As debt-reductions talks continue, congressional Republicans appear to be guided by a single, overarching policy: under no circumstances can job creators millionaires and billionaires be expected to pay even a penny more in taxes.
Yesterday, an unlikely Republican ally urged his party to get over it.
Appearing on Fox News, Bill Kristol, a leading voice in Republican media, offered some advice to GOP policymakers yesterday: "Don't scream and yell when one person says. 'You know what? It won't kill the country if we raise taxes a little bit on millionaires.' It really won't, I don't think."
He added he doesn't understand why Republicans "don't take Obama's offer" to return to Clinton-era rates on income above $250,000. Kristol asked, "Really? The Republican Party is going to fall on its sword to defend a bunch of millionaires, half of whom voted Democratic and half of whom live in Hollywood and are hostile to Republican principles?"
I suspect the odds of Republican lawmakers taking Kristol's advice are small, but the significance of this is the way in which it frames the larger debate for the media, the public, and the political establishment.
Kristol, in this case, is conceding that the Democratic frame is correct: as part of a balanced agreement in which both sides make concessions, Republicans are going to have to accept higher rates on the wealthy.
If they don't, there will be no deal, and more importantly, the failure of the talks will be Republicans' fault. That's not the liberal interpretation of events; that's Bill Kristol's interpretation of events.
Leave a Comment:
What millionaire ever went broke paying taxes?
But it hurts their fee-fees!
Clinton raised the top marginal rate, and the country went to hell. GWB cut taxes for his millionaire friends and the country became nirvana! The Republicans have *always* been right about taxes!
I still don't get the big deal on this issue from either side.
Raising taxes on rich is like spitting into the ocean when it comes to the debt and deficit. Does either side wish to "fall on the sword" over something that makes so little difference?
13% of the deficit isn't "like spitting into the ocean"; it's a more significant single chunk than almost anything else we're likely to do. But the more important point is that economic growth will do a lot more to reduce the deficit, and letting the upper-income tax cuts is the way of directly reducing the deficit that doesn't significantly reduce growth.
If you think it makes "so little difference," I have a story from personal experience. I serve on a local board administering low-income housing grants. Among many other things, Congress has been cutting housing subsidies to poor people rather than letting taxes go up. I dare you to tell those people that removing some pressure from the "cut spending" side makes no difference.
In addition, I think it's strategically very important to kill the upper-income tax cuts now, so that no one can give them credit for the coming acceleration of economic recovery. (Republicans will still make the claim, since they're impervious to evidence, but it's best to weaken it as much as possible.)
"...The Republican Party is going to fall on its sword to defend a bunch of millionaires, half of whom voted Democratic and half of whom live in Hollywood and are hostile to Republican principles?"..."
Really? Actually half of 'em are in Congress and it is that half who is doing all the complaining.
The pain for the wealthiest will come when we have to pry their greedy fingers free from their moneybags.
Bill Kristol is right. The purpose of lowering taxes was because we had a surplus and didn't need it. But then we started two wars and at that point taxes should have gone up. How did we expect to pay for two wars with no extra income. We lowered taxes so that the job creators could create more jobs. They did in China not here. So where is that money supposed to come from. In 2009 we lost a lot of jobs and again where is that money supposed to come from. Now it is time to pay. Get on it.
The deal the teapubs made was that those tax breaks were supposed to be temporary. That was the deal made at the time. My feeling is that they were going to renege on the deal from day one, but the economy tanked not giving them the easy way to keep the tax cuts. Their selling point was lame then and even more so now.
Have you guys figured out how the rest of the country is going to feel about having their taxes go up? If you include the payroll tax cut, the lowest tier will see a hike of over 50%
But hey, Clinton rates led us all to prosperity, right? Heh.
The excuse was that we had a projected surplus. Republicans always want to lower taxes, particularly on the wealthy, and the circumstances and reasons are pretty much irrelevant: if the economy is doing good, they want to lower taxes; if the economy is bad, they want to lower taxes; if I stub my toe, they want to lower taxes.
