for the last decade, coupled with the myriad other mistakes Bush made, are evidence in favor of going back to the Clinton era rates.
Go back to the Clinton rates for everybody as soon as the economy gains traction. Jack rates up on the 1% now! They are not creating jobs with it. They are not creating demand with it. Take it.
Amazing that billy jack-off didn't produce any details, couldn't come with any examples. What a surprise that a Fox-educated ignoramus would pull such a thing. Oh wait, it's not. It's what they do; it's all they have. The coin of the realm for the wingnut is evidence-free assertion. And that's enough for them.
Awww dayum, the ignorant trolls are back!
As usual you're going with that "GOTP math" - you know the one that doesn't work, didn't work the last time that WE tried it, and won't work if Mittens gets into office! I get it, you don't like the black man currently in office; sad part is that unless Blankman & billy jack have the actual bank accounts of the 1%, you too are voting to cut off your nose to spite your face!
Oh, btw "Billy Jack" stood up for justice, righteousness, and he was for the very people that will be hurt under a Romney/Ryan budget - and while I've never met the man - you surely are NOT him! Lose the name/avatar!
That should read 1964 not 1994, my bad.
Also I should add here that what Shooter is confused about is that the 1964 tax cut did not take effect all at once (something else the Republicans aren't telling you). It was phased in over I believe 5 years. 77% was the top rate that operated until the final year where it was dropped down to 70% (the bottom rate going from 16% to 14% over that same period). Shooter incorrectly stated 76%, but is thinking of the 77% rate that took effect for most of the 1964 tax cut. So lookie there I'm such a partisan hack like I get accused of all the time that I gave Shooter the benefit of the doubt =P Ebil liberal me.
As for billy: what lies has Obama been caught on tape telling? Provide evidence for your claim. You do realize how racist saying "monkey in chief" is, yes? Whether or not you find someone presidential and a gentleman is up to subjective interpretation- I can't argue with that since that's based on your personal opinion. Same goes with your interpretation that Obama was a deer in the headlights. For me personally I don't know how you debate a Gish Gallup and come out looking the winner in front of an audience that already has the opinion that the black guy is a monkey. Honestly don't know how that works.
When has Obama ever "raged" about anything? The man barely shows any emotions ever. That's part of his schtick- he's a ridiculously clam person. This, to me, seems to be more racism coming from you (angry black man much?). But, more importantly, what lies and what distortions?
For the record Romney isn't up in the polls. Obama leads him by huge margins in all the blue states and leads Romney in 9 out of the 12 swing states up for grab this election.
If the GOP is so enamored with what Jack Kennedy did with taxes, how about if we go back to his top marginal rate of 65%?
Maybe when Obama walks into the room tomorrow night, he should be wearing hip waders. And at the end of the night toss Romney a banana, a la Remember the Titans. That would say it all.
Shooter regarding Romney's tax plan an artilce at Alternet: Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace pressed senior Romney adviser Ed Gillespie on the credibility of the six studies Romney repeatedly cites to support his mathematically impossible plan. http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/even-fox-calling-out-romney-dishonesty?
A part of the article:
Ryan Lied???
Republicans Lie????
My world is coming to an end
I woudn't make light of it.
"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no catholic priest would tell the president (should he be a Catholic) how to act and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote. where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference" JFK Sanity from the early 60's and hypocrisy 50+ years later. Some never learn.
Well, that's a refreshing sentiment. It's a shame we've gone backwards. Wonder whose fault it is?
Thank you for this post. I sure hope that the Obama team read this article! The summary above would be a great rejoinder for the Tuesday's debate.
It would be nice if our pres doesn't use the same talking point that Bush policies caused the problems and won't fix them. That's true but voters tune things out after they've heard it repeatedly so they need to get a fresh take on a supporting argument.
Your analyses presents a second argument- that the JFK policy was a historical precedent for tax cuts that helped grow the economy because it was a progressive approach as proposed and executed by the Obama administration.
History is not the GOP's strong suit. Even recent history, it seems.
They're all about buzz words and empty flag-waving, or whatever puts them in power. Weird bunch of narcissists, in my opinion.
I hope that President Obama doesn't lead with a critique like this in the debate tomorrow. He needs to lead with a sharp, quick, cutting remark… then follow with details. His performance last debate shows that he's all too willing to get into the weeds of wonkishness. He needs to remember the first short response will be on the news. Then he can show off his knowledge with the numbers afterward.
Short, sweet and simple.
I hope Axe is drilling that into him.
The fact is we have no idea what Rmoney really wants to do because he's a liar and snake oil salesman. And the fact that he doesn't WANT us to know, coupled with the fact that he is not willing to show us HIS taxes so we can see how he's gamed the system, should give every American pause.
Mr. Romney,
A woman’s access to contraception reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies.
This is a win-win for both sides
The reduction in unwanted pregnancies also reduces the number of abortions that may result.
Also, a win-win.
