Who is more shameless?
The conventional wisdom at the moment is that the Republican presidential race is becoming a two-man contest between Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. So let's check in with each candidate.
On television last night, I happened to catch the following unabashedly shameless campaign ad (click on "Not Fair #1) from the Romney campaign. In the span of just a few seconds, Romney promises to "kill the death tax," "roll back tax rates across the board" and eliminate taxes on interest, dividends, and capital gains.
There's no mention of any off-setting spending cuts or added revenue sources. There's no mention of the fact that our country is massively in debt and running a huge yearly deficit. There is no mention of the fact that we're engaged in a war that has so far cost nearly $600 billion and is projected to cost trillions more before it's done (particularly if Romney gets his way on war policy). There's no mention of the fact that health care entitlement costs are projected to rise dramatically over the next few decades. And, last but not least, there is no mention of the fact that taxes have already been cut dramatically during the Bush administration (leading directly to our current, enormous deficit).
It's hard to even put into words how reckless it would be to enact Romney's proposed cuts, and how totally irresponsible and shameless it is to campaign on such promises. It's a completely transparent appeal to people's self-interest at the expense of their country and at the expense of their children and grandchildren, who would reap the consequences of Romney's fiscal irresponsibility.
What's worse, Romney is no financial simpleton. He's not a true-believer. He was the CEO of Bain Capital. He knows, as all informed people do, that tax cuts don't pay for themselves. He knows we're not going to grow our way out of our current debt. And he knows that even supply-side logic, for what little it's worth, doesn't apply to repealing the estate tax (because it only taxes unearned inheritance). Indeed, the primary beneficiaries of such a tax cut would be the heirs to the ultra rich (like, say, the Romney boys). I guess it's too much to ask that the Romney boys "serve their nation" by forgoing a tax break on the massive inheritance they'll receive from daddy.
Sadly, the only reason to include a promise to repeal the estate tax in your litany of tax cuts is to appeal to the very wealthy--who are the only ones affected by it and for whom repeal of the tax has become a pet cause--in a rather naked attempt to secure campaign contributions.
Not to be outdone in the shameless department, Rudy Giuliani also has a new ad out today. In it he claims:
But Rudy's new ad wasn't enough shamelessness for one news cycle. Just as I was about to post this, I came across this from the AP:
I'm convinced that only a Rudy presidency will salvage Bush's historical reputation (by making him seem sane and civil by comparison).
On television last night, I happened to catch the following unabashedly shameless campaign ad (click on "Not Fair #1) from the Romney campaign. In the span of just a few seconds, Romney promises to "kill the death tax," "roll back tax rates across the board" and eliminate taxes on interest, dividends, and capital gains.
There's no mention of any off-setting spending cuts or added revenue sources. There's no mention of the fact that our country is massively in debt and running a huge yearly deficit. There is no mention of the fact that we're engaged in a war that has so far cost nearly $600 billion and is projected to cost trillions more before it's done (particularly if Romney gets his way on war policy). There's no mention of the fact that health care entitlement costs are projected to rise dramatically over the next few decades. And, last but not least, there is no mention of the fact that taxes have already been cut dramatically during the Bush administration (leading directly to our current, enormous deficit).
It's hard to even put into words how reckless it would be to enact Romney's proposed cuts, and how totally irresponsible and shameless it is to campaign on such promises. It's a completely transparent appeal to people's self-interest at the expense of their country and at the expense of their children and grandchildren, who would reap the consequences of Romney's fiscal irresponsibility.
What's worse, Romney is no financial simpleton. He's not a true-believer. He was the CEO of Bain Capital. He knows, as all informed people do, that tax cuts don't pay for themselves. He knows we're not going to grow our way out of our current debt. And he knows that even supply-side logic, for what little it's worth, doesn't apply to repealing the estate tax (because it only taxes unearned inheritance). Indeed, the primary beneficiaries of such a tax cut would be the heirs to the ultra rich (like, say, the Romney boys). I guess it's too much to ask that the Romney boys "serve their nation" by forgoing a tax break on the massive inheritance they'll receive from daddy.
Sadly, the only reason to include a promise to repeal the estate tax in your litany of tax cuts is to appeal to the very wealthy--who are the only ones affected by it and for whom repeal of the tax has become a pet cause--in a rather naked attempt to secure campaign contributions.
