This is politics 101. Don’t piss on the guy who bats clean-up for your team. Mike could vote against the compromise for all I care. However, long after the tax-compromise issue is history, this dumb quote will be used by the GOP, Fox News, Boston Herald, Rush Limbaugh, etc… to bash a Democratic President who still has two years left to govern as someone who is weak and cannot even unite his own party.
There are other problems caused by this. A certain Democratic Senate Candidate might want him to come to Massachusetts and stump in the Fall of 2012. That would take some serious fence mending at this point.
I met Mike for the first time here in North Adams during his whistle-stop Senate campaign. I liked what I heard. He was being promoted by local politicians I respect and he was obviously a very smart guy. Or so I thought.
Mike was the default to be “my guy” in the Senate race of 2012 to unseat Ex-Nude-Model Scott Brown. (R-Cosmo).
Now, due to what is a stupid political flub that gives ammunition to the GOP, he may….. or may not be.
Courtesy of Jim Braude –
<
p>
… I rest my case.
When the guy who’s supposed to be batting cleanup is incapable of reaching the Mendoza Line, he doesn’t get respect. Shifting metaphors, the honeymoon is long over for Obama; he hasn’t been much use in any area of the marriage, and a lot of us are thinking about divorce.
What did Obama forget, then?
If so, he used his previous policy victories to point out that he strongly disagrees with those who would scuttle the deal because it did not get everything that they wanted. He did not say that he might not support their re-election bids.
<
p>In political speak, there is a HUGE difference.
<
p>However, if you are referring to the fact that Obama compromised at all, rather than throwing his weight 100% behind the Democratic tax plan, I would say that Harry Reid sure-as-hell wasn’t going to get anything done. If there was going to be any kind of Unemployment Extension Reauthorization or a bill to prevent taxes from going up on everybody, Obama was the ONLY person who could have made a deal given the stupid Senate 60 vote rule.
<
p>While I am personally not thrilled with the compromise (I would have preferred that Harry Reid had kicked ass and taken names – like Pelosi) I would say that it is still a step in the right direction.
<
p>What I see happening right now on “the left” is summed well in this post over at John Cole’s place.
I give Mike Capuano a high five for speaking the truth and having the guts to step forward and stand for his principles, mine and many others.
<
p>This quote of yours if very telling:
<
p>
<
p>Obama is the one dispensing amunition. If Obama loses in 2012 it’s no-ones fault but his own. There is nothing more nauseating than listening to Democrats kiss up to a President or any elected official who has failed on so many levels.
<
p>If there is a primary against Obama, I’ll be supporting the opponent as well and will be very happy to watch Mike Capuano support that opponent, if he chooses. At least he has guts, which I will say the lack thereof on the part of so many Democrats is enough to make me want to walk away from the party and never call myself a Democrat again.
<
p>I’ll take strength and guts over weak and conciliatory any damn day. And so will most of America.
Then again, it might serve the bigger cause if we stuck to policy debates rather than attacking fellow Democrats.
<
p>Frankly there is currently no nationally known Democrat who can pull a Ted Kennedy circa 1980’s primary. It will be much more like a John Ashbrook. (If you don’t know who that is, my point is made.)
Many Massachusetts voters, and BMGers too for that matter, are independents.
There are almost no true independents left today, in Massachusetts or elsewhere. They may be registered independents, but that is little more than a formality. Are there really many BMG’ers who would ever vote for Republicans? I doubt it.
<
p>And for good reason — political polarization and sorting means that if we want advances in progressive policy, we have to stick together with the Democrats. That means pressing them to advocate for better policy, to be sure. But it also means that gratuitously attacking the Democrats rather than the Republicans, as Capuano does here, is completely counter-productive.
we are talking about supporting a Democrat running against an incumbent. The idea alone sends some in the party into
fists up anxiety attack. It’s when the Democrats don’t support the true progressive in the race, and instead support the incumbent no matter what, that causes us to lose the fight for our progressive values.
… wins a major party nomination.
<
p>Then we’ll talk.
Was arguably the independent candidate in his first run for Governor. Tom Reilly was the candidate of the establishment party machine, as I recall. One might even say that Barack Obama was an independent candidate relative to Hillary Clinton.
otherwise we get leaders who exist in a bubble and continually work against the best interest of the common American. Like Obama.
<
p>As for “no nationally known Democrat,” I beg to differ. Furthermore, that’s why we have primaries, which can serve to make relatively unknown candidates widely known in short order. Anyone who stands against Obama in a primary is going to be getting hundreds of millions worth of free press the moment they declare their nomination.
<
p>Finally, as Obama proved when he hoodwinked this country into voting for him, sometimes the less known a candidate is nationally, the better the shot they have of winning, because the better they can control the narrative of the campaign.
… than attacking.
<
p>Nobody hoodwinked anybody.
