Clark, the national deficit, the iraq war, and progressive taxation

[knowledgeispower]

Ok, I hatched a scheme in my head the other night and I just wanted to put it out there for comment. It seems so simple to me now that I am beginning to worry that it may have already been brought up and beat to death here on DU, so if that is the case I apologize in advance.

For this plan to be most effective, Wesley Clark needs to be our nominee. So lets assume for now that he is. During the general election campaign, Clark and the Dems pound a message that Bush's fiscal irresponsibility is ruining the country. Play up the fact that our national deficit is around 5% of the GDP (a giant red flag for economists), and on top of that we are spending hundreds of billions in Iraq. So what has President Bush done? He cut taxes! His plan is wrong, not because of politics, but because it is just plain bad management. I think the average American can grasp the concept that when you are mired in debt the answer is not cutting your income.

After Clark is elected in a landslide vote (I honestly think this would be the case-unless there are manys skeletons in Clark's closet), the Dems can immediately repeal the Bush tax cuts for the rich because, as was established during the campaign, they were fiscally irresponsible. If the economy is still a mess, they can keep and perhaps even increase the tax cuts for the middle class with the argument that middle class spending is actually what stimulates our economy.

THEN, with the war in Iraq no doubt still draining the treasury, Clark can come out and portray a fiscal crisis so great that even repealing the tax cuts could not stop it. Instead, we must raise taxes so that we can continue to support our operations in Iraq while also addressing the fiscal crisis at home. But we can't raise taxes on the middle class because that would hurt the economy. So instead the Dems can raise taxes once again on the upper class, thereby getting us back to something recognizable as progressive taxation.

The key part of this plan is that it must be sold as a matter of national security. This can be done in two ways, preferably both of them together. The first is to argue that we need to raise taxes to support the war in Iraq. The Republicans cannot oppose this, as they are the ones that got us into the damn war in the first place. The public will buy it because, even though they don't like to have taxes raised, they do like to think that the military has the resources to keep them secure.

The second part of the plan is to portray the national deficit as a matter of national security as well, only from an economic rather than defense standpoint. Argue that the deficit is in danger of consuming the budget and bankrupting the government (which is hardly a stretch). Republicans can counter this with their message that the national deficit is not bad for us, but if the message is pounded enough I believe the public would side with the Dems. After all, Clinton's main accomplishment was to pay down the deficit and we are all fondly remembering the Clinton years.

Now Clark is the best guy to do this because as a retired General he can sell the national security line best. If Clark comes out and says "we need more money for security," I don't think the public are going to resist much.

So what does this plan gain? It gets us back towards progressive taxation and, if done correctly, sets an anti-deficit trend. When the deficit is reduced that will free up even more money (since paying interest on the deficit is the second largest federal expenditure), which means money for programs like universal health care and better education. If the message is sold well enough, tax cuts will no longer be as easy to pass because people will understand them to be fiscally irresponsible.

The Republicans are killing us so badly because they set the agenda and the Dems are always just responding to it. With a plan like this, the Democrats can set the agenda for a change and get something REAL done.

Any thoughts? Is this as good a strategy as I think it is? Are there any drawbacks/concerns?

[StephNW4Clark]

1. It's quite a good strategy.

"The key part of this plan is that it must be sold as a matter of national security."

I guess that means we've learned...because that's been the Bush/GOP strategy. Name a piece of truly horrible environmental legislation "Blue Sky" or insert "Security/Protection" in and people do think it's generally beneficial.

But I think in our case it's a good argument. There's a economist who believes that the international economic situation is becoming quite grave.

The mortgage-backed securities market has surpassed the US Treasuries market. Guess who is holding a lot of those mortgage-backed securities, issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? China. With their trade surplus, they've spent their money purchasing US mortgage-backed securities.

So the economic situation is actually a genuine national security issue. And I think Clark gets this. I look forward to the economic policy speech at the end of the month.

