The XX Factor: Slate women blog about politics, etc...

Goodbye, Joe, We Hardly Knew Ye

I take back what I said about his bright future even as a Fox News star.

Joe is a faux plumber! (Quel horreur!) And a tax scofflaw!  And something about Obama just happens to remind him of Sammy Davis Jr.!  And-- if true, this next thing is weirder than weird—Joe may be related by marriage to Charles Keating, star of the S &L scandal that almost ended McCain's Senate career!  And—his name's not even Joe!

By now I am starting to feel kind of sorry for Joe. Faux Joe. Samuel. Whatever his name is. He registered as a Republican last spring. By now, he's probably having second thoughts about how great it is to be championed by John McCain before a viewing audience of 38 million U.S. households.

Eat the Rich!

I'm still not worried about Joe the Plumber. For one thing, the guy's now the most famous plumber in America, and I'd say he's got a future as a Fox News star.

But for another, Emily, he's fine either way: If he buys this company and it doesn't make enough to push his personal income over $250,000, then he gets no Obama tax increase, and depending on his income level, he very likely gets one of those Obama tax cuts. Lucky fella. And if his company's profits do push him over $250,000 (I can't find the link, but I believe that in an interview he says they probably would), then his marginal tax rate would go up a tad under Obama's plan, but he's still making far, far more than most of his fellow Americans—and keeping most of it, too.

So what's the problem here for Joe? He'd rather not have his marginal tax rate increase. OK, I get that. But no one—certainly not Obama—is suggesting he didn't work hard to get his money, or that he's not "entitled to keep most of it." We're talking about a small increase in the marginal tax rate for Americans in the top fifth percentile of incomes, not about nationalizing Joe's plumbing business. (Much as I'd like free government-provided plumbing ...)

I guess I just don't see why Obama's comment about wanting to "spread the wealth around" strikes fear into anyone's heart. That's what the progressive income tax is supposed to do—and no one really questions the core concept, just the details (What should the highest marginal tax rate be? What should the income threshold be? etc.). Right now, given the stunning levels of income inequality in this country, both parties agree that we need to spread the weath around a bit. The question is just what mechanism will most effectively do the trick. Is it improving education while cutting taxes for all, as McCain proposes?Or is it tax cuts for the lower 95 percent and marginal tax rate increases for the wealthiest 5 percent, including, hypothetically, Joe the Plumber—if he hits the big time?

John's Race Card Question

Evidence today of the persistent nature of the significance of race in the campaign: The percentage of young people who say they're unwilling to vote for a black candidate is 22 percent, according to one poll, and not dropping. Get it together, 18- to 29-year-olds! But Obama's comment is still problematic. He raised race not in terms of voters' attitudes, but in terms of Bush and McCain's—when, John as you say, they haven't given him call to. I suppose the Obama camp could argue that McCain's supporters are doing it for him. But the ellision seems like a bad idea. For one thing, if McCain is going to be accused of race-baiting whether he actually does it or not, doesn't that give him less incentive to muzzle the 527s that might do this? And for another, we expect Obama to be America's leading sensitive spokesman on racial politics. If he's careless about who he tags as a bigot, that gives the rest of us license to be.