Not to be outdone in the shameless department, Rudy Giuliani also has a new ad out today. In it he claims:
I had prostate cancer 5-6 years ago. My chances of surviving prostate cancer-- and thank God I was cured of it--in the United States, 82%. My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England, only 44% under socialized medicine. You and I should be making the decisions about what kind of health care we get with our doctors, not with a government bureaucrat.As others have pointed out, this ad is shameless on several independent levels. First, the survival rates for prostate cancer in the U.S. and the UK are virtually identical, so the entire premise of the ad is a blatant lie. Second, given that Rudy was a state worker at the time, he almost surely had some sort of government-funded health insurance (yikes! socialism!). Third, as one of the commenters at Ezra Klein's site points out, given that the average age of diagnosis of prostate cancer is 70 years old, most treatment of it in this country is paid for by Medicare (yikes! more socialism!). And fourth, as another commenter at Ezra's points out, "the technique used on Giuliani, prostate brachytherapy--using radioactive seeds--was pioneered in the modern era by a physician in Denmark, and brought to the US by one of his students" (yet more socialism!). And finally, as Giuliani undoubtedly knows, literally no one on the American left (not even Kucinich) is advocating that the U.S. follow the UK model for health care. Comparisons to the NHS are a tired straw man.
But Rudy's new ad wasn't enough shamelessness for one news cycle. Just as I was about to post this, I came across this from the AP:
"This is the world we live in. It's not this happy, romantic-like world where we'll negotiate with this one, or we'll negotiate with that one and there will be no preconditions, and we'll invite (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad to the White House, we'll invite Osama (bin Laden) to the White House," Giuliani said.And we have a winner. Not even Romney can top that. Congratulations, Rudy. It's not even general election season yet and you are already making me nostalgic for campaign '04.
"Hillary and Obama are kind of debating whether to invite them to the inauguration or the inaugural ball," he added.
I'm convinced that only a Rudy presidency will salvage Bush's historical reputation (by making him seem sane and civil by comparison).
posted by A.L. at 11:29 PM
15 Comments:
"Sadly, the only reason to include a promise to repeal the estate tax in your litany of tax cuts is to appeal to the very wealthy--who are the only ones affected by it and for whom repeal of the tax has become a pet cause--in a rather naked attempt to secure campaign contributions."
Do you mean it is not possible to approve of eliminating a tax on policy grounds, even if you yourself are not affected by that tax? How very odd.
I opposed the 1991 luxury tax on expensive cars and boats--even though I had no interest in purchasing either--because I thought it was stupid, and would adversely affect many people other than "the rich." When yacht sales in George Mitchell's Maine declined by 77% and boat builders started getting laid off, Mitchell fell all over himself getting the damn thing repealed. Was Mitchell's only reason for seeking the repeal of that tax that he wanted to appeal to the very wealthy?
Neutral, when I'm talking about the estate tax, I'm actually talking about the estate tax. Not some other tax.
I've yet to hear even one remotely persuasive policy argument for getting rid of the estate, which, as far as I'm concerned is the fairest and most American of taxes. It only applies to unearned inheritance, and only then a those who inherit quite a large sum of money. I'd love to hear your policy argument in favor of repealing the estate tax, if you have one. I think I've heard them all.
If you're interested, here's a longer post explaining why I think there is no good policy argument for repealing the estate tax.
Typo: in the third pragraph, you certainly meant the war has cost nearly $600 BILLION, not million!
"There's no mention of the fact that health care entitlement costs are projected to rise dramatically over the next few decades"
Isn't this precisely the reason for the tax cuts? Being unable to succeed in attacking Social Security directly, the neoCON strategy is now to bankrupt the government to the point where it can't afford anything EXCEPT the Endless War (tm).
AL- where do you draw the line between acceptable and "shameless" political rhetoric? For example, suppose someone were to say that "George Bush believes war is the solution to every problem." (I made that quote up, but it wouldn't at all surprise me to hear any mainstream Democrat say it). Now everyone would understand that this statement was not, and was not intended to be, literally true, but people would understand the point that was being made (whether or not they agreed with it). And it alludes, in the language of political rhetoric, to a substantive criticism of the Bush foreign policy.
