Jonathan Chait: 2012 or Never

[SpartanDem]

Of the various expressions of right-wing hysteria that have flowered over the past three years—goldbuggery, birtherism, death panels at home and imaginary apology tours by President Obama abroad—perhaps the strain that has taken deepest root within mainstream Republican circles is the terror that the achievements of the Obama administration may be irreversible, and that the time remaining to stop permanent nightfall is dwindling away.

“America is approaching a ‘tipping point’ beyond which the Nation will be unable to change course,” announces the dark, old-timey preamble to Paul Ryan’s “The Roadmap Plan,” a statement of fiscal principles that shaped the budget outline approved last spring by 98 percent of the House Republican caucus. Rick Santorum warns his audiences, “We are reaching a tipping point, folks, when those who pay are the minority and those who receive are the majority.” Even such a sober figure as Mitt Romney regularly says things like “We are only inches away from no longer being a free economy,” and that this election “could be our last chance.”

The Republican Party is in the grips of many fever dreams. But this is not one of them. To be sure, the apocalyptic ideological analysis—that “freedom” is incompatible with Clinton-era tax rates and Massachusetts-style health care—is pure crazy. But the panicked strategic analysis, and the sense of urgency it gives rise to, is actually quite sound. The modern GOP—the party of Nixon, Reagan, and both Bushes—is staring down its own demographic extinction. Right-wing warnings of impending tyranny express, in hyperbolic form, well-grounded dread: that conservative America will soon come to be dominated, in a semi-permanent fashion, by an ascendant Democratic coalition hostile to its outlook and interests. And this impending doom has colored the party’s frantic, fearful response to the Obama presidency.

The GOP has reason to be scared. Obama’s election was the vindication of a prediction made several years before by journalist John Judis and political scientist Ruy Teixeira in their 2002 book, The Emerging Democratic Majority. Despite the fact that George W. Bush then occupied the White House, Judis and Teixeira argued that demographic and political trends were converging in such a way as to form a ­natural-majority coalition for Democrats.

http://nymag.com/news/features/gop-primary-chait-2012-3/

[napoleon_in_rags]

1. They're damn right, with Obamacare.

Once that kicks in, once the poor realize they have coverage, once people realize that they can switch jobs without the pre-existing condition nonsense holding them back, its never going away. That you can take to the bank.

[Fumesucker]

4. The poor don't want insurance..

They want health care..

Let's hope that "coverage" leads to actual health care, I have my doubts.

[napoleon_in_rags]

6. Doctors loathe the status quo.

Having to be careful not to diagnose serious conditions because pre-existing condition insurance policies apply, having to interpret partial test results because of insurance issues, having to resort to double-talk advice due to liability and insurance issues. The sooner it all gets taken out of the way and they can focus on just the medicine, the happier they will be. And Obamacare, though not perfect, is a step in the right direction.

[hfojvt]

2. I know how they feel

I felt the same way in 2003.

And I still think I was right (but don't I always? Doesn't everybody?)

Here it is 2012, and the Bush tax cuts still haven't been reversed, and often I think they never will be. Obama only proposes ending about 30% of them, and has added new permanent tax cuts for the rich in the form of the accursed payroll tax cut. When will we be free of that abomination that causes desolation?

Will Republicans hold the house? Will re-districting cement their control for a decade? Will Republicans take the Senate. The odds are probably still good, just because of the states that are up for grabs this year. Our own "great white hope" is a three-time former winner of "DINO of the year". Yeah, sure, let me just write a check to the DSCC.

[AndyTiedye]

3. How do you define "rich"?

How does the payroll tax cut primarily benefit "the rich"?

Social Security taxes are (and always have been) capped so only about the first $100,000 of income is taxed.
Besides, rich people usually don't get that much of their income as salary.

Obama wants to end the Bush tax cuts to the rich, but not to the middle class.

How do you define "rich"? It would seem that your definition includes virtually all of the middle class.

[Fumesucker]

5. The working poor on the other hand got an actual net tax increase in 2010...

I'm glad Obama cares about the working poor and I shudder to think what would happen if he didn't.

