FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Fool Me Twice? Americans Reject Trump’s Tax Cuts

Photo by Timothy Krause | CC by 2.0

The old idiom, “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me,” has important implications for democracy. It speaks to the incalculable value of political learning for holding political leadership accountable. If citizens cannot learn from their mistakes, especially in cases when they are manipulated by official propaganda, then there’s little hope for a meaningful democracy in which citizens play an informed, direct role in shaping the political process.

Thankfully, much has changed from 2001 to 2017 in terms of growing public willingness to challenge official misinformation. This is especially the case regarding tax reform. In the early 2000s, much of the public was susceptible to the Bush administration’s manipulation as related to tax cuts. Both waves of tax cuts passed by Republicans in 2001 and 2003 were popular among the mass public, with most Americans failing to recognize just how much they favored the wealthy. But this is no longer the case, with a mass mutiny against Trump’s tax plan emerging over the last month.

Make no mistake about it, the Trump tax cuts are the most extreme example of class warfare in modern times to have a chance of Congressional approval. These are the Bush tax cuts on steroids. The Economic Policy Institute estimates the top 1 percent of income earners took home 38 percent of all the Bush tax cuts, while two-thirds of all the Bush cuts went to the top 20 percent of income earners. In contrast, 53 percent of the Trump tax cuts would go to the top 1 percent of earners in 2018, and that number would grow radically by 2027, with 80 percent of the cuts going to the top 1 percent. One estimate suggests the Trump tax cuts could add more than $2 trillion to the national debt, with the benefit to working Americans in after-tax gains being negligible. And as the Tax Policy Center reports, the top .01 percent of income earners would see their incomes grow after taxes by 10 percent a year from 2018 to 2027, while the top 1 percent would see a growth of 8 percent a year. But the rest of the top 10 percent of would see just 2 percent growth, and all other income groups would see just 1 percent growth a year.

Trillions in lost revenues is a high price to pay for a country with $20 trillion in national debt. And the cost is even harder to bare considering the meager gains of the Trump tax cuts for most Americans. This tax plan doesn’t even provide significant benefits for the top 10 or 20 percent of income earners, as the Bush cuts did. Trump’s plan privileges the wealthy-within-the-wealthy – the decadent rich. It’s a straight raiding of the public coffers, a swindling of the mass public, which will enrich the super-wealthy at the expense of the masses. It’s part of a larger right-wing agenda designed to bankrupt the federal government – a “starve the beast” approach that seeks to force massive cuts to social welfare programs by eviscerating the taxpayer revenues needed to sustain government spending.

What makes the Trump tax cuts unusual, however, is the dramatic difference in the public’s reaction to the proposal compared to its reaction to the Bush tax cuts. Various polls from early-to-mid 2001 found that between 55 percent to 61 percent of Americans supported Bush’s proposed tax plan for cutting income, estate, and other national taxes, while 51 percent supported Bush’s 2003 tax plan for cuts in capital gains and dividends, compared to 38 percent who were opposed. Many Americans embraced the cuts, because the administration promised the mass public would benefit significantly, and because tax law is notoriously complicated, making it difficult to understand the details of tax cut proposals.

My previous research on the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts finds that, not only was media coverage of these cuts heavily biased in favor of Republican officials and their claims, but media attention to reporting also produced growing support for the cuts. Corporate media outlets played an active role in promoting upper-class and business interests seeking tax cuts for their own benefit, and at the expense of the bottom 80 percent of income-earners. But we appear to be in a rapidly changing political environment in the era of Trump, with fewer Americans falling into pro-business propaganda in defense of tax cuts for the uber-rich.

On the one hand, news coverage of tax cuts hasn’t changed all that much in the last 20 years. In 2001 and 2003 coverage heavily favored sourcing Republican leaders, including the President and Congressional Republican leadership.  And this has continued recently. A search of the Lexis-Nexis database finds that the number of stories on tax cuts from September 26th – when the New York Times reported that Trump was preparing to propose a tax reform plan, through late October (Oct. 24th) – heavily favored Republicans. The paper included 91 stories during that time referencing tax reform and Republican leaders or the Republican Party. In comparison, the paper printed just 51 stories mentioning tax reform and the Democratic Party or its leaders. This means 40 more stories, or 78 percent greater coverage for Republicans over Democrats.

On the other hand, despite the privileging of Republican sources, Americans are rejecting the long-standing conservative claim that tax cuts for the wealthy and businesses produce a rising economic tide that lifts all boats. An October 2017 CNN poll reveals that just 34 percent of Americans favor Trump’s tax cuts, compared to 52 percent who oppose them, and 14 percent who are unsure. Only 24 percent agree the cuts will make families “better off if they are passed and signed into law.” And just 31 percent believe the cuts will improve the national economy. A second October CBS poll finds that 58 percent of Americans believe the Trump tax reform favors the wealthy, with just 19 percent believing it “treats everyone equally” and only 18 percent saying “it favors the middle-class.”

These findings are encouraging because they suggest that, despite past public gullibility in supporting tax cuts for the wealthy, Americans are learning to think more critically. Mass distrust of the Trump presidency is likely a strong factor in motivating public opposition, with 60 percent of Americans disapproving of Trump as of late-October. Trump is so crassly bigoted, and his politics so blatantly biased in favor of the ultra-rich, that he is struggling to sell any policy reform. A tax reform bill rewritten by Republicans to less blatantly favor the rich might have better luck winning more support from the mass public, at least if it is done so that middle and upper-middle income individuals have a chance of receiving a more substantive benefit.

