Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

December 3, 2010

THE RELATIVE EASE OF FINGER-POINTING.... That Democrats have managed to royally screw up the fight over tax policy is no longer in doubt. The remaining questions are what they'll end up with in terms of the final deal and knowing who's responsible for the breakdown.

I started to put together some notes last night on this -- here's a preview: there's plenty of blame to go around -- but I'm inclined to hold off until the issue is entirely resolved. Questions of culpability may be even clearer when the dust settles.

That said, I think some Democratic lawmakers who are pointing the finger at the White House are dismissing their own role a little too casually.

The sense of frustration among Senate Democrats over the White House's handling of the tax cut debate has grown throughout the week.... Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) did a little less dancing. "I just think, if [Obama] caves on this, then I think that he's gonna have a lot of swimming upstream [to do]," said the Iowa Democrat, an unabashed progressive who has been less reticent than most in criticizing the White House. "He campaigned on [allowing the rates for the rich to expire], was very strong on that, and sometimes there are things that are just worth fighting for."

And if he decided to compromise away from that, a reporter asked the senator.

"He would then just be hoping and praying that Sarah Palin gets the nomination," Harkin replied, insinuating that there would be few other Republicans that Obama could assuredly beat in 2012.

That was Harkin on Thursday. Here's Harkin on Wednesday.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said he would be open to voting for a temporary extension of the high-end tax cuts, but it "depends on what is all in the package."

"We've got our appropriations bills, we've got a lot of other things floating around here, the START Treaty, so we have to see what is in the package," Harkin said. "There may be some package I could vote for."

My goal here is not to pick on Harkin, a senator I've long admired. The point, though, is that President Obama established the Democratic baseline on tax policy quite a while ago -- permanent cuts for those making less than $250,000; Clinton-era top rates for the wealthy -- and he's stuck to it for nearly two years, including through the election season. The president appears poised to yield to GOP demands now, which is unfortunate, but is largely a reflection of what transpired on Capitol Hill, where Dems chose to stray from the baseline Obama had already set.

In this particular case, we see Harkin on Thursday demanding that Obama fight against the same Republican plan Harkin was open to on Wednesday.

Or put another way, Harkin said on Wednesday that he could support tax breaks for the wealthy, so long as Democrats got something out of the deal. Harkin said a day later that President Obama would be making a grave error supporting tax breaks for the wealthy, no matter what Democrats got out of the deal.

Obama's the leader, so I appreciate the fact that the buck is usually going to stop with him. If he decided to cut off talks with Republicans and announce he wouldn't blink in this game of chicken, the president could certainly do that. But for those who are inclined to blame Obama -- and Obama alone -- for what's transpired, it's worth remembering that's an overly narrow, incomplete picture.

Steve Benen 12:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (50)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Lot's of blame to go around, but Obama is supposed to be the leader of the Democratic party, as well as being the president with a big megaphone.

The buck stops there.

Posted by: foosion on December 3, 2010 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

The President is supposed to LEAD, he is supposed to frame issues, he is supposed to persuade, and he is supposed to inspire, on vital issues. Obama has abdicated his leadership responsibility, and failed to do (or even fight to do) what he campaigned on re: taxes for $250K. He should be primaried.

Posted by: bruce k on December 3, 2010 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

For Alan Grayson's take on tax cuts for the wealthy and why the media back them, see the Huffington Post today.

Posted by: impartial on December 3, 2010 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

I've got the feeling Harkin knows the Dems will get nothing out of the deal.

Posted by: martin on December 3, 2010 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

Here's another point you're missing. Obama called for a tax cut vote before the midterms! If the vote was called then, Obama would have a LOT more leverage now.

Congress balked. Rep. Weiner balked, Tom Harkin balked and multiple others who are now criticizing balked. Because they failed to have a vote there is little to no leverage.

Those suggesting that the President has "abdicated his leadership" and "should be primaried" are looking at tax cuts as the sole issue that's in the lame duck.

Remember, there's DADT, START, UI Extension, DREAM, and multiple other tax breaks that need to be extended. There is, as of today 13 1/2 days to address them. Without a quick debate on tax cuts, can someone tell me how that all gets accomplished?

