Print
Email
The April 15 "tea party" demonstrations may in some cases have had dubious sponsorships but their message, nonetheless, must be taken seriously.
Citizens of all political persuasions properly are upset about the financial burdens thrust on them by reckless bankers and Wall Street high-fliers; lax regulators and overseers; and mortgage companies which wrote mortgages for people who did not qualify for them. Ordinary folk who played by the rules, saved, made their scheduled mortgage and tax payments, and made supposedly "safe" investments have paid for the folly of entitled rascals — and do not like it.
The ultimate fallout is yet to be seen. It will depend, in part, on the depth and length of our present downturn. It also will depend on citizens' judgments about steps being taken to set things right. The whole episode could lead to strong Republican Congressional gains next year. Another possibility is the emergence of a populist, third-force candidate (such as Ross Perot who, in 1992, got 19 percent of the Presidential popular vote despite committing one campaign pratfall after another). Or it could subside and simply make elected officials more sensitive to taxing/spending issues.
Mainstream media and commentators may have mocked the April 15 rallies. Elected officials have not. In Seattle, City Council members have placed the burden of service cutbacks entirely on Mayor Greg Nickels. In Olympia, both Gov. Chris Gregoire and the Legislature are striving mightily to close a huge budget gap without offending important constituencies or raising general tax levels. That is Mission Impossible. In Washington, D.C., President Barack Obama faces a more skeptical Congress and polarized electorate than he did on his inaugural January 20. Immediately at issue are his expensive new health-care and energy proposals (see my April 14 article for details).
Returning from recess, the Congress is revisiting the matter of those proposals and their affordability, as well as Obama's campaign-promised tax cuts for all but wealthy taxpayers. According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers would pay an average increase of $371,675 annually in federal taxes, under the Obama Plan, in order to provide tax cuts to lower-income taxpayers. But even Obama supporters concede that, given the costs of his proposals, tax increases would be certain for even middle-income taxpayers. His agenda cannot be financed without doing so.
Moreover, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, which provides independent guidance to the Congress, Obama's tax proposals will lead to $3 trillion in lost revenue over the next decade. Federal budget deficits are projected at $1 trillion and above, annually, for a long period.
As an avid supporter of Obama's nomination and election, I am sympathetic to his desire to move forward on long delayed health-care and energy agendas. But, with deep federal deficits — in the midst of a financial crisis — he could not have chosen a riskier time to push them forward. I had thought, after his election, that he would delay them until we got out of the current trough. But he has not.
Obama's everything-now strategy has succeeded in unifying Congressional Republicans. It also has alarmed Congressional Democrats — especially those from marginal or "swing" districts — who fear for their survival in 2010 if deficits deepen. They, in particular, are the ones who took the April 15 demonstrations quite seriously.
Obama has forged forward so aggressively because he believes his "first 100 days" honeymoon period was his best chance to do so. But the honeymoon now is ending and his health and energy proposals are not yet in finished form for Congressional consideration. Will he pull back temporarily, giving the country and Congress time to consider and digest those proposals, or will he continue full speed ahead even though the financial rescue, the auto bailout, and other near-term crises have not been resolved? I fear Obama has badly overreached.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Wed, Apr 22, 1:14 p.m. Inappropriate
The "tea parties" of April 15 were nothing more than a Fox- and CNBC-sponsored media stunt, with support from rabidly antitax media (such as the Seattle Times). While the "tea parties" merited front page coverage by the Seattle Times, they did not on most other major newspapers--because people understood that the "tea parties" were nothing more than a stunt. Indeed, the signs and posters wielded by many attendees of the "tea parties" were shockingly racist and full of conspiracy theories (from Obama-is-not-an-American to Democrats-are-fascists or Democrats-are-socialists). Which is it, incidentally? Are Democrats fascists or socialists? Because these are on opposite ends of the political spectrum. To look at these fairly small gatherings as anything other than protests by kooks is kooky in and of itself.
As a country, we ought to be more concerned with the deficit, true enough. But that concern should have started when George Bush started increasing federal spending dramatically while pushing through tax *cuts*--the deficit problems we now face are pretty much a legacy of Republican economic "ideology." A legacy of such a stunning failure is not something that can be leveraged by Republicans sensibly in time for the midterms.
Obviously people don't want tax increases in this economic environment. But people *do* support certain kinds of tax increases, e.g. in Washington State on incomes over $250,000 per year as a current proposal floating around provides. That kind of tax policy makes supreme sense, too, given the regressive way we otherwise use property and sales taxes to fund government in this state.
