Defining liberal principles.

[hfojvt]

The Presidential race already seems to be heating up on DU, and it mostly seems to be about personalities - 'who do you love?' or perhaps 'who can you bash?'

I find the analysis of Bill Scher to be interesting. I usually start my internet day with it, when he blogs.

http://www.liberaloasis.com/

Especially this:

"If we best use our newfound perches -- in the blogosphere and in liberal talk radio -- to define the liberal vision on our terms, and show that the public will embrace such a vision, we won't need to find a single perfect candidate. The candidates will come to us."

Perhaps every candidate will be bashed by somebody because we have a different vision, but Scher's idea is that rather than getting behind the most progressive candidate that we show that progressive principles are populist and can win. If we can do that, we can get most of the candidates to talk more progressive and to act more progressive.

To that end, since my main issue is progressive taxation and fiscal policy I am going to focus on that area here. I will also plug Scher's book "Wait! Don't move to Canada! (A stay and fight strategy to win back America)"

As he points out, many Democrats are trapped in the Republican frame when it comes to taxes. Either trapped, or they buy into it. That frame is "tax cuts good - tax increases bad". Republicans will hammer us with that, it seems, but if a progressive going to do good things we need money to do it. The Bush-Republican tax cuts were bad. We know that and we should help everybody to know that. Further than that, the Reagan tax cuts were bad.

To conclude with my part of the vision, I support progressive taxes, and would like a candidate to avoid being a 'me too Democrat'. Republicans will always say 'I will cut taxes'. :argh: to any candidate who buys into that frame and that spin and says 'me too'.

[chaska]

1. Which article did that come from? Edit: Nevermind, found it.

[hfojvt]

2. tax increases are bad

replies

1. going deep into debt is bad
Before Reagan, in 1981, the Federal Debt was 32.5% of US GDP. After Bush I in 1993 it was up to 66.3%. By 2001, Clinton had lowered it to 54.5%
"What President Bush has done is a lot like him going to the bank and borrowing $1,000 in your name, but then giving you only $250." Bob McIntyre


2. Paying massive amounts of interest is bad.
In 1980, net interest was 8.9% of the Federal Budget. By 1990 this was up to 14.7%, and by 1996 had grown to 15.4% before being reduced to 12.5% in 2000. It is lower now, because interest rates were lowered so much to revive the economy.

3. cutting funding to essential programs is bad
"If Congress instead were to vote for tax cuts for the poor, the middle class, the rich and the very rich -- but not the super rich -- there would be no need to cut Medicaid, school lunches, veterans benefits and the rest." Matt Bivens

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/18/bush-cancer

"Bush’s 2007 budget proposed cutting funding for the National Cancer Institute by $40 million."

4. Reagan increased taxes and Bush proposes tax increases -
Under Reagan, FICA taxes, which are paid by wage-earners, increased. In 1981 FICA taxes were 6.65% on income up to $29,700. By 1990, they were 7.65% on income up to $45,000. For the self-employed, the FICA tax rate went from 9.3% to 15.3% in the same period.
Bush raises FICA taxes more subtly, by proposing benefit cuts. If you pay the same for less benefits that is equivalent to a tax increase. Just like if gas goes from $2 a gallon to $2 for 3 quarts is a price increase. You pay the same, but you get less.