Posted by: Chris on December 3, 2010 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

Obama could get in front of every camera he can find and point out that the republicans are holding START, DADT, extension of unemployment benefits, and judges hostage in order to get a tax cut that no one other than republicans and their wealthy donors want. Or at least explain the situation to the American people.

While on it's face a temporary extension of tax cuts might be worth all those things--should they pass--it just reinforces the disturbing pattern of Obama and the democrats inability to actually win any sort of political battle and/or sell a narrative(even one as ready made as this one).

Posted by: Holmes on December 3, 2010 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

Harkin is right. Unfortunately, Obama is on a surprise visit to Afghanistan and out of the line of domestic fire. Someone in the white HOuse needs to hear and heed this.

Posted by: impartial on December 3, 2010 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

Here's another example of the Democratic party as a whole failing miserably and expecting Obama to shoulder all the blame. The party has no coherent, consistent message, no message apparatus, and a paralyzing fear of the GOP. It's Obama's job to be presidential and act like the adult in the room. It's the party's job to craft a simple message, stick to it, and fight like a pack of wild dogs. The Democrats are political punching bags losing ground to a party that would be floating belly up if it had a real opponent.

Posted by: Ameshall on December 3, 2010 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

The same people who argue that Obama shouldn't "cave" are the same people who insist that Republicans will never agree with the Democrats on anything. So by their logic, the practical result of refusing to "cave" will be NO extension of unemployment benefits and an expiration of tax cuts for middle and lower income workers -- the same middle and lower income workers whose taxes Obama promised in 2008 not to raise.

Blaming Obama for trying to get something out of the Republicans while he can makes no sense.

Posted by: RS on December 3, 2010 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

Certainly the tactical moves of the White House over the last 2 weeks are exasperating; preemptive concessioning hasn't worked in any way and yet they keep doing it as with the Federal worker pay freeze.

But, if we are honest with ourselves we must admit that one of the basic problems is that Democratic office holders, and voters who largely vote Democratic, are not as disciplined, nor as vehement in their will to win at all costs, as the other side. Mark Twain said it a hundred years ago, although he was talking about a very different Democratic Party.

Posted by: robert on December 3, 2010 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

Where does the buck stop?

The President should have set the tone and the agenda on this.

I'm completely mystified by his behavior. He seems completely disengaged.

Posted by: SaintZak on December 3, 2010 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

"we see Harkin on Thursday demanding that Obama fight against the same Republican plan Harkin was open to on Wednesday."

I know Harkin personally and have followed his Senate career from the beginning. It's unusual but not unprecedented to see him issue a statement and then stiffen his public stance after gauging the reaction from trusted liberals in his home state and elsewhere. When this happens, you know he's seeing a storm of protests to the first statement and getting a earful from people he depends upon.

I take this as a signal that happens to comport with my own (quite unscientific) survey of liberal voters I know who have been increasingly consternated by Obama's public policies. They are telling me they feel betrayed. They no longer think they can vote for him, though they also say they won't vote again him. I think Harkin is hearing the same thing.

Many see this as a litmus test for Obama. After all the years of carping about the disastrous Bush tax cuts for the rich and after all the campaign promises, the White House is on the threshold of converting just about every true believer into a disillusioned cynic who won't believe anything Obama says.

As someone said somewhere today, if he proceeds as seems probable, about the only way Obama will ever get the liberals back into the voting booth to vote for Obama is if the Repubs nominate Palin.

Posted by: John B. on December 3, 2010 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

I was reading TPM just before I read this post, and Josh was discussing a common error I think you've repeated. You write, ..."permanent cuts for those making less than $250,000." But don't those making over $250K get the cuts too--but only on the portion of their income up to $250K? I think he's right that it's important to make that point--that, in fact, everybody would get a tax cut.