<
p>There are lots of things to be critical about. That is true, and I do not hold back my criticism of things like weak bank reform, underfunded stimulus, no public option, etc… Go after the issues.
<
p>But to start campaigning against Obama and calling him a disgrace, etc… from the left, in 2010, is only going to make things worse.
<
p>I am frankly quite stunned that people seem to be willing to go “left wing tea party” at this point in the cycle.
<
p>The perfect is the enemy of the good.
The one constant between all of those things is a President saying one thing very strongly in advance of negotiations and then acting very differently and easily backing down on those positions when push comes to shove. Again, it’s the person and his actions that are a bigger problem than the policy.
<
p>I don’t think he’s a disgrace, I think he’s been a big disappointment and I want him to change. His attitude about many of his supporters and now former supporters, however, isn’t very encouraging at this point.
<
p>Can you explain to me why he bashed the left yesterday? What could that possibly accomplish?
Because he thinks the left has no place to go, and he’s not worried, or not particularly worried, about a primary challenge.
problems in 2012. When Democrats, and particularly the President, can’t hang tough on Clinton-era tax policy, honestly, what on earth do they stand for? Obama’s digging his own political grave. Capuano’s comments will mean absolutely nothing in the long run.
Say that to the disappointed tens of millions of people who voted for Obama. He’s toxic to the base now, toxic. They very people who put him into office, he’s made his #1 target while in office — greater than that of Republicans.
<
p>He’s broken fundamental promises with the American people, including this latest one, but even the low-hanging-fruit stuff, like closing Guantanamo Bay. Far from ensuring our civil liberties, as promised, he’s only expanded the attack on them. He’s even worse than Bush in that department. The guy is a liar, toxic to the Democratic Party and a danger to this country — given his policies that risk Social Security and his position on crushing our due process.
<
p>Telling someone to “go after the issues” is rather useless when its the man who continues to capitulate. Either he serves us, or in 2012 we take him down. It doesn’t work the other way around.
Don’t forget him!
<
p>Though Ashbrook was closer to the base and was a more apt analogy.
by fellow “Democrat” Obama.
Nothing more than that. I am not impressed, it is in character – but neither am I appalled.
I’ll be supporting Barack.
That’s not offensive. Is this a progressive term?
For a long time, any disagreement with Pres. Obama was due to racism – it was impossible to disagree with him for any other reason, like policy or strategy or substance.
<
p>Nope. Any complaints were race based, plain and simple, and should be exposed as such.
<
p>Now that progressives are equally unhappy, the racial defense is automatic – ergo, any Caucasian who runs against Obama claiming policy is, perforce, a honky.
and he wants his old school perjorative back.
That’s not offensive. Is this a progressive term?
What Capuano needs to realize is that his electoral fortunes (assuming he runs for Senate…his House seat is ultra-safe) almost certainly have more to do with Obama’s popularity than anything he does. Whether he likes it or not, he has to be a team player. That doesn’t mean he must fall in line with every policy — voting against this tax deal might help him in the Democratic primary — but he can’t be trying to start internecine warfare either.
<
p>This is the lesson the Blue Dogs didn’t understand, to their detriment. Bashing Obama did little to help their cause. The last thing we need is progressives engaging in the same self-destructive behavior.
Capuano is too self-important and intemperate to move up. Today’s comments come just weeks after he compared Pelosi to a Red Sox manager who hadn’t won a single game. We better hope we can come up with someone else to run against Senator Centerfold, as I see no prospect for Capuano to be successful beyond his current district.
you can’t stand Capuano. Maybe we can run your candidate again — Coakley was so great that she certainly deserves another shot.
Excellent riposte.
<
p>Then again, Coakley handily defeated Capuano, so although on-target in its acidity, the comment is actually a bit of an own-goal: Capuano might have done even worse against Brown.
at least would have campaigned. Remember who was too good to shake hands in the cold.
Capuano would have campaigned. That would have been enough.
the zeroes are really classy. I guess the truth hurts.
I haven’t given any 0’s.
not stupid. I know they come from the same address.
Do you work for Cappy?
Just a constituent that likes him quite a bit and is willing to defend him here against Bean’s consistently negative comments about him.
<
p>There are a lot of politicians I don’t like very much, but I don’t spend my time on BMG denigrating them either.
Then you apparently have plenty of time for denigration.
telling it like it is. I’m not the one who has written diaries to specifically attack Coakley. You and LynPB have written several attacking Capuano.
<
p>Obama was popular enough when Coakley got smoked. The thing is, Capuano’s statement will do nothing to hurt Obama’s popularity. Obama’s credibility as a politician has all to do with himself. If Obama’s unpopular in Massachusetts in 2012, candidates will be better off running against him as part of the establishment. If Obama’s really that unpopular, and he’s seen as the anti-Obama guy, he gets to run his campaign against Obama in addition to whatever other opponent exists… which also takes away that opponent’s ability to paint him as an Obamabot.
