Why not just let the tax cuts expire? Obama made it reasonably clear
that he wanted to keep the tax cuts for the lowest earning Americans and the
middle income Americans. Why not refuse the deal with the Republicans
and say, fine, let them all expire. Most Americans, in poll after
poll, support the elimination of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of
Americans, as Obama proposed. Why didn't he have the guts to fight for
it? He just traded about $4 trillion in benefits to the well-off for
about $56 billion in aid for the jobless.
Very, very good deal if you are rich in America. In fact, there's a
word for it, if you are rich in America, during a time of economic hardship
and war: "obscene".
He won't get credit for extending the tax cuts anyway-- the Republicans will
be crowing about this for years to come. They'll let everyone know
that Obama was against it, even though he signed it into law. He won't
get credit for compromising-- this kind of compromise looks weak and
indecisive. And the projected deficits will be even bigger than they
already were, which the Republicans will use as an excuse to attack Social
Security and Medicare.
That's the Republican way: create deficits and then campaign as fiscal
hawks.
It looks for all the world like a lose-lose situation, and it looks
humiliating and insulting and embarrassing.
December 12, 2010
Is it a done deal? I'm watching with great curiosity. There is a bit
of rumbling among Congressional Democrats that they might not vote for it.
It's a very intriguing idea. Especially if you just got creamed in the
mid-terms and you have this feeling having your noses rubbed in it.
Especially if you are ambitious and think there might be room of the left for an
insurgency in 2012.
You should have voted for Hillary instead? What would she do differently?
Well, take a cue from Bill, for one thing: Clinton stood up to the Republicans
when they held the government hostage to their agenda in 1995.
What did Clinton do?
Armey replied gruffly that if I didn't give in to them, they would shut
the government down and my presidency would be over. I shot back, saying I would
never allow their budget to become law, "even if I drop to 5 percent in the
polls. If you want your budget, you'll have to get someone else to sit in this
chair!" Not surprisingly, we didn't make a deal.
Wow. So what happened to the uncompromising Clinton? The highest
approval ratings since he took office in 1992.
On the other hand, the glee with with John Boehner and Mitch McConnell greeted
the announcement of the deal is positively nauseating.
Reading the comments section of a piece on the New
York Times website, one is struck by the unanimity and passion of the
readers who feel that this last one, this deal with the Republicans to keep
the Bush tax cuts, is the last straw: they will never vote for Obama again.
They feel betrayed, disappointed, angry.
The depth and breadth of rejection is stunning-- post after post after
post, categorically insisting that Obama is done.
Why didn't we just elect
McCain/Palin and get it over with? Other than Health Care, is there
anything important that would be different? Is the Health Care plan
even all that great, after gutting it of all the genuinely progressive
elements?
It is striking. It is almost tragic. Suppose they
got really mad and decided they would support someone progressive and
liberal and passionate in the next round of Democratic presidential
primaries, someone who is about change, who promises a new approach to
government, and who seems to genuinely care about the average working stiff:
they will never know until it's too late if that person is going to be
another Obama. They will never know until it's too late if that
man or woman is going to be signing another massive tax break for rich
people, or cutting social security, or putting people on trial in front of
military tribunals.
The funny thing is, if a nut case like Sarah Palin got elected, she'd
probably do exactly what she promises to do, leading us all into disaster
after disaster, like Iraq, Afghanistan, coal-fired power plants, ethanol,
and the collapse of the financial industry.
An esteemed colleague of mine
makes a compelling case that it's too early to judge-- every recent
president plunged in the opinion polls at this stage of his presidency.
Clinton and Reagan both recovered. George W. barely recovered.
Health care may yet prove to be the jewel of his administration and the
economy could turn around and everyone might eventually forget all about the
mid-terms and the winter of 2010. It's possible.
It's possible that
it takes two years for a new man to really begin to fit into the suit of the
presidency, to know the length of it's sleeves, the ability to stretch, the
tightness around the crotch. Maybe we will see somersaults in 2011 and
2012.
Obama has made some exceptional appointments, and the government is at
least behaving rationally on a range of domestic issues that never see the
front page. But like those readers of the New York Times, I
wonder why when some asshole on the right campaigns on stupid ideas like
environmental and banking deregulation and aggressive military policies and
lower taxes for the rich, he gets to do exactly what he said he was going to
do, but when someone rational on the left wins an election, he always seems
to track so far to the middle you have to wonder why we even have two
parties.
All Contents Copyright
© Bill Van Dyk
2010 All Rights Reserved
Font: Verdana