Giuliani: Taxing the Rich Would Be Unthinkable
Crooks and Liars has a take on this so good that I almost didn’t make this into a blog post, as it would be superfluous. However, I thought that the quote by Giuliani is more than worth commenting on. Here’s the source quote:
In a potential preview of next fall’s presidential contest, Mr. Giuliani, who is seen as the front-runner for the Republican nomination, directly attacked the leading Democratic candidate, Mrs. Clinton, over a speech she gave Tuesday in New Hampshire bemoaning the return of “robber barons” and promising to pursue “shared prosperity” by increasing taxes on Americans making more than $200,000 a year.“This would be an astounding, staggering tax increase,” Mr. Giuliani told reporters yesterday after a visit to a restaurant on the edge of California’s Silicon Valley. “She wants to go back to the 1990s…. It would hurt our economy. It would hurt this area dramatically. That kind of tax increase would see a decline in your venture capital. It would see a decline in your ability to focus on new technology.”
As C&L rightly points out, this is the kind of tax increase that Bill Clinton executed near the start of his presidency… and we experienced a technology boom, even “irrational exuberance” from investors, which was so successful that we erased the federal budget deficit altogether, a task unthinkable before Clinton. Furthermore, the more level playing field saw to it that the rising tide raised all boats–unlike Reagan’s boom, or Bush’s anemic upswing–and most certainly it did nothing to discourage people from pouring money into research & development of new technologies. According to our experience, we have seen that the kind of tax hike that Hillary is touting is not only not destructive, it is perhaps even essential, as it boosts federal revenue in the least painful way, thus creating the most healthy form of market confidence.
The problem is, Giuliani might have the upper hand with the voters. Even the most constructive tax hike, even when only applied to the richest of the rich, is easily attacked in a way that makes it look like you’re going to raise everyone’s taxes. A corollary to this rule is that you can similarly make everyone believe that a tax cut aimed 99% or even 100% at the rich is something that everybody wants and needs, which is where Bush went and Giuliani will likely follow. It’s the same appeal to fear that the NRA uses when they turn even the most reasonable gun control into a “gun ban.” I hate to say it, but the American people are so easily duped by this kind of scare appeal that it is ludicrously sad.
What Hillary needs to do is follow her husband’s example: don’t say you’re going to raise taxes at all, even on the rich… then do it after you’re elected. I remember in 1992, my conservative landlord in San Francisco (I was an SFSU student then) said that he didn’t like Bill Clinton because he felt Clinton would raise his taxes after he got elected… but later voted for Clinton anyway because he felt that it was the right thing to do, and that a tax hike would help the economy. And he was right.

I want to go back to the 1990s. In 1991 I was unemployed, and empoverished. In 1999, I was making six figures.
Who doesn’t want to go back to the 1990s?
I mean other than the 500 or so families that fund the attempt to eliminate the estate tax?
Guilainni’s campaign looks like low hanging fruit to any poacher walking around with any skill. Which explains Thompson entry into the race.
If Gulianni were to make it pass the nomination it would be great for the Democrats, but bad for moderates. Even someone like Kerry will have no problem cutting Guilliaini down to size. But that would only tell the Republicans that moderates (on the issues) are losers.
However, this isn’t going to happen. To Republicans, Thompson comes across as the second coming of Ronald Reagan, complete with Hollywood credentials, that deep down they know they need to sell the crapola that passes for Republican positions on the issues. Also, as a hollywood type, Thompson knows how to look like what the Republicans like to see in their candidate.
Thompson’s the nominee, in a walk.
He could be formidable. Hollywood types are better at casting images and using the media than any other background might afford.
My worry is that his entry will cause more moderates to vote republican keeping the Democrats below key levels, like 60 senators, or 66 senators. The most important thing comming out of the next election outside of foreign policy issues is going to be universal health insurance.
A corollary to this rule is that you can similarly make everyone believe that a tax cut aimed 99% or even 100% at the rich is something that everybody wants and needs
Not to mention the fact that there are many Americans who think they fall into that ‘rich’ category, even into the top 10%, even though they aren’t even clearing six figures. I’ve met people with 100k income, but no savings account, investments, &c., who honestly though they would be affected by any tax cuts or raises aimed at the top income tiers.