<
p>I’m pretty much on record as thinking that Capuano isn’t our best bet going into 2012 on this site… but this statement has nothing to do with making him less electable. And if Obama’s unpopular in 2012, it may make him much more electable.
<
p>This is certainly not how it worked all across the country this past election. Blue Dogs who bashed the President lost, even though they couldn’t logically be painted as “Obamabots.” Why? Because they were Democrats, and Democrats and the Democrats’ leader, Obama, were unpopular in those districts.
<
p>If Obama is unpopular, that means Democrats are unpopular. And if Democrats are unpopular, than they will lose regardless of how much they try and separate themselves from the Democratic/Obama label. And if Democrats lose, then you can kiss any possibility of progressive policies goodbye.
<
p>That’s why it’s in the best interest of Capuano and other Democratic candidates across the political spectrum to work as a team and to prop up Obama’s popularity. Maybe that’s not fair, and maybe it’s distasteful for some, but that’s how it works. Like I said, Capuano just doesn’t get it, and that doesn’t bode well for his Senatorial run.
I guess there may be some who expressed disagreements, but what about Blanche Lincoln? Obama helped her win a primary against a popular local challenger with state-wide name-recognition. Lincoln appeared to be in primary trouble until Obama recorded some radio ads to be aired on stations popular with African Americans.
<
p>I assume she linked herself with the Obama in the general too.
<
p>If Blue Dogs bashed the Prez when Progressives did not, it is ironic that Obama saves his scoldings for Progressives.
abandoned the team a while ago. Forcing a lot of really tough votes in the House, then not pushing Reid and the Senate Dems to actually pass things (like cap & trade). I think our entire delegation has been more than team players throughout the first two years of Obama’s term. But this is (or should be) a core issue for Dems — extending tax cuts that are fiscally reckless and do little or nothing to create jobs and stimulate the economy.
<
p>To me, it looks more and more like Obama is going to go the Clinton route of 1996-1998 — capitulate on major issues (then: welfare reform, now: tax cuts) and leave Congressional Dems hanging out to dry by cutting deals with the of the GOP leadership.
<
p>Might be a nice strategy for winning a second term, but certainly isn’t being a team player. By the way, a lot of good that Obama visit did for our last Senate candidate…
Who benefit more from Obama’s realism and willingness to deal for extended benefits than they would from intransigence.
Willingness to deal? He gave away the store and is forcing Congressional Dems to vote on this clunker. The WH should be a bully pulpit. The only thing coming out of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave since the election has been capitulation and “compromise” (i.e. giving the R’s exactly what they want).
…”the store.”
What’s the #1 issue for the GOP — taxes. Obama just gave them a huge win before the new Congress was even sworn in. At least wait until they’re actually running the House.
Billions of dollars added to the deficit.
… and the middle class tax cuts add to the deficit. Eliminating the $250K+ tax break would not have made a big dent in the budget shortfall. Not even close. It will take lots of long term revenue and spending changes to bring things back into line.
<
p>Those who think that the deficit is an immediate problem rather than an issue to be dealt with when the economy begins to pick up steam do not understand basic macro economics.
The right wing has been attacking Social Security for at least a decade. The most effective defense to date has been that some combination of removing the wage ceiling and extending the retirement age by a year or two solves the problem.
<
p>Just as solving the “soft on crime” and “welfare queen” problems neutralized the right wing during the Clinton era, removing the wage ceiling and extending the retirement age neutralized the “social security” problem.
<
p>The payroll tax cut just destroyed that defense. Two years from now, as we head in the teeth of the Social Security problem, these payroll tax cuts will expire. That means that the entire energy of the right wing anti-tax machine will come to bear on the payroll tax.
<
p>President Obama just destroyed Social Security.
“there is no such thing as a temporary tax.”
<
p>Look for the tax cut on FICA to become perpetually “temporary” and same as the wealthy tax cut.
The NYT identified the tax breaks for the wealthy plus the estate tax deal as being worth $120B. Not chump change, but much smaller than the amounts to be devoted in the deal to benefits for the middle class, working class and the unemployed.
what is going to change in two years that will change the hostage-taking of the American people that the GOP has going on now? At the very least, we need to decouple the tax cuts from the rich. If Obama managed to do that, I would have supported it.
…did the above comment warrant a recommendation to delete?
Since my above comment I’ve read the rest of this thread and noticed more of her comments attracting very low ratings. There’s a philosophical disagreement here and I can see points on both sides, but that’s not what zeroes and threes are for, fours maybe, but even then it would be nice if the downraters explained themselves.
it was probably an error
The zeros came from the same person twice or thrice.
You conveniently forget to mention the fact that this particular slice of 2% controls something like 40% or more of the nation’s wealth.