But subtle manipulation has never been Trump’s strong suite. While the Bush administration was committed to representing the upper-middle class and upper-class, Trump is devoted almost exclusively to enriching the top .01 to 1 percent. So there is little reason for Americans to support these tax cuts considering the negative impact they will have on the country.

We should ask why there is such urgency for yet another round of tax cuts. The U.S. taxes its citizens the least of all wealthy countries, when measuring taxation as a percentage of GDP, so claims that Americans are being soaked in taxes are simply wrong. Furthermore, recent tax cuts for the wealthy have failed to provide much of a benefit to the public or the people. The Bush tax cuts were associated with the weakest economic recovery from a recession in the post-World War II historical period from the 1940s through the 2000s. They also produced a large growth in inequality, since incomes among the top 20 percent of income earners went up at a time (1999-2011) when the median U.S. income declined by nearly 10 percent. Most Americans recognize that the Trump tax cuts, like the Bush tax cuts, are unlikely to help them in any meaningful way. But it is unclear whether public opposition will be strong enough to prevent Republicans from passing a tax bill. One thing’s for certain, however: mass public opposition to policies favoring the rich is a good place to start in the fight to rollback plutocratic control of American politics.

 

More articles by:

Anthony DiMaggio is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Lehigh University. He holds a PhD in political communication, and is the author of the newly released: The Politics of Persuasion: Economic Policy and Media Bias in the Modern Era (Paperback, 2018), and Selling War, Selling Hope: Presidential Rhetoric, the News Media, and U.S. Foreign Policy After 9/11 (Paperback: 2016). He can be reached at: anthonydimaggio612@gmail.com

Weekend Edition
January 18, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Melvin Goodman
Star Wars Revisited: One More Nightmare From Trump
John Davis
“Weather Terrorism:” a National Emergency
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Sometimes an Establishment Hack is Just What You Need
Joshua Frank
Montana Public Schools Block Pro-LGBTQ Websites
Louisa Willcox
Sky Bears, Earth Bears: Finding and Losing True North
Robert Fisk
Bernie Sanders, Israel and the Middle East
Robert Fantina
Pompeo, the U.S. and Iran
David Rosen
The Biden Band-Aid: Will Democrats Contain the Insurgency?
Nick Pemberton
Human Trafficking Should Be Illegal
Steve Early - Suzanne Gordon
Did Donald Get The Memo? Trump’s VA Secretary Denounces ‘Veteran as Victim’ Stereotyping
Andrew Levine
The Tulsi Gabbard Factor
John W. Whitehead
The Danger Within: Border Patrol is Turning America into a Constitution-Free Zone
Dana E. Abizaid
Kafka’s Grave: a Pilgrimage in Prague
Rebecca Lee
Punishment Through Humiliation: Justice For Sexual Assault Survivors
Dahr Jamail
A Planet in Crisis: The Heat’s On Us
John Feffer
Trump Punts on Syria: The Forever War is Far From Over
Dave Lindorff
Shut Down the War Machine!
Glenn Sacks
LA Teachers’ Strike: Student Voices of the Los Angeles Education Revolt  
Mark Ashwill
The Metamorphosis of International Students Into Honorary US Nationalists: a View from Viet Nam
Ramzy Baroud
The Moral Travesty of Israel Seeking Arab, Iranian Money for its Alleged Nakba
Ron Jacobs
Allen Ginsberg Takes a Trip
Jake Johnston
Haiti by the Numbers
Binoy Kampmark
No-Confidence Survivor: Theresa May and Brexit
Victor Grossman
Red Flowers for Rosa and Karl
Cesar Chelala
President Donald Trump’s “Magical Realism”
Christopher Brauchli
An Education in Fraud
Paul Bentley
The Death Penalty for Canada’s Foreign Policy?
David Swanson
Top 10 Reasons Not to Love NATO
Louis Proyect
Breaking the Left’s Gay Taboo
Kani Xulam
A Saudi Teen and Freedom’s Shining Moment
Ralph Nader
Bar Barr or Regret this Dictatorial Attorney General
Jessicah Pierre
A Dream Deferred: MLK’s Dream of Economic Justice is Far From Reality
Edward J. Martin
Glossip v. Gross, the Eighth Amendment and the Torture Court of the United States
Chuck Collins
Shutdown Expands the Ranks of the “Underwater Nation”
Paul Edwards
War Whores
Peter Crowley
Outsourcing Still Affects Us: This and AI Worker Displacement Need Not be Inevitable
Alycee Lane
Trump’s Federal Government Shutdown and Unpaid Dishwashers
Martha Rosenberg
New Questions About Ritual Slaughter as Belgium Bans the Practice
Nicky Reid
Panarchy as Full Spectrum Intersectionality
Jill Richardson
Hollywood’s Fat Shaming is Getting Old
Nyla Ali Khan
A Woman’s Wide Sphere of Influence Within Folklore and Social Practices
Richard Klin
Dial Israel: Amos Oz, 1939-2018
David Rovics
Of Triggers and Bullets
David Yearsley
Bass on Top: the Genius of Paul Chambers
Elliot Sperber
Eddie Spaghetti’s Alphabet
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail