Malcolm Cutchins: Polarized America split on Obama
Columnist
Published: April 9, 2009
One could surmise that everything about our current president is just fine – if they listen only to liberal media outlets. But Camelot is by no means what we have. “Change you can count on” is showing up to be chains for those who can’t count, along with those who can.
“President Obama’s job approval is the most polarized for any new president in 40 years.” That’s the conclusion of a recent Pew poll comparing the difference in Republican and Democrat approval ratings evaluating the last seven presidents at the same stage in their terms.
Such polarization covers many fronts. For example,
* “The President stating with a straight face that tax benefits have little influence upon charitable decisions displays either his naivete or his disingenuousness,” from “Obama’s Onslaught against Non-Profits” by Bruce Bialosky on Town Hall, April 6.
* “Buried as a footnote on page 127 of President Obama’s budget is a provision that imposes what the Wall Street Journal is calling the ‘largest increase in the death tax in U.S. history…’ to 45 percent in 2010,” from a recent Focus on the Family Action alert.
* The claim that no family with an income under $250,000 will pay a “single dime in new taxes” couldn’t be much more far-fetched. “If that’s still true in 2015, Mr. Obama will be walking back and forth across the Potomac River,” from “A Radical Presidency,” the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 26.
* “Now even some Democrats are beginning to realize that the president’s fiscal policies are unsustainable in the long – and maybe medium – run.” And on the “national debt Obama gripes about? His budget will double it to 80 percent of GDP in 2019. Whatever that is, it’s not “a new era of responsibility,” from “A Big, Fat Failure,” The Weekly Standard, April 6.
One of the most anti-family of all tax measures is the death tax. It discourages individuals from passing on inheritance to their children. Why should our federal government have the power to tax at death, especially at 45 percent?
There’s now a nationwide protest movement against the economic policies of the Obama administration. It’s based on what revolutionaries did in 1773 in Boston Harbor as a protest against Britain’s policies about tea and other more serious tyrannies. “The Boston Tea Party eventually proved to be one of the many reactions which led to the American Revolutionary War.”
T.E.A. now stands for “Taxed Enough Already,” very appropriate in light of the above. TEA parties are scheduled nationwide including various cities around Alabama (including Birmingham, Huntsville, Montgomery, and Tuscaloosa) for tax day, April 15. Details can be found at http://taxdayteaparty.com .
The Auburn Tax Day Tea Party is scheduled for noon until 2 p.m. on the corner of Miller Avenue and College Street (the lawn south of the Library).
Dr. Malcolm Cutchins is an emeritus professor of engineering of Auburn University and writes a weekly column for The Opelika-Auburn News.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
http://savetherich.com/ is a recent find. I’ve not had time to dig into what group(s) might be behind this countering of the right wing message machine. Save the Rich does a nice job of exposing the Astroturf behind much of this tea bagging.
That this anti-intellectual clambake of a “tea party” is taking place on Auburn University campus is disturbing.
Anyone participating in a so-called tea party should stick to their guns and refuse any stimulus package money. Further, if your job is saved due to any stimulus money, you should lay yourself off on principle.
getreal,
My words were “less than 1% of Americans even have to worry about the estate tax.“ An editorial from the Gray Lady in early April has a figure where I’m off by being to generous. The link is http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/opinion/02thu1.html?ref=opinion
With minimal planning which includes effective gifting, trusts, and the like few, if any, estates ever pay a shilling.
I find accumulated wealth hard to defend and yet I hardly think none of an estate ought to be passed down to heirs. The issue remains one of public policy. We can resolve rates, levels, rules, etc. with rational discourse over the competing interests.
There are some other things I question about what you’ve claimed but I’ll mostly limit my responses. However, I want to up front state is that I fully wish that you and your partner had the same advantages that heterosexual couples have as to financial planning.
If you are worried about the expense of estate planning most assuredly it would be the best money you ever spent if in fact the estate is “at risk”. I’ve seen several small estates that got nipped a little merely due to lack of routine actions.
The situation you’ve described with your in-laws is one I’m reluctant to touch as well. I guess IBM stock did rather well in that period. As you said, with planning “some” estate taxes were paid. I’m not sure in what years all this happened but once the Bu$hCo suspension goes away a married couple can easily shield an estate of $7 million with little or no planning.