[hfojvt]

7. I define it as the top 20%.

The middle class is in the middle the 20-80% range. MOST of the middle class is in the 20-60% range. That group gets a mere 23.3% of the payroll tax cut. The richest 10% on the other hand get 26.7% of it.

Here's the breakdown from Citizens for Tax Justice

bottom 20% (poor) - 3.8% - income less than $20,000
next 20% (lower middle class) - 8.3% - income less than $33,000
next 20% (middle middle class) - 15.0% - income less than $53,000
next 20% (upper middle class) - 26.3% - income less than $88,000
top 20% (rich) - 46.4% - income more than $88,000
top 5% - 14.1% - income more than $177,000

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxcompromise2010.pdf

That same link shows that Obama's plan to keep the Bush tax cuts for the "middle class" gives 26.5% of its benefits to the top 5% and gives 54.2% of its benefits to the top 20%. Meanwhile it gives only 13.9% of its benefits to the bottom 40% and only 26.4% to the bottom 60%.

In other words, like the original Bush tax cuts, it is a plan heavily tilted towards the top. The top 1% gets 13.3% almost the same as the bottom 40% which gets only 13.9%.

[AndyTiedye]

9. By Your Definition, A New York Firefighter With 5 Years on the Job is "Rich"

http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/community/ff_salary_benefits_080106.shtml

Incomes tend to be higher in areas where the cost of living is higher, and that skews things.

[hfojvt]

10. I am so sick of that high cost excuse making

it just does not skew things that much

Look at New Jersey, which is as close as I can come to metro New York City. http://www.itepnet.org/wp2009/nj_whopays_factsheet.pdf

80% of people in New Jersey make less than $116,000, 60% of them make less than $69,000. So even in New Jersey, $99,000 is more money than 60% of families make. It is $28,000 more than 60% of families make.

Here's Connecticut http://www.itepnet.org/wp2009/ct_whopays_factsheet.pdf

60% of families make less than $75,000 and 80% of families make less than $121,000

Yes, it is a fact, that firefighter has a damned good job. Most people do not have a job that pays that much, not even in New York City. Heck, all the firefighter needs is a spouse making $17,000 a year and they are in the top 20% in New Jersey and a spouse making $22,000 in Connecticut. Sad for them, maybe, but if they make more money than 80% of the rest of us, they simply are not in the middle any more. You are well above the middle. Granted, many of those people do what my brother did. They buy a nice house in a nice neighborhood and buy some new cars and because they have so much nice stuff (that many of the rest of us cannot afford) they don't feel rich. They take that nice stuff for granted, so it does not feel like the luxury it really is. They also associate mostly with peers, so it seems like everybody else is in the same boat, It seems normal to them, because they can mostly ignore all the others who are poorer than them. Especially the 40% who make less than $44,000 a year, even in Connecticut.

[quaker bill]

8. A well written article, thanks for the link

It is an analysis that looks at the last 3.5 years as a double down all or nothing bet. He pulls the threads together very nicely.

My slightly different take is that Chait seems to almost imply that this decision was taken by republicans voluntarily among various options actually available. I don't think other options were ever truly available. Since the Nixon southen strategy - culture war of the late 1960s, republicans have been happily saddled with exploiting fear of the "other" as a driving force for their political movement. With Reagan it was commies and "cadillac driving welfare moms", with GHWB it was "Willie Hortons" and "crime", with GWB it was first the Clenis (sex) then the terrorists. With the entire republican crew it is the "takers" vs the "makers" and with Santorum it is running against the "Woodstock Party".

Their entire base is trained to want a culture warrior and they are demanding one. I expect they will get one (name to be determined soon), and I agree with Chait that they will likely lose badly down this path. I just don't think there was another path for them to walk. Obama, through massive youth voter registration drives, drove the anti-republican demographics over the cliff 10 years early. Republicans have been trying through various voter suppression efforts to shove this genie back into the bottle. With hard work and plenty of attention, this will fail.

Work in this campaign will involve more registration of young voters and careful efforts to comply with the various polling place restrictions recently enacted. Make sure these folks are qualified to vote first, and then get them to the polls.