Compare Giuliani's statement that you find so outrageous. It is of course not true that either Clinton or Obama are considering inviting UBL to the White House, as everybody understands. But it is true that Obama has promised that during the first 6 months of his Presidency he would meet, without preconditions, the leaders of various countries, including Venezuela, Syria, North Korea and Iran (which presumably means Ahmadinejad). And one can certainly make the argument that Ahmadinejad is just as committed to destroying the United States as is UBL, and has a greater capacity to inflict such destruction. So by suggesting that Obama would invite Ahmadinejad and UBL to the White House (or the inauguration) Giuliani is making a rhetorical point about the "negotiation at all cost" mindset that would lead Obama to make such a statement.
Now you may disagree (I am sure you do) with the criticism Giuliani is implicitly making. And even if you did agree with the substantive criticism, you might say that it is unfair to lump Clinton in with Obama on this issue (for such an argument, see Sebastian Mallaby's column in yesterday's WP). But it is not entirely unfair (after all, Clinton didn't rule out meeting with Ahmadinejad when she was asked about it). Anyway, if lumping everybody on the other side together and identifying them with the loopiest statements/policies possible is "shameless," show me the presidential candidate who is not shameless.
So I don't see what is so bad about the Giuliani statement in question. At least it had the advantage of being (intentionally) humorous, which is more than I can say for most of the political rhetoric I hear.
MLS,
Lumping in UBL with Ahmadinejad is class A shamelessness. UBL is outlaw terrorist. No one has ever suggested negotiating with him, much less inviting him to a party. Indeed, Obama was criticized (by Giuliani!) for suggesting that we go into Pakistan to capture/kill UBL.
As for A-jad, all Obama has ever suggested is that we have actual diplomacy, you know, like adults do. Like virtually every president before this one did, even with people much more dangerous that A-jad. There's an enormous difference between talking to someone and inviting them to a gala. And I strongly take issue with this claim: "And one can certainly make the argument that Ahmadinejad is just as committed to destroying the United States as is UBL." You can make that argument, but it would be a fact-free one.
And I think you give Giuliani too much credit in the humor department as well. I doubt that even dittoheads thought his line was funny (though they probably said "hell yeah!" after reading it).
As for comparing shameless rhetoric, let's try to make it a real comparison. Find me an actual quote from Obama or Clinton that you think is comparable to this Giuliani quote, and then we'll talk. I'm not saying there's nothing like that out there, but I want it to at least be a real comparison.
My question was how you distinguish between shameless and acceptable political rhetoric. As far as I can tell, when you don't like it, you think it is shameless.
Dont have time right now to research Clinton/Obama statements, but here is something out from Clinton's press releases in the last week or so.
"With the stroke of a pen, President Bush has robbed nearly four million uninsured children of the chance for a healthy start in life and the health coverage they need but can't afford. These children are invisible to this president, but they aren't invisible to the American people or to the overwhelming bipartisan majority in Congress – and they aren't invisible to me."
Now did Bush actually rob 4 million children of the chance for a healthy start in life? Are 4 million children going to be sick or die because of Bush's veto? And dont even get me started on the whole invisibility thing.
Now all I am asking for is the test that one uses (that is not based just on political preference) to show that Clinton's statement is not shameless but Giuliani's is.
Another great post.
I agree with TPM Reader KB: I don't understand why the Democratic candidates aren't going after Giuliani and Romney on their crazy statements, positions and advisors. A Dem can simultaneously advance their position in the primaries and help improve our discourse by pointing out the lunacy thereby nudging our press towards covering it.
I had a similar thought about that "honest gap" post you wrote at Greenwald's place taking apart a Wall Street Journal op-ed on FISA. As you know, the op-ed packed in more factual errors and factual distortions per column inch than one might have thought possible. Why don't the Dem candidates -- say Dodd or Obama or Edwards -- issue statements ripping apart pieces like that. They don't have to use words like "lie", they can just point out all the errors and tie it back in to the founding principles of this country and the rule of law.
I understand the argument in defense of pols tiptoeing in criticizing the media, that, as Bob Somerby once put it, you don't want to make an enemy of someone who buys ink by the barrel. I can see that argument for WaPo or the Times, but why not take on righty bastions like Fox and the Journal editorial page? (In fairness, there has been a little taking on of Fox, notably by Edwards.) They are already enemies. The coverage could hardly get worse with the rightwing media, so there's nothing to lose in taking them on (with the possible exception of Clinton who is getting some grudging respect/fear from the right this cycle).
From Alternet:
Forget Impeachment, Put Bush and Cheney in a Straightjacket
The president's warmongering remarks on the Iranian threat suggest he is psychotic. Really.
http://www.alternet.org/story/66336/
Maybe shrub & rudy could share a room at the happy hotel.
MLS, I fully agree that it's sometimes hard to draw the line between "fair" and "unfair" political rhetoric. But where ever that line is, Giuliani was well past it.
As for the Clinton line you cite, I have less of a problem with it (and not just because I think vetoing S-CHIP was indefensible). It think it's fair to describe what you think are the consequences of a political opponents action (using charged verbs like "robs" is theatrical, but doesn't change the underlying meaning much). The bottomline is that Bush doesn't support the funding necessary to keep S-CHIP covering the number of children currently covered by it, much less expand it to cover more uninsured children. Accusing the president of being blind to the needs of these children is just standard rhetorical flourish.
Similarly, if Giuliani believes that the consequences of Obama's approach to Iran would be disastrous, he can say so, even in harsh terms ("Obama is in favor of a policy of appeasement with Iran which endangers us all!"). I'll disagree with him strongly, but I won't accuse him of stepping out of bounds rhetorically. But when he just blatantly misrepresents Obama's position, that's different.
A.L. --
I fully agree with you that Rudy's latest sound bite about inviting bin Laden to the inauguration puts him over the top on the shamelessness competition.
Romney's pledges on taxes are pandering to his base. People hear "tax cuts" and think, "Oh, good, more money in my pocket." Yet the taxes he talks about repealing affect the wealthy far more than they do the majority of Americans. Repealing the capital gains and estate taxes (I think calling the latter "death taxes" is a way of scaring people and making them believe they affect everyone, just as death eventually affects everyone) won't actually put more money into the pocket of the average American. And of course he doesn't mention the popular social programs that would most likely have to be cut to pay for any such tax cuts. These are important considerations that his opponents should (and undoubtedly will) point out in their campaign speeches and debates.
But Giuliani's comment is so visceral, so tied to the public's fear of future events like 9/11, that it really takes the prize. At the end of the day, Giuliani is a single-issue candidate, and that issue is fear. His social views and personal past set him apart from most of the Republican base, so he reverts repeatedly to the only rhetorical weapon at his disposal: invoking the memory of 9/11 and the concomitant fear of future major terrorist attacks.
"I've yet to hear even one remotely persuasive policy argument for getting rid of the estate, which, as far as I'm concerned is the fairest and most American of taxes. It only applies to unearned inheritance, and only then a those who inherit quite a large sum of money. I'd love to hear your policy argument in favor of repealing the estate tax, if you have one. I think I've heard them all."
Well, thanks for asking. The argument for repeal is that the tax is, quite simply, inherently unfair, for the following reasons:
(1) It is imposed upon accumulated earnings upon which taxes have already been paid--that is, it's imposed on after-tax income.
(2) It is imposed upon the occasion of a person's death. What earthly reason is there for arguing that a person's death is an occasion for the taxman to come calling? And why should te taxman get a second bite? Why not impose it when he reaches the mandatory retirement age? Or age 50? Or any other arbitrary point in his life?
(3) "It only applies to unearned inheritance, and only then a those who inherit quite a large sum of money." False. First, neither the IRS nor you has any idea, in any instance, what an heir may have done to "earn" the inheritance. (It may have been earned by simply being a person who, in the decedent's mind, has lived a life worthy of some private reward. The government should intervene here? Will you provide us a draft of some IRS regulations that might specify what sort of life that might be?) Second, the tax is imposed on the estate itself, not upon those who would inherit. If a wealthy decedent wants to distribute his large estate in relatively small amounts to a large number of heirs, he still cannot do so--the tax will be extracted before any of those recipients, regardless of how worthy they may be, or how small their share may be, sees a single dime.
