This calendar year. We have one more november. We will hear from a longtime friend and supporter of this center. He will talk about his book, electing the senate and direct democracy. Should be a pretty good talk. I have been looking forward to hosting todays guest since i first saw her in action at last years policy history conference, sharing a panel with others. Some who we heard from last december. A tax historian is in the audience today. Thank you for attending. We will hear from them soon. She is an associate professor of history at washington university. Thereceived her phd from university of michigan. She will Say Something about her current book project, which builds on this book. We should have time for q a. Please raise your hand so we can pass the microphone. And pick you up on the recording. Thank you for attending. Prof. Michelmore it was surreal to come back not as a graduate an employeeas professor of history. To make that trip again. It felt amazing but also sometimes weird. Thented to sketch out political history of the federal income tax. Talk a little bit about my book. This was the scope of the book. We will talk about how and why taxes have moved to the center of american politics and thought it is animating the conservative challenge. First, a little bit about myself. My interest in taxes grew out of my interest in the welfare state. I began my career as a graduate student as a historian of the welfare state. That provided a basis. There were questions on how you pay for this. There was not enough attention to or thought about taxes. In talking about the welfare state. Came down to washington dc and i worked on the hill. My boss worked on the ways and means committee. I have some firsthand experience working with the kind of issues that i would later deal with my scholarship. I was able to translate some of this experience. Basically the stuff he did not want to deal with was the stuff i got to do. I did manage to translate some of that experience to familiarity with process into my graduate work. I was doing research at the national archives. Is ain to understand this story of american taxation. Rather than of the u. S. Welfare state. The two remain intimately connected. It was this connection that i explored in my book. For one reason or another, historians have tended to leave taxes alone. They might be afraid of numbers. We try to outsource taxes and tax history to the economists, lawyers, sometimes political scientists. There hasst 10 years, been a blossoming of historical interest. They have done a great deal to bring taxes to the forefront of this study. Taxandspend relies heavily on research. Especially Archival Research done here at the national archives. As well as the reagan president ial library. The nixon president ial materials project. I was lucky enough to be here while his stuff was still here. I didnt have to go out to yorba linda. I looked at the records of the committee on taxation. As well as the economic committee. These records helped in putting together the history of the u. S. Income tax. Play aid not always difficult role in national politics. This helped me put together a portrait of tax and welfare experts. In the two and a half decades after world war ii. It was particular imported into chapters of the book. These chapters depend heavily on the sources i found here. Memoranda prepared for the ways and means committee. Withame intimately related two men, russell long, the chairman of the Senate Finance committee. My friend but also my enemy. [laughter] he was particularly active on welfare issues. Of thea known opponent aid to families with dependent children program. He was the emperor of all tax policy. One of the main claims i make in i was remember when i was in elementary school, the teachers could never get the video to play. Channelare always like, three. ,hen you get to be a teacher you dont know how to use technology, even if you use it every day. While taxes have periodically , it wasn Important Role not until the 1960s that it came out as an important policy issue. Year revolt200 plus against taxes. But income taxes were accepted. It was not until the economic collapse of the 1970s that taxes became a political issue. It became even more heated after 1980. This offers a few thoughts on how and why taxes have become an essential feature of american policy. The american constitution allowed the federal government to gather taxes. Section nine of article one limits the National Government from imposing direct tax. Limitation presented the framers fear of political factions. Checks stemtutional directly from that regions peculiar institutions. Many held key positions in the early republic. They feared they would one day use the federal taxing powers to abolish slavery. Virginia was considering whether or not to ratify the constitution. He said, the federal government may impose a slave tax. Hefty enough to compel the Southern States to liberate the slaves. American finance depended almost state level. N the this tax affected 10 of normal households. This experiment was shortlived. Tariffs dominated National Finance in the two decades after the civil war. , we we can support for tariff based finance. Movement inpopular favor of a progressive income tax. It was first introduced by the populist party. It included a plan for a graduated income tax. Democrats soon coopted the populist agenda, including the progressive income tax. In 1894, there was a 2 income tax. This survived only one year. 1895, the Supreme Court found that tax to be unconstitutional. Ruling, ae courts progressive income tax