Heading off tax increases: Compromise taking shape
Not long after Obama spoke, Democrats ignited a partisan row in the House with legislation that would prevent taxes from rising on lower- and middle-income wage earners but allow them to go up for people at higher incomes.
Given Republican objections, that measure has no chance of passing the Senate. But Democrats there insisted on voting on it Friday as a way to dramatize their support for the measure and, officials said, register unhappiness with Obama.
The president has already signaled he will accede to Republican demands for extending tax cuts at all income levels, making votes on the Democratic-backed bill purely symbolic.
Heckova compromise, Mr. President!
Editor’s note: I hope that kirth will forgive me for hijacking this post. I was considering writing the following up separately, but it fits right in here. I was struck by comments made by Obama’s press guy Robert Gibbs the other day regarding the federal employee pay freeze. They reveal, it seems to me, how profoundly the Obama administration doesn’t understand how negotiation and compromise is supposed to work. Check this out:
Q My question is, why does the President — he did this with off-shore oil drilling, too. Why does the President go out and set — and make these proposals at a podium instead of behind closed doors with your political adversaries in a negotiating position where you might be able to get something in return? What is the President getting in return by making this [the federal employee pay freeze] gesture?
MR. GIBBS: I think $2 billion in savings next year and $28 billion over five.
Q And he does not think that Democrats should try to actually extract some concessions from Republicans when he makes moves that anger the left? Because he has angered the left.
MR. GIBBS: Jonathan, I think on a daily basis we anger many people. That comes with the job of governing. The President makes a series of decisions that he thinks are in the best interest of the country and I think, as he said today, not focused on the next election, but focused on the next generation. That’s why the President made the decision that he made with the deadline that we had — not as a bargaining chip or a bargaining tool, but because it was the right thing to do.
That, I’m afraid, is exactly wrong. Let’s assume (without deciding) that the pay freeze is, in fact, the “right thing to do.” That doesn’t mean you just do it! Because there are lots of other things that Obama wants, and that are also “the right thing to do,” but that the Republicans won’t give him for free. So why not offer them something that they do want – say, the pay freeze – in exchange for something that Obama wants but that they don’t?
I simply don’t understand why Team Obama don’t seem to get how this works. This isn’t “Washington” stuff. This is Negotiation 101.
-David
It is definitely not on public display, not where I can see it, anyway. Anyone else see spine? Backbone? Political courage?
He ran on a platform of simply not expanding slavery and not until halfway through the Civil War did he consider the war about anything besides saving the union. Now of course he is remembered as the Great Emancipator.
The House voted today on extending the Bush tax cuts for all taxpayers on their first 250K. John Boehner, who had previously said he would vote for this if it were the option on the table today voted against it along with 167 of his GOP colleagues. GOP exploitation of Senate procedures will likely kill it there, but we must beat them at their own game and hammer them for voting for a tax increase just as they would certainly do to us if the roles were reversed.
because we have already surrendered the issue by agreeing to bring up, vote on, and sign into law a bill that extends current tax rates for everyone. Once again, the Dems have taken what would seem to be a can’t-lose issue and turned it into a big win for the other side. Amazing.
The Democratic Party: Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory Since 1972
I’m not sure about House Dems. The House has done its part; now all it has to do is sit back and watch the Senate do exactly what we expect. If that happens it won’t even make it to the President’s desk, but Dems in the House can say they did their part. The President could point to the GOP and say why didn’t you get tax cuts to my desk.
we have to be willing to ‘put up,’ and let the tax cuts expire, then blame the Republicans for being obstructionists who aren’t willing to compromise.
<
p>Obama has made it pretty clear that it won’t happen… so I have absolutely no confidence that we’ll be able to save this country from flushing $700 billion down the toilet.
to let the cuts exclusively for the wealthy expire. They obviously don’t. I seriously do not recognize these people anymore. I think when we watch Obama sign onto this extension it’s going to be a watershed moment. There really is no going back after that.
This was evident back in September. If the House had voted on the issue then, the tax cuts for the rich would have won another year, as the House Democrats attempted to pander before the elections. Since it didn’t come up for a vote until after the elections, they can be all principled and stalwart, knowing that the Senate and Obama will ‘compromise’ by giving the rich another present.
