Barack Obama has swapped pomp and pageantry for rolled-up shirt-sleeves as he seeks to depict Mitt Romney as an elitist multi-millionaire over taxes, says Mark McKinnon.
Barack Obama has released his returns back to 2000
Gone are the majestic Greek columns and all the pomp and pageantry of the 2008 presidential campaign that heralded history: the coming of an ascendant American leader and the moment "when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal".
Now 2012, the rise in US unemployment has not slowed, the partisan divide in the nation has not healed, and you are likely to see President Barack Obama descending from a bus to have a beer – an all-American brew, of course – with his blue-plaid shirt sleeves rolled up.
It's all about image. Obama, obviously, is now a man of the people.
At least that is the image being carefully tended by Team Obama on the campaign trail as an intended contrast to Mitt Romney, his wealthy challenger for the Oval Office.
It's also all about messaging. The class-divide narrative continues with the president's call again last week for a tax increase on individuals earning $200,000 a year and couples earning $250,000.
The so-called "Bush tax cuts," enacted by his predecessor George W Bush in 2001 and 2003 to spur economic growth, and renewed by Congress in 2010 at President Obama's request, lowered tax rates for all income levels. But they are set to expire again at the end of this year.
In 2009, Obama said allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire and raising taxes in a recession "would just suck up – take more demand out of the economy, and put business further in a hole".
But less than four months away from the election, the president is now asking Congress to continue for a year the reduced tax rates on middle- and lower-income families, but allow taxes on the top two percent to increase.
In terms of tax reform, it's a bit like swatting a gnat on a sinking ship. And in terms of raising revenue, it won't put a dent in the deficit.
But sparking an argument about "tax fairness" may be a smart campaign ploy for the Obama campaign in three ways.
Win or lose in the legislative process, a rhetorical battle in the public over taxes provides an opportunity for him to define Romney, a multi-millionaire with a Swiss bank account, as out of touch with the middle class, a critical voting bloc in November.
It also helps frame the election as a choice between two candidates rather than a referendum on the president's first-term record, which includes 41 months of unemployment above 8 per cent, $4 trillion added to the deficit, and reportedly more than 13,000 new pages of regulations yet to come from his signature healthcare legislation.
With Obama's still high personal popularity, a "choice" election is to the incumbent president's advantage.
Finally, it sets up another attack on Romney on the issue of his personal taxes. Though there is no law requiring a candidate or even US president to publish his tax returns, it has been a custom since the 1970s. Obama has released his returns back to 2000. So far Romney has only released his 2010 returns (over 500 pages of personal, foundation and trust returns can be found on his website) and his estimated 2011 returns.
He has filed for an extension on his final 2011 tax returns, not atypical for a taxpayer with complicated affairs like his.
In television interviews on Friday evening, Mr Romney made clear that he would be releasing no further tax records. "People always want to get more," he said. "Those are the two years people are going to have, and that's all that's necessary for people to understand something about my finances."
Critics are quick to remind him that his father, George Romney, released 12 years of returns during his failed quest for the White House back in 1968. And the Obama campaign pounces, demanding to know: what is Romney hiding?
But Romney can also find some advantage in the tax debate as he explains the cost of the tax increase in terms of jobs – a top concern for voters.
The extra tax on every dollar of household income above $250,000 would have an impact not only on millionaires like Obama and Romney, but also on tens of thousands of small businesses – which create the majority of new employment.
"We just saw a terrible jobs report last week," said Romney, "and now to add a higher tax on job creators and on small business is about the worst thing I could imagine to do if you want to create jobs."
Raising taxes is always a hard message sell. Promising to raise them on the other guy is easier. But President Obama doesn't actually need to win the tax debate. He just needs to use it to win a few more votes from the middle class.
No comments:
Post a Comment