Obama Loses Brooks

President Obama dropped below 40% in approval in the recent Marist poll. It is interesting that his jobs proposal, as the pollsters describe it, is a lot more popular than he is. As with the recent CBS/NYT poll, his favorability rating is now in negative territory.

If all that weren't enough, Barack Obama has lost David Brooks. Brooks is the mild mannered pundit who passes for a conservative at the New York Times. He is a specialist at being thoughtful and reasonable. In a recent column he explicitly backed the President's new jobs program. Here is how he feels now.

I liked Obama's payroll tax cut ideas and urged Republicans to play along. But of course I'm a sap. When the president unveiled the second half of his stimulus it became clear that this package has nothing to do with helping people right away or averting a double dip. This is a campaign marker, not a jobs bill…

Being a sap, I still believe that the president's soul would like to do something about the country's structural problems. I keep thinking he's a few weeks away from proposing serious tax reform and entitlement reform. But each time he gets close, he rips the football away. He whispered about seriously reforming Medicare but then opted for changes that are worthy but small. He talks about fundamental tax reform, but I keep forgetting that he has promised never to raise taxes on people in the bottom 98 percent of the income scale.

Brooks is hardly a man with a large following behind him, but if the President could win over anyone even vaguely conservative or Republican, it would be someone like Brooks. Now Brooks is utterly disgusted with Obama.

Much the same is true of Ross Douthat.

Last week, in the wake of President Obama's jobs speech, I wrote that the president seemed poised to campaign for re-election on an essentially centrist policy agenda: A short-term payroll tax stimulus, a plan for tax reform that would close loopholes while lowering corporate rates, and a long-term plan for deficit reduction modeled on the grand bargain that the White House and John Boehner were supposedly close to striking during the debt ceiling negotiations. The president's goal in 2012, I suggested, would be to try to paint himself as the moderate bipartisan grownup, and dismiss the Republicans as extreme, intransigent, and hyper-ideological.

Based on the actual details of the deficit plan that the administration just released, though, I would like to retract that analysis. Between the size, scope and design of the tax increases and the skimpiness of the entitlement reforms (nothing on Social Security, minimal tinkering on Medicare), it seems that the president will be running for re-election as Nancy Pelosi instead.

These aren't flaming right wingers. Neither are the more moderate Senate Democrats, who seem very unlikely to vote for his proposed tax increases.

It is not clear what the strategy is behind the President's moves of late. The most coherent explanation is that he has largely abandoned the middle and will concentrate on rallying the Left. This isn't necessarily crazy. He may be hoping that he can win the middle back later by painting the Republican nominee, whoever he is, as a flaming extremist. Meanwhile he is raking in lots of money. But that means giving up a lot of ground in the meantime. It looks like a sign either of desperation or disarray. Of course, those aren't mutually exclusive.

Comments

[Stan Gibilisco]

The President wants to get re-elected -- period. He knows that the "tax the rich" mantra appeals to a majority of Americans, not only the leftists. He does not know (and likely doesn't care) whether or not "taxing the rich" can produce enough revenue to solve our problems.

If Barack Obama doesn't get re-elected, then he'll never carry off his agenda, which, in my opinion, involves the imposition of European-style social democracy in the United States. Therefore, all his effort at this time must concentrate on re-election.

If this President is re-elected, and particularly if both houses of Congress revert to the Democrats, then, in my opinion, by 2016 we will have generally increased income taxes, payroll taxes at least as high as they are now, and a new value-added tax (VAT) on top of it all. Will our budget will be any better, our debt any smaller? I doubt it. I reckon the debt will be larger, maybe twice as large as now, maybe three times.

Increasingly, I'm getting the feeling that we're headed into another Great Depression unless we elect some miracle worker to the White House and get Republican majorities in both houses. I suppose that the latter is possible. I believe that the former is not.

[Bill Fleming]

Well, Brooks is wrong. Somewhere between 65 and 80% of the voters support a tax increase on millionaires and billionaires. That includes independents and moderates in both parties. Candidates can argue with their constituents about that at their own peril.

[Bill Fleming]

Perhaps a quick review of these numbers will help put the good professor's review of Mr. Brooks misguided musings into perspective: http://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm

[Dave]

With the exception of right wing haters who just want Obama out, most Americans want to see some results on the economy. He certainly hasn't gotten any where trying to work with the GOP.