<
p>David – no problem; this is a much better post. Glad you could build on mine.
I have to say that all of this is quite odd. Obama understands politics. I don’t think there’s anyone who really doubts that — there’s no way you work yourself up from an Illinois state Senator to President (and beat Hillary Clinton) in a mere few years without considerable political acumen.
<
p>So why is the Obama Administration fumbling around on what should be a great issue to pound away on the Republicans? It’s not complicated: you say you’re in favor of middle-class tax cuts because it’s a recession and you need to help working people. You also say that you’re in favor of extending unemployment benefits because people are hurting nowadays. Then you point out how the Republicans — almost to a man and woman — are blocking both of these because they insist on adding $700B to the deficit to help out the wealthiest Americans. You say this over and over. You get Gibbs to say this over and over. You get your allies in Congress to say this over and over. You only compromise when you’ve turned the narrative in your direction, and have your opponent on their heels. Then you’re in a much better position to work out a deal.
<
p>This isn’t some sort of brilliant political strategy from the mind of political geniuses like LBJ or FDR. This is pretty much Politics 101. Is Obama just surrounded by tone-deaf advisers? Is he getting bad information? I wonder what is really going on here.
<
p>There are fellow liberals who feel this way about the Obama approach to health care, and perhaps the stimulus too — that Obama fumbled those issues as well. While I respect that position, I disagree — I thought he handled both issues relatively well and got pretty good policy out of it to boot. But on this…the Administration really has screwed up. I just wish I had a good explanation for it.
hell of a campaigner.
Obama understood campaigns and getting ahead — he utterly fails at politics, at least if we define politics as managing government in a way that creates a system in which as many people can prosper as possible.
<
p>Then again, I think what we see is what we get with Obama, so if you look at his administration through the lens of the corporatist Blue Dogs that they are… they’re not so bad at that kind of politics, either.
<
p>It’s just that most of America is looking through the lens of the tens of millions of people who voted for him and what they expected out of him and government under his leadership. In that regard, he’s an utter disaster and one who could do longterm serious damage to the Democratic Party and the minimal trust that’s left for government.
<
p>Here’s where this explanation doesn’t make sense to me. You say that Obama is great at campaigning and “getting ahead” but not “politics” as you define it. However, this is precisely the type of issue that should be a slam dunk in terms of “campaigning and getting ahead.” What better issue to help define your opponents as out-of-touch elitists than this one?
<
p>We agree that Obama is good at campaigning and electoral politics. But that’s precisely why I don’t understand the Administration’s actions here.
the implication in that statement being he may very well be good at politics as he defines it — taking the easy way out, not resisting the growing power of corporations and the wealthy elite, etc. It should be becoming very clear to us that those people are his peeps. He couldn’t declare his Blue Dog/Corporatist status anymore if he painted it in big letters across the White House.
They get how it works. This is just who they are. When they want to get tough, they get tough — but they strictly reserve that toughness for when they’re getting flanked by the left.
<
p>Obama has no backbone for the right because he’s a corporatist shill, just like the rest of the GOP and “Blue Dogs.”
<
p>The sooner “the left” wakes up to this en masse and revolts, the better the shot we’ll have of really taking back the White House through the primary process, or at least by electing progressive majorities in each house that’s strong enough to whip Obama into shape.
<
p>Otherwise, we’re living with a guy who may or may not be marginally better than the other guys, but who’s marginally better at the cost of doing serious, long-term damage to the credibility of the Democratic Party and government itself.
<
p>Obama and the Democrats in Congress have their flaws, but they “may or may not” be better than the Republicans?
<
p>If you’re willing to waffle on that question, than I worry about the future of progressivism.
and you can’t get spending right (ie the totally botched, tax heavy stimulus), then I think marginally better at best covers it pretty well.
good to know
Palin will never run nor should she ever run for POTUS. Unless someone else pops up I’m sticking with Romney.
<
p>Sarah is a great crowd pleaser (our crowd) and really gets out the vote and gets people excited… but that’s it.
President Palin will be a lot worse than President Obama and we will be stuck with her if Finegold or another lefty runs against Obama.
President Romney has a much better chance of happening — and the differences between Obama and Romney won’t be so huge (particularly once in office and Romney has to campaign for reelection at that point — which would require him to violate just about every Tea Party promise, because their ideas are unelectable once enacted, needing to rely on more moderate voters in a second go-around).
<
p>Palin may very well win a primary, but she’s not going to win a general — so she’s not a valid comparison.
Romney may very well win a general, but she’s not going to win the primary — so he’s not a valid comparison.
The Republicans corporate leaders, who have controlled that party for decades, will all line together behind who they think can win in a general and is one of them… and torpedo the Tea Party. Sarah Palin is going to have a target on her back like we’ve never seen before if she runs, and it’ll be the Republicans who crucify her this time — it’ll almost certainly be worse than anything we’ve seen before (Democrats only ever criticized her for legitimate things, like not know what the Bush Doctrine was).
<
p>Who better for the Republican corporatists to back than Mitt Romney? It’ll be very reminiscent of when the National Democrats torpedoed Howard Dean in favor of John Kerry, who was third most popular throughout most of the real primary campaign. Mitt Romney is their natural pick, but if it’s not him, it’s going to be someone like him. While the Tea Party may finally be strong enough to defeat their pick, I’m not willing to bet on it — especially if Sarah Palin doesn’t run.
sorry, Mr. Romney.
<
p>
<
p>They didn’t control Alaska nor Nevada nor Kentucky nor Delaware nor Florida this time ’round. They did control California. On your claim, I’m unconvinced.
<
p>At the end of the day, primary voters make the decisions, and the teabaggers are a huge part of that group of voters. Fewer in a POTUS year than an off-year, but they’ll be there, and they simply won’t support Romney you can betcha.
First of all, you threw in a straw man (emphasis mine).
<
p>
<
p>I said Obama, not members of Congress. Nancy Pelosi is a progressive hero, and even Harry Reid is a great deal better than the alternative (even if he needs to grow a pair). There’s a huuuuuuge difference between Republican Congressmen and Senators, and the Democratic caucuses, particularly when a Democrat is in the White House (and the Republicans become The Party of No).
<
p>As for the President, I say marginally better, because he’s more competent than President George W. Bush was. That said, I’m sure there’s many Republicans out there who would have been as bad on the policies as Bush was, but more competent in running Government. Bush 1 was a pretty decent President on that front, for example. If Bush 2 was as competent as Bush 1, I’m not so sure we’d think Obama was any different at all.
<
p>Let’s play Devil’s Advocate for a moment. If we measure things by post-election policy — and not just competency — I don’t think Obama is so very different than Bush, or a hypothetical Republican in 2012 like Mitt Romney. Let’s take a brief look.
<
p>Key Appointments
<
p>Obama reappointed the same defense secretary. He reappointed the failed Ben Bernanke. His Treasury Secretary, etc., is cut from the same cloth. Etc. On so many of the important nominations and appointments, Obama failed to distinguish himself or pick candidates who’d fight for the little guy instead of the big corporations. His latest SCOTUS pick has already capitulated on DADT.
<
p>TARP/Financial Bailouts
<
p>Both supported exactly the same measures to ‘save’ the banks. People were critical because there were little to no strings attached when Bush administered TARP, and that didn’t change when Obama came in. Bush even gave the first round of bailouts to the auto industry that helped save them.
<
p>Constitutional Issues
<
p>There is horrifically little different between Obama and Bush on the most pressing issues of due process. Obama hasn’t done a damn thing about the PATRIOT Act, and one of his biggest and most repeated promises on the stump — to close Guatanimo Bay within a year’s time — has become a complete joke. Had a Republican been in office after the failed “underwear bomber,” there probably wouldn’t have been any difference in response.
<
p>Health Care Reform
<
p>While Obama passed this, he passed what was originally a Republican bill. The GOP just opposed the damn thing because a Democrat was in the White House.
<
p>If Romney were to get in there, and we never passed the bill, there’s a very good chance he would have pushed for something like what we got. Republicans would have passed it and owned it because they stay in lock step, and Romney would have gotten a fair number of Democrats to go along, too. This was really the natural next-step after Medicare Part D for Republicans, if they were in the White House.