<
p>http://www.businessinsider.com…
<
p>The bottom 50% of this country owns 2.5% of its wealth. The top 1% owns 1/3 of it. And growing.
<
p>Fuck. That. Shit.
<
p>So, your dismissing of this issue because of the smallness of the size of the population is really just a straw man. This is an incredibly large amount of money that we’re talking about — so large that, long term, if we don’t get rid of this tax cut for the rich, we’re going to have to start dismantling our nation’s social safety nets and entitlement programs. No thanks.
<
p>Let’s also not forget that these “tax cuts” make the income equality gap get much bigger. If you’re making even $100,000 a year, you’re only getting a tax cut of a couple thousand dollars. If you’re making over a million, you’re getting tax cuts of tens and tens of thousands of dollars.
<
p>And this “compromise” includes a HUGE giveaway in the estate tax — making it so the first $5 million in assets aren’t taxes, and then the highest estate tax is 35%. That’s not even something that Bush had in his last year in office. If there’s anything that increases income inequality, it’s not having a good and strong estate tax. The estate tax is this nation’s only legitimate defense against a new-age aristocracy.
The solution your post implies is a better one. Yes. I agree.
<
p>But, that is NOT the point I am making.
This is not a better/perfect dilemma. This is a disaster/maybe-we-can-live with it choice.
<
p>This approach does the following:
<
p>1. Destroys Social Security
2. Destroys the estate tax
3. Legitimizes the obscene GOP sabotage of core American principles
<
p>Bill Clinton modeled a far more effective response to this kind of GOP hostage-taking — and won mightily, both economically and politically, in the process.
<
p>Hillary Clinton is looking like the best 2012 Democratic candidate to this loyal Democrat.
Tomorrow’s unemployed are going to be that way in part because of the decisions made today, which as others have pointed out are very bad for the economy. Taking out a payday loan to pay your credit card is the correct analogy: it might make sense for a few days, but is not a good long-term strategy.
Is that the biggest issue right now is the weakness of the economy and slow growth – the deficit is a longer term problem which will drive higher interest rates and other problems if not addressed, but shouldn’t be the immediate focus. I’m not hearing economists say that the right thing to do right now is allow tax rates to rise, cut off unemployment benefits, and end stimulative policies in order to reduce the deficit. They’re almost universally saying to wait to do that until the recovery is stronger.
Krugman, Paul. “Let’s Not Make a Deal.”
<
p>But he’s only ever been right on just about everything, so he’s not one of the Very Serious People.
that the advice he gave them was wrong? Do you know what that advice was?
In early 1999, Krugman served on an advisory panel (including Larry Lindsey and Robert Zoellick) that offered Enron executives briefings on economic and political issues. He resigned from the panel in the fall of 1999 to comply with New York Times rules regarding conflicts of interest, when he accepted the Times’s offer to become an op-ed columnist.[110] Krugman later stated that he was paid $37,500 (not $50,000 as often reported – his early resignation cost him part of his fee), and that, for consulting that required him to spend four days in Houston, the fee was “rather low compared with my usual rates”, which were around $20,000 for a one-hour speech.[110] He also stated that the advisory panel “had no function that I was aware of”, and that he later interpreted his role as being “just another brick in the wall” Enron used to build an image.[111]”
<
p>How you and some others on this blog treat this guy as some sort of oracle is beyond me. No economist has ever been right all of the time.
You do not know what advice he gave them. Your quote only serves to divorce him from any culpability whatever in Enron’s misdeeds.
from any possible culpability. The point is that we do not know one way or the other. Your logic is ass-backwards. Anythng with a “no” has to be a “yes” in your world apparently. I will repeat what I said above: Krugman is not an oracle.
You were apparently claiming that because Krugman took money for advising Enron, that he was fallible. I was pointing out two things:
<
p>1. You don’t know what advice Krugman gave Enron. It could have been completely accurate and useful advice, so his having given it to them is no reflection on his sagacity as an economist.
<
p>2. The quote you used goes a long way toward supporting the idea that Enron did not follow whatever advice Krugman offered, which would let him off the hook for whatever they did.
<
p>It looks like you’re trying to prove guilt by association, but this isn’t rocket surgery, and you aren’t fooling anyone.
cautious before accepting every word which he pens for the Times as some sort of economic dogma. Liberals have been down this road before with Galbaith.
but the fact of the matter is he’s been right about most things that Obama and his peeps have been wrong about. And had they followed Krugman’s advice on these certain things, this country would be in a much better place today, and the Democratic Party would have had a much better turnout in November.
Either you think Krugman is wrong, or you don’t. Don’t try to assassinate his character.
When I read his columns sometimes I agree, other times not. He is not always correct in his analyses in my opinion, especially in regard to money printing and job creation. Rye, not even Harry S. Truman was “right on just about everything.” 🙂
He’s been remarkably correct on a number of things, which is a miracle these days.
<
p>But what I really admire most about Krugman is his academic ethic: he deals in articulated arguments; his assumptions are clear; his evidence articulated; his assertions qualified. As an intellectual, his work is elegant. You can beg to differ because he’s honest, not just about what he thinks, but how he thinks.
<
p>Krugman has written about his evolution as a public intellectual, from his blind faith in Alan Greenspan to his commentary on the Iraq War. He admits to being wrong on Greenspan. In her book Econned, Yves Smith points out that he was wrong about the spike in gas and oil prices a few years ago. Krugman mistakenly argued that it wasn’t due to speculation.
<
p>As far as Enron goes, so what? What matters is his thinking. Greenspan was sleeping with the enemy, but that’s not what made him wrong about the Bush tax cuts.
Thriving economy?
<
p>Vibrant middle class?
<
p>Our nation is at peace?
<
p>Enough expedient deals.
I think this is a terrible deal and not worth passing. You win by being tough: GRILL them and they’ll fold. If we continue along this path, we’ll continue to capitulate until there’s nothing left to capitulate with. And then we all lose.
.. healthcare, etc…
<
p>How soon we forget.
and maybe talk to some people outside of MA/NE. A lot of rust belt House Dems were getting the s**t kicked out of them on cap & trade — and Reid and the Senate Dems never even voted on the package. Again, the WH is a bully pulpit — use it.
… but to suggest that GOP gains in states outside of NE were due to issues like Cap and Trade is severely misguided.
<
p>I won’t go into all the factors that caused the “shellacking,” and certainly Obama played a huge role, but to completely discount things like the economy and historical mid-term trends is amazingly near-sighted.
Cap and trade hurt quite a bit. This was coming from people who were actually On the ground in those states, so I tend to trust their judgement.
is still my guy. God love him – he gets his constituency, which by and large, are working class and middle class folks. Extending the tax cuts for the rich means that our kids are going to pay through the nose – usually via increased taxes or watered-down services and entitlements. And I don’t agree that the President is batting clean-up for his team, not if the mid-term elections are any indication.
<
p>We elected Mike to represent us in Congress. We did not elect him to be President Obama’s water boy. I’m glad he knows his own mind and isn’t afraid to speak up. BTW, I noticed that Jim McGovern isn’t exactly tickled pink with the so-called compromise, giveaway, or whatever else you want to call it. http://www.telegram.com/articl…
<
p>And exactly right, I would not want the President with me either if I was negotiating on a car. In order to win, you have to be able to walk away from a deal. The GOP knew that.
<
p>
Is that McGovern concentrates his rhetoric on the Republicans, not fellow Democrats. For example, from the story you linked:
<
p>
<
p>McGovern’s a guy who gets how it works. Capuano, on the other hand, I’m increasingly perplexed about.
So, if Capuano is wrong to criticize the President, is the President right to condescend to the left like he did yesterday? Obama has not been one to hold back on the left-wing during his Presidency (even if he doesn’t name names).
<
p>If people like Capuano aren’t willing to criticize the President and push him to do better, where does that leave us? We’ll continue to trade away major positions to get little in return. And we’ll be conceding these things before we even get to the negotiating table.
Don’t criticize the candidate.
<
p>Again, there is a HUGE difference and it only weakens all Democrats when the top of the ticket is having to defend himself from his own party.
<
p>Remember that Teddy Kennedy gave us Ronald Reagan.
It’s about how the President works. It’s not possible to just criticize the policy when how the President operates is main reason we end up with that policy.
<
p>Maybe the top of the ticket should try to work at winning back his party?
<
p>If a President sucks, how do you make him change? Just shut up when he does a bad job? I don’t understand how that can ever be productive.
.. then don’t vote for him.
<
p>However, I doubt you will like your options.
That’s why I criticize him. I think he has great potential but is squandering it because of bad advice (Rahm, Summers, Geithner, others) and some bad approaches to negotiation (compromising with himself before even starting with the other side).
<
p>Applauding everything he does is bad for him and bad for us.
<
p>If he does not change, I will not vote for him. If voting like that costs elections, I am ok with it. Gore didn’t lose because of Nader, Gore lost because he sucked.
why aren’t you criticizing Obama for criticizing our brave, hard-working Democrats in the progressive caucus?
… rather than the candidate – is my answer.
<
p>Obama is not the perfect liberal. Yes, I get that. He should catch some flak from all directions.
<
p>However, when you have both direction trying to unseat you, it is a guaranteed win for the right.
<
p>If you are 100% unhappy now, you obviously have forgotten what life is like with Republican President and a Republican Congress.
<
p>There will be no deals. You will not get 50%, 25% or even 10% of what you want.
