E.J. Dionne: 'Make the World Safe for Tax Increases'

  • Bookmark and Share

You know what President Barack Obama's real economic problem is? He's not raising taxes enough. On top of that he needs to raise taxes not only on the very wealthy but on almost everybody else. That is the opinion of Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, Jr.. Here is Dionne recommending that Obama in effect commit political suicide even faster than he already is:

The debate on the budget is phony, the howling on deficits a charade. Few politicians want to acknowledge that if you really are concerned about long-term deficits, you have to support tax increases.

That's why the most significant moment of President Obama's news conference on Tuesday was not his dodge of a question on AIG, but his defense of the least popular tax increase in his budget: limits on the benefits wealthier taxpayers get for their charitable contributions and mortgage payments.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

After hailing Obama for suggesting that taxes be raised by cutting the amount of deductions for charitable contributions, Dionne informs us why raising taxes will politically backfire on any president who attempts this:

It has been a long time since a president was willing to defend raising taxes. You have to go back to Bill Clinton and his 1993 budget. The consequences for Democrats who voted for that budget — no Republicans did — were grave.

Republicans swept the 1994 elections and held on to the House for 12 years. No wonder politicians are so phobic about taxes.

So after displaying the political hazards of raising taxes, Dionne still wants to act as the Jack Kervorkian of the Democrat party by recommending that taxes be raised on almost everybody:

Obama himself is only going part of the way on tax increases. He is still arguing that he can fix things with hikes on just the top 5% of taxpayers.

He's right that a large share of any increase should hit those who enjoyed the biggest income gains over the last decade. But in the end, no politician (with the possible exception of libertarian Ron Paul) is willing to cut the budget enough to contain the deficit without a general tax increase down the road.

Somehow Dionne just can't seem to find anything in all the "stimulus" earmark pork that can be cut. Nope. Can't do it. The answer MUST be to raise taxes on almost everybody according to Dionne who bemoans the fact that those "nasty" voters will complain about their taxes being raised:

In an ideal world, Obama would come right out and say we'll need broad-based tax increases. But that would be suicidal right now. Witness the reaction to his effort to put a 28% ceiling on deductions. His proposal would affect only 1.2% of taxpayers, yet even that idea is about to die in Congress.

And those charitable organizations who find contributions made to them will decrease due to cutting back on the amount that could be deducted for charity? Dionne asks them to suffer for the "greater good" since the government is so much better at administering money than they are:

Is that too much for nonprofits to give up so the country can cover the costs of health care for the needy? The truth is that the opponents of making any changes in the amount the wealthy can deduct are using solicitude for the private charities to kill the whole plan.

Fine, kill it. But then, how else will we pay for health care reform? Obama's across-the-board limits on itemized deductions would raise $318 billion over 10 years. Does anyone have a less painful way to raise that much money?

Dionne apparently never figured out the concept that when you raise taxes you decrease the amount of wealth that can be taxed in the first place thus lowering tax revenues.  It seems that his mission in life is to "make the world safe for tax increases":

The task of those who genuinely care about deficits is to make the world safe for tax increases. Politicians won't do this on their own.

Nope. Politicians won't do it on their own. They need liberals like E.J. Dionne, Jr. to guide the lemmings to the edge of the cliff. And one wonders if Dionne secretly wants to destroy the Democrats by speaking in public what most liberals say in private: raise taxes on everyone!

—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

They still live in  a

They still live in  a world where tax increases equals increased revenues.

No amount of evidence to the contrary can convince them otherwise.

 

I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson

They are statists.  They

They are statists.  They come from a point of view in which the government is the director of everyone's life.  The idea of free and independent citizens who direct the government is alien to them. 

Therefore they need cash.  And if they can't confiscate it fast enough, they print more...either way it's a tax increase.  They are tyrants and they need to be stopped or we're doomed.

They come from a point of

They come from a point of view in which the government is the director of everyone's life.  - mattm

and government is the best arbiter of how to spend money.

That's why, according to Dionne, people should give their money to government instead of to charities.