<
p>It probably have been marginally worse, but the core component — the mandate — surely would have been in there, as well as subsidies to help people afford it, and probably even some kind of a ban on preexisting conditions, etc.
<
p>The Stimulus
<
p>You bet your ass they would have passed one. Probably the only difference would have been that instead of having 40% tax cuts in the bill, there probably would have been something like 60 or 70%. Again, that’s worse, but marginally so.
<
p>GLBT issues
<
p>Republicans are softening on their hatred for GLBT issues. Many of their pundits see the issue for what it is: longterm, being bigots is toxic for the party. You saw this softening becoming policy toward the end of the Bush/Cheney administration, when Bush signed this bill which provided important survivor’s benefits to GLBT couples. Thus far, the only thing Obama has really done for the GBLT community is sign the hate crimes law… which he did little noticeable to fight for. He’s done just as little to fight for a DADT repeal, even behind the scenes (as of 12/1/10, he hasn’t even made a single damn phone call), which is the #1 or #2 issue to most GLBT people, next to marriage equality.
<
p>Should a Republican win in 2012, I’m not so sure they’re going to be horrifically worse than Obama on GLBT issues, because the only thing that they’d definitely be in power to vote against is a DOMA repeal… but Obama’s never stood up for that and we’re probably not going to see that come anywhere close to passage until Obama’s long gone anyway. Furthermore, Obama’s DoJ has treated GLBT cases in exactly the same way as Bush’s did — not only refusing to become a pro-equality DoJ, but even slinging horrible insults toward the GLBT community in their briefs — the very same ones bigots and hate groups have been making for years.
<
p>One of these days — and it’s not going to be a long time from now — you’re going to see the Republican Party completely leave their bigotry behind and try to move ahead of us on these issues. It’s going to come quietly and swiftly, as a pure political calculation, when they decide younger voters are finally more important than the old anti-gay crows who are quickly dying off, and that won’t be very long from now. The 50-70 crowd isn’t nearly as anti-gay as the 70+ crowd, and the 30-50 crowd isn’t nearly as anti-gay as the 50-70 crowd. Meanwhile, the 18-30 crowd is so pro-gay, that if they aren’t gay themselves, they want a gay best friend. This change is imminent, and their pundits, like Glenn Beck, is already getting them ready for that change. If we don’t act quickly and get a huge win on something like DADT that will ensure GLBT voters are with us for generations to come, it’s just a matter of time.
<
p>The Environment
<
p>Until very recently, Cap and Trade was the Republican proposal to lower greenhouse gas emissions. That changed mostly because Obama was elected. Had a Republican been elected, instead of Obama, we may have been able to pass a Cap and Trade law and the GOP may have signed it.
<
p>Finally, let’s not forget that Obama came out in favor of expanded off-shore drilling less than a month before BP’s disastrous oil-leak.
<
p>—-
<
p>I don’t say any of the above because I like Republican policy or think they could do ‘as good of a job’ as Obama. I say the above because I think the job that Obama has done is so damn dangerous to both the faith people place in the Democratic Party or government in general.
<
p>You have to look at the job Obama has done through the lens of the average American who looks at him. What I described above is exactly how they see it. They voted for change, and the American people look at what we’ve done and see it as more of the same. That’s Obama’s fault. He was the only guy who would have had the power to move enough people to actually get the Senate to do its damn job. Yet, Obama’s use of the Bully Pulpit has been shockingly limited.
<
p>I know you could read between the lines and see Obama’s been an improvement over Bush in ways that I didn’t describe above — but when you require the populace to read between the lines to see the difference, you’ve already lost. We need to take 2012’s national results and learn from them. More of the same is the path toward a permanent minority and a failed government. We can learn that lesson and improve, renew faith in the Democratic Party and get this country on the right path, or we can face the terrifying alternative.
you’re misunderstanding her action on the DADT case. She did not participate in the case at all, which was entirely appropriate given her involvement with DADT when she was Solicitor General. Previous involvement in the matter is among the most basic reasons for a judge not to participate in a case (a financial or personal interest are some of the others).
