A Mandate For Clintonism: How About A Little Clinton Tax Policy?

[Obama] won a mandate for responsible governance in the mold of presidents past. - Booman

I don't agree with the idea Booman espouses - that Obama won a mandate for Clintonism, other than in the sense that Obama won a mandate for fixing the country, especially the economy, something Clinton did. But if President Obama did win a mandate for Clintonism, why can't Dems deliver on the Clinton tax policy?

Apparently, Bill Clinton yesterday responded to the familiar line, this time from Rachel Maddow last March, that Clinton was the "best Republican President ever." Clinton said:

We had 100 times as many people move out of poverty during those eight years [I was president] than the previous 12 years because we had an earned income tax credit, not because we had another traditional anti-poverty program hiring people, he said.

Certainly true. But if you can name the last President to raise taxes on the rich, you'll also get a prize if you say the "best Republican President" Bill Clinton. President Obama is trying to reinstate Bill Clinton's tax policies. I am with Obama on this one. And he has a mandate for it. He's being let down by Dems in Congress. Personally, I think the President should challenge the Congress, not just the Republicans, on tax policy.

Speaking for me only

< GOP Rolls Out Tax Cuts For The Rich Proposal | They Are Who We Thought They Were >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I'd like to see some new ideas (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 01:44:52 PM EST
    to get a whole different conversation going on tax policy. Obama could challenge Congress to let the tax cuts expire as planned and consider things like adding more brackets, and adding more deductions available to the middle class. Maybe make medical expenses deductible at a lower % of income than they are now. Or bring back the consumer loan interest deduction that Reagan took away (which actually raised taxes on much of the middle class).

    I'm  sure there is more - even offer to discuss the Fair Tax and make some of the tea-partiers happy. It is among their least insane ideas.

    Well (none / 0) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 02:39:11 PM EST
    The Dems just raised the  % of income medical expenses deductible from 7.5% to 10% as part of the health insurance bill they just passed.

    Oh, well, with health costs soaring (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Cream City on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 04:51:37 PM EST
    and my pay declining (aka "furloughs"), I may end up meeting that 10 percent minimum!

    Report in my local paper today:  Health costs up an average of 3% across the county -- but in my locale, which already had among the highest costs in the country, costs are up 11% to 13% on average and as much as 20% for some small businesses.

    Yeh, Mr. Obama, you bet that small businesses and the middle class need help.  Caving to the health insurance corporates, but giving them four more years to gouge us before your bill takes effect, is killing us.  And that is a rather drastic way to reduce our health care and health insurance costs.


    Well then, never mind (none / 0) (#7)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 03:16:10 PM EST
    It was only a fantasy anyway

    Tax credit (none / 0) (#12)
    by beowulf on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 08:37:46 PM EST
    The Democrats could supersize the new "Making Work Pay" tax credit that expires this year.  $40 billion cost providing $400 tax credit per worker ($800 per married couple) that phases out between $75,000 and $100,000 in income (per individual).

    $250 billion tax shift means it could be 6 times bigger.  I think most couples (earning under $150,0000 a year would appreciate a refundable $4800 tax credit a bit more than merely extending the existing tax breaks.


    sadly, ms. maddow, (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by cpinva on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 03:36:28 PM EST
    like mr. olberman before her, started to believe the network pr. whatever it was that raised her to her current position, apparently left its perch, as soon as she assumed it. i would take anything she says with a grain of salt, and some personal research.

    she, like mr. olberman, has become a liberal media hack.

    The only evidence (none / 0) (#1)
    by Makarov on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 12:10:21 PM EST
    that will prove Obama is really trying to raise taxes on the rich will be a vote in both chambers in the next 2 weeks.

    I just hope you're right and he's not 'trying' the same way he tried to get a public option.

    It's politics 101, an easy win politically, and the right policy. However, we've seen time and again since Jan '09 how impervious this administration can be to the idea of persuing policies that are both sound and politically expedient.

    To clarify, (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Makarov on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 12:22:28 PM EST
    I fully expected a September vote to let the tax cuts for the highest bracket and keep them at lower income levels. I've expected it for months.

    My doubts started to grow in August when we heard little about it in the early part of the month. They grew when Peter Orszag suggested keeping the top bracket cuts in place. They grew further when Obama himself last week wouldn't commit to a veto.


    Obama is not trying to go back to Clintonism (none / 0) (#4)
    by Slado on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 02:23:16 PM EST
    If only we where that unfortunate.   No infact he wants to tax the rich and everyone else much more.


    If he gets all his policy wishes he'll need a VAT and all sorts of other taxes to pay for it.  

    This so called middle class tax cut is the least he can do to offset all the other money middle class America has to fork over for his agenda including his non tax mandate that according to the Obama Justice Department is indeed a tax.

    Oh, so the AEI (none / 0) (#6)
    by Makarov on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 02:49:56 PM EST
    is boo-hooing about tax rates for capital gains, dividends, and deductions for the top 1.5% - 2% of wage earners.

    I'm shocked.


    I agree that Obama should (none / 0) (#9)
    by hairspray on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 04:04:34 PM EST
    start strong arming the Democrats.  They must be ignoring him considering their own seats more important than some unity behind creating a sucessful D president.  That certainly was the case with the Dems during Clinton years. Clinton had to walk a tight line to get results and they were often done by using GOP ideas and stripping out the punitive elements.  The "end welfare as we know it" was fought for by the Clintons by expanidng CHIP,EIT and Welfare to work programs with increased child care credits and some other tweaking of family support programs.  Some chid care and welfare advocates hated him and called him a "sell-out" but it took the Welfare Queen arguments the GOP spun for years away from them.  And the program was not a failure.  Republican leadership was.

    I don't think tax relief for the middle class (none / 0) (#11)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 07:31:09 PM EST
    will hurt any Dem who bothers to explain the proposal adequately to his/her constituency, along with the way in which extra money in middle class pockets actually fuels the economy in a way that creates jobs.