The excuse of the surplus was particularly idiotic, though. The surplus could have been used to knock down the federal debt. Aren't Republicans supposed to care about the debt? Apparently not.
Excuse me while I go out and buy some milk, just so I can spray it out my nose as I laugh.
Also, anyone who says/writes "job creators" and means it should be pepper-sprayed. Then given a million paper cuts. And, finally, dipped in lemon juice.
Well then genius....be sure and write the next time you work for a Government program addicted,welfare and food stamp receiving "Job creator". And the real reason to hold the line on ANY new taxes is the plain and simple fact that as incoming taxes are received...Social spending goes up. plain and simple. Record welfare and food stamps recipients today and only going up. WHERE would the Federal deficit and taxes be today without the advent of "The great society"? All money thrown down a hole....
Shooter, you're making an idiot of yourself. You are still clinging o this right wing, Fux Noise, Lush Limprod alternate reality.
The reality is this:
Taxes across the board are at an all time low. Corporate profits are at an all time high. The DOW is doing better than it EVER did under Bu$h. Businesses are starting to hire again. Manufacturing is on the rise. We're exporting goods again. US auto makers are back to profitability.
Why are you against American success??
Scott, if you don't like government and taxes and living in a civilized society, I'll pay for a one way ticket to Somalia for you.
Jeez, it's amazing how the lunatic fringe that is the GOP is so incredibly oblivious to American history.
You and your views only represent a small minority of ignorant un-educated morons, and greedy manipulative selfish profiteers.
Do you just have no use for reality? The Bush unemployment rate as well as stock markets were at all time records...think before typing genius...
And perhaps YOU could catch a ride to Kenya on the next Presidential visit.....
Wow, you're delusional. Bu$h's unemployment rate and stock markets were at an all time high?
You got any evidence to back this claim up? Bwaaahahahahahah.
People, exhibit one: Your brain on Fux Noise - See Scott.
Thanks for the laugh you idiot.
All-time record!? Dude, unemployment rose and the market declined under Bush's watch, spectacularly so at the end. So, yeah, in a way that's a record, if only a record of absolute crap. I swear, the quality of the tr0lling is just getting worse and worse. Get this: you lost. Nobody is buying what you are selling, so pack up your brushes and get lost.
News flash: Shooter and Scott make asses of themselves for the 423rd time and fail to score from the free throw line.
In other breaking news, sun continues to rise in the east.
I thought RM had mentioned this in her show last week. If not then:
http://factcheck.org/2008/04/americans-making-more-than-250000/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/weekinreview/15tax250copy.html?_r=0
Not a lot of people make over $250K. And remember they keep the lower rates on all their money under $250K.
Ah, the joy of living in a world unconstrained by facts.
Hint: check the debt/GDP ratio over time, starting with Johnson. It went down under Democratic administrations, up under Republican ones.
They are not now or ever have been "job creators". They are "job profiteers" as they only employ positions that profits them in some way.
Job creators would be the consumers... whose "demand" for goods and services creates jobs. But then you knew that already huh.
Paying taxes. I've never stopped paying taxes. I like the things tax money can buy. Better schools, better infrastructure, better everything.
I sense fear in what Kristol is saying - I think he is smart enough to know what will happen to his party if they persist in trying to give breaks to the 1%.
Before we get all warm and fuzzy, remember the epitaph already etched on his tombstone: "Always wrong, all the time."
So in other words, Kristol is now a liberal and a RINO trying to tear down the GOP form the inside.
Just trying to help the right frame their new narrative before they get to shunning Kristol and disavowing his advice, even if it is, for a refreshing change of pace, reality-based.
You know who this will hurt the most? Michael Steele. Now he'll have competition as the go-to conservative to get abused on MSNBC.
It may seem like a small chance that lawmakers will take his advice, but how likely did it seem that he'd pick the last 2 GOP VP candidates? If he throws the weight of his publications and Fox News appearances behind this, don't be surprised if there are House members, particularly those without huge fundraising structures, who fall in line and start singing the same tune.
Should the unthinkable happen and common sense win out after all? Wow.
Best case scenario for progressives is a steady trickle of rogue Repubs to help get things passed in the House, but the continuing collapse of the GOP from within.
True, but one has to be very careful which snakes one climbs into bed with. Some of them are poisonous.
There are noises from the different factions making up the Republican coalition that suggests the party may fracture. Personally, I think it's all talk, but I guess we'll see. Over the weekend I read several pieces making the case that we should look to California to understand how the national Republican Party will fare in the comings years (that it will resist adapting to a changing environment and will shrink to irrelevance), and that seems more reasonable than expecting the GOP to split apart.
I have a wild hope that a fractured GOP will be a catalyst to either or both ends of the Dems to do likewise. A Dem coalition leaving enmasse, or even just creating their own seperate caucus within the party, would be a big step towards a practical multi-party system that wouldn't have the current minority parties' growth as a rate limiting factor. Such a split might even make room for them on the national stage. I think it's possible, though highly unlikely. Republicans dwindling to irrelevance would be good too, though. That would also give room for the swath of ideologies currently housed by the Dems to spread.
More GOP governors today and the popular vote a statistical dead heat and you see the GOP as becoming "irrelevant"? You just had a slick, Daley machine Liberal that used race baiting and Government bennies to make up for a failed Presidency.
Face reality Scott, you can make all the excuses and parse all the statistics you want, but ultimately, your party and your philosophy failed, and they were rejected by the majority of Americans.
Suck it up loser.
All the while record unemployment since the great depression..."suck it up loser" should have been Hussein's platform.
Or was it...."The new normal"?
Step up and be a man Scotty. Admit the epic colossal failure that is conservative republicanism.
The record unemployment was due to republican policies. Your president Barack Hussein Obama has already created more jobs in 4 years than Bu$h did in 8.
You can moan and bitch and cry and whine all you want, but you lost, you're philosophy is wrong, and it has failed.
Now go back to your little right wing, tea party, KKK lite fantasy world and let the grown ups take care of things.
As you have got a raise in your welfare check you equate THAT to "Everyone's better off"? Those job numbers and welfare numbers to ANYBODY with a little sense is an abysmal failure...But as long as you are happy though...
The quality of trolls is pitiful these days.
Although it seems the intelligence of Liberals NEVER changes *Sigh*
Yet again: lost scotty. America has rejected you. Get over yourself. We have.
Shorter Kristol: "It's ok to raise taxes because we don't like a lot of these people anyway." Is this guy considered a Republican intellectual too?
And with the Employment rate where it is...Welfare and food stamps being handed out in record numbers...WHERE is the "Liberal intellectuals"? Oh... unemployed like the REST of America....
That would be "where ARE the Liberal intellectuals. I see you are not one of those intellectuals....
Just sayin.
Bill just threw the monied people under the bus publically. Revenge Tax! They might have voted liberal, they live in CA...the rich let Obama win!
Well, at least now Rove won't be alone on New Years Eve.
Which show was this on? Would love to see the full discussion.
The republican/tea party congress should listen to the 80 CEO'S who petitioned them to raise their taxes. I'm sure there are many others that feel the same way. But republicans tell them, your going to get a tax cut whether you like it or not. They listen to the one's like the CEO'S of Papa Johns, Chic a filet and that A-hole coal mine owner. How much money is enough for those greedy bastards. Laying off workers only takes money out of the economy which in turn will lower their bottom lines. Take a lesson from Henry Ford, take care of your workers so they have enough money to buy your product.
You are perhaps the craziest of the whacked out lot of Liberals.....
And I'm loving it.
And you seem pretty happy about Hussein killing jobs with Socialist medicine as well as Putting Americans that work in the Coal Industry out of work...Crazy is as crazy does I suppose...