Obama appointed someone who was “deeply” involved in the case, as she says, and therefore couldn’t participate it. I assume, this means, when it comes around to the SCOTUS, she’ll continue to not participate in it. Which means it will fail, almost certainly by her choice alone.
<
p>I understand it perfectly fine. I don’t have to like it. If she felt that way about the damn thing, she shouldn’t have been appointed. The Republicans on the court are more than willing to vote on cases that they’re intimately involved with. I’m sick of Democrats who bring a knife to a gun fight.
issues as the environment and GLBT are spot on. Though I don’t always agree with you, it is impressive to see the time and effort you put into your analyses.
It was a big assertion that I made, so I really had to. I’m glad you appreciated it.
While I can’t respond to every point in your interesting post, I would respond to this:
<
p>
<
p>Actually, I disagree. I could indeed read between the lines and see that Obama has clearly been an improvement over Bush, but the fact that the populace doesn’t read between the lines because they have a simplified view of the political system says a lot more about the quality of education in this country than it says about Obama.
<
p>You could not tell me with a straight face, for example, that Lisa Jackson as EPA Administratior isn’t 1000x better than some industry hack the Republicans would put up. After all, if climate change is a critical issue (and it is) then this was a critical appointment. But just because EPA regulatory policy is boring and below-the-radar doesn’t mean that it isn’t important. In fact, being in control of administrative agencies is probably the biggest single advantage the party control the Presidency has. If the public doesn’t understand that, and they don’t, why should that reflect poorly on Obama if he’s taking progressive steps through regulation?
<
p>We can’t be a movement or win an election based on how we think people should act and behave. We have to run our efforts based on how we know they act and behave.
<
p>We can jump and scream to the public all we want that they need to “read between the lines,” but we’re going to lose every damn time. And the policies of this country will suffer because of it.
No President Palin for me thank you, thats what a primary challenge does. About as effective for progressive politics as voting for Nader.
Palin has a 0% chance of winning, democratic primary challenge to Obama or not. 0%. She’s one of the most toxic political figures out there.
Actually, I don’t think so. If that were so, why would Obama have made such a big show over the last few weeks of not wanting to extend the tax cuts for the rich, only to capitulate and end up with nothing to show for it? That just makes him look weak and ineffective, and nobody wants that.
“See, guys, I tried, now you be happy with this “comprise” or no desert for you after your dinner!”
<
p>That’s incredibly backwards. The President has very little authority to enforce any sort of compromise. His sole legislative power is to veto bills, and doing that would have the effect of allowing the tax cuts to expire on schedule; he could ostensibly threaten a veto unless the legislation meets his standards, but that would be tremendously pointless and go way beyond his previous attempts at compromise. And the veto is the sole extent of his legislative power. If Congress decides to extend the tax cuts, the tax cuts get extended. If Congress decides not to, they don’t. He’s in the executive branch, this is a legislative matter. It is the President’s negotiations which are purely symbolic, whereas if both houses approve the Democratic-backed bill, then the bill passes. That’s as concrete as it gets. It is the President’s negotiations which are symbolic.
<
p>This Cult of the Presidency shit corrupts all political thought in this country. Congress writes laws.
But the presidency is the biggest bully pulpit in the land. If you really think that a president can’t shape legislation, I suggest you look into a fellow named Lyndon Johnson. Or any of a number of other presidents who have somehow managed to get what they wanted out of a sometimes recalcitrant Congress.
I happened upon this post at Kos, which has the following relevant passage (the “you” in the post is Obama):
<
p>
<
p>So, there ya go. Yup, Congress writes laws. An effective president gets Congress to write the laws the president wants them to write.
Forget money – he already took on a progressive challanger and beat him. He isn’t even registered as a Democrat anymore.
<
p>And his story may embolden others like Nelson who may not want to join the GOP but deosn’t feel especially beholden to the Progressive Democrats.
that LBJ didn’t get a lot of stuff through Congress that, left to its own devices, it never would have passed. So, QED.
But the examples in the Kos post you cited are laughable.
