One way to judge the health of our political system is to divide the president’s agenda into three categories. First are the items that seem like they’d be hard to accomplish and actually are hard—health care reform and cap-and-trade come to mind. Then come the items that sound easy to the uninitiated but turn out to be pretty hard—like eliminating wasteful farm subsidies or obsolete weapons systems. Lots of presidents have taken on these programs only to find that they have powerful, well-organized defenders. Finally, there are some legislative goals that sound easy to accomplish, and normally are easy, until some unique brand of dysfunction intervenes—say, some senator takes a special interest in an obscure appointment.
A healthy political system will have a fair amount of the first type of issue, whose difficulty arises from its fundamental complexity and genuine ideological disagreement. A healthy system could even have a decent amount of the second issue—it’s tough to have a democracy if interest groups can’t weigh in. But if you start noticing too many entries in the third category, then it’s time to fear for the republic, because it means the country is becoming ungovernable.
Unfortunately, this year’s budget fight includes a whopper of an example here—the effort to phase out tax cuts for the wealthy. These are the tax cuts George W. Bush passed in 2001 and 2003, of course. The first round reduced income taxes for people at all levels. But it dumped gobs of money on the very affluent. This group saw the rate it pays on every dollar above about 300,000 drop from nearly 40 percent to 35. If, for example, you happened to be a banker who makes $10 million per year, this rate cut saved you nearly $450,000 last year—far more than most people’s entire salaries. (Insanely, a hedge fund manager making the same salary owes even less in taxes—far less, actually—but that’s another story.)
Then in 2003 Bush was at it again, sheering back taxes on capital gains and dividend income. Once again, the benefits were overwhelmingly skewed toward the very wealthy, who own vastly more financial assets than the average worker. As Warren Buffett warned at the time, the practical effect of such cuts would be to lower the tax rate paid by his income demographic to a tiny fraction of the rate most Americans face. Which was the way it shook out in practice. According to calculations by Citizens for Tax Justice, the two rounds of Bush tax cuts showered 38 percent of their benefits on the top 1 percent of income earners, and over 52 percent of their benefits on the top 5 percent.
Most congressional Democrats understood this at the time and were deeply skeptical of the tax cuts. That forced the GOP to enact them through reconciliation—the Senate rule allowing passage of budget-related measures with a simple majority rather than a filibuster-proof 60 votes. Bush did manage to win over several moderate and conservative Democrats—people like Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and Mary Landrieu. But many signed on once it became clear the bill would pass anyway. It’s unlikely Bush would have found enough Democratic takers to break a filibuster had it come to that.
In any case, Democrats only became more united in their opposition to the tax cuts as time went by. Every major candidate in the 2004 Democratic presidential primaries vowed to repeal the portion benefiting the very affluent. (Two of them—Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt—proposed repealing all the Bush tax cuts.) Ditto for 2008. Support for this idea was so uncontroversial that it produced almost no back-and-forth across several dozen primary debates and candidate forums.
Of course, there’s a big difference between promising to repeal a tax cut and having the courage to follow through. No one wants to be labeled a tax-raiser. And rich people tend to get a lot of face time with senators and congressmen, with whom they can wax philosophical about the vast economic benefits of their additional Bentley purchases. But the beauty of the Bush tax cuts is that reversing them doesn’t require anyone to lift a finger. The strictures of the reconciliation process forced Bush to phase them out in 2011. That means the tax cuts just disappear—poof!—unless someone intervenes to save them.
And yet, in the run-up to Obama’s 2011 budget, a handful of Democrats had begun to lose their nerve. The New York Times reported Sunday that “some centrist Democrats are urging Mr. Obama to spare wealthy taxpayers as well, to avoid raising their taxes before the economy is fully recovered.” Congressional Quarterly had a similar report the following day (not online). But this argument makes no sense. The rich save the overwhelming majority of their income in both good economic times and bad. Preserving their tax cuts would do almost nothing to boost the economy by eliciting more spending—not even on those Bentleys (which the rich can afford with or without tax cuts). For the most part, it would simply pad their bank accounts.
But don’t take my word for it. Last month, the Congressional Budget Office—Washington’s most scrupulously neutral arbiter of tax and spending initiatives—ranked eleven ideas in circulation for stimulating economic growth. Extending the Bush tax cuts finished at the very bottom in potential effectiveness. Worse, extending the upper-income portions would cost about $700 billion dollars over the next 10 years (and that’s before you factor in the effect of higher interest payments on U.S. debt). As Robert Greenstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities puts it, even if we had an extra $700 billion to spend on more stimulus, there are massively more cost-effective ways to spend it.