[knowledgeispower]

2. Exactly

So the Dems can raise taxes to address this issue, and once they start paying down the deficit things will sort of snowball and all of a sudden the government will have a big surplus (since we won't be paying interest on the deficit anymore). Then use THAT surplus to push universal health care, because then you won't have to come up with money for the program since it will already be there in the surpluses.

Its really just a logical continuation of Clinton's plan, only this time we have to make sure we finish it off.

[StephNW4Clark]

3. Do you ever sometimes wonder...

...why it feels that we're the only people that see this? (Not just the 2 of us, I mean, but participants on DU.com, informed readers, etc.) But no one else seems to want to see it.

The way American history is presented, there was always that belief that you not only confront your challenges, but you overcome them as well. When did we start taking the easy way out and looking for someone to blame? It seems such a dramatic national psychological paradigm shift.

In a way, that's why I like Clark. He's not only incredibly intelligent, but he's visionary. A visionary who demands that we try harder and do better than this. (OK - I'm preparing to get flamed).

[knowledgeispower]

5. That is a pretty profound question

I personally have come to wonder if there is not something deeply wrong with our society and the direction we are going in. Personally I think it is largely a byproduct of the materialist 1980's, but then again I blame the Reagan years for just about everything.

[StephNW4Clark]

7. But then...

...don't you think the materialist 1980's had something to do with the national Vietnam experience?

Is it there that we can locate the change in the collective American psyche? Or was it the disintegration of the Cold War? No longer faced with an imminent identifiable threat, we lost the motivation to push forward as a nation and instead concentrated on personal goals? I mean, I studied Cold War relations in college and even common everyday speech and tasks were imbued with a sense of national direction.

I'm sure there are many theories, but I was just curious.

[RandomUser]

10. That was exactly what Clark said several months ago

Is it there that we can locate the change in the collective American psyche? Or was it the disintegration of the Cold War? No longer faced with an imminent identifiable threat, we lost the motivation to push forward as a nation and instead concentrated on personal goals? I mean, I studied Cold War relations in college and even common everyday speech and tasks were imbued with a sense of national direction.

That was exactly what Clark said several months ago, and why I consider him a visionary.

It's in the first 34 mins of this video.
http://video.c-span.org:8080/ramgen/kdrive/c04061703_newdemocrat.rm

He's right about the end of the Cold War's reprecussions on us. And I like the direction he's charting from it.

[knowledgeispower]

15. Hard to pinpoint one event

I think it is sort of the punitive effect of all the different trends we have been touching on here.

But I will say that the biggest one, in my opinion, was the betrayal of the post war dream. WWI was to make the world safe for Democracy, WWII was the war to end all wars, and then in Korea, Vietnam, and every conflict since then we have come to find out that those excuses were just a sham. It can really shake your faith in humanity to realize that tens of millions died so your country can play Empire.

[RandomUser]

28. We've definitely lost sight

and direction. It's time we had a vision that unifies our worldview the way things like the Cold War, New Deal, etc. did.

[RandomUser]

4. You're right about the keystone concept

"The key part of this plan is that it must be sold as a matter of national security."

I guess that means we've learned...because that's been the Bush/GOP strategy. Name a piece of truly horrible environmental legislation "Blue Sky" or insert "Security/Protection" in and people do think it's generally beneficial.


That's how they framed ANWR drilling. They're taking their Christmas list and tacking the words "national security" on top of it, even when it's incongruent.

It's time we fight fire with fire. We can frame progressive taxation as "national security," and we'd actually be right because the economy is essential to the security of this nation.

[knowledgeispower]

6. My only concern

is that I loathe the idea of using Republican tactics, even for the greater good. But this is a case where we can take those tactics, completely spin them on their head, and come out WAY ahead. Why would we not take that chance?

[StephNW4Clark]

11. You assume...

...that the Republicans thought of this concept first. I'm pretty sure they were pre-dated by a couple of thousand years by Roman Emperors, etc.