<
p>LIEBERMAN should be scared of the loss of Dem support? Really? When they already ran someone against him?
<
p>Obama – Master? Not so much.
Um, not when he was president. That’s my point – he didn’t have a vote in Congress, yet somehow he managed to get them to do pretty much what he wanted, despite resistance from inside his own party. Sure, he knew how it worked, and that helped. Obama has access to people who know how it works too.
Lieberman won on a lie last time (“No one wants to get out of Iraq more than I do”), and now the people of Connecticut pretty much hate him for it.
<
p>The best guess is Lieberman will have the intelligence to know he can’t win, and retire with at least a shred of dignity.
My point is that the bully pulpit is a purely symbolic thing. A pulpit is merely a place from which you can talk to people and people will listen to you because of your ranking.
<
p>I would agree that Obama could do more, (and should) and that a lot of his compromises are poorly thought out. But when people say that whatever Congress does is irrelevant as long as the President is doing his negotiations, that is tremendously tremendously wrong and needs to be called out. The President’s power over legislation is the power to persuade. Which is a real power, but it’s a soft power.
Power is power. But it only works if you use it.
Though I think you’re over-estimating the value of the “bully pulpit” in your comparison to LBJ.
<
p>For one thing, I think it’s a lot harder to seize the public’s attention today and employ the pulpit than in used to be. Whereas in the past every television station carried a presidential address, for example, now there are plenty of other media options competing with the President. Not to mention that Obama faces a more entrenched conservative movement now than did LBJ, has congressional majorities but not the overwhelming majorities of LBJ (or FDR), and the fact that the Senate is probably even more dysfunctional now than it has ever been (not just the filibuster, but holds, etc.) Also, the shift from a strong party system to primaries has made it much harder for the President and congressional leaders to punish individual members of their own party, never mind a Lieberman.
<
p>However, this isn’t an excuse for Obama, since he so clearly failed on the tax cut issue. While the pulpit isn’t what it once was, Obama didn’t try very hard at all to announce a stronger starting negotiating position. Even if the comparison to LBJ isn’t fair (today, even LBJ couldn’t be LBJ), the lack of effort to devise a real strategy on tax cuts is the real problem here.
I encourage you to learn more about LBJ before making too many assumptions about how he acquired and used his power. I have relied primarily on the Robert Cairo biographies and my own memories of the Johnson era when I write this, bearing in mind that I was 11 when JFK was assassinated and 16 when LBJ withdrew from the 1968 campaign.
<
p>LBJ was a master at understanding how to manipulate people to do his bidding, starting at a very early age. Sometimes carrot, sometimes stick, sometimes above-board, sometimes not. Specifically, LBJ was rather ineffective in using television. I’m not at all sure the conservative movement is any more entrenched today than during LBJs time, particularly given that he focused (for purely self-serving political reasons) on racism and poverty. His “Great Society” agenda was firmly rooted in his desire for a winning political strategy; his agenda in Texas offered scant indications that he was a “liberal” on either racism or poverty. I’m not at all sure the Senate is more dysfunctional today, either. It appears to me, instead, that Democrats have lost the ability or willingness to actually fight or stand for anything.
<
p>In short, I suspect that LBJ would be far more effective today than during his administration.
<
p>I share your deep concern for the path President Obama seems to be taking. As the conservatives move more and more rightward, into truly bizarro paranoid la-la-land, President Obama seems to be tracking them (perhaps in a misguided desire to seek the middle) rather than presenting an alternative.
…and they’re perhaps the best political biographies out there, especially his works on LBJ (as well as Robert Moses).
<
p>But suggesting that LBJ would be even more effective today than in his time? I seriously doubt it. First off, there’s absolutely no question that the conservative movement is more entrenched now than in the 1960s. In the 1960s, the right wing had Goldwater and the John Birch Society — in other words, fringe groups. Now they have Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and the Tea Partiers, all of who have managed to get into the mainstream of political discourse. I think it’s also clear that the Senate is far more dysfunctional today — far more frequent use of the filibuster, as well as the unconscionable use of holds.
