I want to link to two significant stories I haven’t seen discussed as fully as I would have expected in the blogs.
(i) From the WSJ:
President-elect Barack Obama is unlikely to radically overhaul controversial Bush administration intelligence policies, advisers say
…
On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama criticized many of President George W. Bush’s counterterrorism policies. He condemned Mr. Bush for promoting “excessive secrecy, indefinite detention, warrantless wiretapping and ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ like simulated drowning that qualify as torture through any careful measure of the law or appeal to human decency.”
As a candidate, Mr. Obama said the CIA’s interrogation program should adhere to the same rules that apply to the military, which would prohibit the use of techniques such as waterboarding. He has also said the program should be investigated.
Yet he more recently voted for a White House-backed law to expand eavesdropping powers for the National Security Agency. Mr. Obama said he opposed providing legal immunity to telecommunications companies that aided warrantless surveillance, but ultimately voted for the bill, which included an immunity provision.
The new president could take a similar approach to revising the rules for CIA interrogations, said one current government official familiar with the transition. Upon review, Mr. Obama may decide he wants to keep the road open in certain cases for the CIA to use techniques not approved by the military, but with much greater oversight.
Is this what Obama meant when he spoke about bipartisan cooperation and a turn away from ideology and a return to getting things done? Apparently, to call for the unambiguous end of the CIA’s use of torture would be shrill, non-pragmatic, ideological, the hallmark of the looney left. If so, consider me all of the above. Let us hope the WSJ is wrong in its assessment, and let us always remember that the Iraq war was implemented in a highly bipartisan way.
(ii) From Reuters:
President-elect Barack Obama may consider delaying a campaign promise – to roll back tax cuts on high-income Americans – as part of his economic recovery strategy, two aides said on Sunday
…
His aides’ comments suggest Obama may be wary of imposing any additional tax burden at a time of deep crisis, despite the outlook for record budget deficits and mounting national debt. He may also be seeking to bolster Republican support for his recovery measures.
“The main thing right now is to get this economic recovery package on the road, to get money in the pockets of the middle class, to get these projects going, to get America working again, and that’s where we’re going to be focused in January,” Axelrod said.
Let’s get this straight: Obama campaigned on the promise of raising taxes on a certain segment of “high-income” Americans. He won. He might be said to have received a mandate from the American people to do so. Does anyone think it’ll be easier to return to this promise in 2011?
(iii) As I’ve written before on this blog, in agreement with Obama’s campaign rhetoric: Real change comes from below, not from above. If we want Obama to live up to his promises, to end the war, to end torture, to dismantle our unaccountable national security state, to fix our economy in a way we approve of, voting for Obama was never going to be enough.
The real work must happen now. Obama may be the nicest guy in the world, but one man doesn’t rule this country. There is a whole system of individuals and organizations responsible for our problems, which have been decades in the making, not the result of the maniac fringe of the Bush administration alone. Only a system can change a system. And a system that theoretically allows a Bush to go unchecked needs to be changed.
Obama’s weakness, his dependency on large numbers of enthusiastic (mostly progressive, but somewhat cynical and alienated) voters, is our strength. Politicians should ideally fear their supporters. They should be terrified of betraying their supporters because doing so, theoretically, ought to destroy their credibility and careers in the long term.
So here’s to the so-called “netroots.” Keep twisting the screws. Keep putting on the pressure. Make Obama sweat.
This is even more true now than it was during the campaign. Let’s not deceive ourselves here: the netroots are weak in American politics. They wield little influence and are only now learning how to exert power in the political system. But eight years ago, there was no netroots.
Our goal needs to be systemic reform; our horizons in this medium- to long-term project should transcend individual election cycles and parties. We should create a system of government that can push back against and hold accountable a Bush or — god forbid — a Palin in the White House. Our current system is not up to the task.
As I’ve said before, I totally disagree with your view that Obama should be frightened of his own supporters. If Obama isn’t good enough for you and you want to support a primary challenge to Obama in the 2012 primaries or a Republican or third-party candidate in the 2012 general election — you go ahead and throw your vote away.
Dear Obama: Please don’t concern yourself with the 2012 election. Please DO concern yourself with what’s best for the country. And if I disagree with what you say or do, I’ll be sure to voice my opinion.
Dear Lee: If you believe Obama should raise taxes on the wealthy, could you please make THAT argument, rather than just assuming that your readers agree with you? And if you disagree with a position Obama has taken on torture or warrantless wiretapping, could you please explain what he did and why you don’t like it, rather than just casting aspersions about how Obama should be scared of you?
Political posturing now will only make it that much harder for you to be effective when you actually have a substantial point to make about why Obama is wrong about something.
Comment by Ian — November 25, 2008 @ 8:11 pm
I think the personal and individualistic terms like “scared” perhaps obscures my point. Obama is one person. I have no feelings or personal opinions about him. I have feelings and personal opinions about a system of government that allows someone like Bush to come to power and wreak havoc with our system of government and liberties and security.
It absolutely goes without saying that we should argue why we believe as we do — about taxes, torture, and the war. I have frequently made those arguments, and my post was addressed to those who share my views and may be frustrated that there is an apparent shift going on from campaign promises. Apparent, being the important word: we have some say in whether these shifts get flack or not. It is the job of the people to hold their government accountable. “Fear” is one way to describe this instrument of accountability. We might also describe this in terms of “incentives.”
If my argument is correct, then addressing individual letters to Obama isn’t a sufficient way to make our preferences register, either with the American people (of whom we are a part, in fact in the majority) or in the halls of government (where there is enormous pressure to say one thing to the American people, then switch to a different position once in power).
My point is to my mind uncontroversial. We cannot counteract systematic problems in our government through individual means or not solel. And we can’t be too tied to election cycles, although we should be strategic in how we grow the pool of those who agree with us.
To a degree, I agree with your own comment, Ian: my own post is a bit of political posturing in that I don’t participate much in politics beyond this blog. I am not an activist but a commentator and analyst, ’cause that’s all I have time for at the moment. If I did participate beyond this space, though, I would do so with an eye beyond election cycles, and with the aim of helping people make their voices heard in Washington.
Comment by Lee — November 25, 2008 @ 8:24 pm
I don’t think I was right to accuse you of political posturing, and I certainly support your opposition to torture wholeheartedly (although I’m less convinced that following through on the tax increases in Obama’s plan is important right now).
I want to be clearer about where I want to disagree strongly with your post. You quoted a Wall Street Journal article and then wrote this:
“Is this what Obama meant when he spoke about bipartisan cooperation and a turn away from ideology and a return to getting things done?”