But--do you want to know what the biggest leak out of any government budget right now is, though? Health care. A good 17% of our GDP right now is spent on health care; in Germany it's about 10%; in "oh my God not socialized medicine" Canada it's only 9%; in Poland it's only 6%. Imagine reducing our GDP share of spending on health care from 17% to 10% and putting the 7% gained toward the deficit? I can't think of any one thing more sensible to do NOW for our long-term financial and fiscal health than massive, comprehensive health care reform. It may seem like a large short-term expenditure, but mercifully President Obama has his eyes on the long term--a perspective that is sorely missing in DC politics and apparently at Crosscut...
Posted Wed, Apr 22, 2:11 p.m. Inappropriate
It would be a mistake to characterize the tea parties as "stunts." Were the early anti-Vietnam War protests stunts, even though some at the beginning had questionable sponsorship? Lots of ordinary folk were out there April 15 and savvy politicians heard them.
It also is important not to see the tea parties, by the way, as simply anti-tax expressions. Protests were being lodged against what protesters saw as wrongful uses of their tax dollars---whether spent in Iraq or on big-bank bailouts---and a general irresponsiveness of government.
You are quite right about health costs. But the Obama plan, as now consituted (in fact it is far from constituted), would not necessarily
save them. Every major health proposal of the past 40 years has been sold on the basis that it would save tax dollars. But the proposals' cost-cutting provisions without exception are accompanied by provisions further expanding coverage--and thus, on balance, increasing costs. Important to distinguish between political rhetoric and substantive reality. I am hoping an eventual Obama plan will be able to both expand coverage and cut costs...but it is not there yet. My April 14 piece offered some suggestions. Insurance commissioner Mike Kreidler, by the way, has made similar suggestions---that is, beginning with universal catastrophic coverage, which is both needed and comparatively affordable.
Agree completely on the need to reform our gruesomely regressive Washington state tax system.
On politics: If we do not pull out of our economic trough...if unemployment rises and bailout costs continue...and if Obama is blamed for making it worse with red-ink proposals, you can be quite sure that Republicans will gain 2010 Congressional seats. Such gains in off-year elections---even after FDR and LBJ landslides two years earlier, for instance---are to be expected in any case. The only question will be their magnitude.
Posted Wed, Apr 22, 3:01 p.m. Inappropriate
There is no doubt that some aspects of the tea parties were distasteful because they came off as right-wing demagoguery. But how can you argue with such great numbers of people showing up in Olympia on a workday? Blaming the protest as Fox News propaganda does a disservice to all the Washington residents who are really hurting and frustrated right now.
The Legislature has a tough job to do, and the cuts are going to have to be very deep. Raising the sales tax is just not the answer this year. We've started a grass-roots group called No Time For Taxes to help show lawmakers that more taxes aren't the answer. Go to our website at http://www.notimefortaxes.com and join the conversation about what our lawmakers can do.
Posted Thu, Apr 23, 7:39 a.m. Inappropriate
Fine article, Mr. Van Dyk.
I'm very supportive of how my president is handling the current economic crisis. If the Republicans want to have tea parties, so be it. What's so sickening is that part of those taxes that they're so angry about paying are going to an Iraqi war at $662 BILLION and counting--and that's only one of two wars that go unresolved to this point.
However, I'm personally sick of the party bickering. It's not about what's best for the people of the U. S., it's about waiting for a particular party to make a stand on an issue, and then slam it for political gain. Enough! As an Independent voter, I see the Repubs isolating themselves, and I look forward to their further demise. After all, tea parties are very symbolic of the Republican's vision, and that's back in time rather than forward into the current century. God help the Huckabees.
Posted Thu, Apr 23, 9 a.m. Inappropriate
Darn it, Mr. Van Dyk. You're at it again. In your book, what was your biggest critique of Presidents Carter and Clinton? You wrote extensively that they failed the vision test and were "outbox" administrations. You and Dave Gergen should start a club for writing a book containing strong advocacy of one position and then building a career in the media railing against the positions you once held so dear. Any other charter members you can think of?
Posted Thu, Apr 23, 9:21 a.m. Inappropriate
Mr. Van Dyk is correct in his comment that the tax protests are not aimed solely
at the Obama administration. The profligate ways of the Bush years just built up the public anger and that has now erupted because of what we can all see as a financial mess that will take decades to work out.
Posted Thu, Apr 23, 9:23 a.m. Inappropriate
I think the name "Tea Party" was a mistake. It has been widely reported that the main issue was high taxes, which led to a spate of reports on how little most Americans pay in federal income taxes. Interestingly, none of those reports questioned how Obama plans to cut taxes for all those people that don't pay any.