<
p>Otherwise, actually, I agree with you, BT. You have to make a strong argument as President, even if it’s an ultimately losing one. On the tax cuts, I’m confident that the Dems had the winning position. They just need people willing to attack the Republicans on it.
I think we’re pretty much on the same page.
<
p>The aspect of LBJ that I find sorely lacking in President Obama is the ability, skill, and willingness to “throw a bit of stick about.” I fantasize that a modern-day President Johnson would find some creative, perfectly-legal, and utterly devastating ways of bringing pain and suffering to the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Rupert Murdoch, and the financiers who bankroll them.
<
p>I wonder if perhaps, in retrospect, we need someone in government to play the role of J. Edgar Hoover (in the same way that we need a visible evil enemy like “The Soviets”). As despicable as he was, his presence meant that everybody knew that at least ONE agency knew where all the skeletons were, and those who knew how to manipulate Mr. Hoover knew how to manipulate the government.
<
p>I hate sports metaphors. Given President Obama’s passion for basketball, however, I feel compelled to observe that President Obama is playing too clean a game. It’s time for some elbows.
Give Obama a unanimous START vote in return for a THREE year extension of all tax cuts – so it won’t be in an election year next time.
<
p>Work out a deal for an additional FOUR weeks of unemployment. It takes you through the first of the year, brings the 99 weeks up to 104 weeks and warn those affected – we really MEAN it this time, two YEARS is the max. That way, nobody is caught entirely unprepared.
<
p>But…nobody asked me.
What exactly are they supposed to do to uh prepare themselves in four weeks. I’ll assume you don’t know any of the long term unemployed as you seem to suggest they are just not serious enough.
<
p>And hysterical…you want to extend 8 years of tax cuts exclusively for the very wealthiest Americans for an additional THREE YEARS in return for four lousy weeks of unemployment.
…for unrelated political victories. Bring START to a vote without delay!
“Give us our millions in extra tax cuts, or we’ll stop the US from inspecting Russian nuclear supplies that could go to unstable countries!”
<
p>See, Peter Porcupine? YOU know how to negotiate. You Republicans will credibly threaten to unravel the security system around old Soviet nukes in return for favoritism for the most well-off!
to help ensure the safety and well being of our nation from nuclear attack (from Russia, former soviet states, or rogues) — a bill which is as Reagan-esque as it gets, you’d extract three years of huge tax cuts for folks making over $250,000 in exchange for four weeks of peanuts for those who have been suffering for an incredibly long time on peanuts.
<
p>Wow. That seems totally fair. Take away peanuts away from folks who have practically nothing and give them to folks who are millionaires, all so we can pass a bill which nearly every Republican not associated with Sarah Palin agrees is a good and necessary component of real national security.
<
p>
<
p>Maybe Republicans should just grow up.
are on display in this comment, risk the security of this country to pad the wallets of the very wealthiest.
Moreover, it is totally disingenuous to imply that a temporary extension of the upper-income tax cuts will be anything less than a permanent one, particularly when it is linked to the middle-class tax cut.
What Republicans most fear is the de-linking of the two. It would expose them and their true constituency to the wrath of the electorate. Unfortunately the Democrats are completely incapable of pointing this out.
In keeping with the general spirit of this post, I’ll point out that the Democrats long ago caved on extending the maximum number of weeks of UI (in this economy where there are five unemployed people for each available job).
<
p>What is on the table is extending UI for those who have not yet reached 99 weeks. These are the people who lost their jobs not at the beginning of the Great Recession but some time during it.
since you seem to recognize the value of negotiation. But alas.
The House passed the appropriate tax relief package yesterday. The GOP threatens to filibuster the same bill in the Senate.
<
p>I say “Let them”. President Obama and the Democrat should shine a FLOODLIGHT on each GOP Senator who supports the filibuster. The narrative is obvious: “We Democrats passed a tax relief bill that benefits YOU. The party of the wealthy blocked it. The GOP wrote the original legislation that created the tax increase that you now face, and the GOP forced that increase on you now. President Obama and the Democrats delivered the tax relief you so desperately need. The GOP sabotaged it.”
<
p>When terrorists force a child to stand in the line of fire, we blame the terrorists — not the child and not the authorities who are forced to shoot.