Obama and Gingrich spew a cheap populism

• Reprints

Updated: February 28, 2012 8:15AM

President Barack Obama attacks successful wealthy Americans — Think Mitt Romney — and Wall Street. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich abuses “elites” in the media, Washington and New York, and private equity capitalists, specifically naming Romney. A president running for re-election and a leading contender for the Republican presidential nomination are resorting to the politics of class resentment. This can’t portend good things for our country.

Obama and Gingrich are two sides of the same coin, politicians driven by their own ambitions to fan the flames of ugly, divisive populist politics. Obama, who in 2008 talked of ending the cynical politics of the past, and Gingrich, who likes to boast about working with Democratic President Bill Clinton, are campaigning on the theme of two Americas.

For Obama, it’s the “middle class” vs. the “shrinking number of people who do really well.” For Gingrich, it’s “looting” capitalists against an America of the Tea Party, whose values and economic interests are ignored by the media and East Coast “elites.”

Obama is better at putting a softer edge on his anger while Gingrich makes no effort to soften his wrath. Both are plumbing the depths of the well of resentful populism always present in American politics but especially potent in times of stress. They are doing it for the same reason: They can’t run on their records.

Yes, Obama assumed office with a troubled economy, but his policies have only prolonged the misery. His populist call for tax “fairness” through a special millionaires tax would be only another discouraging levy on investment, exactly the opposite of what’s needed in a recession.

Obama argues that tax rates for the rich are too low. Figuring taxes and making comparisons is a daunting task, given that the tax code runs 70,000 pages. Billionaire Warren Buffett says he pays a lower tax rate, 17.4 percent, than his secretary. A Forbes.com columnist examined IRS tables and concluded she would have to earn more than $200,000 to have a higher tax rate, a point some may try to dispute. Still, the New York Times published a table showing the median taxpayer paid an income tax rate of 2.3 per­cent, which rises to 7.4 percent if payroll taxes are added. It’s worth noting that the top 10 percent of earners pay 70 percent of income taxes with an average tax rate of 18 percent, according to the Tax Foundation. Nearly half of all tax filers pay no income tax.

Gingrich has his own problems in portraying himself as an effective leader and a Reagan conservative. All sorts of prominent Republicans who served under Gingrich in the House issued a collective cry of woe about the chaos of Gingrich’s undisciplined, erratic leadership. One Reagan administration official, former State Department assistant secretary Elliot Abrams, took to the conservative journal National Review to recall how Gingrich “often spewed insulting rhetoric at Reagan . . . and his policies to defeat” Soviet communism.

In stark contrast to the descent into ugly populism by Obama in the State of the Union message and Gingrich on the campaign trail was the response to the president’s speech by Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels. Recognizing the critical need to restore the economy and preserve the social safety net, Daniels advocated a reasonable program of tax and entitlement reform. It’s a bold agenda, but also one that has won plaudits from very liberal and very conservative members of Congress. And it was written by Obama’s deficit reduction panel.

If only Romney could find a way to channel Daniels’ reasoned, consensus-building ideas to counter the divisive, spurious populism of Obama and Gingrich.