Actually, it's a pretty good deal...

[babylonsister]

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/barack_obama/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/12/06/obama_tax_cuts_bush

Actually, it's a pretty good deal...
By Steve Kornacki

snip//

But look a little closer and you'll find good reason to doubt that Obama will face the same intraparty blowback. Sure, progressive activists are up in arms -- as they were when Obama compromised on the stimulus last year, and on healthcare, and at countless other points in his presidency. Their feelings are genuine, but it's also worth remembering that they're doing their job -- using their voices to push a president from their party toward their policy goals. And it's also worth remembering that there's a clear disconnect between the loudest voices on left -- the ones that have been branding Obama a sell-0ut -- and rank-and-file Democratic voters, who still approve of the president's job performance at a rate of about 80 percent. Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan weren't doing that well with their own bases at this same point in their presidencies.

Democrats, by and large, believe that Obama has been operating in good faith. This is different from the intense skepticism that Bush already faced from the GOP base, which remembered him as the moderate who blasted Reaganomics as "voodoo economics" in his 1980 presidential campaign, when he made his deal with the Democrats. In raising taxes in '90, Bush was confirming what the right had long suspected about him. Obama, though, has more wiggle room with his party's voters. Which is why the concessions that he won from the GOP are so important. As part of the deal, expiring unemployment benefits for millions of Americans will be extended for 13 months. Just as importantly, there is now a real prospect that the Senate will act on repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and ratification of the START treaty before this month's lame duck session ends. Is extending tax cuts for the richest Americans (and blowing another hole in the deficit in the process) a steep price to pay for all of this? Absolutely. But that's politics: Obama took the best deal he could possibly get. And he got enough out of it that Democratic voters, who still like him enormously, can rationalize their way to supporting it (or at least not feeling betrayed by it) -- no matter how much grief Obama takes from liberal activists and commentators.

There's also a longer term calculation at work. Note that the deal also includes a reduction in the Social Security payroll tax and an expansion of the earned income tax credit and the college tuition tax credit. This is on top of the extension in unemployment benefits. These measures have one thing in common: They are stimulative in nature. (So, for that matter, is the fact that middle class Americans won't face a tax hike -- something that would have happened had Obama balked at the deal and played a long-term game of chicken with the GOP). Granted, this isn't the type of stimulus that, by itself, will restore the economy to good health, but it will help -- and it's more than Obama was on course to get from the GOP. The compromise, in other words, gives Obama a chance to take further action to boost the economy and bring unemployment down -- and the more he can do that, the better his chances (and his party's chances) will be in 2012.

snip//

Some of the most vocal liberals will argue that Obama should have refused this deal, dared the GOP to let all the tax cuts (an unemployment benefits for millions of Americans) expire, and used his bully-pulpit to convince Americans that Republicans did it all in the name of protecting millionaires and billionaires from a tax hike. This wouldn't have worked, though. As the 2010 midterms demonstrated (hardly for the first time), when the economy is stalled, voters look for reasons to blame the man in charge -- whether it's logical or not. Obama is in no position to win a P.R. battle with the GOP right now. That's just reality, and on Monday, he dealt with reality and came away with the best compromise he could get.

[Tunkamerica]

1. voters also tend to listen to the media

who tend to lean toward their employers' POV

[zbdent]

12. who are more than happy to tout the "displeasure" of the "base"

giving the impression that the people who were "unhappy" with the health care package agreed that it should be totally scrapped in favor of what the Republicans want, as opposed to the fact that those who were "unhappy" with it wanting it to go further to the left.

When was the last time you heard the "media" pointing out how many "Democrats" are backing the President?

(unfortunately, my position is now that Obama will not likely be re-elected ...)

[CBHagman]

2. Another factor was the way the Senate works...

...or in fact how it doesn't work, with the possibility of a minority or even a single senator bringing things to a standstill.

