There is a debate between two people I admire concerning President Obama’s tax plans.
Glenn suggests the GOP should call the president bluff citing a piece by Megan McArdle
there are a lot of affluent-but-hardly-wealthy folks in blue states who would be very unhappy to hear that that nice Westchester home Mom and Dad bought for $15,000 in 1952 is going to be subject to a capital gains tax — at the same time as they’re suddenly paying income taxes on the capital gains and dividends in little Sally’s college account. . . .
Taxing the earnings on college savings accounts is even stranger, both because this hits the middle class, and because if you tax the earnings, there’s not all that much point to having the account; essentially, Obama is taxing college savings accounts in order to fund universal community college. This is scraping the bottom of the barrel, and what it tells you is that Obama has already run through most of the practical and politically palatable ways to tax the affluent.
And added this opinion:
Yeah, this will hurt Blue State types harder, but hey, they voted for Obama. This is a win-win: He gets the blame, or he vetoes it.
Ed Driscoll disagrees and makes a good point:
As with Democrats talking George H.W. Bush into raising taxes in 1990, one huge danger to this sort of game is that Democrats will play along in 2015 and then run ads like the above the following year directed towards the individual GOP senators and congressmen who raised taxes:
While those individual ads are a good point Ed misses the real argument that makes this a non-starter.
Why does Reagan matter here because while the Democrats hate Reagan almost as much as they hate actual Christianity (as opposed to pseudo Christianity that doesn’t actually believe anything) he is their goto guy for justifying many of the things they do. Ironically while Reagan knew that with enemies one must “trust but verify” Reagan never figured out that congressional democrats were among them.
Ronald Reagan made a deal with Democrats to Raise Taxes and Cut Spending, they did the first but not the second. This deception not only served the needs of Tip & the rest of the caucus at the time but for twenty years every time Democrats want to justify a new tax they point to Reagan signing the Democrat Tax increases of the 80’s
The fact that this was his side of the bargain, that it was the Democrats who insisted on these tax increases and broke their word (surprise surprise) never seems to come up as far as the liberal left of today is concerned these are the Reagan Tax increases as if Democrats had nothing to do with them at all.
But that’s not the only Reagan Example there is also Amnesty.
Democrats played the very same game, Ronald Reagan made a deal, in return for border enforcement he would make legal millions who had violated law to come here. Once again he kept his side of the deal and the Democrats keeping the same game plan did not.
And to no one’s surprise today’s Democrats conveniently forget both their betrayal of Reagan and their passage of Amnesty As far as they are concerned it is Reagan’s Amnesty and that’s that.
So what does this tell us about any possible deal with the left on the Obama Tax increases?
1. The Democrats will not keep to any deal made, Harry reid has already acted in bad faith and anyone who thinks this President or administration will enforce any parts of any law passed that he doesn’t like deserves all the trouble they get from it..
2. Not only will the Democrats use the GOP’s passing of tax increases in campaign ads as Ed suggested but if the GOP is foolish enough to go along with this every single media outlet from this point on will classify these not as the Obama tax increases but the Republican tax increases.
So I”m going to have to go with Ed on this one.