The second word in the sentence above is “this”. To what does this “this” refer? I don’t know how to interpret this “this,” except to assume that it refers to Barack Obama caving on his opposition to torture — an opposition he stated throughout his presidential campaign. (Although it wasn’t a major campaign issue, in part because his Republican challenger has also spoken out against torture.)
However, the Wall Street Journal article you quoted never actually offered one shred of evidence that Obama was backing away from his campaign promise that the U.S. would not torture. The closest it ever came was this:
“The new president could take a similar approach to revising the rules for CIA interrogations, said one current government official familiar with the transition. Upon review, Mr. Obama may decide he wants to keep the road open in certain cases for the CIA to use techniques not approved by the military, but with much greater oversight.”
Is it safe to assume that the “current government official” speculating about what Obama “may decide” to do is a Bush Administration official? In any case, this official doesn’t say that Obama has given any indication that he actually intends to do anything in particular — it merely states that this option is open to Obama. This same government official compared Obama’s possible thinking on this issue to Obama’s thinking on warrantless wiretapping — even though these two issues are completely different from a policymaking perspective. If you had to guess, would you guess that this current government official was an Obama supporter?
We’ll never know, because this current government official is unidentified, and we have no way of knowing how “familiar” he is with the transition.
But your post suggests Obama has somehow signalled or indicated that he might be moving in the direction of breaking a campaign promise.
I totally agree that we should hold Obama accountable for his actions. I was wrong to accuse you of “political posturing” for wanting to hold Obama’s feet to the fire over an issue you rightly take very seriously. I just think speculation that Obama will sell-out the left is premature, especially on this issue.
When it comes to raising taxes, I believe Obama is right to postpone that part of his plan. It’s a small price to pay, given that postponing the issue will rob the right-wing of an issue to harp on in the spring, and we’re going to have to run vast deficits anyway over the next couple of years to spend ourselves out of this economic mess.
Comment by Ian — November 25, 2008 @ 9:37 pm
Done’t we need to give Obama a chance to govern a little before the discussion begins about how he is breaking his campaign promises? I personally did not vote for him, but I think he deserves a chance to get into office and govern a little before people get all over him for not following through with every little promise he made. There is no way he is going to follow through on every promise made; but show me a President, or any politician for that matter, that has. Admittedly I do not follow this stuff as close as you guys, but I haven’t heard him say anything about allowing the CIA to continue to torture. As far as not raising taxes on the wealthy, I think that is a very smart move by him. Anyone who thinks raising taxes on anyone right now is crazy. I think we need to give this guy a chance to govern before people start talking about who they are going to support in 2012. And this is coming from someone who strongly opposed Obama for President.
Comment by rbates — November 25, 2008 @ 11:43 pm
There are two issues I’m interestd in. One, the question of strategy. If, hypothetically, Obama were to shift directions in a way we who voted for him disagree with, what is the appropriate way to respond? Answers to this question could fill a book, but I’d emphasize that for me it’s not primarily about elections, 2010, 2012, or beyond, although elections are a factor. My argument is that a lot of our problems are systemic in nature and that a system is needed to fight a system, just as a vision ought to be fought by another vision. Etc.
On the specific questions:
(i) The WSJ article rests on the following evidence: “President-elect Barack Obama is unlikely to radically overhaul controversial Bush administration intelligence policies, advisers say“; “The new president could take a similar approach to revising the rules for CIA interrogations, said one current government official familiar with the transition.” The article makes it seem as if people near Obama regard “pragmatism” as demanding a different response from that advocated by human rights groups and civil liberties groups, who are calling for a complete reversal of the Bush approach to torture. “Mr. Obama may decide he wants to keep the road open in certain cases for the CIA to use techniques not approved by the military, but with much greater oversight.” and “‘He’s going to take a very centrist approach to these issues,’ said Roger Cressey, a former counterterrorism official in the Clinton and Bush administrations.” I think the evidence of a possible shift is substantial. A possible shift is of course not equivalent to the shift itself, but I think vigilance is prudent.
For me, there is no such thing as a centrist position on torture, period. Torture is wrong on pragmatic and moral grounds and it must come to an end, both in practice and in principle, if we want to regard ourselves as a civilized nation. I hope you’re right, Ian, and that this article is completely wrong-headed in its implications.
(ii) The question of the economy and taxes is interesting. First, there’s the framing of rolling back the Bush tax cuts, which responsible people thought was a huge mistake, as “raising taxes.” Republicans tried this by calling it “the biggest tax increase in history,” which ignores the fact that it was a response to the most irresponsible tax cut in history. More importantly, tax rates and economic performance don’t necessarily have the relationship most conservatives assume.
First of all, a dollar is a dollar. So if I tax you and use that money to build a road that money is being spent, one way or another. In fact, my spending your tax dollar on bridge-building or education or R&D may be a more productive use of that dollar than you putting your dollar under a pillow or using it for personal consumption. The second question is moral in nature: given that we have a government to pay for, should high-income people be taxed more than low-income people? At what relative rate should high vs. low income people be taxed?
These are interesting questions, and Obama’s answer during the campaign was that high-income people should be taxed at the rate they were under the Clinton administration and that lower-income people should have their taxes cut. Whatever we decide, the relative rates of taxation are a moral and policy issue that has nothing to do with economic recovery. I am unfamiliar with any argument that persuasively explains why taxing high-income people more is automatically worse for the economy.
(Businesses are another story, although even in that case the highway building project paid for by tax dollars employs people just like the additional private firms that might have been created if the tax rate had been lower. The question about business taxes is a complicated question best reserved for its own posting.)
All in all, I agree with Ian and rbates broadly that Obama should be allowed to make his mistakes before we bring down full judgment on him. But I think there is nothing special about the period before he is inaugurated. If he makes a judgment we disagree with now, there’s no reason to wait until January to express our displeasure. The decisions Obama makes now matter. The character of his cabinet will matter. His reformulation of his promises matters as well.
Comment by Lee — November 26, 2008 @ 2:15 am
P.S. If there are some good articles that make the case for why taxing high-income people would hurt the economy–and especially hurt it during the present economic crisis–I’m open to reading them.
Comment by Lee — November 26, 2008 @ 3:51 am
First, as rbates pointed out, George W. Bush is still POTUS until Jan 20. Second, a tax cut expiring by inaction may be easier than repealing it now. I think it may be the necessary pound of flesh to give the rump GOP to get a broad based bill. So be it. I think holding off on the tax increase now is smart economics although I don’t have an article available.
However, on torture, I agree with Lee 100%. There can be no equivocation. It’s wrong. Even more than it’s illegal or it’s ineffective, it’s wrong and just be stopped posthaste. The United States of America is a better country than that.