In fairness, eliminating the upper-income portion of the Bush tax cuts isn’t quite as straight-forward in practice as simply allowing them to expire. Because most Democrats (including Obama) want to preserve the middle-class portion of the cuts, they’ll have to pass new legislation authorizing that extension for people making $250,000 or less (about 98 percent of workers). And since Republicans would filibuster the new bill if didn’t include the upper-income tax cuts, Democrats will have to use reconciliation themselves—something that makes moderates queasy.
On the other hand, as budget expert Stan Collender notes, Republicans are unlikely to be satisfied with merely extending the old Bush tax cuts. They’ll surely demand even more goodies, which will force Democrats to use reconciliation anyway. So there’s really no practical way around it. (In any case, it would be bizarre for these moderates to insist that tax cuts which only required a simple majority to pass under Bush now require a 60-vote majority to phase out.)
For what it’s worth, I don’t think many centrist Dems are pining to lavish another $700 billion on the rich. Nor do I think most of them buy the idea that these tax cuts are critical for sustaining the recovery. Or that this is a particularly good use of $700 billion at a time of unprecedented deficits. Their real concern is getting hammered for raising taxes while running for re-election in a Republican state.
But that’s really the point. If we can’t retire a giveaway that makes no economic or budgetary sense, for which there’s no organized interest-group to speak of (at least none that has influence over Democrats), and which only affects the top 2 percent of income earners at a time when the bottom 98 percent believes the system is rigged for the wealthy, what on earth is the system capable of accomplishing? Unless conservative Democrats can pull it together, I’m afraid the answer is very little.
Noam Scheiber is a senior editor of The New Republic.
For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
It is interesting that you describe allowing people to keep the money that they earned as a "giveaway," money that somehow they were able to earn through hard work and diligence, despite all of the impediments placed in their way by government. Business taxes, nonsense regulations, etc., are dumped on them by local, state and federal governments. Petty bureaucrats (usually underworked and overpaid) are envious of the entrepreneurs and impose additional impediments by arbitrary enforcement and misreading of laws and regulations. You certainly are a fellow-traveler of the wealth-spreader-in-chief (or, as I prefer, the ventriloquist dummy in chief).
I have worked since I was ten years old. I per ... view full comment
It is interesting that you describe allowing people to keep the money that they earned as a "giveaway," money that somehow they were able to earn through hard work and diligence, despite all of the impediments placed in their way by government. Business taxes, nonsense regulations, etc., are dumped on them by local, state and federal governments. Petty bureaucrats (usually underworked and overpaid) are envious of the entrepreneurs and impose additional impediments by arbitrary enforcement and misreading of laws and regulations. You certainly are a fellow-traveler of the wealth-spreader-in-chief (or, as I prefer, the ventriloquist dummy in chief).
I have worked since I was ten years old. I performed odd jobs at an even younger age to earn spending money. I worked full time while attending college and have continued to educate myself throughout my entire life to be able to have a comfortable life for myself and my family. I probably give more money to charity than Al Gore (I seem to remember when he was VP, he was quite stingy). I volunteer extensive amounts of my time to community and professional activities (which help others become more educated and productive). I resent having my money (whether taxed or inflated away) used to bail out General Motors, Merrill Lynch, Citibank, and, especially, Goldman Sacks. They are the politically connected rent seekers in society. No matter how much money I earn, I have done so without feeding at the taxpayer trough.
I have saved money since I was about 12 years old, only to watch politicians (and the federal reserve is nothing but a political kleptocratic organization) erode the value of my savings through inflation. Inflation is a tax, an insidious tax. Most people blame oil companies and Arabs for inflation but, as Milton Friedman said, it is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon. Any taxes extracted from me for any purpose beyond protecting life, liberty and property is theft. It is not moral nor is it compassionate.
Dale Ogden, Libertarian, Candidate for Governor of California; http://www.daleogden.org http://www.daleogden.net
If the Democrats have the courage of their convictions, as I fear they don't, they can pick a convenient time to have the Republicans spend a few weeks filibustering an bill to lower taxes on the bottom 98 percent of the population.
If the Democrats have the courage of their convictions, as I fear they don't, they can pick a convenient time to have the Republicans spend a few weeks filibustering an bill to lower taxes on the bottom 98 percent of the population.
Read our best pieces about the author.
What should we make of Salinger's attempt to block publication of a slim biography?
Assessing Salinger, eight years after his magnum opus.
Why was J.D. Salinger so successful?
What made Salinger's Glass family so singular--and irritating.
Enough of Holden Caulfield, already!
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
Read Full Article »