Life under Bush was surprisingly a great deal like life under Obama. http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/s…
<
p>Remember, Obama is trying to extend the #1 policy goal of the Bush administration.
Late 2009, we were hearing about how an enthusiasm gap was developing between Republican and Democratic voters.
<
p>As 2010 progressed, polls got worse. Healthcare reform, which should have been a winning issue became, as with Coakley, a losing issue.
<
p>Mid-term elections are base elections. Democrats lost the House and lost control of the Senate.
<
p>So it’s clear that the Obama political team has simply stopped caring what their base think. They’re happy to tell the base what the base should think and how the base should react, but they’ve otherwise treated nurturing the base as, at best, optional and more often detrimental.
<
p>I say it’s about time that elected Democrats start communicating what the rest of us are thinking to the White House.
<
p>Obama’s political team needs to break out of its bubble.
<
p>And soon.
<
p>If Rep. Capuano can help Obama out of his ’embubbled’ state, all the more power to him.
It’s become a device to shield Obama from the left, not help Democrats win. From what I’ve heard, OFA didn’t even get involved in a lot of congressional races.
<
p>I very, very much miss Howard Dean as DNC Chair.
I would love to be wrong. Ever since I learned about Obama’s association with the Hamilton Project as a new US senator, his anti-progressive behavior makes sense.
<
p>For a post about the Hamilton Project, see http://my.firedoglake.com/ffla…
<
p>I smelled a rat when the public option was scrubbed from OFA messaging by May 2009.
To make a deal, you have to offer something the other side wants. The only thing the Republicans want is these tax cuts for the wealthy. They don’t care about the unemployed, stimulus for the economy, tax cuts for the middle class, or voting on anything else during the lame duck session. Gridlock and continued economic weakness play into their messaging and strategy to retake power. Obama deserves more credit for this deal than he’s getting from the left. The NYT this morning identified $120B of this deal funding tax breaks for the wealthy and estate taxes, $360B funding the middle class tax cuts Obama campaigned on, and the rest – I think $450B – funding extension of unemployment and tax breaks from the stimulus bill. He got a lot in dollar value in exchange for that two-year extension of tax breaks for the wealthy.
He also got a 1-year payroll tax cut that will end (along with much of its stimulative effects) right in time for the beginning of the 2012 election cycle. Not smart. And an estate tax deal that will make for an awesome “death tax” discussion during the election. Plus, he gets to have the a narrative of being the guy who will raise taxes once reelected. The politics of the deal are a disaster, I think.
<
p>The substance isn’t much better. It’s like the original stimulus – just enough to keep us from falling further, but not nearly enough to help us in any meaningful way. And poorer families will see their taxes go UP under this plan.
<
p>But the most important issue is how he negotiated. Not extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans has supposedly been a core policy view of his (along with many Democrats) and he goes and gives that away two weeks before he even enters the room for negotiating. And he’s done similar things with health care reform and other bills. There was no fight, so when (if) he is reelected, how is he going to be able to not make these cuts permanent?
<
p>And then, he bashes the left the day after they make the deal. I don’t think he deserves all that much credit.
Instead of cutting the deal, the President says ” no tax cuts for the wealthy, and, sorry, unemployed people, we couldn’t get an extension of your benefits passed, and sorry middle class, due to the ending of your tax cuts, your paychecks will be smaller in January. Sorry everyone, the economy will be weakened because the unemployed will stop spending their benefits and the middle class will have less after-tax income to spend. But, please, enjoy the symbolic victory – millionaires are paying more taxes, too!”
<
p>Meanwhile, good luck getting anything considered by the lame duck session – Senate Republicans vow to block anything until the tax cuts are extended – and the new Congress will only be worse.
<
p>But the left is thrilled with the President for really putting up a fight, even though it accomplishes nothing.
you say that we can’t afford to extend any of the tax cuts right now and you throw it back on the R’s that they’re the ones blocking the unemployment extension. Force their hand and make them stay in session until 12/31 to get a better deal. Cutting a deal right now is like punting on third down.
The Republicans don’t have to do anything. Their message machine attacks the President and the Democrats for refusing to work with Republicans and killing jobs by letting taxes rise.
<
p>The Republicans don’t care if the economy stays in the tank – they think it plays into their hands.
<
p>In January, they retake the House and increase their numbers in the Senate. They pass the tax cut extension they want in the House with no extension of unemployment benefits and dare the Senate Democrats to stop it. There’s some lovely politics for you: either Nelson, Liebermann and others vote with the Republicans, who win, or Democrats get the headline for blocking tax cuts for everyone.
<
p>Intransigence is a loser on this issue. It may feel good, but it accomplishes nothing.
is our message machine during all of this? Oh, that’s right, the WH decided that even with the biggest bully pulpit in the nation, they were going to deal w/ McConnell & Boehner.