remained a popular policy, thanks to rising concerns about rising power and a small elite. Both the gop and the Democratic Party supported some kind of National Income tax. House and Senate Approved a constitutional amendment giving congress the power to tax incomes. The 16th amendment was approved inthe state and took effect 1913. The first tax was a tariff act. 1 rate on corporate income. Only about 2 of americans were subject to this very minimal tax. The tax burden did go up in response to world war i. It only affected about 50 of americans. It did not survive the war emergency. Back the waro roll taxes. Did not depression bring the income tax to the majority of people. Although roosevelt adopted a populist rhetoric to target undesirable concentration of great wealth, new deal tax policy continue to rely heavily on consumption and payroll taxes. Liquor, whichn had the benefit of already being on the books, became effective again in 1933 and generated huge amounts of revenue for the federal government. Federal liquor taxes raised 1. 5 billion. Raised 1. 4ax only billion. The federal income tax did not move to the center of american politics until the second world war. Begunng for a war tax had as early as 1939. Pearl harbor increased pressure for more revenue. Administratione agreed to keep the personal and come tax at the center of the market. It was transformed from a class tax paid by a small minority to a mass tax that affected the middle and working classes. The number of individual taxpayers grew from 3. 9 million to 2. 6 million. It went up. Me time, americansformed many into taxpayers. We have examples of this year. The federal government explicitly tied taxpaying to wartime patriotism. Pay your taxes to beat the axis. There was an Irving Berlin song. Every time i played in class, it gets into my head for the rest of the day. In these new films, donald duck pays his taxes. They are really interesting. You can find them on youtube. They answer a lot of questions might have about donald duck. He is an actor. It does not explain why he doesnt wear pants. But it explains what his job is. He claims q. Week and when dewey, and louie as dependents. They extolled the virtues of the taxpayers. The campaign was remarkably successful in selling this. Public opinion polls indicate that americans thought their taxes were fair and taxes were helpful with the war effort. The wartime tax survived. Taxes were not universally popular. To use it tory reduce congress. They wanted to appeal to members of the emerging american middleclass. Those men who owned things or aspire to own things. They resented having to pay for programs they think benefited them. Most of the pressure for tax relief came not from ordinary groupsbut from business who mobilized quickly after the war. It is particularly clear and successful. But they failed to amend the constitution. Supporters of the tax limitation amendment said their movement was spontaneous. But the campaign was paid for by some of the nations largest corporations including standard oil, dupont. This tax limitation campaign failed. But not poboya it introduced significant changes. It was during this campaign that they succeeded in redefining american citizens as taxpayers. Can see this in talking about the war on poverty. They talk about this as a transform taxpayers. Leaders of the campaign may have failed in their quest to amend the constitution, but in the process, they had pioneered much of the antitax rhetoric that will come to dominate american politics in the 21st century. It is important to know that this rhetoric did not completely resonate with the public. They did not demand tax cuts. Voters seem to have little interest in tax policy. 1964ennedy johnson tax of was basically an inside the beltway production. The United States economy had underperformed in the 1950s. Something in the ways and means committee. They hope to use rate cuts to expand productive capacity. I want to do a kennedy accent when i read that. But i try not to. Public interest was lukewarm at best. The administration had to jet up publicsupport gin up support. They were awaiting more money in their pockets. The wall street journal lamented that it failed to materialize. According to an insider, the white house had to do more to convince people that this will be helpful to the country. These groups did little to convince the public. What changes . Particularly between 1964 and 1969 . There was a demand for tax reduction. How did tax politics move to the center of National Political agenda . How did an issue that had been the province of a relatively small group of experts become the stuff of National Campaigns . The postwar boom ended. By 1968, inflation was rising. Wages were stagnating. These trends would worsen over the next decade and a half. Changes mayic taxpayers look at the size of their tax bills. They founded new organizations to protect their rights. Inspired byearly the Movement Cultures of the 1960s. These groups were organized by veterans of the civil rights movement. Congressional reform had a Important Role to play. For years, negotiations have been done in private. Brought to the floor only under a closed rule. It did not prevent any amendments. The tax agenda had augmented the power of a small class of experts. From mostd tax policy americans. Opens thenal reform door to increased Public Participation in tax policy. Most important was the politicization of tax policy. With the collapse of the democratic coalition, hubert year, theyefeat that had a way to create a politically viable alternative. Leading democrats looked