I contribute to a charity called "Food for the Poor" which uses only 5% of the donations  for bureaucratic costs.  Can the
government do that well???

I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson

Can the gov't do that well?

Hmmm...post office running a $2B defecit.

Cost-overruns on almost every building project (how much did the Big Dig cost?).

I know how much we all adore going to the DMV.

I took my mom to the Social Security office....they had an armed guard!

So....I'd have to say no.  If that little list isn't enough to kill socialized medicine and all other forms of nationalizing businesses, I don't know what is.

 

I hope he fails, too.

 

 

our future DMV?

When I lived in Venezuela, I spent most of the day at their DMV building getting my Venezuelan driver's license. I got to bypass most of the people in line because I was being "expedited" (i.e., extra dinero), and this was before Chavez' election.

Ah mom,

I'm afraid we're going to have one giant DMV for a government before this is all through, and it'll be worse than Venezuela, too.

 

I hope he fails, too.

 

 

Good morning Blonde

Look at the bright side. The burger flippers at Burger King will get to move up in the world. They will be promoted to positions of authority running our new health care system.

Jesus Loves You

Question

What ever happened to the idea of spending less?

And when will the federal government

get back to the realization that it really only exists to provide for the common defence and should not be in the business of running a charity operation with programs such as HEAP, welfare, and Medicaid.

Don't Tax Me, Bro.

not hamstrung

Dionne: if you really are concerned about long-term deficits, you have to support tax increases.

Really? Decreases in spending isn't an option?

Taxes

FYI: Byron York has (as usual) an excellent piece on this very subject.

The telltale sign of the liberal perspective is when Dionne asks: "But then, how else will we pay for health care reform?"

The idea of reform in the first place is to reduce the costs. The biggest problem with healthcare now is that so many people can't afford it. There are structural dysfunctions that cause costs to skyrocket. We're looking for ways to restructure the system.

Think about it. Reforms should cut costs. So, why is Dionne assuming that we're going to need a lot more money?

  • Because his idea of reform is only to cover the number of people who are currently uninsured.
  • He's not thinking about changing the system. He just wants the government cover the costs, even as they skyrocket.
  • The only thing he wants to change is for the government to pay for more people.

If Obama has proved anything, it's that he can't imagine a new system. They have no vision. It's short-sighted. It's plugging holes in the boat instead of getting a new boat. Paul Krugman's NYTimes piece today makes much the same point, only about the financial system: "But the underlying vision remains that of a financial system more or less the same as it was two years ago, albeit somewhat tamed by new rules."

In all of Obama's huge spending program, he really hasn't offered any substantial change to his three agenda items: healthcare, energy, and education. In all three, his plan is to keep the same system, only to use government to subsidize wherever the system doesn't work. That isn't reform. That doesn't change the systems. It just plugs holes in the boat, at the cost of wasted trillions.

Not Specifically Directly At KC

  • Why does the heathcare system need reform?
  • What, specifically, needs to be changed?

At the heart of these questions is whether one believes healthcare is a "right" and whether that "right" is identical to anyone else's "right" (ie quantity/quality of healthcare to be provided).

Does everyone have a "right" to an automobile?  Should everyone have a Mercedes because it has been determined they have a "right" to a car?  What if they have no auto and use public transportation but do not have the money?  Who pays for this?  Should anyone pay for this?

Should everyone have a "right" to food?  Should that "right" be three squares a day plus snacks?  What should each meal consist of - steak, caviar, champagne, Starbuck's?  Who pays for this?  Should anyone pay for this?

Should everyone have a "right" to live in a home?  Oh wait, this has already been done - Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac.  IIRC, the results of this Liberal program is the basis for our current financial problems and a proximate cause of the ascension of Barack Obama, the leader of the world's greatest tax and spend fiasco.

Where exactly is the line drawn between a "right", a "priveledge", and an "earned" goods and services?  Are we talking about the "right to have" regardless of ability to pay?  Anything else those who cannot pay should also have?