Again, while I think you and yours ought to be able in a more enlightened world to split out your estate, the soon to be restored code would still let heirs of a single soul walk away with $3.5 million. Anything above would be subject to a progressive and marginal rates.
As far as Social Security, that people stop paying FICA tax after they reach $97,500 in annual income is all that I’ll counter with. I’m hoping your misunderstandings of the how benefits are earned and paid under this program are very rare.
It is NOT just the top 1% who pay estate taxes. My in-laws had two children, one of whom turned out to be a paranoid schizophrenic. My in-laws recognized that they would need to provide from beyond the grave for their daughter who is mentally ill. Thus, they lived in the same middle class home for over 50 years and never remodeled it. When they died a couple of years ago, the house still did not have 3-prong plugs. They didn’t buy new cars and they rarely traveled. My mother in law was a school teacher and my father in law had a Phd in mathematics and worked for IBM. As evidenced by their 1200 sq. ft. home, they certainly did not enjoy a Bill Gates or Warren Buffet lifestyle. But, they recognized the importance of supporting their offspring and not expecting society to do it. They spent large sums of money on attorneys to set up trusts to help minimize the effects of estate taxes. However, they still had to pay some estate tax. How is that fair? They lived very frugally so that they could accumulate the wealth to provide for a disabled child instead of expecting society to pay for her. And for exhibiting this responsibility, they were punished by having some of their wealth stolen by the Federal Government.
My partner and I are certainly not in the top 1% when it comes to wealth. But, because we are a gay couple my partner can not pass any of his property to me tax free like a married couple can. Thus without paying expensive legal bills to have estate tax planning performed for us, the bulk of our assets would be lost to the government leaving me and our children with a dramatically reduced lifestyle. How is that equitable? I did the responsible thing and gave up a career to stay home and raise my kids and we’ve lived within our means. Our reward - having the bulk of our assets seized by the government. How is that fair? We accumulated this wealth AFTER already paying 50% of my partner’s income in federal and state taxes. Enough already with the taxes.
And don’t even get me started on “Socialism” Security which does little more than take from high income earners and give to low income workers and take from dual income families to give to single income families.
Dr. Cutchins continues to parrot, I bet his columns come rather quickly with his “cut and paste” technique, his writing from the same sources.
That he references “liberal media outlets” the day after I noticed a Newsweek cover with Paul Krugman, the Princeton Professor and NYT’s Column writing Nobel Prize winning economist identified as Obama’s “headache” made me chuckle.
While venturing into the likely fact that I bet his “liberal” media outlets are in fact owned and published by corporate conglomerates would be fun, I will only offer that I regularly read criticisms of President Obama, especially his Economics team, from true liberal sources like The Nation, Mother Jones, etc. Lefty blogs like the Great Orange Satan (Daily Kos) and FireDogLake and ... routinely take him to task.
For the record, ending the Bu$hCo Reign of Error is certainly positive yet I’ll label the Obama administration Centrist at best. A true Progressive agenda would solve such of what ails us now and certainly prepare us for the challenging decades to follow.
Returning to those sources, Dr. C leads with a piece from Town Hall. Town Hall got their start via financing by the rabidly conservative Heritage Foundation. They then went to a profit model and were eventually gobbled up by Salem Communications, “a leading U.S. radio broadcaster, Internet content provider, and magazine and book publisher targeting audiences interested in Christian and family-themed content and conservative values.“
James Dobson’s Focus on the Family is his next source yet it, and Doc’s next writing, relies on the Wall Street Journal, likely its Opinion Journal section rather than its journalism side. Who now owns the WSJ? Rupert Murdoch’s (Faux News) News Corp!
Murdoch’s News Corp established the Weekly Standard! Bill Kristol and Fred Barnes are the current editors plus they employ a bevy of right wing hacks. The wingnut welfare system makes sure that both young and seasoned conservative writers always have a venue. This neo-conservative outfit has plenty of blame due for our current foreign policy troubles yet they dabble in all facets of our nation/world’s future.
However, the true gift Dr. C has given this Progressive is his trotting out the recent Pew Center polling.
The reason those numbers seem so skewed Sir relate to the undeniable fact that few American are willing to label themselves “Republican” any more. The brand is damaged and with that qualifier to the polling and the undeniable fact that the GOP does opposition (and only opposition since they obviously can’t govern)so well the few hearty souls left surely don’t think much of the new Presidency.