I'm ignoring scotty now. I've read all he has to say anyway, and he hasn't got all that much to say. So I'll just repeat myself: you lost. And if California is the future, you're going to lose a lot in the coming years, and there's nothing your can do about it (because you are all incapable of recognizing the need to do anything).
California, where we took the redistricting power away from the Legislature so they could never do any more All Incumbents Win gerrymanders. The result? A 2/3 Democratic majority in both State Senate and State Assembly, allowing us to set our financial house in order without having to pay attention to any of the Republicans, who can stamp their feet and hold their breath till they turn blue and it won't change the fact they are now Officially Irrelevant. And the majority of losses in the Republican Congress were due to them losing here in California.
And it all started with their first campaign against Latinos, back in 1994 with Proposition 187.
There's your futures, Scotty and Shootey.
In the near term, I expect that the GOP will still do well in midterm elections. Lower turnout means that the midterm electorates will skew white. But higher turnouts in presidential elections means an electorate that more closely looks like the country as a whole, and Republicans will do poorly. I don't believe they are able to adapt to the changing demographics of the country. Sure, they want to win elections, but in order to appeal more to women, Latinos/blacks/Asians, and any other group you can name other than straight white male, the GOP would have to fundamentally change who they are and what they want. I don't really see them doing that, because I don't see Republican primary voters allowing it. And if they couldn't adapt in California, there is no reason to think they will be able to adapt nationally. So, they'll continue to win some elections, but as the percentage of whites in the country and in the electorate continue to decline, those wins will become fewer and we all win.
But of course forget the small fact that California is BANKRUPT from their social programs...
Erm... does anyone really believe this? I think it's more likely that if there is no deal, and everyone's taxes will go up and the economy sinks back into recession, the GOP's message will be, "Taxes went up under Obama and the economy tanked again! This is exactly what we said would happen, America! YOU SHOULD HAVE LISTENED TO US."
If we had a well-functioning MSM in this country, maybe the blame would fall where it should. But that almost certainly will not happen in today's environment.
Ding. ding, ding! Give that man a prize!
freddie kruger and blanks:
The economy is not tanking, it is getting better and when the Bush tax cuts expire the deficit will be further lowered and the economy will do even better.
But I doubt that the fake news wind tunnel freaks will understand this.
I do not understand why the rich are making such a fuss about raising the tax rates from 36% to 38%. That is on salaries, bonuses and profits from small business (I think). Most of the super rich like Romney and Buffet don't pay 36%; they pay 14% because most of their money comes from capital agains and interest, etc.
Someone needs to run some numbers on how much in real dollars some of these people would actually pay. When the Reagan tax reductions were implemented in the 1980s, I was making something like $30,000.00 (a pretty good salary for a single women in the 1980s), and my entire tax break amounted to about $5.00 a week.
We also need to look at how many people would actually be affected when the Bush tax reductions expire. If 47% of the people do not pay any federal income taxes (and since I am retired on SS, I don't), then it cannot be true that 98% of the people will have their taxes go up when the tax breaks expire. It may be true that taxes will go up on 98% of those who are currently paying federal income taxes on salaried income, but that is not by any stretch 98% of the consumers. And it is the consumers who keep the economy going. The consumers are the true job creators.
Will Warren Buffet's and Mitt Romney's taxes go up?
You DO understand we are in the midst of the greatest downturn since the great depression...right? All the money that goes to the Government DOES NOT go to jobs and back into the businesses...understand? And how about all the companies downsizing for Bammy care? Your Government in action.
Wrong yet again Scotty poo. Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back up any of your ridiculous claims? Charts, studies, etc???
Government isn't the problem. It's gullible lemmings like you that are.
You have a tough time with reality...Government probably needs to be your Mother and Father, you don't seem to be very intelligent on ANY issues finance related..
Charts? Studies? He has the "voices" and that's all he needs.
Yawn... I was hoping you were going to cite some specifics at least in an attempt to back up your wildly incorrect claims.
Alas, I was wrong. I should have known; you are a right winger after all.
Yawn... I was hoping you were going to cite some specifics at least in an attempt to back up your wildly incorrect claims.
