The Democratic candidates' promise to play nice (made during Monday night's debate) didn't last long. Taking a page from the Republican playbook, Hillary Clinton's campaign is sending out a mailer in Nevada (hey also used it in NH) that accuses Barack Obama of having "a plan with a trillion dollar tax increase on America's hard working families."
To paraphrase Clinton's husband, it all depends on what you mean by hard working families. The mailer refers to Obama's plan to assure the financial integrity of the Social Security system by extending the payroll tax above its present $97,000 cap. So the hard-working families in question are those making $100,000 or more. I'm sure that there are, indeed, many hard-working Americans in that category (which comprises a whopping 3 percent of US workers), but I don't think that's the group Clinton is trying to scare here.
The truth is that the payroll tax, which is the most regressive federal levy, hits working people hard--almost 9 percent of their wages are taken out for Social Security and Medicare. Yet rich people hardly feel the pinch. The executive earning $250,000 pays a much smaller percentage of his income in payroll tax than the working stiff. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet don't feel it at all.
Obama explained his proposal in this post from TPM's Election Central.
Also of note: Obama has proposed a refundable tax credit against the first $500 of payroll tax, which would make even the present system a bit less regressive.
There are a lot of people who don't like Hillary Clinton because she's a woman, and others because she and Bill stood against the Republican tidal wave (to some of us they didn't stand strongly enough), but she is also widely disliked, even despised, especially among Democrats for the kind of scorched-earth tactics exhibited in this instance.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
There are a lot of people who don't like Hillary Clinton because she's a woman, and others because she and Bill stood against the Republican tidal wave (to some of us they didn't stand strongly enough), but she is also widely disliked, even despised, especially among Democrats for the kind of scorched-earth tactics exhibited in this instance.
Which is why I don't want her to face McCain. When he says he'd rather loose the presidency than leave Iraq he means it and I don't think Hillary AND Bill can understand that. Their lust for power is just too great. They've lost track of what is really important - America.
Now I understand that there is always an ego issue with anyone wanting the presidency, but I sense they've got so caught up in the battle that they've for gotten the purpose. Oh the purpose comes up from time to time while campaigning, but I have a strong feeling that the "ends always justify the means" is becoming too much a part of their power lust.
Perhaps I'm wrong. I don't see that I am though. Sadly I am reminded of that Cole Porter tune: "Anything Goes".
Cole Porter was satirizing!
theriver's comment helped me clear up what has worried me about Hillary. It has to do with motivation for wanting to be President. I wonder why anyone would want to take on that role.
For the Clintons, and I can't and don't buy any argument that she can be evaluated simply on her own, the goal is the Whitehouse, and the ends justify the means.
As many of us are, I am of two minds, both an optimist and a cynic.
As an optimist I chose to view Obama as credible, authentic, right minded, and I guess by that I mean he comes across to me as more authentic than the others.
Post a Comment