The issue is the trillions upon trillions in deficit spending that Obama has proposed - to literally remake the US economy. All while promising that only the "rich" will have to pay for it. Does he really believe that?
Are we really willing to mortgage the future of our children and grandchildren to finance his vision of utopia? What if the government financed wind turbines, solar panels, plug-in hybrid cars, charter schools and socialized medicine don't work out so well? Will the economy grow enough to pay even the iterest on all that debt? Do you remember when he promised to reduce government spending during that debate?
It's not about the taxes, it's about the spending. In Olympia the state has increased the budgets by 13-14% the last two cycles. That is why they are in trouble now. Just last month the Democrats in Congress increased spending for the last half of this fiscal year by 8% - after a $787 billion "emergency" stimulus bill that had to be signed before it was read. Every month as the private sector lays people off government jobs increase. We cannot sustain the current rate of government growth, yet Obama wants to increase it. I thought Bush was a big spender. This is the change I was afraid of.
Posted Thu, Apr 23, 10:06 a.m. Inappropriate
OlyEric: Thanx for your comments. In this instance, I think you missed my point. I remain critical of both Carter and Clinton for their lack of commitment to strong agendas seeking and serving in the Presidency. I admire Obama's willingness to present and act on an agenda. But his proposals do not exist in a vacuum. President Roosevelt, for example, won in 1932 by a landslide but his early Presidency was consumed entirely
with dealing with financial/economic crisis. His big first-term achievement, Social Security, did not happen until 1935. President Johnson proposed and passed a huge progressive agenda in 1965, after his landslide victory over Sen. Goldwater. But he did so in entirely different circumstances than Obama now faces. His Congressional majority was far larger. Even so, he went out of his way to seek Republican and independent support for Medicare, Medicaid, the Voting Rights Act, federal aid to education, and other parts of his Great Society legislation. Moreover, he submitted his legislative agenda in a time of booming economic growth (and growing federal tax revenues). Obama's Congressional majority is much smaller; Republican and independent support for his agenda is lacking; and we are in the midst of a financial/economic crisis.
I want Obama to succeed. But I fear for his success if he tries to jam
expensive new proposals through Congress when the surrounding financial/economic climate is so shaky. If, on the other hand, he is perceived as dealing successfully with our present troubles, a grateful electorate will be more than willing to act on the rest of his agenda
when the economy is perceived as recovering.
Posted Thu, Apr 23, 10:38 a.m. Inappropriate
Memo to the author and the nervous Nellie Democrat pols he worries about:
What the President has done is start discussions on the big issues that determine our economic fate. Health care, education, and energy (and global warming) together are a large part of the federal budget and private spending and can't wait for the resolution of lesser issues such as Detroit’s problems. If a discussion isn't started that involves Congress and the public, it's unlikely that these major problems will be resolved and our economic future will be in more jeopardy. The last eight (and more) years are testimony to that.
In his remarks at the March 5 White House Forum on Health he clearly indicated that Congress and the private sector need to step up - in fact take the lead and not wait for his proposal in "finished form for Congressional consideration". He was both acknowledging that there remains a wide spectrum of views and that Congress has already done a considerable amount of work.
Some, including the author, may prefer linear thinking. We don’t have the time and Obama clearly isn’t in that mold or mood.
So my advice is to end the diatribe and get used to a president who sees the interrelationships and has connected the dots in a way that will lead to a better future. And we might spend less time handwringing and more time (and digital ink) helping him accomplish his agenda.
Posted Fri, Apr 24, 8:05 a.m. Inappropriate
Ted, maybe you could frame this less in terms of "we" and "I" and more in terms of future generations.
Posted Fri, Apr 24, 8:41 a.m. Inappropriate
hinklem has a good observation. There are two ways to look at impacts on future generations. You could conclude, correctly, that trillions in
future federal debt will reduce policy options and burden those generations
with unacceptably high taxes and levels of inflation. You also could conclude, correctly, that education, health care, and energy fixes---as well as Social Security and Medicare fixes---will be necessary to a better future.
The country and President Obama are faced, right now, with a) the need to take financial/economic action which will restart and stabilize the economy so that b) we can, among other things, address our unfinished domestic agenda.
A bit puzzled by dn's comments. "Linear thinking," which dn apparently rejects, is badly needed in finding appropriate energy/health care soluations. We can't just go with the flow and lurch ad hoc into
changes which will be important to the future. Second, I would suggest that dn is the one engaging in diatribe. I try to bring information and informed opinion to readers. If they prefer partisan cheerleading, they need to look elsewhere.