Posted by
Andrews on Tuesday, April 22, 2008 2:28:00 PM
In responding to a comment on my last column, I realized something interesting. I think the recent trend on the part of both Obama and Clinton to promise tax cuts to those earning under $250,000 is a response to the most recent polls.
In recent polls, it appears that McCain is gaining ground, especially among higher income voters, and in more costly regions such as the northeast.
I don't think this is an accident. Both Clinton and Obama have been quite comfortable with the idea of increasing taxes on "the rich". And, while this may sell well with populist voters and college students, for the average voter it is a bit of a red flag. Everyone who was paying taxes when Clinton was elected recalls how his promise to tax "the rich" seemed to define rich downward deep into the middle class.
And I am sure that the voters were just as leery of both Mrs. Clinton and Obama's promises. While it makes a great sound bite to promise "middle class tax cuts", every voter has to wonder fi they are sufficiently "middle class", or might suddenly qualify as one of the hated "rich" and get an increase instead.
Of course Democrat dogma was that taxes did not matter. They could run against the war and against Bush and win, they could even say they would allow Bush's tax cuts to expire and no one would care.
But it appears the Democrats are learning the lesson of Walter Mondale all over again. Regardless of what issues seem most important, promising to raise taxes will never win votes. And so now they are busy trying to define "rich" safely upward to a point where it won't hurt their chances in the general election.
Somehow I doubt the voters will be appeased. Neither Obama nor Clinton comes across as a paragon of fiscal responsibility, nor does either seem particularly honest. Assurances that only those "evil" people earning $250,001 will be taxed do not resonate with the voters. First of all, by putting a specific dollar amount, they have managed to alienate a lot of the upper middle class*, but, even more important, by putting a number out there, they have raised the specter of that number coming down.
The Democrats need to learn that envy is much weaker than fear. Some may want to see the rich taxed heavily, but they worry that they will be taxed much more.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Since it is unclear whether it is $250,000 per individual or household, this number may be lower than it seems. A couple earning $250K in the northeast or mid Atlantic is not exactly affluent. In an area where housing costs are pushing $600K for an average home, rent or mortgage payments could eat up a significant part of that $250K. It sounds like a lot, as the listeners tend to think of one person earning $250K, but as taxes are usually assessed against household income, the $250K really translates into $125K per wage earner, which is definitely not "ultra-rich". It is comfortable, even well-off, but not exactly the domain of the jet set and barons of industry.