About Those Postwar Tax Rates

Will Bunch re-tweets:

"Top marginal tax rate for the entire 1950s was 91%. Yet the U.S. economy expanded 79%. Overall tax burden today is lowest in 6 decades"

This tidbit is actually pretty commonly repeated among liberals -- I think I've even used it myself in a Scripps Howard column -- and yet it feels slightly dishonest not to acknowledge that the world economy was vastly different during the 1950s than it is today. Britain and Western Europe were slowly recovering from the devastation of World War II; same for Japan. The Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and China had more or less withdrawn from global trade. The United States was so vigorous during this time not because of high marginal tax rates, but because it was basically the last man standing. That's no longer the case: Other countries are more competitive with our own economy, so we need to be more competitive too.

This isn't an argument against returning to Clinton-era marginal tax rates. I think that could safely be done without harming the economy to any great extent. But dropping the Ike-bomb on the tax discussion often omits the ways the world has changed, and liberals do themselves no great service when they make that omission.

Can Anybody Save Us? Emaw Isn't Sure.

Emaw*, who comes around here to keep me honest in my pro-Dem hackery, doesn't sound so optimistic about the results of the election:

"Of course, the problem with campaigning FOR something these days is that in order to really solve our most pressing national problems, you have to be an advocate of doing stuff that nobody wants to do. Nobody wants drastic, Grecian Formula spending cuts, but that's what we need. Nobody wants major tax and fee increases (certainly not me), but that's what it will take to balance our budget even if we cut spending.

So you get what we have now (which interestingly is frighteningly similar to what the Romans had near the end of their republic). Politicians make promises that, while popular, have little hope of coming to fruition without bankrupting the country. Political expedience makes meaningful reform impossible."

We get after each other, but I think Emaw and I basically agree that there's something unsustainable about the governance of our country. Question is: If Democrats can't do the right thing and Republicans won't -- I'm not sure Emaw would agree with the framing -- what can we do? Where's Ross Perot when you really need him?

*For you non-Kansans, "Emaw" is short for "Every Man A Wildcat." It's a K-State thing.

Ari Berman Got His Wish: The Blue Dogs Are Gone

Remember late October, when Ari Berman could write something like this?

"Democrats would be in better shape, and would accomplish more, with a smaller and more ideologically cohesive caucus. It’s a sentiment that even Mr. Dean now echoes. “Having a big, open-tent Democratic Party is great, but not at the cost of getting nothing done,” he said."

Well, most of the Blue Dogs are gone now. Guess what? So is the Democratic majority. I get as frustrated with the Blue Dogs as anyone, but the Democrats literally cannot govern without them. In most cases, the Blue Dogs represent districts that would never vote for a liberal Democrat. Having Blue Dogs in the coalition puts a check on liberal ambitions, but it makes it possible for any kind of liberal legislation to pass in the first place. That's not fun; it's very frustrating. The alternative is worse. Utopian fantasies like Berman's do nothing to further progressive causes.

George W. Bush and Kanye West

Lotsa people talking today about the ex-president's hurt feelings over Kanye's post-Katrina comments, which to some extent means re-fighting that war. I think Adam Serwer has it right:

"The response to Hurricane Katrina was a reflection of basic administrative incompetence and cronyism, not active racial animus. Bush made an active effort to court black voters, marginalized (mostly) Islamophobes, he appointed a diverse Cabinet, and, defying the nativists in his own party, he brokered an immigration compromise that policy-wise, was better than anything we're going to see for a very long time. The spate of noose-themed hate crimes during 2006-2007 seemed to make him genuinely angry."

What's more, the RNC chairman under Bush rather explicitly repudiated the party's longtime "Southern strategy" of appealing to white racism as a way to gain votes. There's lots that was wrong with George W. Bush -- I still think he he's in the conversation as one of the worst presidents ever -- but racism, even passive winking racism, wasn't one of his sins.

Tom Ferrick on Philly's Future

Uh-oh:

"As to Philadelphia, we are screwed.

The city, which has a large portion of the state's poor and the state's largest school district, is dependent on state government aid in so many ways it's hard to enumerate. For the last eight years, we had the great and good luck of having a former Philadelphia mayor as governor. That era is officially over.

Now we have a conservative Republican from Allegheny County, who is a pleasant enough guy but who couldn't give two hoots about the city.(Whose voters gave his rival, Democrat Dan Onorato, 82 percent of their votes on Tuesday.) On Tuesday, the city looked like a blue island in a suddenly red state."

The National Mood

Matt Yglesias::

"One reason it’s difficult to read midterm elections as reflecting shifts in the “national mood” is that the actual set of voting people is quite different. According to exit polls, for example, the relative proportion of youth voters and senior voters shifted quite dramatically."

Well, but doesn't that also reflect the "national mood"? Two years ago, young voters were inspired and motivated to get to the polls. This year? Not so much. That made a difference in the results, yes. But their absence doesn't mean we're missing information on the national mood -- it's reflective of it.

Holding the GOP Accountable

Via James Fallows, sense-making from Andrew Sullivan*:

"My view is a relatively simple one: the GOP ran on cutting spending. I think their first move should be to propose a path to balancing the budget in the foreseeable future. I want to see their actual proposals on entitlements and defense. They refused to reveal them before the election. Are we supposed to wait till 2013?"

Damn straight. My personal prediction? GOP rhetoric about fiscal responsibility will prove as hollow as it ever was -- enthusiastic about tax cuts but unable or unwilling to force the pain of even proposing real budget cuts to match. There'll be talk about how the tax cuts will "pay for themselves," even though there's no real evidence that happens.

* I'm still boycotting Sullivan, but I can't help it if James Fallows quotes him, can I?