Posted by: Jake on December 3, 2010 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

Of course it's easier to blame Obama for all ills... and he seems all to ready to accept any and every blame. But the problems we Dems are seeing are typical - a big tent full of all kinds of people with all kinds of angles...progressives, Blue Dogs, moderates, regular Dems and so forth. Pleasing all of those is really not an easy task. I've been pretty disappointed myself lately......but....
The GOP has been reduced to zombie order followers, following orders from crazy people following orders from billionaires. There's plenty of blame for what has not happened these last 24 months, and apparently a pretty short memory on the good things that have been accomplished. Lets see what the jaded Dems have to say about a year from now, when the TeaParty GOP is selecting their hope for president. If you really think Obama is the problem, you'll have a chance to fix it if you think Sarah Palin or Pence or Gingrich can turn things around.

Posted by: T2 on December 3, 2010 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

I sense an apologist in our midst.

Posted by: CT Voter on December 3, 2010 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

I wonder (hope?) that there's some kind of method to this madness. This Harkin flip-flop from Weds. to Thurs. is a bit odd, as well as Gibbs' statement throwing cold water on the House's passing of tax cuts yesterday, emphasizing instead the need for ongoing negotiations with Republicans on the issue.

What happens on Sat. in the Senate will be significant. If the Repubs filibuster the House bill, and if there's no procedural "trick" to get around the filibuster, then what option is there but to negotiate with the Repubs? If, however, the Dems are successful in actually passing the tax cuts tomorrow, then they have the advantage.

Maybe (in my world view anything is possible) these ongoing tax negotiations are a Karmic payback for the months that the Senate Finance Committee negotiated behind closed doors on Health Care - the end result was a big waste of time and a plan that Republicans never even intended on supporting. Suppose the tax negotiations are just a ruse while the House and the Senate execute the real plan.

Something like: "...be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves."

One can only hope. Only time will tell.

Posted by: delNorte on December 3, 2010 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

re: Democrats
It's not a question of "winning at all costs." It's about having the guts and integrity to stand up and fight for what you think is right. Perhaps the problem is a lack of moral compass.

Posted by: impartial on December 3, 2010 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

The Democrats blew everything back in June when they failed to pass a Budget Resolution.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20008456-503544.html

With a budget Resolution they could have passed the tax cuts, and anything else with appropriations by reconciliation. Which would have meant the repeal of Bush tax cuts for the rich could have been packaged with about 400 billion in infrastructure, aid to states, Medicaid coverage and other stimulus.

That would have won the election for the 25 Dem House members to keep control of the House. And probably saved Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois Senate and Governor seats and the Florida Governor. All were that close.

Posted by: OKDem on December 3, 2010 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

The real problem is the political cowards in the Democratic party.

The truth is there aren't the votes for extending just the $250,000 and under tax cut. There never were, which is why they didn't listen to Obama and hold the vote before the election.

They will hold the vote tomorrow, and I would bet the farm that Nelson or one of the DINO's will break ranks, undermining the entire strategy of forcing republicans to vote against extending tax cuts for the middle class.

Having said all that, Obama has become completely inept in setting and selling a narrative.

Posted by: Holmes on December 3, 2010 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

i think holmes summed it up just right at 1:02: we can blame obama for failure of political narrative, and we can blame the large number of wimps and sellouts in the senate for the failure of political action.

what i actually think obama should do right now is simply let it go: let the entire bush tax cut package lapse and then come back in january with a better bill.

now, a better bill probably doesn't pass either, but without some kind of stand, the enthusiasm gap just keeps growing....

Posted by: howard on December 3, 2010 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

Re: Democrats and Stand up and fight,

When, as someone else pointed out above, you have many shades of positions to accomodate, 'standing up and fighting for what you believe in' quickly becomes self inflicted wounding. We don't all agree as to what we believe in MOST! The Republicans believe in winning power and using it for the wealthy -tax cuts uber alles-MOST.

Posted by: robert on December 3, 2010 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

"We don't all agree on what we believe in most..." Then pick something most will agree is of importance and focus on it. That's simply an excuse for inaction. Incidentally, that's where leadership comes in and we are also lacking in that. Stasis solves nothing.