[Bill Fleming]

I agree, Dave. Obama will now discover and wield the power of the bully pulpit and the veto pen. He has been left no other recourse. You know what they say... "Give them enough rope..."

To a person, every one of Obama's would-be nemeses has stepped into a self-consuming pool of quicksand of late. Perry and Romney's unconscionable sound-offs on the Israeli/Palestine conflict make them look like fools. And Bachmann's remarks about the HPV vaccine will likely result in some people dying unnecessarily. It's going to be an interesting election season. And perhaps paradoxically, the GOP doesn't really get to vote on the way the deck is stacked for them right now, because they already did

[duggersd]

It is interesting what some people will say about who and how much to tax. I have asked Bill Fleming in the past to tell me just how much is the maximum a person should be taxed on his/her income and he avoids the question or obfuscates his answer. If you ask the average joe if we should increase the taxes on people making $X, they tend to think it is not a bad idea as long as their income is no more than $X - 1. If I were to suggest a tax on certain items such as corporate jets, certain people think it is a good idea. They like the idea because they believe that since they do not have that kind of money it does not affect them. Now, if I were to suggest we tax advertising, I would hear a certain person howling like mad. Why should we tax the source of his income?
Considering about 1/2 of the people in this country pay no income taxes and for that matter get a refund on part of the payroll taxes they pay, it is not hard to see how 50% of the people would like to tax "rich" people making more than $200,000. And considering most of us do not make over $200,000/yr, then why not tax them? I could point out how much the top earners pay in taxes each year, but who cares?
What liberals fail to recognize is when you tax an activity, people are less likely to participate in that activity. If we were to tax advertising at say 10%, many people would not advertise. The same is true with earning.
It really does not matter, though. I believe BHO is toast, barring some sort of miracle. I do not agree with Stan's pessimism on this point and Bill and Dave are participating in wishful thinking.

[Jimi]

Bill,

"Somewhere between 65% and 80% of the voters support a tax increase on millionaires and billionaires."

But so what? You don't solve any problems and may cause more damage by doing so. That is something the Democrats keep lieing to their base about. The Democrats had their opportunity to raise taxes at the end of 2010 and chose not to, for the same reasons the Republicans don't what them now.

How many times do we have to go over this?

If we pretend as if the Bush Tax Cuts did not exist and the economy was the exact same without the Tax Cuts, then we would have only recieved an additional $65 Billion a year in tax revenue over the past ten years. If we assume the Bush Tax Cuts go away today, then we would only get up to $85 Billion a year in addtional tax revenue over the next ten years, assuming the projected CBO economic growth patterns, which BTW, nobody really believes is realistic.

[Jimi]

"If we pretend as if the Bush Tax Cuts did not exist and the economy was the exact same without the Tax Cuts, then we would have only recieved an additional $65 Billion a year in tax revenue over the past ten years. If we assume the Bush Tax Cuts go away today, then we would only get up to $85 Billion a year in addtional tax revenue over the next ten years, assuming the projected CBO economic growth patterns, which BTW, nobody really believes is realistic."

Those numbers represent the upper brackets...or the so called "rich". If you include all the Bush Tax cuts the revenue number shoots way up. It is 1.3 Trillion over the past ten years, and 2.1 Trillion over hte next ten, but of course, this is all based the CBO projections which are naive at best, and remember the CBO can't score anything other than the mqanner which they are instructed to score...(hint-hint)

The solutions are clear as far aas the tax code....something the Democrats do not have the leadership to accomplish.

1.) The Tax Base needs to be increased....Everybody should pay
2.) Need more brackets to capture more of the taxable income above $250,000
3.) If you have more brackets then you can reduce rates from there current positions
4.) End all the loopholes and exemptions
5.) Adjust all rates based on COLA
6.) Cut Base-Line Spending projections

[William]

IMHO, #6 - Cut Base-Line Spending projections would be the most significant in actually reigning in government spending. Base-Line Spending essentially increases federal funding, size and scope on auto-pilot, plus it makes every attempt to actually reduce spending a target of demagoguery by spending proponents.