Obama’s numbers for those identifying as Democrats and Independents, the largest group in years, remain consistent when compared to past administrations.
Finally, the Tea Party mess can be traced to Michelle Malkin and other professional haters and distortion artists.
Indeed, tax reforms are long overdue. However, they relate to Corporate Welfare and the like. I’m reading David Cay Johnson’s “Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich - and Cheat Everybody Else” right now and I doubt the themes he’s covering will be featured in Auburn’s “tea Party” or elsewhere.
Why not? Because they and theirs are about keeping us divided, distracted, misinformed, ...
I came here to again scold Dr. Cutchins for his shilling the right wing message machine’s foolishness but I will first tackle the estate tax issues that he and getreal both raised.
getreal is right in that we are supposed to reward hard work. Accordingly, if an heir is born to the right family then how does that reward hard work? The “birth lottery” remains very powerful reality in our world!
What “fiscal responsibility” might mean is somewhat uncertain yet likely it should indeed be rewarded. Are we doing a good job with that right now in our society? Would Paris Hilton or a similarly situated spawn of the swells be our role model?
Also, do all that accumulate massive wealth demonstrate this worthy trait? Some got it by shall we say less savory methods. Those with money do in fact often find it rather helpful to make more money. I’m sure some did the right thing for their families and world with their blessings. Bless them!
If Warren Buffet does advocate for the retention of the estate tax for his own good, would we be prepared to examine the efforts of other wealthy people with the same scrutiny?
I know that Buffet, the father of Bill Gates (a VERY successful Seattle lawyer that made sure his son had every advantage in education) and other extremely wealthy people regularly challenge the idea that massive fortunes should pass wholly untaxed to various heirs.
Returning to getreal’s dismissing of Buffet’s motives, use The Google and scratch around for the American Family Business Institute. Notice Alabama’s own Harold Apolinksy! There’s also the Harbert and Drummond (Larry) Coal families connection! Would they’d have no self interest in opposing the estate tax?
Less than 1% of Americans even have to worry about the estate tax and few estates ever pay even a shilling. Given how the elite have made off with the wealth of this nation in these last three or so decades perhaps the numbers will be even less troubling for all but those at the top of the food chain.
I continue to run across relatively intelligence people that think an estate tax applies to them. I doubt this an accident. Dr. Cutchins’ writing hardly made it clear did it? Again, a family, especially a “family farm” or “small business”, can shield a simply huge estate with simply some middle of the road estate planning.
There’s a debate on rates, levels, etc. yet the estate tax hardly is anti-family. Dr. Cutchins labeled it (actually he used the right wing’s “death tax” label) “the most anti-family of all tax measures”. Given Alabama’s taxing poor families at low levels plus our sales tax on food I find that claim rather revealing.
One positive thing the estate tax does is to encourage wealthy souls to dispose of a portion of their estate before or when they die. Often this is done via charitable giving. (Some right wing policy shops are likely grooving on the fact they are about to have the estate tax back!) Less partisan sources also benefit of course.
The multi-millionaires and beyond can gradually give away their wealth as well to their families, set up slick trusts, and engage in all sorts of perfectly legal techniques. But again, only a few need to even think about the estate tax!
Do we want a meritocracy or will we allow our society to become fully dynastic?
Good article but a few points:
1. Anybody who lets the amount of a tax deduction drive their decision to support a charity is either not a Christian or a lousy Christian. I give to charities because it is the right thing to do. God has blessed me with many economic advantages so it is my responsibility to give back in some way. I haven’t seen a Biblical passage yet in which God or Jesus mention only helping the poor to the point you get a tax advantage.
2. The inheritance tax supporters have done an excellent job of making this subject a class issue. Warren Buffet is one of the best at this tactic. It’s disgusting. He only favors the inheritance tax laws because it’s enabled him to scoop up many, many businesses when the heirs had to sell at rock bottom prices to pay the estate taxes. Dairy Queen is a great example of how he did this. See’s Candies is another. Estate taxes are unfair - plain and simple. We are supposed to reward hard work and fiscal responsibility in this country. The estate tax does the exact opposite.
Advertisement