<
p>Others on this thread have articulated quite well how the current deal is a political loser for the President, and I agree strongly with that. This will only embolden the Congressional GOP and put the WH on the defensive as we head into what is sure to be a very difficult year.
fix the filibuster (or at least allow tax cuts to be allowed under reconciliation — which is something the Democrats got rid of after the Republicans passed the Bush tax cuts using reconciliation), so we can pass tax cuts for the middle class.
<
p>That leaves Boehner to put up or shut up — he said, if it was his only choice, he’d vote to give tax cuts to the middle class and not tax brackets higher than that (still a tax cut for everyone — just not as big for the rich). Call his bluff.
<
p>If we stay strong, we’d win on unemployment, too. Republicans don’t want that kind of heat — that’s why they gave in for 13 months on that issue so easily. Long enough that they don’t have to deal with it, but not so long that they may not be able to cash in and hold it hostage again before 2012.
is what the Democratic Party has become. Rather than celebrating and fighting for its core principles, it trembles in fear that it will be rejected by the electorate getting on its knees to gather up the crumbs that have been dropped on the floor by the truly rejected GOP.
Obama has never fought enough to force a concession from the Republicans. He does all the conceding, and usually before things really get started.
<
p>I think by actually having a line in the sand, we could have got a very different deal. Maybe it would have been just a payroll tax reduction and an extension of unemployment benefits. That would have been a better deal, I think. Good thing we got that $180 billion in tax incentives for depreciation. It’s such good stimulus that we’ll get 260,000 jobs out of it!
<
p>I don’t believe him when he says “this is the best deal we could get,” because we have no way of knowing that is true. And that is the essence of Capuano’s criticism, and Rep. Welch’s, and others.
The unemployment extension and payroll tax breaks.
It also includes a lot of expensive, wasteful tax breaks. That’s the problem.
when UI benefits were passed 5 times in the last two years. Come on. Obama blinked, over and over again. He doesn’t have the ability to stand his ground. As for the so-called payroll holiday, Republicans have proposed that. Indeed, they have long wanted to lower payroll taxes and move toward paying SS through the general fund to undermine the program. If you think they are not going to use extending the payroll tax cut in the next round of elections, I have a bridge to sell you.
These aren’t “payroll tax breaks” — the GOP just broke the back of Social Security, after decades of failed attacks.
<
p>President Obama stood by and cluck-clucked.
The ‘GOP hates social security’ is the same hollow charge the Democrats drag out every election. That, and the charge they’ll take away your Medicare. Shrill, very shrill. Dog range hearing sounds.
<
p>Within the tax compromise, it’s settled that the trust fund will receive credits from the general fund for the 2% cut such that there is no impact to Social Security.
<
p>Probably the mechanics of this are that even though 4% is being withheld from wages, the full credit will still go to Social Security and the 2% cut comes from the General Fund.
<
p>The Progressive reaction to this compromise has simply exposed that the preeminent plank of the movement should read “We Must Raise Rich People’s Tax”. An end, rather than some means to a loftier goal.
and awfully naive.
<
p>Go read my current post in the sidebar.
there’s been a lot of speculation that the payroll tax cut will drive salaries down, not just in the near-term, but for the long haul. Businesses will see the payroll tax cut as a ‘raise’ of a sorts, and not give their normal raises. New hires will start out making less. When the payroll tax goes back to normal — if it doesn’t become the next hostage source — employers aren’t going to give their employees the money to make up for it, even as a lot of them short-changes their employees’ raises and starting salaries because of it.
since we’re flinging insults around.
<
p>I agree that the $120B for top 2%’s income tax cut seems like a small amount. Has anyone heard about whether dividends will be taxed at a higher rate? That is where many of the wealthy stock investors are earning their cash.
However, it’s not taxed as income and is taxed at a very low 15%. The irony of that is that some of those dividends are being paid out because companies are cutting jobs to increase profits for those shareholders who are then paying 15% on their dividend earnings. Can you believe it? That’s probably the entirety of our economic problems. Why create jobs and pay 35% when you can cut jobs and pay 15%.
<
p>So do we have any numbers on the cost of that extension.
How’d that turn out for him?
He reminds me of when I went to my first baseball tryout, having never really played the game before, and I didn’t know which way to face (I held the bat in front of me looking at the coach who was pitching).
<
p>Obama’s reaction should be similar to mine at that moment: humiliation. And, unlike my 12 year old self, who had never played the game before, Obama has no excuses. This “compromise” is a disgrace, as is our President.
<
p>Bush may well go down as the worst President in history, but Obama’s about to follow him up as the weakest and most ineffectual one.
Learn a little bit about James Buchanan before you start slamming Obama as the most ineffectual President of all time. One let the Union disintegrate, another one allowed the other party to win some policy battles. Yeah, Obama is clearly the weaker of the two.
