The Post’s Cooked Poll and Obama’s Tax Class Warfare
The Washington Post carries a bizarre piece today about the seeming disconnect between Barack Obama's tax plan and voters' perception of it. The crux of it is that, according to a new Washington Post-ABC poll, 51 percent of potential voters believe their taxes would rise under Obama, while just 33 percent said the same of John McCain.
This prompts a lengthy defense of Obama's tax plan, full of imbalances and outright whoppers. For instance, the article notes that Obama "is fighting the widespread perception that he would jack up tax rates upon taking office." It's hardly a widespread perception—Obama himself has said over and over that he would raise taxes on the top 5 percent of earners. So is it any wonder that a candidate who has pledged to raise taxes on one group stokes fears that he'll also raise others? The larger mystery is why a candidate who has pledged to unequivocally cut taxes (McCain) is still regarded with suspicion by a third of voters.
Nevertheless, the reporters write, the poll results "are likely to be particularly frustrating for Obama, who has failed not only to break through on taxes but also to capitalize on McCain's perceived weakness on the economy, the central issue of the campaign."
But the Post's poll results don't demonstrate McCain's "perceived weakness the economy."
Here was the question: "Do you think (NAME) does or does not understand the economic problems people in this country are having?" Obama bested McCain 74 percent to 53 percent. But the question concerned microeconomic difficulties, not macroeconomic solutions. Voters might think Obama better understands their frustrations over the rising price of bread, but that hardly means they believe he knows how to right the economy.
The better poll question would have been, "Do you believe that raising taxes on some would improve the economy?" And pretty clearly, the Post's reporters think so. How else to explain the following paragraph? [Emphases added.]
McCain has also increasingly won the confidence of voters to handle economic issues. This comes despite a deepening economic downturn and rising unemployment—problems that Obama and other Democrats have blamed on President Bush—as well as McCain's own rhetorical stumbles, including his failure to recall in an interview last month how many houses he owns.
Now flip it:
Obama has also increasingly lost the confidence of voters to handle economic issues. This comes amid a deepening economic downturn and rising unemployment—problems that Obama and other Democrats have blamed on President Bush—as well as Obama's own rhetorical brilliance.
While the Post's reporters waste column inches marveling why a candidate who has pledged to raise taxes on one group is viewed by voters as likely to raise taxes on them too, the real story seems to be that voters don't believe raising taxes on anyone is the solution to a poor economy. A Rasmussen poll released Tuesday determined just that, showing 62 percent of respondents believe economic growth is more important than class warfare.
Voters recognize what the true engine of economic growth is in America. Here's a hint to the Post's reporters: It's not a wasteful, even more bloated federal government.
Tags: economy | federal taxes | journalism | media | presidential election 2008 | taxes | voters | John McCain | Washington Post
Tools:
Share
|
| Comments (36) | Print
Reader Comments
Obama's Tax Class Warfare
People do not believe Obama because his claims are patently incomplete and mathematically impossible. He claims to offer 95% of Americans a tax cut, but in the latest tax year more than 50% of Americans paid NO taxes. The last time I checked, 100% minus 50% who pay no taxes only leaves 50%, at most, eligible for a tax cut. HOW CAN YOU GIVE A TAX CUT TO SOMEONE WHO ALREADY PAYS NO TAXES? Obama's approach bespeaks a fundamental disrespect for the mental abilities of his audience, a sort of effete intellectual snobbishness that is so typical of his (extreme left) wing of political persuasion: "Just give us your money and get out of the way; we know better how to spend it than you do, so give us what we demand. We will tell you only what we think it will take to appeal to your stupid, short-sighted, self-interest; JUST GIVE US WHAT WE WANT!!!" The result of such disingenuousness, predictably and rightly, is disbelief.
taxes
Sam,
This is the kind of serious discussion that the rest of the press SHOULD be doing.
I am on the fence about who to vote for and I tend to be a limited government guy and am skeptical about Obama's plan for the economy but I do want to know what he really plans.
He says he will lower taxes on the non wealthy but how much does that group even pay in taxes now? I thought the amount of federal taxes (and the president doesn't set what you pay in state taxes) paid by the non wealthy was minimal.
Also, if the wealthy wound up paying MORE to the government by having a lower rate (making more money and being taxed more often) then why does he want to raise taxes on them? Just to stick it to them? If the goal is to bring in as much revenue to the government as possible and that happens to be LOWER taxes on the wealthy then why mess with it? I don't get it.
War is taxing
Attacking other nations might be good business for well-connected reconstruction firms, but it is a form of wealth transfer, through the tax system, from the American public to the shareholders of such firms.
McCain will certainly do this, and this is a form of taxation.
The American public can be easily manipulated into accepting this sort of tax increase by stoking its sense of shallow patriotism. Raising taxes to increase their welfare, on the other hand, is much harder to do. This paradoxical situation is the result of cultural brainwashing, where the public is unable to tell what is in its best interest. Bush severely damaged their nation, yet they are ready to replace Bush with a war mongering simpleton to continue the job.
advertisement