for ways to offer coherence. Tax politics held out hope for the right and left. You can see a general increase. Tax politics offered a way for the white workingclass to not abandon liberalism. There was a list of 200 tax millionaires. The treasury report helps to mobilize taxpayers. There was a surcharge that had been passed. Frustrated taxpayers flooded congress and the administration. He had only been in the white house for less than a month when all of this hit the fan. By the end of 1969, congress had approved a significant tax package. Gave democratic liberals an unexpected victory. The future, democratic strategists hoped they may provide the party with a way to win back loyalty white middle and working classes. They called the bill at or middle americans. Those men and women who are trying to make the payments on a home in raise children. For too long they had been taking it on the chin. This does not quite taxpayer anger. Scope of the the Taxpayer Movement right bringing the attention to fairness in the federal tax code. Initial group had focused on local taxes. Usually property taxes. There was new attention being given to the federal tax code. Especially the income tax. By 1971, more than 2 million taxpayers had joined local tax organizations. Protesters defied easy political categorization. Some and bought eight the popular image of the white backlash. They blamed liberal social policies. Others did not. Massachusetts,nd portions of the civil rights and Welfare Rights Movement mobilize taxpayers. They brought public attention to tax lawyers. Thee were more central to dream of liberal reconstruction. 1973, an oklahoma liberal announced plans to lead a taxpayer revolt. Reforming the tax laws and getting the rich off welfare. The group was called new populist action. They planed a national tax action day. The public presentation deliberately avoided most of the divisive cultural movement. Publicity for it featured a white, middleaged woman who worked outside the home, not out of any feminist conviction but because of her family struggles to pay the bills. She was not alone. In 1973, there was a new Organization Called the movement for economic justice. They said they must use the tax code is a grassroots organizing tool. Inequality in the tax code affected people of all backgrounds. This was a movement aimed to challenge and remove these inequalities. Veterans, together hospital employees, women, farmworkers, welfare recipients, unemployed workers, chicanos, blacks, puerto ricans. Verdict common conservative critique about welfare for the wealthy. That is what is happening here in this flyer distributed by the movement for economic justice. Have a great collection on the Racial Justice movement. This mobilized the image of the welfare queen, including the fancy car. Against theat image psion of the dodge family. They prepare tax releases. In other organizational tools that could be used to address local means. They focused on helping out local taxpayers. They set up these tax clinics. The idea behind him was to offer taxpayers real help as a way to get them interested in and invested in tax reform. They set up 125 pretax clinics. They helped people to prepare their income tax and aims to demonstrate how individual tax of aem were symptomatic unjust system. The personal is political. This was directed against corporations. It provided local groups with information. There were injustices in the current tax system. The movement for economic naders taxralph Reform Research group spent time setting up trained local teams to mobilize efficiently. High hopes and initial success, progressive efforts to channel taxpayer anger proved utile. Futile. Inflation had pushed many taxpayers into higher marginal tax brackets. This translated to an earlier call for tax reform. It was a doubleedged sword. They were less eager to close loopholes in the cold code. Even in some cases forgetting mary. Married. They have become a special feature of the tax code by the end of the 1960s. It was an active force in promoting our discouraging certain behaviors. These provisions of the code or an important part of the system. Many taxpayers benefited from this. But few found themselves the recipient of any largess. Policymakers preferred this. Not just because they were easier to get past. They fit more easily with american policymakers. They minimized direct government spending. They were far more likely to see themselves as victims of the tax code then beneficiaries of the taxandspend liberals. Successful in building but one political scientist called the welfare state. Most beneficiaries dont even know that it exists. A gop strategist developed a suasive story that raised blamed tax burdens on democratic programs. By the end of the 1970s, conservatives had successfully a turn against the national state. Here we have a couple of examples from the archives that might be of interest to you. Meeting with president nixon. Here they are talking about that. To be seen ast advocating any kind of a tax increase. He was particularly forward in politicizing tax politics. Particularly in developing a political rhetoric that pitted taxpayers against tax eateries, namely welfare recipients. They had become a despised and racialized group. Thepolitics of taxation in early 1970s takes on a racial dynamic. It is reinforced this way. This is animated conservative politics for decades. I did not go looking for this. I didnt know that it existed. But a member of my department was retiring. He had generations of students give him things. Thatwas one of the things one of his students i given him. He found this game while he was cleaning out his office. It translated wage alienation and frustration of the silent majority into a board game. The role of the game was pretty simple. Players moved along one of two tracks. This reflected the game creators belief that the federal government hurt hardworking taxpayers. The rules made it almost impossible for a working person to win. This is basically what you would imagine. You can go to a track. You can have illegitimate children. You get money. Every time you have illegitimate children. Game restsre of the on a zerosum competition. The rules make clear that tax burdens were caused by bad behavior of welfare recipients and their government enablers. Each player had to pay 50 out of their pocket. , if you end up with money, it is taxed away at 40 . It is basically impossible to win if you get stuck on the working persons track. Here are some examples of the kinds of situations that might come up. You are up for a highpaying promotion but affirmative action rules disadvantage you. Lose 500. Welfare benefit, congratulations, you are a very young grandparent. Collect 100. These are not extreme examples. This game was not really an outlier. It represented the congressional wisdom between taxing and the overstate. Welfare state. In, withhere my book the reagan revolution. His election in 1980. That in the epilogue i talk about a stalemate. My next project grows out of parts of this. Questions i was not able to bring up in the scope of the book. The title of the book goes to my experience on the hill. I was a lowlevel staffer. I answered a lot of calls. Any time they call for anything, it doesnt matter what it was. They could be groups of theyessives sen. Bennet theiralways preface demands with, as a taxpayer and a citizen. It is a way of praising your relationship to the state. What is it about american politics in the American Experience that makes that taxpayer identity so salient . It is something not unique to the u. S. For the last four decades. Where does this come from . That is kind of what im looking at in my next book. Toni morrison has recently argued that this kind of taxpayers citizenship is a very cramped. In touires you to buy have some skin in the game. She was quoted in a recent thisview lamenting transformation of american citizenship into an identity that is solely associated with taxpayers. I think there is something to be said for that. We look at the ways this identity has been unique to pushed back against a cramped definition. Which marginalized groups are able to claim their taxpayer identity and order to push open american citizenship. Will focus on how various groups like women, africanamericans, property owners, immigrants, antiaggression activists, the poor, gay men and women have used their identities as taxpayers to affect changes. This is almost always associated with the political right. Historically, progressive as well as conservatives have been able to mobilize using this language. Understandingy to 20thcentury American History. My first book was focused largely on policymakers. Cluedew project welding will include grassroots mobilization. And look at political and legal defenses of taxpayers. The first piece of this new is currently under review at the journal of womens history. Becomes a big political issue in the 1970s. How family and taxes align to play a critical role. I would be happy to answer any questions about the. That. I will stop there. Thank you very much for your attention. Her coming out today. Questions. Any turns out these are illegal. He had to have these mylar ones made. Can get everything you want on sc etsy. I would love to take any questions that you have. I appreciate your attention. [applause] it would be great to know who everybody is so i know who im talking to. That was a fantastic talk. Thank. I work with the Senate Historical office. I have a couple of questions. That statistic you gave about world war ii. How the number dramatically increased. What is the percentage there . You gave a number of 42 million. What was the percentage of working americans . You might have better numbers than me. 60 percent of americans owed some kind of federal tax in 1945. Between theon states. Still had notions of filling out the form. Defining the relationship with state and citizen. This is a critical moment. Filling out this form and sending it to the government. That, the income tax feels like a tax in ways that social taxes dont always. They increase tax consciousness. A lot of people were paying taxes on that. After 1945, they think more of that. Quick one . One more this image of the welfare queen, i love this redefining of somebody who is wealthy and benefiting from these kinds of breaks. It is interesting that gender component of it. Why is it always a woman . Is that anything you unpack in the book or plan to look at further . Prof. Michelmore it is one of the things i dont feel like i get to a lot in the book. These are gendered. She wasnt dependent on the right thing. You are not supposed to be dependent on the government. What you have here is a transformation of that meaning. You have this group that is coming out of the civil rights background. Mobilizing that same image against white women. There is a lot there to unpack. I remember you when you were a researcher. [laughter] we have a number of researchers who contact us. They request documents to prove that wherever they live is not part of United States of america. So they dont have to pay taxes. I think it is less that they dont want to pay the tax that they hate the government. And of trying to show that they are not subject to the government. Orthis something fairly new has it always been part of the tax protests . Prof. Michelmore that has always been part of it. We argued that this comes out of the early republic. Ofticularly out of fears this. Agendanaged to wrap this up in the language of freedom. That issomething perfected in the earliest years of the republic. ,f you look at other examples there is a great new book. Resistance. X they use the same kind of language. Good to know. I am from the National History center and american historical association. You said that during world war , income tax went from being a ass phenomenon to a m phenomenon. Philanthropy did as well. A lot of this was wrapped up with the war effort. I wonder if you have any sense of the connection between philanthropy having helped turn ordinary americans into people who were helping to Fund Government priorities. I do not know. E that is a really good question. It is not something i have encountered. Something i have gotten into in the literature on world war ii and the creation of a max tax system mastec system. Mass tax muchiscal citizenship so but a social responsibility. About it. Ow anything but it is interesting. I am with the joint committee on taxation. I worked in International Taxation. Your book is the progressive tax movement. If we come to today and look at moree, there seems to be of a Civil Society movement. It doesnt seem to be as big. I wonder if youve looked comparatively. Prof. Michelmore in terms of making this argument between ,axation and citizenship comparing the ways in which the United States taxes families are married couples. And the ways in which other countries do. I think there has been a turn in International Taxation at anns family taxation. And toward individual taxation. To encourage women to go back into the workforce. That is different than in the u. S. Certainly there is an International Component that can help make sense of all of this. Is this something peculiarly american . Perhaps it leads to the post 1970 experience. Think we have time for one more question. He is just a man to segue into this topic. I am an independent scholar. Happened in the 1960s, another thing might also be that republicans under eisenhower were told not cut taxes because that will use the deficit. 1980s is the laffer curve. Americans believe cutting the taxes will balance the budget. Prof. Michelmore the rationale is that wee tax cuts need to grow the economy. They make this argument that cutting taxes now will increase federal revenue. It is not exactly supplyside. These are demandside cats. Cuts. A Huge Investment tax cut comes in 1962. Argument tong that look at the records from 1978 and 1979 when jack kemp is cutting pushing a tax cut. It a continuation of the kennedy tax cut. I am just doing what the other jack did. The brings it up into 1970s. One of the things that happens meanscal conservatives something different. You actually look at the debates, it is the republicans that saying you cannot do this because we cannot afford it. We would love to cut taxes but look at all that stuff you want us to pay for. We cannot cut taxes now. The introduction of supplyside economics. Politicians figured out a way around that potential rhetorical obstacle. I do talk about that in the book. The book is here. We have a few copies. Our book acquisition person in the bookshop was not able to be here today but he got them directly at a discounted rate. And then he made another discount. This is a highly discounted book. Extraordinary, eyeopening. You really should read it. This anomaly of how americans hate taxes but they love all the things taxes give us. For all the reasons you layout in here. This is a wonderful book and this was a wonderful presentation. Prof. Michelmore thank you so much. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2019] this is American History tv. Each weekend we feature 48 hours of programs exploring our nations past. Nature]of every saturday at 8 00 eastern, go inside a Different College classroom. Here about a variety of topics. Thanks for your patience and for walking into class. With most College Classes close, watch professors transition to a virtual setting. Gorbachev did most of the work to change the soviet unit. Reagan met him halfway. Reagan encouraged him and supported him. I should mention that madison originally called it the freedom of the use of the press. Nows not a freedom role we refer to as institutionally as the press. Lectures in history, every saturday 8 00 eastern, on American History tv. Find it where you listen to podcasts. Weeks away from election day, november 3, where control of congress and who occupies the white house next year. Stay with cspan. Watch debates and some of the hotly contested house and senate races. On 2020 coverage every day cspan, cspan. Org, or listen on the cspan radio at. Your place for an unfiltered view of politics. You are looking at a timelapse video recorded by the library of congress showing the process of constructing the exhibition, jacob riis revealing how the other half lives. Next on American History tvs american artifacts, we visit the exhibit in the librarys Thomas Jefferson building to learn about the life of the danish born journalist, social reformer, and photographer. This program is just under an hour. Cheryl i am cheryl regan. I am an exhibit director in the interpretative Programs Office at the library of congress. Barbara i am barbara bair. I am the curator of this exhibit, and i am
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.