That's something the Democrats have to overcome. Republicans don't "Own" anything. "Contract with America"? All it was was taking the idea of a national document and giving it directly to Americans, framed in 90's business terms. I mean, I'm pretty sure they could have taken that inspiration from the Magna Carta, Constitution, etc. Not to demean those documents, but Republicans just copied those approaches that worked the best.

There's no reason why Democrats can't do the same and stop being such apologists for it.

[CWebster]

12. You mean we should copy Republicans?

Steal their issues, grab their agenda, co-opt their platform? Yeah, that's the key.

This is what disturbs me---this underlying acceptance that the Republicans are holding the cards. They do not, but they have funnelled enormous effort into pitching their angle, and the Democrats, instead of refining and empowering their own vision, sought to win by stealing the Republican's thunder -- and thanks to the dick morris triangulation strategy, it ultimately served to embolden Republicans and weaken Democrats.

Now Democrats are convinced that they can't win on their own merits?

[knowledgeispower]

14. Agenda setting

That is what it is all about.

The Republicans have had a monopoly in this for almost three decades now.

The Dems need to figure out how to take it back, and if that means beating the Repugs at their own game, then so be it.

[CWebster]

18. it isn't difficult

For crying out loud, they failed. They created a mess---a disaster with no easy exit and alienated us from the world community. Bush and his team of radical ideologues have done nothing but blunder, offend, threaten and inflame reaction while insulting our allies. Every sensitive diplomatic effort has been trampled on, every hard won treaty disgarded, our rights are threatened, our national treasury is being looted, our environmental safeguards are being violated. The world is less secure under their arrogant military bullying and we won't win hearts and minds or regain our international standing by emulating the Republican model.

[knowledgeispower]

20. I don't see how it is emulating the Republican model

Its just a strategy. Take the other guy's issue and beat him with it. Then use it to advance your own causes. Its just the smart thing to do.

[RandomUser]

31. Yep

It's not emulating, it's adapting. Not compromsing, but opposing.

Would you say the same thing about Al Franken starting a liberal talk radio network next year?

[StephNW4Clark]

16. No.

For one thing, as I pointed out, we are assuming that those are Republican tactics. They're not. The Republicans don't own them - there's no copyright or patent. But framing an economic argument in terms of national security is neither a Republican argument nor a false argument. When China holds a lion's share of mortgage-backed securities directly tied to American homeowners, it is a national security issue.

Of course Democrats can win on their own merits. And since when is fiscal responsibility a Republican issue? Co-opting their platform? When Republicans start talking about restoring tax cuts to the wealthy, then I'll start to get worried.

[CWebster]

21. The Republicans may not own them but

(and I am going to yell this)BUT WHY DO WE WANT THEM?

We are Democrats because we oppose what Republicans represent! Why would we want to be like them or use their perspective to approach problem solving?

[knowledgeispower]

22. Because they have been kicking our ass!

I am as idealist as the next person, but lately it has occured to me that:

1) Bill Clinton was the first democrat to win re-election since FDR! And what did Bill Clinton and the New Democrats do? They enacted exactly the strategy we are talking about here. This is AFTER, mind you, the COMPLETE ANNIHILATION of Mondale, McGovern, and Dukakis...who were all good Democrat candidates that were slaughtered by the right wing machine.

2) Democrats lost the House

3) Democrats lost the Senate

4) The Supreme Court is dominated by right wing idealogues

In short, WE HAVE LOST IN EVERY FACET IMAGINEABLE.

Do you have another strategy that will change all this?

[CWebster]

26. they have been kicking our ass

because we haven't stood up to them.

What the hell do you think all the anger and frustration and charges of "spinelessness" stem from?

[RandomUser]

27. That's why

Al Franken will be starting a new talk radio network next year. And that's why Clark's confiscating Bush's war drums.