Religion aside, why would you not support a mandate on employer provided health insurance plans, which the woman PAYS for, allowing a woman (either free or at a reduce cost) access to contraception? Do you understand the cost of (unwanted) pregnancies carried to term versus the cost of contraception?
Which do you think the insurance provider and employer would choose?
I know many employers would rather have someone at work, not out for 6-8 weeks for PAID maternity leave, what say you?
Pardon me.
Wrong thread.
Apologies.
You can't "Religion aside," this one The men in skirts funny hats and Gucci loafers want all good Catholics to procreate to keep those Catholics coming . Its a simple matter of numbers . If you raise a big brood , chances are you can indoctrinate some of them into becoming lifelong contributors of the Royal papacy ......so when can continue to wear funny hats dresses and Gucci loafers and drive around in limousines .
Give us a break , its a business doncha know
Thanks for the numbers on this, Steve.
As I noted earlier on a different thread, it defies logic to assume that since reducing tax rates increased revenue back then, it's a good idea now. Because taken to it's extreme, that would mean that zero taxes would produce the maximum revenue.
That ain't so. Obviously there is a balance, a "sweet spot" where you get sufficient revenue and don't discourage growth. That's an overall budget as a % of GDP-type of number. Then there is the question about who pays what rate. And what behaviors we want to encourage by way of tax breaks.
But the idea that making taxes "as low as possible" is best for the country is just idiotic.
I read blogs on both sides and notice that posters on this blog, in particular, seem to resort to name-calling much more than other blogs.
Is it possible for somebody here to explain exactly how the "Bush Policies" contributed in any way to the miserable economy of the last 4 years without questioning my parentage or demanding I have carnal knowledge with myself?
My research indicates that Obama's "plan" is to increase taxes while decreasing taxpayers, while Romney would decrease taxes while increasing taxpayers. History shows that the latter is much more likely to increase tax revenues.
undecided
Were not around for the Bush years? Really? You don't understand how a policy of letting Wall Street and the real estate market do what it wants for eight years would have an adverse affect on the economy? Do you not see that Bush's policies crashed the economy? I am going to share something with you. It's a three part series from This American Life on how the economy crashed. A crash we are now getting over.
Giant Pool of Money
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/355/the-giant-pool-of-money
Another Frightening Show About the Economy
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/365/Another-Frightening-Show-About-the-Economy
Bad Bank
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/375/Bad-Bank
If Romney gets elected he will return back to the Bush policies that got us into the financial mess in the first place. I really think you need to do more research. I really don't think you understand what Romney's plan really is. He is not a job creator. He is a businessman who bottom line is profit. Profit at the expense of jobs. An economy can take years to recover after as severe a crisis as this country has experienced. Anyone who thinks otherwise should seek help from a mental health professional
And before you say I am anti-business you should know my father is a retired business man with an MBA and a PhD in economics. My brother is a CFO of a small international computer company. I am hardly a person who is anti-business.
See I did this all without name calling. Does that make you happy?
Sorry, once the posts get too long, I lose track. I thought these were the salient points of the article.
We have some clean pots at the house that needs to be washed.
20% tax cut across the board that is revenue neutral. What is revenue neutral? I think he means the bottom line of your federal tax is going to be the same. In other words the federal tax is not going up or down. With changing deduction they are going to redistribute tax base but tax is not going up or down. This is P. Reagan's smoke and mirrors. It's just plan stupid. There is no tax cut, your are not putting more money in any persons pocket to improve the economy. I can't see why anyone is buying this. It's like washing some clean pots.
Thanks. That was an interesting blog post. I did not know that about JFK. 91% tax rate is hard to believe. That's way too high, and I am a socialist. I think Taxes should raised to pay off the debt even as high as 60%. We cannot keep going and not paying our bills. We have to so something. I will admit that the Republicans are right on that part. The only way we can is if people pitch in and pay more taxes or at least pay their fair share. What I don't understand is that the majority of Americans supported these wars. Now comes the price we must pay, and I don't think Americans want to pay the price for putting 2 wars on a credit card. We as Americans as just as responsible for the debt as the politicians and we need to work together as a nation to bring an end to the debt. It can be done. President Clinton proved it. We are just going to have to make some sacrifices to do it.
You can find the tax rates dating back to the early 1900's online. Historically, we have very low taxes across the board compared to 1918 through 1987. One other thing that stands out from this report is the sheer number of tax brackets that existed between these time periods. Maybe it is time we went back to some of the higher taxes. I am definitely ALL for our various social programs, Obamacare, Social Security, etc, but we have to find a way to pay for it. Despite our taxes being significantly lower in the last 25 years, I would bet our social programs have not taken much of a hit.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2011-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets
Romney is trying to perpetuate this GOP myth of dynamic scoring and the Laffer curve: that tax cuts will always pay for themselves. As you correctly point out, there’s a big difference between cutting top tax rates from 91% to 65% and the few percentage points Romney says he’ll cut tax rates if he can find enough loopholes to close to make it revenue-neutral. (Read http://newsericks.com/Lie-namic-Scoring for more about that.)