I'm absolutely with Kevin Drum on this: Obama's "tax fairness" proposal is so silly that I'm actually beginning to rethink my support for him.
Cutting taxes for 150 million Americans and their families, allowing them to get a tax cut of up to $1000.Easing the burden on the middle class by providing a universal homeowner’s tax credit to those who do not itemize their deductions, immediately benefiting 10 million homeowners, the majority of whom make under $50,000 per year.
Eliminating the income tax for any American senior making less than $50,000 per year, eliminating income taxes for about 7 million American seniors.
Simplifying tax filings so millions of Americans can do their taxes in less than 5 minutes.
Like Kevin, I think the first point is just a bit too convoluted. Obama's idea is to give families a tax credit to "offset the payroll tax they are already paying." His point is that for many families the credit will be greater than their total tax bill, a move that would essentially eliminate the income tax on 10 million people. I'm marginally in favor of the ends here, but the means seem to me to be unnecessarily complex.
The second item I am completely opposed to. I understand that we as a society have decided to value home ownership, and although I wish we would rethink that commitment somewhat, I'm realistic enough to know that won't happen. But to tilt the scales further in favor of people who own homes makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. And I say this as someone who once owned his own home.
The third item is just pandering, plain and simple. I'm all for people having a secure retirement, and I think the Social Security is one of this nation's greatest achievements. But all of that has nothing to do with a $50,000 threshold for taxes in retirement. Why $50,000? And why only for retirees? This society already heavily favors seniors - why on earth do we need to favor them more?
Finally, the fourth item is the only one I can actually say I largely support. But that said, I'm not overly impressed by it. Yes, filing your taxes takes too long. Yes, the system is far too complex. Yes, there are plenty of ways it could be automated to save both time and money. But this is hardly game changing.
The appeal of Obama's candidacy is that he represents change. This program represents nothing of the sort. And it would be one thing if this were an isolated incident, but unfortunately it is not. Kevin is right on with this:
He's an inspiring speaker, and given the realities of how presidents exercise power that's no small thing. But he sure is cautious to a fault. His big foreign policy speech was fine, but cautious and mainstream. His big healthcare speech was fine, but cautious and mainstream. And now his big tax speech is....just cautious and mainstream. I really want to hear something big and controversial from Obama, something that demonstrates a desire to shake up the status quo. But he just doesn't seem to be willing to take any chances. That's a shame.
Being both inspiring and realistic is an enormous challenge, perhaps even the central challenge presidents face in the modern era. FDR, Reagan, and (perhaps) JFK pulled it off, but that's about it. It's just very, very hard to do. All three men had very different approaches, but in each there was a common thread: their inspiring words were, at times at least, backed up with deeds. They didn't just preach change; they delivered it. So far, Obama has done the first in ways that really are remarkable. But the second? I'm still waiting, and time is running short.
UPDATE: To clarify a bit... it isn't just that these proposals aren't inspiring, and its isn't just that they are rather ordinary. It's also that I think for the most part they are fundamentally misguided. Tax policy might not be my number one issue right now, but given that taxes pay for everything we do through our government, it isn't all that far from the top.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