Comment by John — November 26, 2008 @ 9:50 am
Again, I’m not suggesting Obama shouldn’t be called out big time if he doesn’t do the right thing regarding torture.
But THERE IS LITERALLY NO EVIDENCE in the Wall Street Journal article that Obama isn’t doing the right thing. Criticizing Obama for things he hasn’t done says more about us than it says about him — and what it says about us is that we have an inclination to attack him for betraying us, regardless of the facts. It looks as though we’re chomping at the bit to call Obama a sell-out. I agree we should be vigilant — but that means paying close attention to what Obama actually does, not paying close attention to the careless fact-free innuendo in a Wall Street Journal article. I’ve already explained above why I think the quotes from a “current government official” are meaningless; as for the ““President-elect Barack Obama is unlikely to radically overhaul controversial Bush administration intelligence policies, advisers say” all I can say is that it’s completely unclear which policies this quote refers to.
Also, you write: “Whatever we decide, the relative rates of taxation are a moral and policy issue that has nothing to do with economic recovery. I am unfamiliar with any argument that persuasively explains why taxing high-income people more is automatically worse for the economy.”
First of all, I totally disagree with the idea that we should regard taxation as a moral issue — at least, not in the way that you’re using the term “moral.” It could be argued that the most moral way to tax the public would be to take the total costs of running the country, divide it by the tax-eligible population, and send every individual a bill for that amount. A persuasive moral argument for a flat tax could also be made. In reality, our federal tax code is loaded to the max with all sorts of “incentives” intended to acheive goals that have everything to do with our economy. If your goal is to create a more “moral” tax code, then you and I have fundamentally different ideas about the point of taxation: I want a tax system that represents what’s good for the country, overall.
When I think about “morality” in terms of taxes, I think about the well being of the lease fortunate in this country. If the economy continues on this same catastrophic course, the consequences will be horrible for everyone — but expecially for the least privileged in our society, who will find it even harder to get a job or to live in a crime-free neighborhood. Charity donations are down. State and municipal revenues are down, which means there’s less money available for local welfare programs. So instead of focusing on the abstract goal of “morality,” you might do more to implement your values if you focused more intently on what’s best for the many millions of Americans who will suffer from the economic downturn.
Then, you have to ask yourself: Politically and economically, will it help or hurt these people if Obama follows through on plans to raise taxes for the top five percent? The answer is, it will probably hurt (a) because it will give the right-wing an issue to use to undermine Obama in everything else he’s trying to do, and (b) because concerns about tax increases may only feed a sense of gloom among the investors who, like it or not, play a significant role in our economy.
If Obama implements his middle-class tax cuts and taxes remain the same for the richest Americans, that is itself a readjustment of the tax code. When the time comes for a tax-increase — and that’s the time that we liberals need to start preparing for — do you think Obama will propose a tax increase for the middle-class only? So in that sense, Obama is making progress towards a better tax code — but the tax code is intended to serve the American people, and right now the American people care more about avoiding more economic pain than they care about acheiving some Platonic “morality” in the tax code.
Comment by Ian — November 26, 2008 @ 10:53 am
(i) Regarding, the WSJ article. The article says what it says. I presume the whole purpose of the article was to single not only the character of the people Obama is surrounding himself with, but also to indicate that — yes, unnamed — advisers suggest that there might be a “pragmatic” approach to the question of water boarding and CIA torture. The evidence isn’t a slam dunk direct quote for attribution or anything, but I thought it was worth drawing attention to the article. Whatever we think of its editorial page, the WSJ is an excellent reliable important newspaper. They don’t publish such reports casually, and if they have in this case it’s a major stain on its reputation as a news source. I don’t have much more to say about it than that. If your reading of the article is correct, Ian, I’ll be quite happy indeed.
(ii) I should be clear: my last comment distinguished what we should care about in an economic recovery–stimulus–from what is in a sense a “merely” moral issue–relative rates of taxation among different sectors of the population. I was saying that the tax rates of upper-income Americans was a moral issue and not a practical issue. I was arguing that this policy has nothing to do with economic stumulus or recovery, and thus linking the two was a mistake. Which is why I requested evidence explaining why increasing tax rates on the rich to Clinton and Reagan levels would interfere with the very important problem relating to our melting-down economy.
Ian, you write that increasing taxes on high-income Americans would be damaging to economic recovery: “(a) because it will give the right-wing an issue to use to undermine Obama in everything else he’s trying to do.” I am unclear what the mechanism is here. Why would Obama’s implementing a tax increase that I argue has nothing to do with economic recovery, and may even help the recovery by putting more stimulus dollars into a stimulus package, hurt him? He was elected on the promise of raising taxes on these Americans, defeating those right-wing Americans of whom you speak; even when the economic crisis got bad, he didn’t back away from these promises. He beat McCain. Why the possible change now?
“and (b) because concerns about tax increases may only feed a sense of gloom among the investors who, like it or not, play a significant role in our economy.” Our investor class already feels a sense of gloom, due largely to the workings of the market. Increasing taxes on them may make them sad as individuals, but doing so would have nothing to do with how the economy goes, as far as I can tell.
What is the investor class going to do? Put its money in a bank instead of gambling on the stock market? That goes right back out in the form of loans. And every investor-class dollar taken as taxes goes right back into programs and — one can hope — economic stimulus.
You could argue that the investor class is BETTER at investing its money than those crazy evil guys in the government, but who can still believe that after this crisis? And we didn’t need a crisis to tell us it wasn’t true. It was, as every major economic historian admits, huge amounts of government spending that got us out of the Great Depression–in the form of World War II.
No, as far as I can tell, making the investor class a little sad isn’t going to halt economic recovery. Unless there is an argument explaining the mechanism for this I’m not aware of. I’m not anti-investor class just cause I’m mean. Some of my best friends are investors. I just don’t know of convincing arguments that demonstrate — rather than imply — that higher taxes (and remember: we’re talking Clinton/Reagan-levels of taxation) leads to less investment.
Comment by Lee — November 26, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
Just to continue this debate about the WSJ article, I want to respond to this line in your last post: “The evidence isn’t a slam dunk direct quote for attribution or anything, but I thought it was worth drawing attention to the article.”
Evidence of what? A slam dunk direct quote for attribution demonstrating what? You imply that the article provides evidence that Obama is somehow backing away from his position on torture, but this is false. The WSJ isn’t being careless — you are being careless in your reading of the WSJ article. You’re “reading between the lines” in a way that simply isn’t justified.