Posted by: impartial on December 3, 2010 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

impartial, in these discussions, it never fails to amaze me how many progressives, who should know better, still believe in the green lantern theory.

you can't lead people who don't want to be led. there is nothing - literally nothing - that can be said or done that will make joe lieberman or ben nelson or mary landrieu or a number of other democratic senators make better decisions.

i personally have no idea why they are democrats (well, i do have an idea: they are moderate republicans who given a choice between hanging out with the wimps in the democratic party and the hard-right thugs in the republican party, chose the first option), but as long as they are, "leadership" has no meaning whatsoever as a vehicle for getting votes.

Posted by: howard on December 3, 2010 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

Why not let the tax cuts expire, and point out that the people who voted to let them expire were Republicans like Boehner and McConnell, back in 2001? That makes it a Republican tax increase.

Posted by: johnw on December 3, 2010 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

That Democrats themselves are wobbly kneed on this is the consequence of Obama failing to do his job as party leader: not being afraid of Obama, and sensing that he wouldn't support them when push came to shove, they cave. Just like Obama.

When Bush I caved on taxes, it was a defining moment in his presidency and ultimately undid him. We might be witnessing just such a moment here.

Posted by: sjw on December 3, 2010 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

Lost in all the insanity is the utter devastation the republicans use of the filibuster has wrought on this country during the last 4 years. It has virtually crippled the country's ability to move with anything remotely resembling speed in addressing our problems. During a series of crises that demanded a nimble government, the right decided to obstruct...with impunity.

If we had a media establishment with the least bit of integrity, this problem would have been front and center. Instead, the media enablers have given the republicans all sorts of cover to virtually shut down the legislative/confirmation process.

Rome is burning...

Posted by: Holmes on December 3, 2010 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

"You can't lead people who don't want to be led."

On the contrary, if you're an effective leader, you can. Lyndon Baines Johnson found a way with the most recalcitrant and prejudiced members of his own party, for example. But it does require real leadership, determination, and a strong will.

Posted by: impartial on December 3, 2010 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

Preemptive concessioning and impotent posturing is behavior that is in the DNA of the Democratic party. The smell of fear and defeat hang naturally upon its leaders. When they can't help but prostrate themselves when they have overwhelming majorities in both houses and a supremely popular President, who can blame those that recoil in horror at the thought of these same pathetic losers in charge of national security and the defense of freedom and liberty from enemies with real capacity to harm us?

Posted by: dualdiagnosis on December 3, 2010 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK

"Preemptive concessioning..."

Agree. You cannot govern out of fear.

Posted by: impartial on December 3, 2010 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

Well I've heard Obama say it over and over and over again, but no, I guess the power on his megaphone was turned off. The media never made anything of his very strong pronouncements on "borrowing and spending to give millionaires a $700 billion tax break."

Nevertheless the ENTIRE fault lies with Congress, its arcane rules and the Senate's inability to figure out some clever workarounds that Pelosi's House managed to do.

There must be some exemption to the filibuster--if not,why not?

There is bad faith in here somewhere: it may be that letting ALL the cuts expire will lower the deficit quite a lot. Hmmm

Posted by: jjm on December 3, 2010 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

The Democrats aren't afraid of the Republicans.

They are afraid of the Republicans' owners.

Also, I agree vehemently with a previous commenter that it is extremely unfortunate to see Steve Benen repeating the false and dishonest Republican claim that the Democrats only want "permanent cuts for those making less than $250,000". The accurate statement is "permanent cuts for everyone on income up to $250,000".

Posted by: SecularAnimist on December 3, 2010 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

I agree with RS @ 12:46.

I knew that Obama winning in 08 was bitter sweet because the economy was going to suck (regardless of stimulus size, the Republicans just dug waaayy too big a hole) and his campaign agenda was going to get radically altered because of it. I'm actually surprised he did as well as he did at pushing pre-Great Recession goals. Because I get that, I will vote for Obama again even though I voted(and donated to) a different set of campaign promises back in what seems like the nostalgic times of '08.

But what really sucks the enthusiasm out of the room is how utterly man-handled the Democrats have been in framing these string of debacles. I mean, I get that the deficit is important and "raising" taxes in economic down times is a political no-no, but come on. Dems and Obama let the GOP walk all over them on deficit concerns for the better part of two year and now are getting rolled again? This time to increase debt. By those same phony deficit-fuckers? That's salt in a deep wound for me.

