Lady de Rothschild, Working Class Hero

by publius

McCain is sending the big guns to PA:

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a top fundraiser for Clinton's campaign, will spend several days speaking to Democrats on McCain's behalf.

"I think Pennsylvania could be a big surprise to the conventional thought in the Democratic Party," Rothschild said. "Pennsylvania is a conservative Democratic state, and John McCain can win it.

Yep, I can't think of a better way to woo working-class PA Democrats than by sending in a Rothschild known as "Lady."

Comments

[aimai]

These people are simply delusional. And they don't seem to know it.

aimai

[Sarah J]

But she's white, right? And female? That's clearly all that matters.

[Lee]

Even Geraldine Ferraro (finally) relented.

I wonder how happy Lady de Hoity-Toity is that she is backing the l-o-s-e-r-s?

[grumpy realist]

There's an article by Lady de Rothschild over at Huffingtonpost complaining about how Obama will raise tax rates and "destroy the American Dream." Along the way, she gets in her complaints about FDR and how taxation of the rich is Evil. Evil evil evil.

The rest of the Rothschild clan must be cringing every time she opens her mouth. Reasons for the French Revolution, m'dear?

[Incertus]

But she thinks Obama is elitist...

[croatoan]

Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild and Thurston Howell John Sidney McCain III are calling someone else elitist.

[stefan]

No, she set up FDR as a paragon of what a Democrat should be: "During our last devastating global economic crisis, Franklin Roosevelt protected this country from the statist dictatorships that were emerging in the rest of the world. He protected capitalism by creating programs and institutions to protect innocent people but did not raise taxes and did not remove incentives for private wealth creation."

What sort of forgets large aspects of the 1930s and WWII. There is interesting history here though, with one of the biggest tax increases in US history coming in 1932 under Hoover, with bipartisan support which included FDR as governor of NY. FDR raised the estate and corporate income tax after that, as well as introducing payroll taxes for Social Security, but only got to increasing income taxes in the run up to WWII. So Rothchild is taking a historical fact, no income tax increases under FDR during the New Deal, out of context.

[cleek]

So Rothchild is taking a historical fact...out of context.

context has a liberal bias

[byrningman]

There's actually several worrying polls out from PA, there's a new one from Rasmussen today putting it at 4 or 5% I think.

[MeDrewNotYou]

byrningman- http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/pennsylvania-sanity-check.html>I wouldn't sweat it.

Of course we shouldn't be complacent, but it isn't as bad as it looks.

[byrningman]

Oh I know, but still, I would hate to lose PA and then maybe have to sweat it out on NV perhaps. I'm in London at the moment, and I have to get up early the next day. I really hope PA, VA and NC come in early for Obama so I can get a decent night's sleep!

[publius]

4 to 5 is pretty big at this point, 3 days out

[russell]

So Rothchild is taking a historical fact, no income tax increases under FDR during the New Deal, out of context.

Kind of a nit, but the top marginal rate jumped from 63% to 79% in 1936.

That rate only applied to income above $5M, in 1936 dollars, so not many folks were in that bracket. But, the bracket was created.

During WWII the top rate jumped again to 88%, and then to 94%, and, more significantly, was levied against income over $200K. So the jump in the rate was not that dramatic, but it applied to a *much* broader population.

So, if the Rothschild quote is correct, I have no idea what she is talking about. FDR did take a strong stand against fascism, but he also raised taxes quite a bit. Income taxes, anyway.

I wonder how happy Lady de Hoity-Toity is that she is backing the l-o-s-e-r-s?

It ain't over 'til it's over. If you have some free time this weekend, knock on doors or work the phones.

Thanks -

[russell]

byrningman- I wouldn't sweat it.

The 538 guy says this:

Suppose that Barack Obama were to concede Pennsylvania's electoral votes. Literally, concede them. Throw 'em back, like a Chase Utley home run at a Cubs' game. How often would he still win the election?

...89.0% of the time

PA is not a lock, and 89% is not 100%. I'll be on the phones tomorrow.

Seriously, it ain't over until it's over. If you have any energy and time to put into this, please do so.

My apologies to McCain supporters, or Obama non-supporters, don't mean to be talking like it's all Obama-land here, just wanted to take the opportunity to keep the heat on.

Thanks -

[stefan]

I'd also like to add that FDR spent a good part of the New Deal fighting income tax loopholes and income tax avoidance, before raising rates further after 1938. This lead to some of the some of the foundational rulings in US tax law, for instance Helvering v. Gregory (1935) which established the economic substance test for tax shelters. Exactly what one would expect after the 1932 increase in income taxes, with the top rate moving from 25% to 63%. After that one needs to shore up tax
administration, or further income tax increases, which did eventually come under FDR to finance WWII, are not going to
produce revenue.

There's also the 1936 increase in the top income tax rate from 63% to 77% for incomes over $1,000,000.

So no, Rothschild has no idea what she's talking about (or worse).

[MeDrewNotYou]

Russell- I totally agree, no complacency. I'm about to do a couple hours of door knocking. In Indi-freakin'-ana! I'm still in shock that we're in play, the first time since LBJ in '64.

So, what Russell said, especially if you're in one of the closer states. Not to be cheesy, but as Obama said, its in our hands now.

[KCinDC]

Increasing the rate from 88% to 94% is dramatic, because it means people are keeping only 6% of their income in that range, half of the 12% they were keeping before.

[stefan]

Russel, yes, the top rate did move in 1936, which I left out initially since there were not that many returns with more than $1,000,000 in 1936. But the Rothschilds are probably in that category.

The full tax tables are at http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/federalindividualratehistory-20080107.pdf

I also suggest anybody who wants to see real data look at Emmanuel Saez's webpage:
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/

[KCinDC]

So, if the Rothschild quote is correct, I have no idea what she is talking about.

As part of the McCain campaign, she doesn't need to concern herself with facts. Just make things up and keep spouting whatever lies are part of the current chaotic mass of messages, regardless of how often they've been debunked.

[stefan]

One final remark: one reason besides the recession that so few people have more than $1,000,000 in income in 1936: the very wealthy are for the most part owners of corporations and their main economic income are retained corporate earnings that are taxed, for the moment, at the top corporate tax rate. That top corporate tax rate is 13.75-19% after 1931, going up to 40% at the end of WWII. So during the New Deal these high income tax rates function pretty much as consumption taxes, with corporate owners able to elect to keep their money in the business and pay a much lower corporate income tax rate.

Corporate tax rates are here:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02corate.pdf