Not Really a Supply-Sider

When ABC moderator Charlie Gibson -- mirabile freakin' dictu -- confronts Senator Obama with the news that lowering the capital gains rate increased revenues in the Clinton and Bush administrations, Senator Obama says "Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness."

This comes via Don Luskin, who adds:

In other words, even if it costs the US Treasury money in lost revenues, Obama would raise the capgains tax to punish people who make too much money, or make it the wrong way. Obama claimed in the same debate, "how we're going to be able to deliver on middle-class tax relief is to change how business is done in Washington." How does reducing revenue in the name of Obama's personal notion of "fairness" achieve middle-class tax relief? And how is using the tax-code to reward and punish particular constituencies changing how business is done in Washington?

UPDATE: The WSJ Ed Page piles on:

Time and again, the rookie Senator has said he would not raise taxes on middle-class earners, whom he describes as people with annual income lower than between $200,000 and $250,000. On Wednesday night, he repeated the vow. "I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes," said the Senator, "I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes."

But Mr. Obama has also said he's open to raising – indeed, nearly doubling to 28% – the current top capital gains tax rate of 15%, which would in fact be a tax hike on some 100 million Americans who own stock, including millions of people who fit Mr. Obama's definition of middle class.

Mr. Gibson dared to point out this inconsistency, which regularly goes unmentioned in Mr. Obama's fawning press coverage. But Mr. Gibson also probed a little deeper, asking the candidate why he wants to increase the capital gains tax when history shows that a higher rate brings in less revenue.

The whole piece is great.

Dem2008 Primary Posted by jk at April 17, 2008 6:01 PM