Should those that produce and earn for themselves be forced to provide (alledged) "rights" to others that will not produce and earn for themselves?  (barring the infirm, underage, ie those who cannot work, NOT those who CAN work but do not)

Who else is willing to take a 50% plus wage decrease like physicians because the government deems it so?  Could you be next once the economy is nationalized?

Should the government force price controls?  On whom?  How would that effect research and development of new treatments, recruitment and retention of physicians, availability of physicians for appointment, and availability of diagnostic and treatment procedures?

We've heard/read about the decreasing number of domestically trained physicians, the limited number of patients seen or procedures done per day, the unavailability of diagnostic testing, and the waiting lists for the waiting lists in Great Britain and Canada.  Now we know that outcomes are significantly worse in countries with socialized medicine.

I still waiting for someone to explain precisely why we need an overhaul of US healthcare, even with the cost it is today.  I'm also waiting for someone to precisely explain to me how Socialized Medicine will be an improvement over today's system.

IMO, for a nation of smoker, drinkers and obesity, the USA has low mortality rates for those that utilize heathcare.  We live longer and in better condition despite our vices.  Healthcare would be less expensive if no on smoked, drank, or was obese, but, does that mean government should force behaviour on our populace?  Where would that end and by what braking system?

Currently, healthcare cane be cheap, fast and good - but it can only be two of the three at any one time.  In EVERY instance of Socialized Medicine in the world, you can add a fourth item - what will be rationed and therefore unavailable, but this will not be your choice, it will be the government's.

Stand up Chuck!  Let the people see you.  Oh, God loves ya.  What am I talking about?

Well Eugene, I guess..

You can give the Dear Leader some of your money as for me I'm tapped out, go suck eggs elitist liberal scum. Pray you don't see me on the street.

"Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the democrats believe every day is April 15." Ronald Reagan

Great tag/signature line C

Great tag/signature line C FL. I've never heard that one from RR.

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." Mark Twain

Fine, tax us at 100%...

... and send us an allowance, Ok EJ? Why fool around with raising taxes incrementally? Just take it all.

Yea,

I am tired of working anyway.

 

"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg

Good morning Red

Have you seen the new form 1040A?

Line 1 - Gross income

Line 2 - Contributions to ACORN

Line 3 - Subtract line 2 from line 1 and send in the balance

 

Jesus Loves You

What the heck do they think

What the heck do they think Cap & Trade is or higher corporate taxes? Passed right on to us.

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." Mark Twain

I dont understand his wondering

why chairman mao is not doing this, he is doing it. And thank goodness this article finally stated in so many words that what the teleprompter is doing is not going to create $318 billion. The more  likely outcome is to destroy another 6 or 7 hundred billion in wealth with his headlong dive into creating equal poverty worldwide he intends for everyone but him to be at the bottom of his utopia.

Right on cue the osama obama let's all be communist policies have his recession/depression getting deeper and deeper.

He'll Get His

These moonbats in the New York old media have an anvil falling on their head and they are too stupid to know it. In high state income tax states like New York (and CA and MA, etc; all the liberal states), the removal of the federal deductibility of state income taxes and other taxes is going to just kill them. Those so foolish to think that the Bamster is only going to increase the marginal rate a point or two are in for a big shock.

I'm not sure whether E.J.

I'm not sure whether E.J. Dionne and his fellow Marxist apologists in the media are stupid or power hungry...whether they are ignorant and unaware of what permanent damage their favored policies will do to the economy or they're devious and know exactly what destruction they will cause.  Either way, they are cheerleading for the ultimate demise of the U.S. by turning it into a third world economy. 

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill

Fret not, as the Organizer

Fret not, as the Organizer will be raising taxes soon enough.

After all, you cannot complete a Marxist coup without wrecking the economy first.

-Dave

This coup has gone on long enough. The time to put it down is NOW.

He SHOULD Raise Taxes

 
Taxes should go up to 100% on WaPO jounalists, Hollywood pundits, and MSNBC reps.  Based on data on Obama nominees, 1/2 of them don't even pay their fair share now, much less after it goes up to 100%.

"What experience and history teach is
this - that people and governments never have learned anything from history,
or acted on principles deduced from it."


G. W. F. Hegel