<
p>I swear, sometimes the way people fling around “worst president ever” it’s as though they never heard about the mid-19th century. History did not begin five minutes ago.
I’m good with “President Obama is the worst President since James Buchanan.”
In all seriousness, there were a bunch of truly VERY bad Presidents leading up to the Civil War. James K. Polk was pretty good (even if his actions were distasteful, I don’t think any of us would want to return the Southwest US to Mexico) but other than that, pretty much from William Henry Harrison to Buchanan (1841-1861) was a bad scene. All those guys were far worse than most of us have experienced in our lifetimes.
<
p>After the war, there were a couple of terrible Republican presidents in Andrew Johnson and Grant. I love me some US Grant on the battlefield, but he was a really horrible chief executive.
<
p>The real reason liberals ought to avoid getting sucked into these short-sighted “YOUR last president was the worst president ever” debates is that it downplays the staggering ineffectiveness of pre-Depression, business-oriented Presidents like Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover — all of whom are currently the subject of rehabilitation efforts by the likes of Sarah Palin and others who would argue that zero federal regulation/stimulus is the best thing for the economy.
I prefer to say that Barrack Obama should strive to be more like Bill Clinton.
<
p>Bill Clinton was the best president since FDR. In spite of herculean smear efforts against him and a right-ward trending culture (driven by corporate interests manipulating mass media), he still brought about striking qualitative and quantitative improvements for mainstream America during his administration.
<
p>Barrack Obama would do well to more closely emulate Bill Clinton.
he’s definitely in the running for the most disappointing.
Helps him win the nomination while being most progressive, gives him street cred as an independent minded Democrat when he takes on Brown. Win win in my book. Obama campaigned for Coakley look how much good that did, plus he will be too busy with his re-election to come here.
and other Democrats with similar statements only strengthens this second stimulus bill, which is essentially what it is. Obama was smart about framing it as a tax cut deal. He’s learning. Cap knows the game, strong opposition only leads to a better position to have other considerations be added to this stimulus. When a few items Democrats want get added to the stimulus you can thank Capuano.
Mike speaks his mind. Did as an Alderman, did as a Mayor and does as a Congressman. Keeps winning elections that way too.
<
p>Hey I was/am/always will be a Martha Coakley supporter and yes Martha cleaned Mike’s clock in the Primary. Shortened campaign time, statewide recognition helped her. But Mike has run once statewide now. Keeps him the voters minds.
<
p>Sorry GregR but Mike Capuano speaks his mind. It is one reason I support him 99% of the time. The other is he stands up for what he believes. And he seldom believes in compromises where one side looks lame.
Let me give the political answer. I have to wait and see who runs!
lack of leadership.
<
p>The President is the de facto leader of the Party. Good leaders, like good coaches, don’t blame their own underperformance on their team, not for very long. Good leaders accept responsibility. It’s clear Obama neither understands nor appreciates his lack of leadership.
<
p>Capuano isn’t being Randy Moss here, but Obama is being Wade Phillips. If the Dems had a team owner, he’d be fired. But the party is owned by the players themselves. If they and we don’t speak up, who will?
<
p>Anyone else who gets a lunch break at 10:30 AM?
As the modern philosopher Hannah Arendt said
<
p>”Politics is the pacific equivalent of war.”
<
p>And Mike Capuano is Mark Anthony to Obama’s Julius Caesar.
<
p>Leading the 13th on Caesar’s left flank.
<
p>
…who’s the Egyptian queen whose favor they were both courting?:) I’d say Pelosi, but if anything it seems both are pushing her away.
Obama would give it away.
<
p>Caesar cast the die and crossed the Rubicon. Obama sat on the shore and asked the Gauls if they wanted him to come over or not. Then he waded halfway across and wondered why the troops weren’t following him.
Capuano stood for the working American before Barack Obama gained any notice in the Illinois State Senate. He’ll be doing the same long past Barack Obama is done being president.
<
p>Teamwork includes constructive criticism, not shutting up and falling in line. And somehow I think he’ll be re-elected next November, even if Obama isn’t. Hell, at this point he’s likely to exceed his vote totals in district.
Capuano is right about this.
<
p>Forget about trying to be “smooth” all of the time. The only thing that is smooth all of the time is “mom and apple pie.” All candidates do that, but you should stand for policies too. If it sounds rough and nasty to talk about them, so what?
<
p>Capuano wants to see if Obama gets challenged from the left in a primary. GOOD.
<
p>Look, Obama has not ended the wars, there was not even a public option in the health care bill, and the stimulus was too small. And now he’s folding to the right wing by agreeing to extending the tax cuts for the rich.
<
p>He NEEDS to be challenged from the left.
<
p>You need politicians who stand for policies: articulating them and implementing them. You don’t need mindless cheerleaders, who stand for no policies but just go, “rah-rah-sis-boom-bah!!”