I tuned in to last night' Politico interview of Barack Obama just in time to see him give a final answer on taxes. The hosts were pressing him on whether he was a tax cutter or a tax raiser, and he, in true Obama fashion, rejected those labels, and said the question, to him, was whether we were raising taxes on those at the top or those at the bottom. Fair enough, but that's still weak ground to stand on. I want a Democrat willing to say that the question is, "what are we paying for? And what do we need to pay for?" The tendency to speak of taxes as an unpleasant surcharge exacted for the government and spent on...well...who knows, is poisonous. Within that mindset, folks probably prefer if you take the cash from the rich and not from them. But if Obama is going to be the transformational, Reagan-style pol he presents himself as, he's going to have to grow comfortable speaking positively of the role of government, and selling some of his initiatives as good ideas worth paying for. It's worth it to have effective responses to natural disasters, worth it to have a modern national infrastructure, worth it to have national health care, worth it to have more than one safety inspector examining Chinese goods, worth it to invest in medical and scientific research, worth it to enact universal pre-kindergarten. Indeed, many of these priorities are not only worth the cost, but they're actually good investments. They're a damn good deal. And Democrats need to grow comfortable making that case. The Republicans have succeeded in moving the tax debate onto grounds of "who pays," and "how much." Democrats need to remember to ask, "what for," and "what if we don't?"