I have seen no argument in favor of the tax that strays very far from the fact that the treasury simply "can't afford it." But that argument could as well be advanced for any tax at all, even if all of us agreed that it was manifestly unfair.
"Neutral, when I'm talking about the estate tax, I'm actually talking about the estate tax. Not some other tax."
OK--so I'll assume that henceforth you won't contend that an argument for reduction in any tax other than the estate tax is intended to appeal to the very wealthy. Fair enough.
(1) It is imposed upon accumulated earnings upon which taxes have already been paid--that is, it's imposed on after-tax income.?
So what. Lots of taxes are imposed on after-tax income, like sales taxes, gas taxes, etc. And this tax is easily the most painless because you've already shuffled off this mortal coil when it is collected.
(2) It is imposed upon the occasion of a person's death. What earthly reason is there for arguing that a person's death is an occasion for the taxman to come calling? And why should te taxman get a second bite? Why not impose it when he reaches the mandatory retirement age? Or age 50? Or any other arbitrary point in his life?
This argument makes no sense to me. Why isn't a post-death tax infinitely preferable to a tax applied while you're alive? At least this way you can enjoy your money completely while you're alive, and unlike a tax levied during life, this one cannot conceivably hurt productivity. I fail to see what is so "inherently unfair" about such a tax. It seems much fairer that most other taxes. I'd gladly trade a higher estate tax when I die for less income tax now. Wouldn't most people?
As for your point about the tax applying to the whole estate rather than the individual heirs, you're right, but that's just a matter of efficiency. As a practical matter, it is far easier to levy and collect the tax before the estate is broken up. The effect is the same. Heirs are being taxed for unearned income.
Why should inheritance be tax free? All other income is taxed. Why should we exempt that specific form of income and no others?
so I'll assume that henceforth you won't contend that an argument for reduction in any tax other than the estate tax is intended to appeal to the very wealthy. Fair enough.
Depends on the tax cut. If you're reducing the top marginal rates, that's pretty clearly aimed at the wealthy. If you're reducing the state sales tax rate, that's obviously not aimed at the very wealthy. The elimination of the estate tax is quite clearly a naked giveaway to the wealthy.
And, as a side point, it would greatly reduce charitable giving, much of which is done to avoid the estate tax.
From the Tax Foundation:
"A new FactCheck.org article on the estate tax notes our 2006 survey:
"The Tax Foundation poll, published in March 2006 asked respondents... 'Of the following federal taxes, which do you think is the worst tax — that is, the least fair?' The estate tax led the way with 31 per cent of respondents ranking it first.
* * *
"Q715. Do you personally favor or oppose completely eliminating the estate tax – that is, the tax on property left by people who die?
2006
2005
68%
68%
Favor
19%
17%
Oppose
14%
15%
Not sure"
The tax is not at all "painless" for a person who builds his estate for the purpose, among others, of providing for his loved ones: he knows while still alive that the government will frustrate his efforts. As to other taxes levied on after-tax income, each of them can at least be mitigated by minimizing consumption; not so the death tax.
The fact is, the government provides "unearned" gifts to people in great abundance, and under the current tax structure does not tax those gifts at all. It thus seems to me a dubious rationale for the estate tax that it is levied on benefits not earned by the heirs. It just seems to me, and to a majority of Americans, a particularly cruel intervention of the state into private affairs.
neutral, on some level even you know how weak it is to cite polls when discussing the estate tax. The combination of general ignorance and Republican misinformation has led to a situation where the vast majority of people don't understand what the estate tax is. They don't understand, for instance, that it only applies to roughly 1% of the population.
Moreover, I'd bet a lot that if a poll asked people whether they'd trade a lower income tax rate now for a higher estate tax rate applied after death, the vast majority would choose lower income taxes now.
Under your prefered system, the government would tax virtually every form of income (wages, interest, capital gains, gambling winnings, lottery winnings) but would not tax inheritance money. That's a bizarre loophole, particularly when the estate tax as it exists only applies to very large estates.
I have no doubt at all that an informed public would support the continued existance of the estate tax (which is why hasn't been repealed yet, despite 6 years of Republican control of government). It's a remarkable testament to the power of Republican propoganda that we're even discussing repeal of this tax.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home