Right Pundits

All they’re saying is they’re not going to attack him personally, because he’s so likable. They’ll leave that to the shadow campaign via email. It’s smart, because Obama is weak politically on the economy, which couldn’t be any less personal.

On the other hand…

Fleischer said. He suggested the listeners to Tuesday’s call label the president as a flip-flopper on the following issues: opposing tax increases for those making under $250,000, opposing the Bush tax cuts, opposing raising the debt limit, and opposing a health care mandate.

This is going to be a hard row to hoe (which must be some kind of weird farming expression), especially if Newt or Romney are the candidates. I mean, I know the GOP generally attacks the strengths of the other opponent (ie, war hero Kerry is a coward, etc.) to destroy them, but it’s gonna be pretty hard to do so when their reputations are already pretty solid as flip-floppers. There is endless material that Obama can throw at them on this topic.

Additionally, let’s look at these charges–

opposing tax increases for those making under $250,000 — as far as I know, Obama has never strayed from this. In fact, he can point to the fact that he’s not raised ANY taxes on ANYONE thusfar, and has in fact lowered them for those making under $250,000– several times. MOreover, his cutoff has gone UP from $250,000 to a MILLION now. So I don’t see where the flip-flopping is here.

opposing the Bush tax cuts Same thing here. He’s never changed his position on this. He did cave on this issue– he agreed to let the cuts stand for another two years to get the lame-duck GOP to agree to several democratic demands– but this is something the tea party was more upset about (for the concessions he extracted from the outgoing GOP members). This certainly isn’t a flip-flop. It’s just Obama losing a political battle.

opposing raising the debt limit — this is legit. He totally opposed it and voted for it when he was a Senator. However, I don’t think the GOP will go anywhere with this for two reasons: One, for right wing republicans opposition to the debt-limit raising is a hallowed principaled position– for most people, including independent voters, it’s not a sacred cow, and Obama can argue that circumstances changed (whatever he wants to say) that made a “protest vote” appropriate without jeopardizing the full faith and credit of the US. Secondly, I think as soon as you say “debt limit crisis” the average voter cringes and blames house republicans. This isn’t a winner of an issue for the GOP.

opposing a health care mandate — this is another loser for republicans. The health care mandate was a GOP-initiated idea (super-conservative Heritage Foundation suggested it in the 90s as an alternative to the Clinton health care plan) and there’s plenty of video of republicans including Newt Gingrich supporting it. Finally, it was the method for paying for the health care law that replaced the public option, and universal health care before that. So, again, the health care mandate is another Republican idea that Obama grudgingly accepted in his quest for political consensus. It’s not something he wanted, it’s another thing he caved on.

In short, if the GOP is thinking they’re going to use things that they pushed Obama into doing (in exchange for something he wanted) as examples of “flip-flopping”, they’re only highlighting how awful their own policies are.

Flip-flopping will be an issue in this campaign, but I find it very hard to buy people will buy it on Obama’s side– even with a full-court GOP press.

GOP– it’s about the economy, stupid. If you want to win, lie about who’s fault that is.

Did you read that fact-check? It’s citing fees on cigarettes and stuff as taxes. So, yeah, if you include..

legislation raising taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products soon after taking office; that money goes to pay for children’s health insurance programs..

If that’s “raising taxes”- then sure. When you talk about raising taxes for $250,000 and lower, that suggests income taxes, which is what I was talking about, much in the same way that when the GOP says 50% of the country pays no taxes, they mean only income taxes. Obviously everyone pays sales taxes.

He also signed the health care law, which includes taxes on indoor tanning that went into effect last year.

Maybe we should agree on “significant” taxes– not stupid crap on the above, which will likely have a net savings as taxpayers won’t have to pay for as many skin grafts, iron lungs, and asthma medications for the uninsured who show up after smoking/basting themselves to death.

The new health care law also includes a tax on people who decide not to have health insurance, as an incentive for them to get coverage.

This is a penalty in the form of a tax. If I don’t pay for a speeding ticket I accrue additional “taxes” as well? This is only charged to those who break the law.

More significantly, the health care law includes new taxes on the wealthy, starting in 2013. Individuals who make more than $200,000 and couples that make more than $250,000 will see additional Medicare taxes of 0.9 percent.

This falls over the income line I was talking about. And as I said, the line has now been moved up to a million dollars a year.

Anyway, fair enough– I stand “corrected” if you want to count the above– taxes on cigarettes and soforth as “raising taxes”– i’m pretty sure it’s going to make the argument look that much weaker. At least when it’s open-ended you’ll go “he raised TAXES! Oh MY!” But when anyone points out “it was taxes on cigarettes and stuff” people are gonna feel pretty mislead.

I think it’s a losing argument, easily smacked down, and it makes the accuser look pretty disingenuous and insincere. We all know tanning salon taxes don’t a flip-flop make.

Finally– and this is the most salient point– the majority of the public, by a wide margin and across both parties– WANT taxes on the higher bracket income to be raised. People are well-aware that they have disproportionately benefited from tax policy (and just about everyone) in the last 30 years… on the backs and at the expense of everyone else. …thanks to the rich’s 15% capital-gains income rate and numerous additional loopholes.

Let’s get taxes on the top 1% to Eisenhower levels so we can get this debt paid, and have some that 1950s expansion that the right is always going on about.

“left wing fact-check”? I guess Colbert’s famous quote is right on: “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”

No, I’m not backtracking. I said I stand corrected. I just don’t think taxes on cigarettes and tanning salons are what most people think count as “raising taxes”. Moreover, I think it’s good policy for national health and the costs that would otherwise be born by the public via taxes and higher health care costs.

As for the health care bill, I’m really not in the mood to defend it. Its a watered-down cluster F that resulted from Obama’s negotiation with himself and constant capitulation in a hope that some Republicans would be willing to negotiate. It’s better than what we had otherwise, but barely. We needed a single-payer health care system at best and a public option at worst. We ended up with worse than the worst, and the left– indeed America– was sold out for Obama’s a55-kissing of Republicans to no avail, and the 1990s GOP health care plan is what we got stuck with.

After his other capitulations to the right (the stimulus springs to mind) which resulted in zero votes from them but a right-of-center result, it makes it very very very hard to actively support him this year.

Except when I watch the GOP debates. Then I’m reminded of how bad it can be.

As Milton Friedman would say, spending IS taxation! Obama has been spending like a child with mommy’s credit card. Somebody has to pay for the $4 billion a day Obama is spending above and beyond revenues. What difference is there if the tax increase is voted and passed in 2010 but doesn’t take affect until 2013? Do we say he didn’t raise taxes between 2010 to 2012?