Who Gets Blamed for Higher Taxes?


Jon Chait responds today to a David Leonhardt column suggesting the Democrats will inevitably get blamed if the Bush tax cuts expire and everyone’s taxes go up:

The idea here is that, if taxes go up, Democrats will get stuck with the blame because everybody knows Republicans hate taxes. It’s not that Democrats wimped out, it’s that any party has to tread carefully on an issue where the other party holds a historic advantage. I think that’s the wrong analysis for a couple reasons.

….The fact is, blame for failing to extend the popular elements of the Bush tax cuts should be placed on Republicans. They’re the ones who won’t extend a bill like that without getting something (unpopular) in exchange. Instead, Democrats have simply assumed that they’ll get stuck with the blame and there’s nothing they can do about it.

Jon provides some specific reasons for thinking Dems won’t get the blame here, but we actually have a test case we can look at to see if he’s right: repeal of the 1099 reporting requirement. Democrats offered up a clean amendment a few days ago that would have ended the 1099 requirement and nothing more. No tricks, no gimmicks, just straight repeal. Most Democrats voted for it, but the amendment failed because nearly the entire Republican caucus voted against it.

So: who gets the blame for the fact that the reporting requirement is still around? It ought to be Republicans, who had a chance to vote for repeal and decided not to. But I haven’t noticed any backlash. If I had to guess, it’s because everyone knows Republicans are opposed to business regulation, so Democrats get the blame for this regardless of whether they really are to blame.

This is just a tiny little data point. And I agree with Jon’s larger argument that, in the case of taxes at least, Democrats could have won the battle easily if they’d shown a little discipline and been willing to bargain with the same toughness that Republicans do. Still, in its own tiny way, the 1099 example does suggest that Republicans aren’t likely to shoulder any of the blame for higher taxes regardless of what position they take over the next couple of weeks.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate