One of the things that has become apparent during the presidential campaign and now, during the negotiations over how to avoid the “fiscal cliff,” is the importance the president places on raising the rates on the top 2 percent of income earners. I’ve written before on why I believe conservatives shouldn’t make a “no new taxes” pledge and why keeping the top rate at 35 percent (which I support) isn’t a matter of high principle.
At the same time, Speaker John Boehner and House Republicans–who after all have been willing to put $800 billion in revenues (through closing loopholes and deductions) on the table–have been far more open to compromise than President Obama, who has not given an inch. In particular, the president has made it clear that he would gladly go over the fiscal cliff rather than give up on his obsession to raise tax rates on the top 2 percent.
For Obama, the top two percent are the Great White Whale–and he is Captain Ahab.
The question is why. Captain Ahab’s neurotic obsession was understandable (Moby Dick, after all, had destroyed his boat and bit off his leg). So what explains Mr. Obama’s obsession?
It can’t be what he claims, which is improving the economy or reducing the deficit. As Charles Krauthammer pointed out, “the alleged curative effect on debt of Obama’s tax-rate demand — the full rate hike on the ‘rich’ would have reduced the 2012 deficit from $1.10 trillion to $1.02 trillion. That’s a joke, a rounding error.”
So if what is driving Obama isn’t an economic argument, what else might it be? Part of it is, as Krauthammer argues, political. Mr. Obama believes forcing Republicans to agree to raise tax rates on the top bracket will fracture the party. But there may be something else at play as well. Barack Obama is a man of the left, a proud progressive, and what animates the left today isn’t a positive vision to achieve the common good; it’s a seething resentment toward those who are successful and a commitment to make them pay more in the name of “fairness.”
To understand the president’s worldview, it’s worth recalling some of the most revealing statements he’s made over the last four years. The first is his response to Charles Gibson during a 2008 debate with Hillary Clinton, when Obama said he would favor raising capital-gains taxes in the name of fairness–even if doing so would create a net revenue loss. The second was Obama’s comments to Joe Wurzelbacher, also made in 2008, that “when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” And the third took place in 2012 when the president said, “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
Mr. Obama’s aim when it comes to taxes, then, isn’t, as he and other liberals often argue, simply to raise revenues. Rather, it is to advance their understanding of “fairness,” which they take to be synonymous with justice, both taken to mean that the top earners in America, at every given moment in time, aren’t sacrificing enough in the form of higher taxes. They should always pay more.
If there were no political or institutional checks on Obama, I’m quick sure he’d tax the top 2 percent at a much higher rate than he’s arguing for now (39.6 percent). But just like he was willing to jettison his commitment to the single-payer system (which in the past he has admitted he prefers) in order to pass the Affordable Care Act, Mr. Obama is a patient ideologue. He is willing to take what he can get now in order to continue his transformational project for America. Part of that transformational project is going after “the rich.” It has become, for him, something of an obsession.
The president may win this particular battle. But if he does, his compulsion won’t end. For ideologues, for the Captain Ahabs of the world, it never really does.
Ahab dies in the end. Sounds like you are again predicting Obama's failure. (You spent all of last year predicting Obama would lose and his presidency was sunk). You have not even admitted you were dead wrong last time, and now you are again in the prediction business. Obama has a way of winning that seems to confound you.
Just out of curiosity, to those who gave me minuses and thumbs down, was it because (a) they disagree that Peter Wehner was a bad predictor of the election, (b) they disagree that comparing Obama to Ahab is tantamount to another prediction by Wehner that Obama will fail, (c) don't like that I'm still picking on Peter Wehner for not fessing up that he messed up or (d) don't like that I said Obama has a way of winning the Wehner does not seem to get. I sincerely am just curious since a minus does not tell you why the person did not like the post, and yet my very next post (which is a lot more provactive I think) got a lot of plusses!
And aside from your bad predictive skills, I think you have got Obama wrong. He does not really care about "fairness" or "justice". That is far too kind. That makes him a misguided soul, who really wants the best for everyone but just has a warped perception of what that means. I submit he is driven by a variety of ancient cardinal sins: lust for power, pride, deceit and vanity. He is far more than a simple ideologue. He wants to control everything and be thought of as a Messiah/King.
You got that right!
There is even less evidence for your interpretation of Obama than what Mr. Wehner used in his fairly grotesque extrapolation. Why do you guys feel the need to crawl inside the President's head? You could just as well apply the same silliness to almost any other politician and, at least sometimes, groundlessly. nI think, though, that the argument for increasing the top marginal tax rate is a simple one. When the country is in trouble, those most able to help out financially should be first in line to do so, not poor people or middle class people. What's wrong with that? How else do you think we paid for World War II in the decades that followed it, when the top rate was well over 70% until 1981, not a mere increase from 35% to 39%? nI think the obsessed one, the Ahab of this age, is really Grover Norquist whose white whale is the federal government itself. Remember he once was quoted as wanting to make it small enough so that he could drown it in the bathtub. The lunacy of insisting that tax rates can never go up, only down regardless of need is breathtaking and I predict that his movement will eventually sink as did the Pequod and Ahab himself. nThe telling point, though, of Mr. Wehner's understanding of the world is his use, or abuse, of the "you didn't build that" quote. He has miscast it just the way the Republicans did during the campaign and it was clear the American people (at least a majority of them) didn't buy it. You and I paid for those bridges and roads and airports, not the entrepreneur. He "didn't build that". We paid for the much of workers' educations and the security that keeps them and the business owner, safe. That's all Obama was saying. You get what you pay for in this case. It doesn't diminish the entrepreneur's achievement, but certainly a little humility and acknowledgment (along with no more complaining about taxes than necessary) goes a long way. n
You are right that Obama is motivated by a quest for fairness, as he sees it, but I see no evidence of his "seething resentment."
he married it
Melville also wrote "Bartleby the Scrivener", which should be taught in every 10th grade American History class. n nI'll stop by Woodlawn Cemetery, The Bronx, the cemetery created by the Robber Barons. Jay Gould's mausoleum is a miniature of The Parthenon, and notably does not have his name on the exterior. n nMelville's tombstone is modest, and always has a collection of small stones on it, next to it. n nWelcome back, Mr. Wehner. Wish I could give you another perspective other than to ponder why Obama is equally obsessed with extending the payroll tax 'holiday', which directly starves the direct revenue stream for Social Security, what happens to the "Buffet/Bain" rates. n nbtw, who is leading the Democratic Party these days? n n
Peter Wehner, in evoking Moby Dick as Obama’s target, reaches for a deep and terrifying metaphor.
For what was the pursuit of that huge, ferocious and mighty mammal? It was the hunt of a white monster. That crew of red, yellow, and black, a large South Sea Islander wielding his harpoon alongside Malays and fire worshipers, were all, in the end, driven, not really in a quest of costly oil or the whale’s flesh, but a craving for its doom, which as it turned out meant also the doom of the ship. Great God, where is the ship? is the tale’s last cry. The audacious ship sinks, with Ishmael the sole survivor.
Rush Limbaugh listeners came to Mr. Wehner's insightful conclusion four years ago. Thanks for spreading the word Mr. Wehner.
What exactly does Romney do but clip coupons to "earn" his $13 million in perpetuity annual income? That he then contributes so significantly to charity is a testament to his character but the income itself is a testament to the labors of the managerial class that oversees his wealth and the pigs-is-pigs tendency of wealth to reproduce if not pissed away. Sure, listen to those talk radio programs and hear very very very rich blowhards seething with envy over the life of Riley lived by the "takers" and the dependent. Poor dears.
<DIV>Hubris is an acceptable liberal interpretation of MD. I don't agree. It would take a book to explain why, so I wrote Hunting Captain Ahab. Thanks for the interesting note though.</DIV><DIV></DIV><DIV></DIV><DIV style=”MARGIN: 5px 0px; BORDER-TOP: #bcbcbc 1px solid”></DIV>