Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
CLINTON VS. OBAMA ON TAXES.
More worrying than Obama saying nice things about Reagan's optimism is Hillary Clinton aping Reagan on taxes. Elections are, I realize, elections, and folks will do what they've got to do to win, but for Clinton to attack Obama on a plan that doesn't so much raise as equalize taxes on the top 3 percent is low stuff, and unhelpful to her in the long-term.
One of the heartening elements of this elections has been John Edwards' forthright willingness to say we needed social investment before deficit reduction, and tax increases if necessary. Obama, too, has toed up to that line. Clinton is a bit more a budget hawk (which is, it should be said, an under-noticed difference between the three), but that's no excuse for demagoguing on taxes.
COMMENTS (7)
Everyone knows Hillary has no problem with considering raising the payroll tax as long as there is an exemption for people making between 97,000 and 200,000, and as long as it is done through a bipartisan commission so that both sides jump together meaning democrats don't take the heat, and moderates have cover and will actually vote for the plan. Obama attacked Hillary on this claiming she was unprincipled and that she had no plan for solving the social security crisis. Obama started this and painted Hillary into a corner and she simply fought back. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. If Obama is going to make a lot of his strategy about appealing to moderates and Republicans he can't get upset when he gets hit on that claim. Hillary also is all for undoing the Bush tax cuts so saying she is not for equalizing tax burdens is unfair.
Furthermore there are serious questions about if rasing the payroll tax is in fact a good idea right now.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/057584.php
Obama has been playing politics with this and now he is getting burned. His has no long term vision and his mad grab for power at any costs is only going to wind up hurting him and his party.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 17, 2008 11:17 AM
Everyone knows Hillary has no problem with considering raising the payroll tax as long as there is an exemption for people making between 97,000 and 200,000, and as long as it is done through a bipartisan commission so that both sides jump together meaning democrats don't take the heat, and moderates have cover and will actually vote for the plan
Lol.
Look at all those qualifiers
"considering"
"as long as" ...exemption
"and as long as"...bipartisan commission
and
"so...Dems don't take the heat"
Everybody knows that! Duh.
Posted by: Michael | January 17, 2008 12:37 PM
Another great example how Hillary (and Bill) are nothing more than a lite continuation of Reagan-Bush economic policies. The Clintons failed us, and going back there is going backwards as a country. We need something new, something fresh.
Posted by: luxetveritas | January 17, 2008 1:26 PM
I am one of those in the 97500 to 200000 category, and I am for Obama's plan. It is a very simple and elegant solution for fixing the mess. Social security is not a tax in the classic sense,
your benefits are proportional to your contribution, so if you contribute more you get more later at retirement as well.
Posted by: Ni B | January 17, 2008 1:38 PM
'It is a very simple and elegant solution for fixing the mess.'
Boy oh boy.
There is no 'mess'.
SS doesn't not need 'fixing'.
And certainly not in the form of raising the cap, at this point in time.
Obama arguing on SS is a loser without the added context of our current levels of 'off the books' spending via the war.
Which was Clinton's original point when this issue first came up during the debates.
Fix spending THEN see what actual shortfalls exist.
Posted by: willyjsimmons | January 17, 2008 3:01 PM
I disagree that Obama arguing on SS is a loser -- I'm not above 97,000 and I'm willing to admit that I *wasn't even aware* of the fact that SS taxes weren't taken out of people's salaries above 97,000. It's a terribly freakin' regressive tax, and I think it's a great idea to get rid of the cap.
Also, I think it's funny that when Obama says something about Reagan, we get over 100 comments on it, but talk about actual real policy, and we have less than 10. For all of the talk about how everyone wants issues, this sure makes it seem like people want the stupid coverage that we seem to get...
Posted by: Rob | January 17, 2008 5:12 PM
Obama is using this as an issue to raise class resentment and get votes, pure and simple. Proposing this in a campaign may be good for getting votes, but it is not good for actually getting the plan passed. It will be portrayed as another democratic tax hike, will be attacked rigorously by the right, and will have a hard time passing. Obama should have been more strategic about how he approached the issue. He is a novice and all he is thinking about is how he can win with no thought to how he is going to govern.
Posted by: 1 | January 18, 2008 8:29 AM