[RandomUser]

17. Approach and substance are two different things

We're talking about copying approaches that work, or pulling the rug out from under them so they can't use those approaches. We're not talking about copying their position on issues.

For instance, the republicans have had enormous success with talk radio. Next year, Al Franken will copy this and be part of a new liberal talk radio network. That doesn't mean Franken will be spewing the same issue positions

We're talking about the same thing here. Republicans have dressed up their pet fancies (like ANWR) in national security clothing. We can dress our issues up in national security clothing too. Note the phrase our issues, not theirs.

[knowledgeispower]

19. The key difference

As StephNW4Clark has said, the difference here is that the national deficit really IS a national security issue.

This isn't like where the Republicans come up with the No Child Left Behind Act that is actually designed to do just that.

This is a case of using that sort of tactic (stealing the other guy's thunder), but using that technique to benefit truth and progressive values.

Where it would be the same is if the Democrats were to pass a "tax cut" that actually raised taxes.

[CWebster]

23. Apples and oranges

There is a difference between promoting your product and the the product itself.The militarization of culture is the Republican product, why should we adopt their sales pitch just because they have been successful through lying and destroying international institutions and cooperative efforts? It is now kicking them in the ass and it has not been in the best interest of the country, or the world for the Democrats not to appeal, for example, for greater diplomacy and coalition building as an alternative approach. We need candidates who appeal to heal the rift with the world community to lessen the burden on the US, not pound the drums and fear monger with the national security ploy. Bush is incapable of negotiating in that spirit, but we can do better.

[RandomUser]

25. We're confiscating the drums

and changing the tunes, not pounding the drums of fearmongering.

Bush looks at 9/11 and sees the Iraq War. Clark looks at 9/11 and sees the Civilian Reserve -- a civic volunteer organization. See the difference? He's attacking Bush at his strenght, taking away his 9/11 trump card, not by ignoring it, but by confiscating it and changing it from war to peace.

[Julien Sorel]

8. Mondale ran on the budget deficit and raising taxes in '84.

He got bombed out by Reagan's sunny personality and cheery rhetoric. Bush isn't Reagan, but I wouldn't want to give him an opening. If any Democrat, including Clark, pushes a tax increase too hard, for whatever reason, people are going to start getting nervous. Bush the elder got beat in '92 in part because he broke his word about not raising taxes ('Read my lips: no new taxes,' if you'll recall). It's a hugely sensistive subject with Americans. I think Clark has it about right on taxes -- repeal the increase for the wealthy, leave it intact for the rest. It can be explained well, and the only people likely to be angry about it are wealthy Republicans.

[knowledgeispower]

13. True, but there are differences

Namely that this would be sold as a matter of national security, not just raising taxes for the sake of progressive taxation alone (though that would be the intended secondary effect).

Besides, Mondale wasn't countering a deficit that accounted for 5% of the GDP.

I think the American people can really be sold on this. First you repeal Bush's tax cuts for the rich, then perhaps next year you come out and say "we need to do more" and up the taxes for the rich again. This can easily be sold in a "shared sacrifices" type of way where those who argue loudly against the tax increases can be labeled as being anti-American in the interest of their own greed.

[CWebster]

9. War, War, War

is all you men ever talk about.

Scarlet O'Hara

[Donna Zen]

24. The Two Percent Solution

I asked this on another thread, but thought I might stir some comments here. Has anyone read the above, and if so, what are your thoughts?

[RandomUser]

29. I'm not exactly sure

what you're referring to as the "two percent solution." Do you mean repealing the taxcuts given to the top 2% of wealthiest Americans? I know Clark said he'd repeal the taxcuts given to anyone who earned over 200k, and this would cover a major portion of it.

[RandomUser]

30. I think your right

that any plan to counter the national security angle and make it our own will work best with Clark. I don't think we're necessarily doomed if Clark isn't nominated, or that no other candidate can make use of this strategy. But you're right that it would be most effective with Clark.