Alas, I was wrong. I should have known; you are a right winger after all.
WHAT about the Jobs numbers and Welfare and food stamps numbers is NOT REALITY? you know...23 million on Food stamps as compared to 47 Million NOW?WHAT numbers would you like?
You do realize that the welfare and unemployment rolls swelled because of the great recession, which happend under Bu$h?
You do understand that, right?!?!?
Oh...of course FannieFreddie which Bawney Fwank was STILL pushing money into even as it circled the drain had NOTHING to do with it... Besides the SMSALL fact that Fannie/Freddie has gotten 187.5 BILLION from the taxpayer...second only to the Financial institutions they crashed. Don't be stupid.
Go pee on the fire hydrants somewhere else little boy. Mommy wants the computer back.
This guy is hopeless. Fannie and Freddie? Barney Frank?
Jeez. What an example of how pathetic and out of touch with reality the tea party and their minions have become.
I think it's funny how they keep flogging the same dead horses year after year. The horses never get up and trot away, but they still think that if it works for them, then it should work period.
All of that and not one word to refute the facts presented...
I would have to agree that taxes will be going up in that top tax bracket because Obama got re-elected. Republicans do not have much of a choice on that- they may hedge for a little bit, but if they do not agree it will be perceived as them choosing millionaires and billionaires over the rest of America. However, it would seem that Obama is after a grand bargain, which means the Democrats will be needing to give something up as well. What will they be giving up? Program spending, probably. Which programs? Would it be Medicare? Does that mean that Medicare will just be allowed to get generic drugs and therefore save money? Or will it go farther than that? I suspect it will go farther than that, maybe raise the age of eligibility plus cut down on the amount of coverage to a degree.
What I find the most interesting about all of this, is the baby boom generation is what is putting so much strain on Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid (via nursing home coverage). So, what the government really needs to figure out is how long these increased use numbers will last- 20 years? 30 years?- and account for that. Baby boomers themselves had a lot less kids than their parents did in general, so it will be an issue for a time, but not forever.
Overall, I just think that Democrats are not going to win every issue in this deal and are going to have to give too. I remember criticizing the Republicans for seeking a compromise that agreed only with Republicans and now I see Democrats falling into the same mentality. A compromise means that some people on each side of the aisle will be unhappy about aspects of the deal. Period. Democrats will not get everything they want- in fact, they will have to give some things too. That is how this messy government process works.
Finally, Mr. Kristol figured out that the enemy is among "us" the millionaires. Remember, Warren Buffett, he was the first one to suggest and he is a billionaire and so is Bill Gates and many of their friends and they are all democrats. Mr. Kristol's strategy is to upset these Hollywood liberals and the millionaire Democrats and may be just may be they will become Republicans and once it happened the well to Democrats coffers will dry up - victory for Republicans in the long-term. In the mean time continue to hold on to the negative ideas about the 47%, the women, the Latinos, The African Americans and the Asians etc.
Brilliant, simply brilliant!
"Negative ideas" You just babbling or care to ELABORATE on the stupidity you just put in print? Race-baiting...while being a go to Hussein tactic...holds no basis in reality.
Yep, no race baiting with YOU, poopie!
LOL!!!
Scott -- you seem to be a very hateful individual. What is your problem?
I guess that you refer the President as Hussein. Does that mean that Mr Romney should be called Willard? Wasn't that the name for a rat in some movie?
Would this behavior solve any problems? Perhaps we could all act like adults -- just an idea!!
if this is the state of debate in this country, it is easy to see why we are in such a mess
Would it start a riot to ask those "richies" who have initated sustainable,viable jobs with a "living wage" to pay the present taxes while those who have not, pay the higher rate? I would think at the end of each year would be a good time for them to verify their "work". Just asking!!
Republican don't fall on their swords for millionaires? Really I thought that was the whole point of the Republican party. All of it, everything they do is for the millionaires.
I think Obama's response to the tax cuts should be, "Please proceed, Republicans."