As for the issue of taxing the wealthy, you write “Increasing taxes on them may make them sad as individuals, but doing so would have nothing to do with how the economy goes, as far as I can tell.”
I don’t mean to sound like a right-winger here, but the fact is that most private investment in this country comes from the wealthy because the wealthy have most of the money. It’s unfortunate that the top five percent of the population control such a vast percentage of this country’s capital, but that’s the reality.
The question we should be asking ourselves is: What is better for the economy? To raise the money we need by increasing taxes on these people? Or to raise the money we need by borrowing it? I say we should borrow it. Then, the government is making investments AND the private sector is as well.
Furthermore, the Republicans may have lost the election, but that doesn’t mean they’re going to hold off from complaining if Obama raises taxes on anybody. You may think their complaining won’t make any difference, but it’s an issue that conservatives will rally around. And if Obama passes these hypothetical tax increases, Obama will own the economy from that point forward; Republicans will blame any economic troubles that follow on Obama and the Democrats’ foolish plan to raise taxes during a recession.
The Republicans have been warning Americans for years that Democrats will raise their taxes. Why not deny them the ability to say “I told you so!” at least until Obama has developed a more solid relationship with the American people?
Comment by Ian — November 26, 2008 @ 4:43 pm
Doing research on my own question, so far, I’ve found this NBER study on the relationship between taxation and economic growth. Enger and Skinner conclude in their paper, “Taxation and Economic Growth” (1996) that:
So the conclusion of this study is that across the board tax cuts have at best a small effect on economic growth, though the authors note the long-term effect can be cumulatively large. The upshot, if this study is correct, is that the debate about taxation has little to do with short- to medium-term economic stimulus.
I am also not sure that I have a complete picture of these debates, and the study is already over ten years old, so there may be responses, critiques, debunkings, etc. And the NBER seems to be a private foundation dedicated to economic reseach. I’ll look into more academic studies of this question.
More to come.
Comment by Lee — November 26, 2008 @ 9:59 pm
To Ian:
(i) What does the lede of the the WSJ article refer to?
The answer seems crystal clear to me. The “controversial Bush administration intelligence policies” that President-elect Obama is “unlikely to radically overhaul” clearly include “rules for CIA interrogations”–i.e. “Mr. Obama may decide he wants to keep the road open in certain cases for the CIA to use techniques not approved by the military, but with much greater oversight.”
I am sorry to say that the message of this article is completely unambiguous. Maybe the quoted advisers have it all wrong. Let’s hope.
(ii) Regarding the investor class. I don’t think I understand your response. I made the case that if you take a dollar in taxes from an rich investor type, that dollar still can go back into the economy — and maybe be even more productive than that dollar would otherwise have been.
My claim has nothing to do with your claim that “most private investment in this country comes from the wealthy because the wealthy have most of the money.”
If taxes go up on the hedge-fund manager, but that money is used to build a bridge between two towns, thus spurring their local economies, investment is still happening. It’s just not sloshing around in finance, but is helping to build the so-called real economy.
Comment by Lee — November 26, 2008 @ 10:13 pm
Another piece of evidence. From a NYRB article, reviewing the role of government in the economy, a paraphrase of the conclusions found in Taxing Ourselves, a review of tax debates by Joel Slemrod and Jon Bakija:
If Taxing Ourselves is correct, and is described accurately here, then even the tentative conclusions reached by the NBER study may not be correct.
My conclusion based on this evidence: debates about tax rates, though interesting in themselves and worth having, have no practical bearing on short, medium, or even long term considerations related to economic health and growth.
More tk.
Comment by Lee — November 26, 2008 @ 11:43 pm
To Lee: I don’t think the message of the WSJ article is “completely unambiguous.”
Let me quote your paragraph of quotes: “The answer seems crystal clear to me. The “controversial Bush administration intelligence policies” that President-elect Obama is “unlikely to radically overhaul” clearly include “rules for CIA interrogations”–i.e. “Mr. Obama may decide he wants to keep the road open in certain cases for the CIA to use techniques not approved by the military, but with much greater oversight.”
Is the phrase “controversial Bush administration intelligence policies” unambiguous? Is the phrase “unlikely to radically overhaul” unambiguous? Is the phrase “may decide he wants to keep the road open in certain cases” unambiguous? What does the phrase “much greater oversight” mean?
Could you please define the term “unambiguous” so I can have an inkling as to your definition of that word? Because we don’t know precisely which policies the article refers to (although it purports to draw conclusions about Obama’s approach to torture based on his approach to warrantless wiretapping, a dubious comparison), what a “radical overhaul” would mean or why Obama is “unlikely” to do it, what it would mean to “keep the road open,” who the unnamed advisors are, etc. The article is ambiguous.
It may be that the “message” of the article is that Obama is all set to do things that will infuriate or betray his left-wing, anti-torture supporters. But there are no facts. There is no evidence. Shouldn’t that count?
Regards your research on tax rates, I have some questions. You quote a study:
“Our results suggest modest effects, on the order of 0.2 to 0.3 percentage point differences in growth rates in response to a major tax reform that changes all marginal tax rates by 5 percentage points and average tax rates by 2.5 percentage points. Nevertheless, even such small effects can have a large cumulative impact on living standards.”
First of all, does this “major tax reform” mentioned above change all marginal tax rates and all average tax rates in the positive direction or the negative direction? Am I correct in assuming that this quote refers to cutting all marginal tax rates by five percentage points and cutting average tax rates by 2.5 percent? If so, then this study is saying that cutting taxes leads, over the short term, to economic growth.
This is arguably irrelevant, however, as we’re not debating the part of Obama’s plan that would reduce taxes — we’re talking about the part of his plan that involves raising taxes. The question isn’t, what will happen when Obama cuts taxes? The question: What will happen if he raises taxes on the wealthiest Americans?
The second long quote you present is effectively irrelevant, as it refers to a multitude of factors that aren’t in play here.
I believe that eventually, taxes in this country are going to need to be higher so we can pay down the debt. But we’re faced with a more immediate question: But will it help or hurt the economy over the short terms if Obama raises taxes on the rich now? I challenge you to come up with evidence to support your belief that it wouldn’t hurt the economy to do so.
Comment by Ian — November 29, 2008 @ 12:12 pm
(i) I would distinguish between ambiguity and uncertainty. We’re uncertain whether the quoted advisors really did speak for Obama, whether they’re parts of government factions trying to influence him, or some other group with other intentions; we don’t know how serious these discussions of “pragmatism” are or the degree of “oversight” that might be applied to the use of torture by the CIA. All I can do is repeat again that the subject of the article seems clear to me: rules for CIA interrogation, one of the controversial Bush administration intelligence policies.
