http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/
I'm sure you've heard the news about the Obama Bush tax cut compromise deal. A neutral reporter on NPR commented on the deal saying that it seems the Republicans did not want to extend tax cuts to anyone until the rich got theirs. Obama likened it to holding the nation hostage. In his national press conference, Obama said that government shouldn't negotiate with hostage takers, but the game changes when the hostage (low to middle class America) is in imminent danger. Obama didn't want to let middle class tax cuts and unemployment benefits expire, so he acquiesced to the GOP and is urging his party to endorse the GOP plan to extend all the Bush tax cuts, even for above-$250,000-per-year earners (about 2% of Americans). The situation is further complicated by the GOP senators' threats to kill all legislation in the lame duck session until the tax cuts are extended, because they know the Dems are desperate to get things passed in December before they lose the House. It's possible that Obama agreed to the tax deal because the GOP will make concessions in other areas, but I'm not holding my breath. All this mess in Washington makes Afghanistan look like an easy problem.
But really, what is an inexperienced pragmatist who just took a political drubbing to do? We know that the Dems currently in power can appear politically clueless to the public, and the party mostly just avoids or bungles up the message war. We know that Washington today is not like the times of LBJ when a strong leader could kick some butt behind closed doors to keep the flock in line. And we know Obama is not that type of leader anyway, even if it would work. But maybe campaign concerns about his lack of executive experience and deferential leadership style were not unfounded. From the progressive perspective, Obama has whiffed on Afghanistan, Gitmo, health care, Wall Street reform, immigration, and Don't Ask Don't Tell. He's also failed to maintain the dominant status of his party in Washington. Heck, he froze pay for many already underpaid federal employees to cut spending, yet agreed to let the rich keep more of their money? What is this guy doing? Of course all of that wasn't 100% his fault, but it occurred under his watch, and he hasn't been the inspirational leader to the left that he was in 2008. Plus all the say-this-do-that is confusing and frustrating voters: Obama dissed Wall Street excess but refused to cap CEO pay, promoted the public option then said it's wasn't critical, etc. The left has plenty of reason to be disappointed with Obama and the party. He already lost the independents according to the recent election, and this may be the last straw for disgruntled liberal voters (there's even talk of Obama having a Dem primary challenge in 2012, but that's unlikely since it would basically signal a surrender to the GOP). Really, what was he to do on the tax cuts?
His advisers told him that letting the middle class cuts expire would be politically risky, and the GOP would paint it as Obama "raising taxes" in a recession. He's already paranoid after the mid-terms of being seen as a tax-and-spend guy. And maybe he does really care about the struggling families who may depend on the extra bucks in their pockets from these programs. But does he think that moderates and independents will like him again because he cut their taxes a few Benjamins? As Krugman's article described, a CBO study concluded that unemployment would rise only 0.1-0.3% if Obama let ALL the tax cuts expire. The poor have the least to lose from Bush tax cuts expiring, and they have many other more serious financial troubles to worry about. It's still rolling the dice for thousands of people in this already troubled labor market, but maybe it's better than caving to "terrorists" and setting a dangerous precedent. We don't negotiate with terrorists because that sends the message that terrorism works and it's okay to use abominable methods to get what you want. The other side will play ball. Next year with Speaker Boehner and the gang of filibuster-happy GOP senators (plus plenty of easily-influenced noob Tea Party legislators), what's to prevent them from threatening Obama again? Clinton caved under Gingrich's government shutdown and transferred the burden of welfare from DC to the states (any wonder many states are in the red now?), and that was during a good economy. What will Obama do when the GOP wants to slash welfare and other programs further in 2011, because they're supposedly such fiscally responsible folks? Yes I know welfare and unemployment benefits are economically problematic because they create a disincentive to find new work, but cutting people off overnight is not the way to fix things either.
Krugman argued that Obama should call the GOP bluff and not budge on the tax cuts. I know the Congressional Dems were working on a new bill to extend the cuts only for the middle class, so he should have dared the GOP to block it (maybe they did already?). And why not fight fire with fire? If they are threatening to block everything, Reid should fire back that the Dems aren't going to include the GOP in any future negotiations, and Obama will veto all GOP-sponsored bills. Does a parent indulge her child's tantrum, or shame and discipline him instead? Bush circumvented Congress with record use of executive orders and other devices - why can't Obama do the same? Maybe he should wake up and not "stay the course"; coalition and consensus building is over. Force and push things through now because the nation needs it. His re-election is already in jeopardy, so what more is there to lose? Bottom line, don't let the GOP get away with this conduct. It's bad for Obama, his party, and the future of America. Or if this is how the game is going to be played, there's no reason the GOP should have exclusive right to misbehave. Fire right back and cut off programs close to the GOP's frozen hearts (defense projects, aid to Israel, corporate subsidies, etc.). Stop living in the dream world where politics are civil and cooperation is possible.
Maybe in the end this will be a good thing for the Dems (hear me out). Now they've taken away the GOP's deficit card for the near future. The GOP will look like fools if they lambaste the Dems on the (somewhat unavoidable in the short term) ballooning deficit when they had a chance to cut it by $900B, and instead decided to help the wealthy. But it's up to the press and public to call them out on it, and we probably won't. Plus it's not like the rich in the US are getting tax shafted versus other G8 nations. Heck, even the richest of the rich, Buffet and Gates, are telling DC to tax the rich more (http://abcnews.go.com/
We discussed the wealth gap a lot this year, and we've already debunked the Bush rationale that more money in the rich's pockets trickles down to help the whole economy (even Dubya's father called the justification of the rich tax cuts "voodoo economics"). So Obama, go ahead and tax the rich more, even if they sick their GOP minions on us as punishment. Keep crafting bills in Congress designed to fight the recession and help working people, and dare the GOP to block them every time. If (when) they do, go around the TV news circuit and blast them for it. Take out full-page ads and hit the campaign trail if you need to. Try to cut the debt by restricting earmarks, tax loopholes, and pet projects, and dare the GOP to oppose you. At least act like you're giving an effort. They might as well try it, because nothing good awaits them on their current trajectory.
No comments:
Post a Comment