Democrats are responding to the growing nationwide phenomena of anti-tax “tea parties” protests by mocking them and by pointing out that they are prompted and run by right-wing organizations.
Neither response is a winning political strategy.
It is pure political stupidity -- and bad economic policy -- for Democrats to treat the tax protests with derision or contempt.
Rather than mocking the aims of the tea parties, Democrats should follow the lead of presidential candidate Barack Obama, who promised to “provide a tax cut for working families” and “restore fairness to the tax code and provide 95 percent of working Americans the tax relief they need.”
Obama also promised to provide tax relief for small businesses and startups by eliminating “all capital gains taxes on startup and small businesses to encourage innovation and job creation.”
What Obama recognized – and Democrats already seem to have forgotten – is that working families are in fact being over-taxed while the super rich have gotten a free ride – and that voters will cast their ballots for the party and the candidates who they believe will create a fairer tax code and reduce their tax burden.
And while it is certainly legitimate to point out that the anti-tax tea parties are being manipulated and guided by right-wing groups and talk-show hosts whose agendas are not the same as working and middle class voters, this point is devoid of political impact unless it is accompanied by a commitment to do a better job than these groups of protecting working class and middle class economic interests.
For too long, Democrats – especially in California – have allowed Republicans to dominate and set the terms of the tax debate.
As a result, Democrats have allowed Republicans to paint them as the party of higher taxes – and have allowed the super rich to pretend to defend the economic interests of working families and the middle class while in fact shifting the costs of government to those who are least able to afford it.
Instead of responding to the tax protests with mockery and contempt, Democrats need to insist on talking about the kinds of taxes that the government imposes and who pays them.
We should insist that all taxes be progressive and focused on overturning the Republican’s outrageous favoritism of the super rich.
Especially in the midst of the current recession, we should oppose any increases whatsoever in regressive taxes – such as the sales tax, the automobile tax, and the gasoline tax – that disproportionately hit working and middle class families, unless and until the state and federal tax code is revised to require that the super rich pay their fair share.
Democrats can win the tax debate – if they take the tax protest "tea parties" seriously.
Related posts:
Why the Republican Anti-Tax Movement Doesn't Care About the Taxes that YOU Pay
The Charge of the Democrat Light Brigade: California Democrats Caught in Republican Tax Trap
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
John Jacob Di Gasbarro
So Polite
Tim4change
Rolling
Dorian de Wind
Lairderg
Salon.com
Comments
Ocular: Of course these tax protest "tea parties" are a Republican sham -- the Republican anti-tax activists not interested in reducing the tax burden on the middle class and working families, but in keeping the Bush tax breaks for the rich -- but that does not mean that the underlying middle class protest -- even rage -- at their tax burden should be ridiculed. On the contrary, it means that the Democrats should insist on seizing the debate and turning it against the Republicans -- as Obama did.
Jeanette: Please do not keep your mouth shut!
If there were a protest close to me (which there isn't), I would go to observe, and I'd have a sign that says "Obama lowered my taxes" (which he and Congress did starting April 1, plus the increased deduction this year)
The problem is the genesis of these so called tea party protests is really one of the uber wealthy (a la Murdock) and ultra powerful (a la Gingrich) once again convincing people to act against their own best interests and push to keep the top marginal tax rate low.
So let there be "tax protests" and let those of us in the great middle of this country (economically speaking) use this innane vehicle that has nothing to do with what the real Boston Tea Party was about to gather some visibility for a return to sane taxation policy.
Plus the right wing whining has reached such a fever pitch that progressives who might otherwise have something to contribute want nothing to do with it. And this "teabagging" meme, where people are mailing tea bags to members of Congress, just feels childish.
We need some leaders on the left to raise these issues and keep talking about them until the people are motivated to act, but act in a mature and constructive fashion. I don't think these tea parties are it.
-sa
However, I cannot agree that embracing/attending/paying attention to the "tea party" agenda and the factions pushing it provides any traction or reasonable discussion for progressives/Dems. From what I've seen, the far-right and the Fox talking heads pushing this thing are not interested in engaging in any kind of reasoned discourse. To me, the strategy of pushing back and calling them out on their hypocrisy makes a lot more sense than joining in.
And too little tax relief to people. It needs to be immediate also.
The slightly higher tax rate for the wealthy, proposed by Obama wont take effect for 2 years.
I think when the debt gets too big they will impose GST or VAT which is very regressive, also paid when we have no income.
Obama may have good intentions , but we need to tell him what we want now., and what we need.
You might be right, of course, and I wonder what someone like RFK, Jr., thinks. He too rails against the corporate welfare that has been our tax system, and would certainly favor your kind of tax increases and decreases. It's all about the message of course, and given the gross incompetence of the media (which is, of course, the message, especially in this case), I would not rely on anyone actually understanding the nuanced distinction you bring to the table if they are getting their news and pictures from the usual suspects.
Especially in the midst of the current recession, we should oppose any increases whatsoever in regressive taxes – such as the sales tax, the automobile tax, and the gasoline tax – that disproportionately hit working and middle class families, unless and until the state and federal tax code is revised to require that the super rich pay their fair share."
Nicely stated. this post has actually made me rethink my dismissive posture about these tea parties. Thanks.