It sucks royally having to watch the Democratic agenda get neutered by GOP economic policy fuck-ups when the GOP got it's wish list of de-regulation, wealth-shifting policies, and oil country invasions. That the Republican party that did so much pro-active damage for 8 years, was then allowed to inflict so much passive-obstructionist damage for two more, is what accounts for my enthusiasm meter hitting rock bottom. I would at least like to see some fight. Some fire. Something.
Maybe without the expectational burden of a super majority we'll start to see some of it, finally.

Posted by: Oh my on December 3, 2010 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

"I think he's right that it's important to make that point--that, in fact, everybody would get a tax cut."

I agree.

Rachel Maddow is presenting the issue as about a bonus for those making over a quarter of a million. That is also a good point.

Posted by: Seould on December 3, 2010 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

"On the contrary, if you're an effective leader, you can. Lyndon Baines Johnson found a way with the most recalcitrant and prejudiced members of his own party, for example. But it does require real leadership, determination, and a strong will."


I notice a complete lack of any substantive actions that Obama could take, just that he needs to put on his power ring and man up!

Mike

Posted by: MBunge on December 3, 2010 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

Tom Harkin is a fucking senator, right? Whose body does things like "vote" on "policy"? What the fuck does he care about what Obama "caves" on? If Obama "caved," why would Harkin have to do what he said? Tom Harkin can do everything in his power to make sure that Obama has nothing to do with the outcome of any of this, until he puts his signature on the bill Tom Harkin favors. Why this offloading onto Obama? You're a senator. Start senatoring. Fucking ridiculous.

Posted by: FlipYrWhig on December 3, 2010 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

Why should Obama fight for ending the Bush era tax rates on pure political principle alone, when:

* millions face are losing their unemployment benefits until Congress acts -- this is real for those people

* the economy can use any boost it can get before the next Congress

* and the entire tax structure is likely to be changed to address deficit / debt issues in the next year or so?

If negotiations can get Obama and the struggling American worker a few wins now, plus potentially enable START and DADT passages...I won't lose sleep over my wealthier friends and colleagues being able to keep some of their money.

Posted by: Mark on December 3, 2010 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

Obama...needs to put on his power ring and man up."

Would that he had one. Perhaps he could take lessons from the previous administrations who simply used the power they were given and ran with it. He has squandered his and lost his majorities as a result.

Posted by: impartial on December 3, 2010 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

First suggestion: stop worshiping at the shrine of bipartisanship.

Posted by: impartial on December 3, 2010 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

It should also be pointed out that this tax cut fight isn't happening in a vacuum. The republicans are holding several important pieces of legislation hostage in order to get their wishes. Granted, the case could be made that Obama and Senate Dems should call their bluff, but what happens if no unemployment benefits get extended? What about DADT, START, DREAM act, the 30+ judges waiting for confirmation?

Is that worth the risk? Is it a fair trade-off?

There is no doubt the seeds of the problem were sewn weeks ago, and they now find themselves painted in a corner, which is certainly lamentable, but in the current situation, I'm not sure losing all those things is worth winning a battle over a temporary extension of all the tax cuts.

I'm not holding my breath, but Obama could conceivable use the Republicans hostage taking to his political advantage down the road.

Posted by: Holmes on December 3, 2010 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

anyone who thinks that lbj was such a strong leader has to explain two things: a.) how come he didn't get some form of "socialized medicine" through the biggest congressional majority for progressivism that we will ever see (he settled for medicare, which was important, but still was a demonstration that he didn't have the almighty power that some who weren't there ascribe to himi); b.) the relevance of getting through legislation when the republican party didn't behave like a parliamentary party compared to today, when it does.

Posted by: howard on December 3, 2010 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

"Perhaps he could take lessons from the previous administrations who simply used the power they were given and ran with it. He has squandered his and lost his majorities as a result."


And here's the problem. The fact that the way Bush and Cheney ran things was almost as destructive as the things they did doesn't even register with far too many liberals.