It’s not clear to me what an alternative reading of the article would be? “WSJ reports that Obama is considering maybe not changing some unknown policies implemented by Bush. The policies are currently unknown and though unknown they may also be controversial but advisors familiar with the transition say that pragmatism and oversight of these unknown controversial policies may be involved.” This is obviously a parody of an alternative reading: but seriously, can you come up with a serious alternate paraphrase of the article that doesn’t involve the notion that some people close to the Obama transition say that Obama is thinking of altering his stance on the use of controversial CIA interrogation techniques, like waterboarding?
(ii) The question of raising and lowering taxes rests on the same argument for the whole population or segments of the population. Taxing Ourselves seems to support the idea that there is no clear relationship between tax rates (for the rich or for anyone else) and economic growth. I don’t see why those findings would be invalidated in a time of crisis. What is the mechanism whereby a crisis makes it especially unwise to raise the taxes on the rich? Remember, that taxed dollar doesn’t disappear, but goes right back into the economy.
I’ll look for people writing about taxes in a time of crisis. Based on the evidence I’ve so far found, I suspect that people will find that changing tax rates — higher or lower for rich or poor — is unlikely to have a material impact on immediate crises. I may be wrong, of course; in which case I’ll be happy to concede the point! The point of the NBER study was that an across the board tax rate cut would lead to very minor increases in growth — in the short, medium, and long term. Their best defense of lower taxes is that the effect of small differences can be cumulatively large in a large economy. In any case, Taxing Ourselves seems to contradict even that modest claim for lower taxes of the NBER.
My reading elsewhere (see: Ha-Joon Chang’s Bad Samaritans) suggests that an active state sector actually produces far more growth than market-centered approaches to development. That backs up the argument that what got us out of the Great Depression… was World War II. That is, the biggest government spending program in history (up till then). All of which is to say: to the degree that the tax question bears in any way on the economic crisis, there’s probably a more convincing case to be made for raising taxes on the wealthy (actually in this case a return to Clinton-Reagan levels of taxation), not keeping them as they are.
Comment by Lee — November 29, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
First, regarding taxes, I’m not arguing that economic principles are different in a crisis than they would be under normal circumstances. I am arguing that raising taxes on the wealthies Americans as Obama originally proposed might do damage to the economy at a time when the economy is in such a dire situation that everything possible should be done to improve it. I’m arguing that raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans would hurt the economy right now, rather than help it or have no effect on it. A relevant study needs to be about what happens when taxes are raised on the top five percent of the population. It’s interesting and important that nations with higher tax rates than the United States don’t seem to be performing more poorly than the United States — but that point is just not relevant to our debate, which is about how Obama’s proposed tax hikes on the wealthy would affect our economy over the next two years.
Second, regarding the WSJ article: You write, “but seriously, can you come up with a serious alternate paraphrase of the article that doesn’t involve the notion that some people close to the Obama transition say that Obama is thinking of altering his stance on the use of controversial CIA interrogation techniques, like waterboarding?”
This is simply an irresponsible reading of the WSJ article. The article DOES NOT report on the thinking of anyone close to the transition — and it certainly doesn’t report on anyone close to the transition saying anything about what Obama might be thinking. The article doesn’t present a shred of evidence that Obama is changing his stance on anything except warrantless wiretapping, and it certainly doesn’t say anything specific about waterboarding.
Why didn’t the WSJ article address these issues more directly?
The article quotes (1) advisers, who say Obama won’t “radically overhaul controversial Bush Administration policies.” (2) “centrist former officials in the Clinton administration” who ”say he is likely to fill key intelligence posts with pragmatists.” (3) Roger Cressey, a former counterterrorism official in the Clinton and Bush administrations, who said Obama will take a “centrist” approach (4) “one current government official familiar with the transition,” who speculated about Obama’s options (5) “officials close to the matter,” who commented on Obama’s possible new hires (6) “Advisers” who “caution that few decisions will be made until the team gets a better picture of how the Bush administration actually goes about gathering intelligence, including covert programs, and there could be a greater shift after a full review.” (7) John Brennan, who simply laid out a procedure (8) Congresswoman and a “senior intelligence official,” who also commented.
Missing from the article is a quote from anyone suggesting Obama had signalled, suggested, or somehow indicated that he would disappoint his anti-torture base.
To paraphrase the article the way you did is totally irresponsible, in my opinion. And that’s precisely my problem with your original post. The purpose of journalism is not to plant “notions” in people’s mind without any evidence to back up those notions. The purpose of journalism is to actually provide the facts and evidence.
Could it be that this WSJ article is just a stupid column dressed up as journalism, and intended to make people think things for which there is no evidence whatsoever?
I think so.
Comment by Ian — November 29, 2008 @ 6:27 pm
Re: torture. If your interpretation of the WSJ article is correct–I think it’s not, but if it is–then the WSJ’s journalism, long highly reputed, should be regarded as shit from here on out. The article’s title was after all “Intelligence Policy to Stay Largely Intact.” Its author’s name should be dragged through the mud for publishing a “stupid column dressed up as journalism.” Obama can initiate this process instantly by publicly saying, “The WSJ article was a complete fabrication and I totally renounce torture.” Simple enough. I’ve been searching unsuccessfully for such a renunciation for several days. When I find it, I’ll post it here and be the first to (very happily) report my error.
Comment by Lee — November 29, 2008 @ 7:40 pm
Actually, just found some clarification on the issue. From 60 Minutes, Obama reaffirmed his commitment to ending torture–good news. The question becomes, then: who are the anonymous sources the WSJ journalist used to write this story? What was the source of their speculation?
Comment by Lee — November 29, 2008 @ 7:51 pm
Regarding taxes: I don’t see why the arguments for raising taxes on the whole population would differ from raising taxes on some subset of the population. The logical structure and economics of the argument is exactly identical in both cases. Based on this logic, I am arguing very specifically that raising taxes will not “do damage to the economy at a time when the economy is in such a dire situation that everything possible should be done to improve it”; it won’t do so because lowering or not raising taxes on the wealthy will not improve the economy. I’ll keep looking for relevant studies that focus on the top 5 percent, though on a first reading of the more general studies, I see no reason to expect that the taxes of the top 5 percent impact the economy more or less than the bottom 95%. (If anything, taxing the top 5% might make the taxed money more productive. What’s a better investment? A learjet or a bridge?) I’ll keep looking.
Comment by Lee — November 29, 2008 @ 8:01 pm
RE: taxation. I don’t believe, at this moment, that the likely question is between a learjet and a bridge; it’s between hoarded cash and a bridge. Consumer spending is down by a record amount and revenue is down from falling incomes.
It’s not simply a matter of running deficits and spending like Mr. Toad – we are already in the midst of record deficits, thanks to the Banana Republic style financial mismanagement that began in 2001. The U.S. needs revenue – if that means ‘redistributing wealth’ from those who have plenty to, say, public works, then that is simply what it means.
The United States is very unlikely to return to it’s previous place in the geopolitical economic landscape. Paying higher taxes will not extract us from our deep interdependence upon China but, it would at least be an effort in the right direction.
Furthermore, the notion that, by taxing the wealthiest of us, we’re somehow risking irreparable economic damage is a shibboleth. Historically, when the wealthiest have been under taxed we’ve found ourselves in crises similar to the present. 150 years of U.S. economic history ought to be sufficiently compelling evidence (though, for some, clearly it is not). So, really, we need only look to recent history and remember that the economy is not moved by entrepreneurial allstars nor ‘Captains of Industry’. It’s moved by a strong, buffered, middle class. And raising taxes on the wealthy will only serve to strengthen and buffer said middle class, most especially now!
To wit: does anyone get our Alumni emails? Our alma mater has finally implemented similarly aggressive financial aid policies that our sister institutions have already seen fit to implement.
Mind you, these policies are at least an indirect response, if not a direct response, to taxation upon their endowments. It’s hard for me to imagine that, twenty and thirty years from now, we will not look back kindly upon them for responding so.
Comment by aaron — November 30, 2008 @ 5:27 am
To Lee regarding torture: I’m not saying the article is a “fabrication.” Your argument in defense of the article is now solely based on the idea that the WSJ wouldn’t run an article that seemed to draw provocative conclusions with no facts to back them up. The Wall Street Journal article’s “message” — that “some people close to the Obama transition say that Obama is thinking of altering his stance on the use of controversial CIA interrogation techniques, like waterboarding” MUST be accurate, you’re saying, even though the article doesn’t actually say that and there is no evidence in the article to support that conclusion.
If there is any actual evidence to support this “message,” I would like to hear it, but I don’t think we should be criticizing Obama based on fact-free “messages” promoted by the WSJ.
Regarding Aaron’s points, he writes:
“It’s not simply a matter of running deficits and spending like Mr. Toad – we are already in the midst of record deficits, thanks to the Banana Republic style financial mismanagement that began in 2001. The U.S. needs revenue – if that means ‘redistributing wealth’ from those who have plenty to, say, public works, then that is simply what it means.”
(I’m assuming Mr. Toad is a big spender.) From what I’ve been hearing, most economists now believe the best thing the government can do to “save” the economy is to inject money into the economy by spending massively on a variety of things, from infrastructure to unemployment benefits to state aid, etc. The fact that “we are already in record deficits” is irrelevant. Our deficits for the next two years should be much larger than our “record” deficits over the past several years, if we’re going to get out of the economic disaster we’re in now, according to the economists Obama is listening to. It’s true that the United States need revenue over the long-term — but over the short term, if we focus on raising revenue to avoid deficits, we’ll be making the same mistake Herbert Hoover made during the Great Depression. Now is NOT the time to be worried about the deficit — now is the time to be worrying about the people who will suffer if the economy continues to contract over the next two years, and there are a lot fewer jobs for an even larger American workforce.
You also write: “Furthermore, the notion that, by taxing the wealthiest of us, we’re somehow risking irreparable economic damage is a shibboleth. Historically, when the wealthiest have been under taxed we’ve found ourselves in crises similar to the present. 150 years of U.S. economic history ought to be sufficiently compelling evidence (though, for some, clearly it is not).”
I don’t believe that taxing the wealthy is “risking irreparable damage.” Of course, that’s ridiculous. The question is, does it risk any damage at all? You could drive an aircraft carrier through the massive distinction that can be drawn between a move that “risks irreparable damage” to the economy, and a move that might damage the economy a bit.
Regarding the 150 years of evidence to support the idea that under-taxing the wealthy is what leads to these crises, I think that bold statement deserves a post all to itself — and I hope you will flesh out that argument more thoroughly in another comment or a guest post.
That said, your point is irrelevant to the question at hand, which is this: Is it a good idea or a bad idea for Obama to follow through on his campaign plan to raise taxes on the wealthy NOW. Will it hurt the economy NOW, even if only a little bit, if Obama raises taxes as he said he would during the campaign? I hear Aaron and Lee saying they think that’s a dumb question, but it’s THE question from a political standpoint. Because if Obama follows through on his plan, he’ll immediately face criticism from people who say he is “preventing new jobs from being created,” and “raising taxes during a recession — the stupidest thing to do.”
If you’re trying to win an argument with people who believe that raising taxes during a recession is counter-productive, you need more than just an ideological commitment to the middle class and a general sense that it doesn’t matter what rich people pay in taxes. You need facts or data or a theory or something to back up these ideas.
Because if Obama raises taxes on the wealthy and then the right-wing manages to convince most Americans that Obama did it for ideological reasons at the expense of our economic growth, then Obama is merely inviting his critics to blame him for the bad economy. And in eight years, when Republicans take over again, they’ll just reduce taxes on the wealthy even more than they’re lower now.
Comment by Ian — November 30, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
A follow up: rbates wrote this earlier: “As far as not raising taxes on the wealthy, I think that is a very smart move by him. Anyone who thinks (of) raising taxes on anyone right now is crazy.”
Thanks to rbates for bringing this opinion to our blog — as this is an opinion held by many (if not most) Americans. To Aaron and Lee: You both obviously disagree with rbates, but do you honestly believe you’ve written anything here that would convince rbates to change his mind about this? Right now, I’m not prepared to debate rbates on this point — I think rbates would win the argument and I would look like an ideologue who cared more about soaking the rich than about economic recovery.
Here’s the rbates argument (correct me if I’m wrong, rbates) Raising taxes takes money away from people and gives it to the government. Individuals are motivated to make money, so they invest their money in ways that maximize their return, and this kind of investment is good for the economy. Governments are full of beaurocrats and politicians who sometimes spend money inefficiently. So why not let the rich keep their money, and if the government wants to spend money, let the government borrow it.
I want to hear more from the people who disagree with rbates about why rbates is wrong.
(sorry to put Aaron and Lee on the spot. They may have lives outside of blogging that interfere with their ability to immediately post dissertations on the economy. But I’ll shout it from the rooftops: right now the USA needs Aaron and Lee, rbates and John and everyone else to share some more of their insight! As a patriotic American, I salute you!)
