NYC Letter: Reverse-O-Bama, Part I

Day 185 of CHOPE

(A) Let me be absolutely clear. If you are a family making less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes go up. Not your capital gains tax, not your payroll tax, not your income tax. No taxes.

Your taxes will not go up.

(B) I can make a firm pledge: Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase, not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.

(C) If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime.

I repeat: not one single dime.

(D) What I’ve said is, and I have stuck to this claim, I don’t want to see additional tax burdens on people making $250,000 a year or less.

Mr. Obama,
forswearing new taxes on the middle class
(A) SPRINGFIELD, Missouri July 30, 2008 (CNN)
(B) DOVER, New Hampshire September 11, 2008 (RCP)
(C) ADDRESS TO JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS
WASHINGTON February 24th, 2009 (White House)
(D) INTERVIEW
WASHINGTON July 21, 2009 (NBC Today)

If you make less than $250,000 a year,* by now you probably believe Mr. Obama is not going to raise your taxes. [We turn to snort.]

CAMPAIGN SHINOLA VS. VISIONARY TAXES
Are You Going To Point Fingers OR Be A Patriot?

Politicians typically run on a promise to curb, cut, or contain taxes. They also promise lots of free candy. When elected they suddenly realize that candy isn't free -- or in the case of Democrats, that the rich haven't been punitively taxed enough -- and tax promises are junked.

Remember Bill Clinton's middle-class tax cuts? [Pause.] No. Neither do we.

GAMBLING THAT A TAX-CUT PROMISE
WAS NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY

February 18, 1993 (NYT) - In selling his economic plan, President Clinton is gambling that voters never took seriously his campaign promise to lower the tax burden of the middle class and will respond favorably to an aggressive pitch based on equal measures of hope, fear and class revenge.

After months of polling and research, Mr. Clinton's top political advisers say they are convinced that middle-class voters will support higher taxes. The advisers say the voters will see the new taxes as the price of great improvements in Government service and as inflicting a just punishment on the rich who profited during the Reagan and Bush Administrations. Stanley Greenberg, Mr. Clinton's chief poll taker:

Voters never believed in the middle-class tax cut, because they have never seen anyone get a tax cut. They always believed their taxes would go up whether Bill Clinton became President or George Bush was President.

They voted for Bill Clinton because they believed he was going to submit a program to change the direction of the country, to improve the economy and to create jobs. They will be mad as hell if their taxes go up and there's no genuine commitment to change. But if there is, they will be willing to contribute.

"It is critical," Mr. Greenberg said, that the rich be seen as punished most by Mr. Clinton's tax increases.

... The first challenge in selling Mr. Clinton's plan to raise taxes on the middle class would seem to be overcoming the voluble history of his many specific promises to the contrary.

Sound familiar? That's because Democrats always campaign that they will find the money to spend by taxing the top 1% or 2% of the wealthiest earners. They believe America should be a nation of -- if not low earners -- modest earners. But as high-profile Democrats constantly remind us, taxes are for the little people** (and here and here and here and here, to link but five).

Mr. Obama has already raised taxes on many middle- and lower-class workers by raising the federal tax on tobacco. A regressive tax. He plans to tax you through your energy utility and again through the ripple-out of higher prices. Another regressive tax. Now Mr. Obama must pay for his massive nationalization of health care.

The one commitment that I’ve been clear about is I don’t want that final one-third of the cost of health care to be completely shouldered on the backs of middle class families who are already struggling in a difficult economy. And so, if I see a proposal that is primarily funded through taxing middle class families, I’m going to be opposed to that because I think there are better ideas to do it.

Mr. Obama,
preparing us for the reverse-O-bama on taxes
NEWS CONFERENCE
WASHINGTON July 22, 2009 (White House)

Uh-oh!

Well, I mean, we're out of money now.

Mr. Obama,
spender-in-chief, giving America's account balance
as he prepares to spend $1.5 trillion
nationalizing health care
INTERVIEW May 23, 2009 (C-Span)

CHOPE.

The taxman cometh.

------------------------------------
* Or possibly $200,000 or $150,000 or $120,000.

** More on this here. Also related, here.