Obama’s Tax Plan: ‘Fair Share’ vs. ‘Class Warfare’

The President's proposal establishes a new front in the rhetorical battle to frame the deficit debate
Jason Reed / Reuters
Jason Reed / Reuters

President Obama’s senior staff laid out his proposal to control the federal deficit while creating jobs on Sunday night. They claim the plan will cut more than $4 trillion over the next decade, largely from a $1.5 trillion increase in taxes that target the wealthy. The rhetorical touchstone, referred to repeatedly by the staff members in their background briefing, is the phrase fair share, which they say is what the rich should pay through a tax rate that is the same as or higher than that of middle-income Americans.

The GOP pounced, arguing that a massive tax hike on anyone would kill jobs and stunt the recovery. Republican Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan said the Obama plan would produce less investment and job creation by taxing those with the resources to power a recovery. “If you tax something more, Chris, you get less of it,” Ryan told Fox’s Chris Wallace on Sunday.

(MORE: In New Tax Offensive, a Reversal of Obama’s Deficit Debate Strategy)

Then he broke out the GOP’s rhetorical touchstone for the debate: class warfare. “Class warfare, Chris, may make for really good politics, but it makes for rotten economics,” Ryan said.

Who wins politically in a battle between fair share and class warfare?

The technical side of the argument is easy enough to parse. Democrats, defending the idea of a progressive tax code, argue that the wealthy should pay at least the same tax rate as the middle class, and perhaps even a higher rate. Republicans, by and large, say fairness is based on the proportion of the overall tax bill that is paid by different groups: the wealthiest 1%, for example, paid 38% of all federal income taxes in 2008, while the bottom 50% paid only 3%, says the Heritage Foundation.

(PHOTOS: Barack Obama at 50)

Politically, it’s more complicated. Clearly both sides reach their base with their message. Fair share is straight-up union talk, and will resonate with the Democrats whom Obama wants to solidify and energize ahead of a year of tough economic wrangling. Class warfare opens wealthy wallets during campaign season and taps the active, enthusiastic and antigovernment Tea Party movement, which sees socialism under every Democrat’s bed.

Does either message have an advantage with the middle? Blue collar Reagan Democrats hate class warfare. There may be a racial, “dog whistle” component still resonating from the 1960s and Nixon’s Southern strategy, but the power of that is diminishing. Fair share may tap some anti–Wall Street anger in the middle, and polling is clear that most Americans think taxes on the rich should go up. But both messages seem primarily tailored to the base.

MORE: What John Boehner Wants from the Deficit Supercommittee

Related Topics: deficit reduction, gop, obama, Taxes
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

blog comments powered by Disqus