“For too long, Democrats – especially in California – have allowed Republicans to dominate and set the terms of the tax debate. As a result, Democrats have allowed Republicans to paint them as the party of higher taxes – and have allowed the super rich to pretend to defend the economic interests of working families and the middle class while in fact shifting the costs of government to those who are least able to afford it.”
You know that for the last 70 years, the facts are more than obvious. The phrase “tax & spend democrat” is not a part of the American political vernacular for nothing. I remember when a trillion dollars seemed like a lot of money. Forget the fact that in the process of creating the “Great Society” (the first Obama type visionary we had) LBJ & the dems have spent 14 trillion already on the welfare state and it hasn’t helped minorities, or ghettos, or schools or test scores, or teen pregnancy…yada, yada, yada.
Even in the face of republicans having to defend ourselves from GWB’s fiscal legacy, because he would not uphold the long legacy of less government and fiscal responsibility, it only took 3 months and the dems are already defending themselves. Talk about an addiction. You guys need an intervention. Reagan had a dem controlled congress and still got lower taxes and super growth.
Obama is a one trick pony that is going to get ridden out of town in 4 years. You heard it hear first. Grab the tea. All you dems out there should show up tomorrow and root for the working class taxpayer. You are the ones who are going to get hurt the most by Obamanomics.
What the democrats are doing with our money is dirty and sneaky.
Somehow you make it seem like it was wrong for Newt to have tried to get his party to take over the Congress in 1993. If so, then you also need to recognize it was wrong for the dems to try to take back over the Congress in 2006. Both ideas are equally absurd.
I do think it's interesting that when liberals protest, the media views it as a good thing. When conservatives protest, the media portrays is as the first step to a "Turner Diaries" revolution.
40% of my gross salary goes to taxes. I am not wealthy.
And as unpleasant as it can be sometimes to see a pay stub showing those numbers, I'm more grateful than ever for the social safety net my taxes pay for, for universal access to health care everyone benefits from -- employed or not -- and for a better regulated financial system.
As for taxes, they've been at higher rates for the rich before, and the rich still got richer, the poor still got poorer, but we at least had a middle class. We really don't anymore.
A neighbor of mine has a bumper that says "work harder: welfare recipients need your money." I thought: what if he loses his job? Or his health insurance? Or both?
Obama has lowered taxes for the middle class. Yes, spending is excessive but as soon as economy gets rolling, I think citizens should pressure the government to cut down on wasteful spending. If Obama gains in popularity, he will be able to cut down on pork barrel spending. Right now, he is focused on reviving the economy as he should be.
Meanwhile, I will take advantage of tax credits for energy conservation and renewable energy. I want to do my part to decrease use of oil and coal while helping out the Obama administration.
I do not think that Democrats should join in the current astroturfed faux tax revolt "tea parties" sponsored by Fox News, Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, and fat cat corporate right-wingers, and which are really just anti-Obama rallies.
I do think that Democrats need to take the underlying real revolt against excessive and unfair taxes seriously.
As I said in the post, I think that Democrats ought to seize the tax debate by (1) insisting that all taxes be progressive and focused on overturning the Republican’s outrageous favoritism of the super rich; and (2) opposing any increases whatsoever in regressive taxes – such as the sales tax, the automobile tax, and the gasoline tax – that disproportionately hit working and middle class families, unless and until the state and federal tax code is revised to require that the super rich pay their fair share.
The modern tax revolt was originally a progressive movement -- lead by Democrats -- that opposed a tax system that disproportionately burdened working people and people with fixed incomes.
The Republicans have hijacked this movement (notably with California's Prop 13) and turned it into a "revolt" fueled by racism and resentment and that benefits only the very rich.
As Obama showed in the presidential election, it is possible -- and it is time -- to take the tax revolt back and refocus it to insist that all taxation be fair and progressive.
Thanks to the editor for the pick!
April 15, 2009 01:20 PM
Ever work and get paid by a poor man?
VTwriter
April 15, 2009 11:37 AM
Most poor people are poor because of the choices they make. Same goes for the rich.
The govt's reaction will be very telling.
Rated!
I don't think it is 'fair' because everyone would suffer, except the very wealthy who would get a cut. This ia mainly supported by poorer people, though it benefits the wealthy. Why?
They could tax gas and lower taxes by $50 per week. That would let low income people get to work if they need to drive, but sweeten the choice of public transport for all.
Whenever the right make noises about the tax burden, they always leave out payroll taxes, but the fact of the matter is that the deficit is financed by the FICA surplus. Without that money, we'd have to be borrowing even more from overseas.
The increase in FICA dates back to the Reagan era, when we were first told that Social Security was in jeopardy. No surprise that the era of giant deficits followed that increase.
We're going to have to raise taxes in order to pay the bills that have been run up. The important thing to remember is that the bill should be paid by those who benefited.
I don't think it is 'fair' because everyone would suffer, except the very wealthy who would get a cut. This ia mainly supported by poorer people, though it benefits the wealthy. Why?
They could tax gas and lower taxes by $50 per week. That would let low income people get to work if they need to drive, but sweeten the choice of public transport for all.
ali b
April 17, 2009 02:32 PM
Go buy the FairTax book and read it because you have no idea what you are talking about.
This situation makes politicians act like they are 'in the middle' when they don't have to do anything for any of us.
No matter what they say at rallies, the tea people would benefit and appreciaite a more fair system
What if we could get a million people to protest for a good cause, yet 30% are 'nuts' ? Should we cancel the protest ? Not show up?