Posted on 12/07/2010 7:25:40 AM PST by SeekAndFind
It’s safe to say that no one on the Democratic side of the aisle took the news of the tax deal very well. Democrats in Congress took to the airwaves to blast Obama for reneging on his promise to end the signature Bush tax rates, such as Jim McDermott and Anthony Weiner:
“This is the president’s Gettysburg,” Rep. Jim McDermott, a leading progressive and a subcommittee chairman on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, told POLITICO Monday. Referring to Obama’s choice about whether to compromise or stand firm against Republicans on the question of higher taxes for the wealthy, the Washington Democrat said: “He’s going to have to decide whether he’s going to withstand Pickett’s charge … I worry.” …
Even Democratic leaders on the Hill are having a hard time swallowing the idea: When Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) relayed her view of the White House position on tax cuts to her fellow leaders on Sunday, it was roundly panned, according to sources familiar with the discussion.
The general sentiment, as described by one participant: “What the [heck]? Could we have a little fight before we cave? Why go right to surrender?”
Outspoken Democrat Anthony Weiner of New York compared it to “punting on 3rd down — it seems the president is not seeing the value of being on [the] offense.”
This morning, the White House did go on offense — to blame Pelosi, Weiner, McDermott, and the rest of the Democratic caucus for not taking care of business when they could. Jake Tapper reports the reaction from a “senior White House official” who said that Obama “wanted a fight” but that Congress went AWOL:
“We wanted a fight, the House didn’t throw a punch,” a senior White House official tells ABC News, pointing out that for months before the 2010 midterm elections, President Obama was making the case against the Bush tax cuts for wealthier Americans. “The House wouldn’t vote before the Senate, and the Senate was afraid they’d lose a vote on it.”
“It was like the Jets versus Sharks except there weren’t any Jets,” the official said. “Senator Schumer says he wants a fight? He couldn’t hold his caucus together.”
“This isn’t a debate in a lab somewhere,” the official continued. “People’s taxes were going to go up, and then we were going to have a Senate with a slimmer margin and House under Republican control.”
The White House official has a point, although he or she leaves out a lot of self-serving context. The White House didn’t exactly push for a vote on tax policy, either. They could have addressed this in early 2009, even making it part of the Porkulus plan, had they wanted to do so. Obama had a lot more political capital at that point, but instead the administration decided to tackle health care and global warming instead. That tied up Congress for the next nine months and fired up the opposition so much that hiking taxes became political suicide, even on the wealthiest earners (and rightly so during economic stagnation).
There weren’t any Jets in 2009 in the White House, in other words, and no sharks, either. Instead, Democrats had the Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight, and now they’ve paid the price.
People have compared Obama to Jimmy Carter, and for good reason, but this parallels another modern one-term president. For the Left, the Bush tax cuts were the single biggest target in tax policy, the basis of their argument that Bush was nothing but a lackey for the rich and for corporate interests. Any progressive populist worth his salt opposed them and pledged to reverse those tax rates — as did Obama on a number of occasions. Similarly, conservatives oppose tax increases, and when George H. W. Bush caved to Democrats after telling voters to “read his lips” in pledging “no new taxes,” it undermined his standing with the base entirely. This is Obama’s “Read my lips” moment with the Left, and the war between them has just broken out.
Last I checked, Obama didn’t have a vote in Congress. Why are they picking on him?
The libs are in revolt! Grab the popcorn!
Don’t care. I don’t like the extension of UE bennies for 13 MONTHS without an offset in the budget.
WTF, Republican party? I thought we were going to MAKE THEM adhere to the “paygo” rules they shoved in your face.
So make ‘em do it.
Damn, 3 years of UNEMPLOYMENT benefits? I’ve worked my arse off for 3 years, no raise because of tight budgets, and my TAXES are going to pay for someone else NOT TO WORK? Horse bullets.
The Democrats are never happy. Well except for that one shining moment when they bought and intimidated enough votes to jam Deathcare down our throats. When the Libs are unhappy I’m uncorking the bubbly.
2012 will be 1980 all over again! Maybe Ted Kennedy's alcoholic pill popping son can run against zero!
Democrats run the House Senate and WH and can’t pass something?? lol
hilarious
For exactly that reason. He made two mistakes: 1) Brokered a deal those who will have to vote for it don't like; 2) Reneged on his campaign promise of doing away with the Bush tax cuts.
As much as I don't like the deal (I wish the Bush tax cuts were to be made permanent, and I don't like the 13 mos. extension of employment benefits...although I could see some briefer period in order to prevent the Republicans looking like Scrooges), I think this internecine warfare among the Democrats is great. It truly paints them as being the ones quibbling over whether Americans deserve a break.
Also, their constant arguing about the need to lower the deficit is a joke, in that they're the main cause the deficit has grown to astronomical proportions to begin with. Now they want to lower it on the backs of everyday workers.
I don't think that's the way it's going to work...benefits will still max out at 99 months.
Not exactly directed at your post, but I wonder.... has anyone ever proposed lengthy unemployment benefits which decrease over time... say 20% every 3 months? It would match the desire to help with pressure to squeeze the deadbeats.
You don’t raise taxes during a recession. The ‘’tax the rich’’ scam is a political ploy to play for votes and to hell with the little guy.
I saw it posted by one of us, I believe on another thread. But I’m not aware of anyone in office having proposed it. It would be a sensible way of addressing the issue.
We need incentives, both for business to create new jobs, and for those on unemployment to actively seek employment. Extending the Bush tax levels is one way of addressing the first, a declining scale of compensation may well be another way of addressing the second.
I think it only maintains what's there, the 99 weeks. I agree I'd like to see the cuts made permanent, but if the GOP has a spine they could push this once the new congress sits. In other words make Husein defend his wish to raise taxes and keep the issue alive til 2012.
I would hope the GOP addresses making the Bush tax rates permanent after January. I can see going into some agreement before then, if only to show their willingness to get something done before they expire. I have no problem with that. But it’s only a first step, IMO. And we have to keep the pressure on to see that it gets done.
Still, 99 weeks of unemployment benefits is too much, IMO. What’s needed are incentives to get people back to work; incentives both for business and the unemployed. Someone else here (as well as on another thread) suggested a declining scale of unemployment benefits. That sounds like something that should be considered.
What I DO like about this “agreement” is how it’s enraged the Democrat base against Obama. Not only does it damage Obama, but it paints the Democrats as being intransigent on the needs of Americans. They’re the ones painting themselves into a corner.
First of all, Weiner, punting on third down is usually called a “quick kick”. And this is a long way from being “quick”.
Second, the dems who are screaming KNOW a tax hike on anyone will be the death of this economy, which is already on life support. They’re screaming so their base will stay with them.
Third, it seems a lot of dems are going against the far left now that obama and pelosi don’t have so much power. Freakin’ cowards!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.