[William]

Notice how those who support raising taxes don't mention spending cuts. In other words, let's raise taxes on some Americans so the government can continue to spend money on the rest of us.

[Jimi]

William,

"Notice how those who support raising taxes don't mention spending cuts"

They do...but they only want to cut in one area..."Defense." And if you get down to the nitty-gritty there is plenty of fat to cut in the Defense Budget....but the problem is that is not enough to accomplish anything.

The Democrats know that entitlements, defense, and size of government spending must be cut in some fashion. They are refusing to address the issue once again because they know that the Conservative base will demand cuts in spending when they get in power, so their strategy is to increase spending so much that any cuts the Republicans make will just put them back on the Base-Line Spending projection slope that we have been on for an entire generation. Some how this is victory for Democrats and there voters....something about Rome burning etc.etc.etc. Even worse is the radcial elements that have taken over the Party see this as their Trojan Horse to bring the economic system to it's knees so that they can attempt their Command and Control Utopia.

People like Dave and Bill are actually advocating their own demise, but are too Ideologically driven and emotional to face the reality.

[Ken Blanchard]

Bill: unfortunately, the President is as bad at math as he is at policy. He thinks people making $200,000 a year are millionaires. At any rate, the Democrats didn't have the courage to pass such a tax when they held filibuster-proof control of the Senate, control of the House, and the White House. Harry Reid isn't even trying to schedule a vote. Obama made no attempt to build support for the bill even among Senate Democrats. He didn't bother to call John Boehner. This is no bill. It is a campaign stunt.

[Stan Gibilisco]

"He [the President] thinks people making $200,000 a year are millionaires."

Ken, you overlook how this fact illustrates the forward-thinking mentality of Barack Obama. If we re-elect him, then by the end of his second term, a million of today's dollars will buy $200,000 worth of goods.

[William]

Always the optimist, Stan =|;0)

[Bill Fleming]

All I'm saying is that the people want the tax. And if the GOP tries to block it, they damage themselves politically.

Simple.

As you all note, until we get a Congress that can actually pass a bill, getting rid of the obstructionists is the best thing for everyone concerned.

Obama's poll numbers may be down, but the Congressional Repubs' are in the toilet.

It's a no brainer.

[duggersd]

Bill, it is also a no brainer that if the House is going to pass a bill, it has to actually be introduced as a bill. So far, there has not been one Democrat willing to put the bill on the House floor. As for the Congressional Republicans' poll numbers being in the toilet, do you want to bet on who has control of the House and Senate after the 2012 elections? Each of those races are district or state elections. While I may disapprove of Congress in general, I kind of like 2/3 of my representatives. Obama's numbers, on the other hand, reflect a national sentiment about one person.
As for damaging themselves politically, I suspect it will not matter when you look at all of the political damage the Democrats have done to themselves. Educated people know the truth about who pays taxes and how much or how little each group pays. BTW, just how much should the government be able to confiscate from an individual? And just what percentage of the income tax should the top 10% of tax payers pay? And what should the corporate tax be?

[Bill Fleming]

Most of the very wealthy derive their income from capital gains which is taxed at 15%. That's not right. The rest of us pay a lot higher rate than that. Again, a no brainer. I can't believe anybody would even want to argue about it.

[Jimi]

Bill,

"Most of the very wealthy derive their income from capital gains which is taxed at 15%"

And here is prime example of the lack of understanding by the Left. The President and his supports claim they want job growth, then on the other hand complain that people profit from Job growth. People who invest are the economic engine of Job Growth. If you make it harder for them to see prime investment profit, they will take their money elsewhere. As more people invest in a company, they generate the capital to expand and grow...it's called Capitalism....the left should look it up sometime.

[Dave]

It certainly is difficult to discuss fairness in taxation with people who are adamantly opposed to any taxation...

[duggersd]

It is very difficult to discuss fairness in taxation when certain people insist upon misrepresenting the other peoples' position. I have not read or heard one person here saying they are opposed to any taxation. I know certain people are opposed to certain taxes, for example if we were to tax advertising, some people here would oppose that. So, I ask you, what do you consider to be the most the a person should have to give of his/her income to the government? And since the top 10% paid 70% of all income on earnings on 46% of all income, just how much should the "rich" be paying? http://www.financialsamurai.com/2011/04/12/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/ So, what is fair????