Comment by Ian — November 30, 2008 @ 6:24 pm
Just to be clear: I support higher tax rates for the wealthiest 5 percent, eventually. I supported Obama’s plan during the campaign. I’m just saying, let’s wait until the immediate, short-term economic consequences aren’t so crucial before implementing this part of the plan.
Comment by Ian — November 30, 2008 @ 6:39 pm
“Your argument in defense of the article is now solely based on the idea that the WSJ wouldn’t run an article that seemed to draw provocative conclusions with no facts to back them up.”
To be clear about the sequence of events:
(1) The WSJ published an unambiguous article claiming that one or more advisors close to the Obama transition suggested Obama MIGHT take a so-called pragmatic approach toward extreme CIA interrogation techniques, aka torture. Not MUST, MIGHT. This possibility appeared as part of speculation on the part of the person quoted, but it wouldn’t be quoted if it weren’t deemed by the journalist to be an informed opinion. (And, it’s worth noting, I don’t believe a single contrary view was quoted in the original article.)
(2) I posted that article for discussion on the blog, and said — in the first post and many subsequent comments — that I hoped Obama was not going to about-face on this very important issue.
(3) You seem to be interpreting my posting this article as equivalent to my believing that the article “MUST be accurate”… well, what does that mean?
It clearly doesn’t mean that I think Obama MUST be about to about-face on torture, just that there is non-negligible evidence that informed people close to the transition think that he MIGHT.
I do take the article’s existence as a claim by the WSJ that there is someone “familiar with the transition” who said “Obama is possibly going to be a ‘pragmatist’ on torture.” Does such a person exist? If that person does, then the article was accurate enough and presented evidence of the opinion of someone ‘close to the transition–not his or her opinion about what was right–but his or her informed opinion about what Obama might do.
(4) With followup research, I discovered Obama’s post-WSJ article 60 Minutes interview where he reaffirms his campaign promise to unambiguously end torture. I take that as a refutation of the opinion of the person paraphrased in the WSJ article.
What are my conclusions here? The person the WSJ paraphrases — the shred of evidence you previously claimed doesn’t exist — is maybe (i) grossly misinformed; (ii) lying for political purposes; or (iii) was horribly misinterpreted by the journalist.
At this point, I’m not defending the article. I’m asking why such a shoddy piece of journalism — with such unambiguous implications on questions of huge national significance — appeared in the WSJ, a supposedly respectable newspaper, in the first place.
A refutation of the opinion of the person close to the transition could apparently have appeared in the original article if the journalist involved had simply picked up the phone and called the transition team directly.
Why didn’t he?
Comment by Lee — November 30, 2008 @ 6:54 pm
If there’s any value in continuing this debate, it’s partly that we’re using this debate as a way to talk about what we expect out of journalism, and how we should properly read newspaper articles. So in that vein, I will continue it, although I think you and I both agree that (1) we have no evidence that Obama will back away from his campaign commitments regarding torture, and (2) that if Obama does allow the United States to continue torturing people, this is an extremely bad thing and we should fight back in that case.
First of all, let’s examine how the article uses the words “pragmatic” and “centrist.” First, there’s this:
“Mr. Obama is being advised largely by a group of intelligence professionals, including some who have supported Republicans, and centrist former officials in the Clinton administration. They say he is likely to fill key intelligence posts with pragmatists.
“He’s going to take a very centrist approach to these issues,” said Roger Cressey, a former counterterrorism official in the Clinton and Bush administrations. “Whenever an administration swings too far on the spectrum left or right, we end up getting ourselves in big trouble.”"
First of all, the article gives no indication whatsoever that Cressey has any inside knowledge about what Obama plans to do. Is Cressey an Obama advisor or supporter? Is he a Bush supporter? A Republican? All we know about Cressey is that he is a former counterterrorism official in the Clinton and Bush administrations. Perhaps it could be argued that we’re meant to assume that Cressey is an advisor to Obama, based on the prior line — but this is one of the many ambiguities in this article. If Cressey has a connection to Obama, the article should have spelled that out.
Furthermore, Cressey says Obama is going to take a “centrist” approach. What on earth does ”centrist” mean? To just assume “centrist” means allowing torture is way, way, way too big a leap to make. I would argue that it is a “centrist” position to be against torture — as both John McCain and Barack Obama explicity said during their campaigns that waterboarding is torture and torture is wrong.
The only reason to assume that the word “centrist” means allowing torture is that the article doesn’t explain what Cressey actually meant when he used that word — an inexusable ambiguity, considering the specificity of the torture issue.
As for pragmatist, that word is similarly meaningless as it’s used above. What would be the opposite of pragmatist? Ideological? To argue that the word “pragmatist” is equal to “allowing torture,” is to assume that’s what these “intelligence professionals, including some who have supported Republicans, and centrist former officials in the Clinton administration” meant when they used that word. But the article doesn’t explain what these people meant when they used the term “pragmatist.”
To read this article so that “pragmatist” is code for pro-torture is, again, way way way too big of a leap to make. The article’s ambiguity about what these words mean invites you to draw that conclusion, but that’s not actually a defensible way to interpret what these people said.
You say, “it wouldn’t be quoted if it weren’t deemed by the journalist to be an informed opinion.” First of all, I just don’t understand why you would suggest Obama would betray his own values and his base based on no evidence whatsoever, and then totally suspend your skepticism when it comes to the Wall Street Journal. Isn’t it possible that the Wall Street Journal is trying to make a story out of nothing here? When did we stop reading news articles for facts and start reading them for implicit innuendoes?
I never accused you of claiming the article “MUST be accurate” — in that case, we would be arguing about the factual accuracy of the article. Instead, I accused you of saying the “message” of the article Must be accurate — that “some people close to the Obama transition say that Obama is thinking of altering his stance on the use of controversial CIA interrogation techniques, like waterboarding”
Please point out where in the article there is a single shred of evidence to support this “message” that Obama is thinking about altering his stance on waterboarding! It’s simply not there!
Furthermore, you refer to “a claim by the WSJ that there is someone “familiar with the transition” who said “Obama is possibly going to be a ‘pragmatist’ on torture.””
THIS IS FALSE! IT’S NOT TRUE! Nobody in the article says Obama is going to be a “pragmatist on torture.” The article says Obama is likely to fill key intelligence posts with pragmatists — and you’re making way way way too big of a leap to suggest a “pragmatist” is necessarily going to have a right-wing view on torture. The advisors quoted do not offer up this characterization in the context of torture policies — it’s the journalist here who plants this quote (by anonymous sources) into an article about torture.
Cressey says “he’s going to take a very centrist approach to these issues.” What does it mean to say Obama will take a “centrist” approach? It’s way way too big of a leap to assume being “centrist” means being pro-torture.
You write, “With followup research, I discovered Obama’s post-WSJ article 60 Minutes interview where he reaffirms his campaign promise to unambiguously end torture. I take that as a refutation of the opinion of the person paraphrased in the WSJ article.” Could you specifically point to the “person” quoted in the WSJ article whose opinion was refuted by Obama’s statement on 60 minutes? Because I literally can’t figure out who on earth you could be referring to.
As for why this article appeared in the WSJ — that is an excellent question. I’m guessing the Wall Street Journal is full of people who think it would be just crazy ideological nonsense to stop torturing people, and all their reporting may be based on that assumption. The point of this article may be to reassure people that Obama isn’t really going to go ahead with his crazy left-wing agenda. But this is about the WSJ — it has nothing to do with Obama.
My guess is that the reporter of this article did call up the transition team directly, and the transition team didn’t give the journalist anything the journalist could use. So instead of quoting the transition team, the reporter started fishing around for other, less-reliable sources so he could tell a provacative story. The point of the article is to send a message to the transition team: “If you won’t help me write an article about how you’re going to reform torture policies, then I’m going to write an article that will piss off your base so you’ll have no choice but to answer my questions more specifically.”
But you speak of a “refutation of the opinion of the person close to the transition.”
Now you’re the one who is being ambiguous. Who is this “person”? What is their “opinion”? And how might this “opinion” be “refuted”? I’m honestly wondering. Would you expect Obama’s transition team to say, “Oh, we’re not going to fill key intelligence posts with pragmatists. It’s going to be ideologues, all the way down the line.” Or would you expect the transition to say, “We’re not going to be centrist. We’re going to be far, far left in everything we do.”
It doesn’t take a “centrist” or a “pragmatist” to know that waterboarding is torture and torture is wrong. It takes the Republican Party’s former presidential nominee, who said so quite explicitly during a debate in the Republican primary.
Comment by Ian — December 1, 2008 @ 12:36 am
I don’t have much more to say on this article beyond what I’ve already written. The person I’m referring to is the one mentioned in this quote: “The new president could take a similar approach to revising the rules for CIA interrogations, said one current government official familiar with the transition. Upon review, Mr. Obama may decide he wants to keep the road open in certain cases for the CIA to use techniques not approved by the military, but with much greater oversight.” That person’s opinion is that Obama may want to keep the road open to certain interrogation “techniques.” I assume “could” is not expressing a merely formal logical possibility–as in, Obama could wear a red tie today; anyone with even minimal information could say that–but rather “could” as in “is seriously considering the possibility of”–as in, it’s something that the government official believes is a realistic possibility. And thus newsworthy.
Comment by Lee — December 1, 2008 @ 1:38 am
I am not happy with my previous comment (at all, really). Let me try to bend some of it into something a little less useless.
I didn’t mean to imply that we should try to balance the budget with tax increases on the wealthy – deficits are inevitable for the near term. I just meant that it’s fair (and I think would even be beneficial) to ask that they return to the more reasonable level of taxation had under the Clinton Administration.
Ian, the ‘irreparable damage’ vs. ‘any damage’ distinction is a good one. This was a distinction I failed to make in the post. I don’t believe there will be any damage by raising taxes the way that Obama has indicated he wants to.
Also Ian, you point out that it may not be politically feasible, at the moment, to roll back tax cuts on the wealthy. It may well not be and thank you for pointing out what should have been a fairly obvious distinction.
Finally, the last piece of that crappy little post that I want to try and mitigate, goes out to rbates. My comment: ‘150 years of U.S. economic history ought to be sufficiently compelling evidence (though, for some, clearly it is not)’ was the part that I disliked most. Upon rereading, it makes me squirm. And Ian’s reply made clear to me that it may have seemed aimed at you. It was not. In fact, it was just a generic, supercilious, expulsion of gasbaggery.
I actually really value your voice and contributions to this forum and, look forward to many more.
Comment by aaron — December 1, 2008 @ 2:50 pm
I should second Aaron’s comments, rbates. I very much value your contribution to the blog.
To Ian: you seem to be saying that basically you agree with the argument that an increase in taxes won’t damage the economy, mildly or severely. Or, you’re saying even if it’s true it is politically a bad idea because people will mistakenly be led to believe that it is the case.
But shouldn’t our response to this mistaken belief be to lay out our case for why Obama’s keeping his tax pledge will not be a problem for economic recovery. That’s part of what I’ve tried to do in the above comments.
Comment by Lee — December 1, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
To Lee: Regarding your most recent comments about the WSJ article, this “current government official” is not an advisor to Obama. He is an official in the Bush administration. And his speculation that Obama might not stick to his guns on torture is apparently based on the fact that Obama previously didn’t stick to his guns on warrantless wiretapping. This isn’t evidence of anything. Furthermore, the article says this official is “familiar with the transition.” Isn’t that pretty ambiguous? Can we assume this official has no role whatsoever with the transition, but is merely “familiar” with it, in the sense that he knows it is happening and knows what it might entail?
This article sucks!
Regarding taxes, Aaron writes, “I don’t believe there will be any damage by raising taxes the way that Obama has indicated he wants to.”
And Lee writes, “But shouldn’t our response to this mistaken belief be to lay out our case for why Obama’s keeping his tax pledge will not be a problem for economic recovery. That’s part of what I’ve tried to do in the above comments.”
I totally get that both of you believe raising taxes on the wealthy won’t hurt the economy, not even a little bit. I’d love to say I agree with you — because I believe this tax increase is in the country’s best interests over the long term.
But the number of people who think such a tax hike would be “crazy” (like rbates) is enormous, and the number of people who think such a tax hike would be at least a little bit bad is also enormous (like me).
So what I desperately want is a strong argument about why you guys are right and why rbates and I are wrong. So far, you haven’t convinced me. We need a strong argument because if Obama goes ahead and raises these taxes, a lot of people in the media will use the tax hike to attack Obama, and we have to be prepared to defend him in a way that will sway the undecideds.
Why take money out of people’s pockets when everybody is losing tons of money already?
Let me put it this way: You’re on Hardball with Chris Matthews. It’s the day after Obama announces plans to follow through on his tax increase. You’re in a split-screen situation with rbates, who says raising taxes on anybody right now is crazy. How do you convince the American people to trust you and not him?
I need your help! Please!
Comment by Ian — December 1, 2008 @ 5:15 pm
Does anybody out there know how much revenue would be raised by following through on the tax increases Obama campaigned on?
Comment by Ian — December 1, 2008 @ 6:06 pm