The President has apparently struck a deal with Republicans to extend the Bush-era tax cuts in exchange for the approval of unfunded unemployment extensions.
According to a couple of on-air commentators I heard this morning, as well as several commentators on these very boards, this is a terrible move for Obama, He should have fought this battle, and the GOP should have blinked first.
So, first: is that a strawman, or a fair characterization of opposing opinion?
And if it’s fair: given the results of the last election, is the underlying sentiment – that Obama could win on public opinion with a showdown on tax cuts – really realistic?
My view is: Obama’s move is the right one. But of course since I favor the tax cuts being permanent, that’s not all that persuasive.
The tax cuts were a bad idea when Bush did them and they are a worse idea now. There is no persuasive evidence that giving this money to the top 2% will do anything to help the economy. It merely blows a gaping hole in the deficit and further widens the gap, which is already a chasm, between the haves and the have-nots.
He should have stood his ground. He is pandering to people who do not like him anyway and giving them an extension on the tax cuts will do nothing to improve their attitude towards him. They will still oppose him at every turn anyway. You’d think the guy would have learned this lesson by now.
This only serves to alienate those who did support him. I thought it was Politics 101 that you don’t piss off your constituency yet here he is doing it.
President Obama hurt the country last night by giving in to extortionists.
He now has no more credibility than the Republicans when it comes to reducing the deficit.
His action was expedient, but irresponsible.
Well, at least he hasn’t started any more stupid wars…
I vote “fair characterization”. I cannot believe the GOP would not have blinked first - extension of unemployment benefits is something that is going to happen. Maybe it would have lasted into 2011, but Obama and the Dems could keep submitting bills to extend unemployment over and over and let the GOP vote them down. My understanding is that the tax cuts would expire if Congress does nothing, therefore Obama does not have to compromise in order to keep his campaign promise to raise taxes.
Ideally, if the tax rates were going to be made permanent, it should have be coupled with clear spending cuts totaling at least as much as the total amount of tax increases (I heard about $70 billion per year).
Several of the news stories about the deal mention the cost of the tax cut extensions, but not the cost of the unemployment benefits. Anyone know how much that costs?
Another thought - there are several tax cuts other than the Bush era ones included in the deal. Perhaps BHO thought they were important enough that they needed to be included even without raising taxes on the rich.
He caved, as I predicted he would. And what is this ultimately going to get him? An extension of unemployment benefits he was going to get anyway, but that don’t come close to the cost of extending the tax cuts? Yeah. Some compromise. Will the Republicans stop demonizing him now that he’s kissed their boots…again? Of course not; they’re still going to stomp on his trachea, and he’ll continue to take it. Fool.
The same damned thing, unless we’re lookin at president elect Palin. In that case thing’ll be allowed to slide til January, when the cuts’ll be made retroactive, and permanent.
President Obama just took a lot heat out of the machine that got him elected in 2010, so Palin is now a real possibility.
The spin on MSNBC is that a lot of Dems are pissed off. But I don’t know if that’s really representative, or just something that makes good headlines. They keep pointing out that Obama made a deal with the Republicans but he forgot to also make a deal with the Democrats.
I don’t understand this from the deficit hawk point of view… The Republicans main opposition to the unemployment benefits was that they were unfunded. Now their compromise is an unfunded tax cut plus an unfunded extension of unemployment benefits? How is that at all consistent and why is that not the story right now?
Why is it not the story? Because it is difficult to spin “the tax cut on the wealthy is unfunded and therefore stupid” without raising uncomfortable questions about the unfunded unemployment insurance extension and the unfunded Social Security tax cut and the unfunded etc., etc.
I think it was a pretty decent deal. It increases the deficit, but since I think economic stimulus is currently much more important then reducing the deficit (both for the country and Obama’s future re-election chances), I’m OK with that.
Basically he bought off the the GOP with 2 years of tax cuts for the rich in exchange for a fairly large set of stimulitive tax cuts. I think thats a good buy.
Some liberals will be pissed at any dealmaking, but honestly, once the GOP takes the House, deals are going to become almost impossible, and the chances for “tough” stands against Republicans that don’t accomplish anything that liberals are apparently so anxious for will be over-abundant. This is probably Obama’s last chance for the next two years to actually get anything legislative done, however.
Why doesn’t Obama just go ahead and legally change his name to George McFly? I applauded his motivations in wanting to usher in an era of post-partisanship. It took most of us just a few weeks to realize that the Republicans would rather steer the ship of state into the reef than work with Obama to actually improve the country. The Bush tax cuts were a horrendous idea but there is no way they are ever going to be repealed for anyone because nobody has the spine to do it. And if Obama wanted them repealed, why in the hell did he wait so long to do it? They could have done this in February of 2009, when he had the backing of the nation and before the FOX hate machine was oiled and gassed up.
Well that’s the point. Wouldn’t it have been easy to say ‘well we’re using the tax cut expiration to pay for the unemployment benefits. The Republicans keep talking about fiscal responsibility, but keep reverting to the arguments and policies from 2001-2006’? This is utterly ridiculous and completely intellectually dishonest, no matter from which point of view you’re looking.
NPR was reporting essentially the same thing - that a lot of Democratic leaders are pissed right now, either privately or out loud.
The Republicans, especially the Tea Partiers, keep hammering how the message of the election was deficit reduction, so what do they do? Not only extend the tax cuts for everyone including millionaires; they also throw in a Social Secuity tax “holiday” and extend unemployment benefits another year. They’re all just digging deeper.
I agree that Obama should have just let all the cuts expire, and blame the GOP for not extending unemployment benefits. But he has demonstrated a remarkable inability to frame the discussion at all, while letting the GOP completely dominate with their own spin.