[duggersd]

It is very difficult to discuss fairness in taxation when certain people insist upon misrepresenting the other peoples' position. I have not read or heard one person here saying they are opposed to any taxation. I know certain people are opposed to certain taxes, for example if we were to tax advertising, some people here would oppose that. So, I ask you, what do you consider to be the most the a person should have to give of his/her income to the government? And since the top 10% paid 70% of all income on earnings on 46% of all income, just how much should the "rich" be paying? http://www.financialsamurai.com/2011/04/12/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/ So, what is fair????

[Billl Fleming]

Pick a number higher than 15%. 25% maybe on capital gains. Move the income tax bracket back up to pre-Bush tax cut levels. get rid of loopholes that favor the ultra wealthy. like I said, duggerSD, this isn't hard.

[duggersd]

Since Bill like polls, here is one from a Democrat pollster:http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2011/09/dem-poll-obama.php
Government taxes things they want to discourage. People will be more likely to hang onto their capital rather than sell it. The income the government brings in will be nowhere near what it is expected.
Now, I find it interesting you want to raise taxes on the poor. And you advocate increasing the very lowest wage earners by 50% (currently at 10%, under your plan 15%). Also, you lower the lowest tax bracket from $34,000 to $26,000. That means a lot of people will be paying 28% instead of 15%. Cool. People making $83000 would pay 31% instead of 25%. You really like sticking it to the poor, don't you?
And loopholes? OK. President Tax the Rich wants to cut out deductions for people making over $200,000. So people quit giving to charities. Hell, this might even stop Bill Clinton from donating his underwear to Goodwill anymore.

[Dave]

Apparently no one reads what jimi has to say...

And if you could be so kind to reference your remarks so we can all see where you are blowing smoke...

[Dave]

"Government taxes things they want to discourage." So using this "logic" the government wants to discourage any income, sales, capital gains, corporations, social security, use of a telephone or property ownership etc...

How does one sell their capital? What is the benefit of selling ones capital? And why should I care?

"loopholes" are different than "deductions"... In California for example, if I buy a $100K boat in Nevada or Oregon or Canada, I can avoid sales tax by waiting 30 days before bringing said boat to California. But if I purchase the boat and bring it directly to California I must pay sales tax... Ergo loophole... Entirely different than giving to goodwill...

BTW, both my wive and I have jobs, and using the Internal Revenue Service’s 2010 database we are in the top 10%.

[duggersd]

Um yes, Dave, the taxes discourages those things. And since the government puts those taxes in place, it is obvious they want to discourage those activities. That loophole is in California, not US tax code. I was interested in the tax loopholes in US tax code. And thanks for being in the top 10%. There are millions of unemployed and welfare recipients depending upon you.

[Dave]

Clearly the gobmet don't wan me to wurk...

[duggersd]

Dave, about capital. I purchase some stock. It increases in value. I sell that stock. That is a capital gain. Why should you care? Well if I sell that stock, then I will pay 15% capital gains tax. However, if I have to pay a 25% capital gains tax, I am more likely to hold on to the stock and hope it goes up. Even then, I might choose not to sell it as I do not want to give money to the government.
You also do not appear to take the thing about taxing things the government wants to discourage. We have a cigarette tax in this state. The state imposed that tax to get more money for medical help for smokers and to get smokers to cease smoking. Some people are avoiding the tax by going to places that do not charge the tax. Others smoke less or have quit.
People who are taxed on their income will get to the point where they avoid having to pay punitive taxes on money they earned. BHO knows this. Bill knows this. You should know this. So if everyone knows this, why do they insist upon punishing those who earn more?

[Bill Fleming]

Taxes are investments, not punishments. That is what DuggerSD appears not to know. I wonder if he also realizes that the market just lost close to 7% this week. One more week like that, and and that 15% on capital gains is going to seem like chump change.

[Dave]

Hmm! I use a state tax loophole as an example of "loopholes" and get shot down! BUT duggersd uses a state tax as an example of federal tax??? And shows no understanding of taxation in general... WTF? Move the field goal much???

[Ken Blanchard]

Bill: taxes are frequently punishments. Sin taxes are an example. This was recognized as early as McColluch v. Maryland. The power to tax is the power to destroy.