Mike

Posted by: MBunge on December 3, 2010 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

"Administrations." Am well aware of the abuses of the preceding administration. Wasn't referring to them alone. The point was that leaders use the power given them; they don't fritter it away.

Posted by: impartial on December 3, 2010 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

"Administrations." Am well aware of the abuses of the preceding administration. Wasn't referring to them alone. The point was that leaders use the power given them; they don't fritter it away.

Posted by: impartial on December 3, 2010 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

Here's a thought: Cut a deal with the Repugs to give them a temporary extension of the tax cuts for the rich if they agree to not filibuster any of the other stuff coming up—DREAM Act, DADT, START, etc. Hold their feet to the fire on it, but REFUSE to hold the tax cut vote until AFTER all there rest get their vote. Why? Tell them it's because DEMS DON'T TRUST THEM!

They want their tax cut BAD! Did in the Dem heels and they'd probably go for this. Then, at the very end of the session, when they're all ready to get their tax vote extension, adjourn the Senate and go home. In other words, F**K them over like they've been F**king over the country. And as soon as the new senate comes into session, adopt new rules that kill the filibuster, then tell the whining Repugs to suck on it.

Posted by: President Lindsay on December 3, 2010 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, typing too fast. I meant "dig in the Dem heels".

Posted by: President Lindsay on December 3, 2010 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

Obviously, the Republicans are to blame.

But in this family squabble, I actually blame Senate Dems who took office in January of '09. Minority Republicans had demonstrated in the previous Congress that they would abuse the filibuster to prevent legislation and appointments from receiving up-or-down votes. Senate Dems had an opportunity to prevent that from happening by changing the Senate rules in January of '09. They did nothing!

If they don't change the rules when the new Senate is seated next month, then those responsible should be primaried in their next election.

Reid, Durbin, whoever.

Posted by: Chris on December 3, 2010 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

I, for one, am having a hard time believing that Obama and many Dems are this incompetent. It seems to me that they are simply setting the stage to claim the bad old Republicans made them do it. Then they can go to wealthy donors without having to make any apologies.
I'm for just letting the tax cuts expire. A few dollars now are not worth the huge cost of paying for tax cuts on incomes over $250,000 per year (that's taxable income, not gross income, by the way). And those costs will eventually be paid largely by the middle class.
Bring on the Primaries.

Posted by: jeri on December 3, 2010 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK

There's plenty of blame to go around, but in the end, the fish rots from the head.

Posted by: Chaim Rosemarin on December 3, 2010 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK

What fails to get pointed out nearly often enough is what Jeri just mentioned above: The $250 is on taxable income, not gross income. That means it's people who likely make at least $300-350K/year, and likely even more (considering all the loopholes available).

The average tax savings for those under $250K is only about $500/yr. Just to bring this into perspective, I make $145/yr. gross income, supporting a family of 3. I rent a beautiful million-dollar home in one of the nicest districts in a relatively small but fairly expensive city in California.

If I can live like this, why the hell should anybody even consider larding on more tax breaks for people who make over twice what I make? It's f**king outrageous! I'd happily let all the tax breaks expire for those earning over $100,000. What ever happened to human empathy? Damn, these apologists for the plutocracy make me sick. Why the hell can't Obama and the Dems frame something so obvious to call out the Repugs (and their allies among the Dems) for the muggers they are?

Posted by: Comfy and willing on December 3, 2010 at 6:50 PM | PERMALINK

The best thing to do is to let the Bush Tax Cuts just sunset. Obama dosn't have to to a single thing, just veto any extension.

In this simple way we can return to the effective and reasonable Clinton Tax Plan, a plan we know works and works well.

And the Democrats can do this without a single nasty vote.... nothing like the original vote for the Clinton Tax Plan that cost so many members of Congress - Democrat members - their jobs.

Obama just has to have the courage to take the buck, to shoulder responsibility for this, and just say NO to any extension.

Congress will NEVER override that veto, and bingo, just like that we return to a working tax plan that is fair, smart, effective, and deficit reducing.

SUNSET!!!

Posted by: Ed Bardell on December 4, 2010 at 3:48 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly