JFK On The Issues

Over the last few days talking heads have been trying to repackage John Fitzgerald Kennedy's legacy as if his were more closely aligned with today's conservatives rather then today's Democrats. Nice try, no cigar!

Big talking points by Bill O'Reilly's and Rush Limbaugh are on how JFK favored lowering taxes. Bill & Rush have a penchant for taking a snippet here and there without explaining the circumstances and details surrounding them. Possibly they both feel their audiences are to simplistic, might become bored and easily confused by details. Perhaps they are right!

Cut Taxes. Raise Revenue. How?


While it is true taxes were eventually lowered by 26% it helps to put this in perspective. The top marginal rate was 91%. First we have to understand what the 'marginal rate' means. It is the highest rate taxed above a certain income threshold. It isn't the rate paid on a person's entire income. We use graduated taxes. Income for an individual is divided into sections each varying rates. In other words no one ever had 91% of their income taken for taxes.

That said, let's look at the circumstances surrounding JFK's desire to lower the top 'median 'income' to 65%. In 1962 JFK proposed lowering the rate in his State of The Union Address, but congress didn't get around to actually approving them until 1964, three months after his assassination. Which leads one to ask what led him to want to reduce income taxes in the first place?

In 1961 the United States was in a recession. In short, the economy sucked for the middle class when he came into office in January 1961. Kennedy feared he'd be running into large deficits without offsetting his tax reductions. By closing a few loopholes he could counteract some of the lost revenue. Unlike today's republican controlled house which has blocked Obama's tax reform efforts.

Now let's draw some parallels between Barrack Obama and Kennedy. Both came into office facing huge economic challenges. Both wanted to reduce taxes. Both wanted to close tax loopholes that would lessen the impact on deficit spending in order to stimulate the economy. How would that make Obama more liberal and somehow Kennedy less so?

Bill O'Reilly's & Rush's flawed logic is based on lowering the top rates once again just like Reagan, Kennedy and Bush did. What Bill, Rush and other mouthpieces overlook is the current top median rate (combined with surcharges) for 2013 is 43.4%. This is about half of what it was under Kennedy and Reagan. They also overlook the fact that when George W. Bush lowered taxes below 39.6% (w/o closing loopholes) federal government went from surplus to deficit spending. Why would we want to repeat that?

As you can see Obama has a lot more in common with Kennedy then Kennedy would have with conservatives when it comes to this issue on taxes. Kennedy in no way could be considered to be conservative either then or now, no matter how hard conservatives pundits try and make it out to be so. Rather his positions would be in direct opposition to what conservatism stands for today. While Kennedy was in Congress he voted for...* July 17, 1956- Making Social Security benefits available to women at 62, instead of age 65. Passed 86-7 with 2 Democrats and 5 Republicans voting against.

* Raising Social Security benefits by 10% in 1958 Rejected without enough Republican support 32-53 (D 26-20; R 6-33)

June 20, 1958-- Increase taxes on large corporations Reducing those for small ones. It was rejected along party lines 34-45 (D 22-19; R 12-26)

* January 12, 1959-- Limiting the time for debate in the Senate. Rejected 28-67 (D 20-43; R 8-24)

* In 1959 Kennedy introduced the Democratic minimum wage bill in the Senate, backed by the AFL-CIO, which would raise the wage from $1 to $1.25 an hour and extend coverage. It was passed in the Senate on August 18, 1960 with a vote 62-34 (D 47-16, R 15-18)His voting record, when he was in congress, makes his liberal values quite clear. Note that back in those days Republicans went along with many of those pieces of legislation. Today's batch of conservatives have little in common with those. They would most surely vote against what their predecessors once supported. All the more reason for Rush nor Bill to try and draw parallels.

A couple of other things that sets Kennedy apart from today's conservatives.. * In the 1960 elections Kennedy won 70% of the black vote as opposed to Nixon who received only 30%

* Kennedy supported but failed to get Medicare enacted even though Democrats controlled both sides of congress. It wasn't until 1965 when Democrats controlled the 89th congress by over a margin of 2 to 1 under Lyndon Johnson (Members in Senate D67-R33, Members in House D289-R136) Medicare became law.

SUMMARIZINGThere is ample evidence to suggest today's conservatives would dislike just about everything Kennedy was in support of. It simply amazes me how select the memory of these talking heads are when it comes to re-writing history. Even the suggestion Kennedy would have more in common with today's conservative ideas over that in common with Obama's is just flat out propaganda. This is so preposterous I'm astonished they're even trying to shovel this BS that somehow today's Democrats have become far left loons over yesterday's.

This clearly demonstrates why learning from TV is different from library study. In the library 'fiction' is clearly marked. Although it does make for a strong case as to why antagonists are in favor of cutting funding for PBS.

For this and more information visit JFK Library.org

See also:
ABC panel laughs at Bill Kristol for claiming
JFK would be ‘more comfortable’ as a Republican today