[jefferson_dem]

3. Ah... Truth AND Reason.

Thanks for that.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zeemike]

5. I guess it is always a good deal if they release the hostages.

But that is not a sure thing ether....but they will get him eather way....now they will portray him as weak and up the anti....just like blackmailers always do.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. yes it was a big fucking victory

:sarcasm:

[cornermouse]

7. No Virginia, it was not a good deal

And an average deal would have been 2 years of unemployment for two years of Bush tax cuts. We didn't even get that.

Another thing to keep in mind... Lower taxes = more debt.

[chimpymustgo]

8. Yummo!! This shit sandwich is DELICIOUS! Just fucking sad.

[flpoljunkie]

9. A damn shame 99ers weren't included in the deal when R's got everything they wanted--Bush tax cuts

extended for two years and a new, reduced estate tax--35% with a new threshold of $5 million for individuals--while unemployment benefits extended for only 13 months and nothing for the long-term unemployed, the 99ers.

[Ikonoklast]

13. And if he had waited NOBODY WOULD GET ANYTHING.

But, purity sandwiches are delicious, I'm told.

[flpoljunkie]

14. Tell that 'purity sandwich' shi*t to the forgotten, long-term unemployed. They deserve better.

[democrat_patriot]

17. Like what? Not having their benefits extended?

START treaty
13 month unemployment extension
Lower taxes

Pretty good stuff. Oh and some rich people kept their current tax rate.

I want Obama to fight, that is my only complaint.

[Hello_Kitty]

28. The 99ers didn't get anything. Were you not paying attention to that? eom

[frylock]

33. are there no workhouses?

:sarcasm:

[polichick]

10. Great deal if you're a Republican. And this will set us up for the attack...

...on Social Security that's coming in 2011 - something else the prez won't fight.

[AlinPA]

20. Watch that "compromise" be a cut in SS in exchange for the Food Stamp Program. nt

[high density]

11. "Republicans achieve top goal in Obama tax-cut plan"

Republicans control neither the House nor the Senate — and certainly not the White House. But they largely dictated the terms of President Barack Obama's proposed tax-cut compromise, which disgruntled congressional Democrats want to discuss in closed meetings that are likely to be rowdy.

Republicans prevailed on their biggest demand: continuing Bush administration tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, despite Obama's 2008 campaign promise to let them expire for households earning more than $250,000 a year. Obama, while acknowledging Democratic unrest, agreed to extend the tax breaks for two years, whereas Republicans wanted a permanent extension.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101207/ap_on_bi_ge/us_tax_cuts

[donco6]

15. Why reduce SS payroll tax?

Again, playing right into the hands of the Catfood Commission, who can now recalculate their actuarial studies to show how we simply MUST raise the retirement age because SS will be broke even sooner than expected! It's a CRISIS, I tell you!

There are LOTS of things that are "stimulative in nature." Tying it to reductions in funding for a program that's already under attack is idiotic. This deal is even WORSE than I'd imagined.

[littlewolf]

21. reducing the SS payroll tax for one year

lets business put that money that would be going to the Gov't ...
into hiring ppl ...

[donco6]

23. Not if it expires, it doesn't.

We have almost 800 employees. We rarely hire people on one-year contracts just to release them when the funding goes. No chance.

[demwing]

26. Yes because, when faced with unexpected funds, businesses ALWAYS invest it in their employee bas

Especially when there's absolutely no change in the demand for the goods and services he business produces.

[AlinPA]

29. This is the first step towards cutting SS. When they try to reinstate the 2%, republicans

will scream "increasing taxes on the American people!" and Democrats will make a deal with them ("compromise") to keep cutting it.

[donco6]

31. Yep.

And we thought working to 69 was bad. That was with payroll taxes (and payrolls) at current levels. When Obama gets done, it won't have enough to fund anyone.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

32. That's (one of) my concerns...

You cannot cut the FICA contribution at all "temporarily" without raising the ceiling from $106k to a much higher level.

If only the Dems held the White House or at least one house of Congress ... oh, wait.

[Honeycombe8]

16. spin spin spin spin. The dogs are out, all right. But to my surprise, they're out against their

they're out against their own party members.

If only the Democratic Dogs had been sent out en masse this past year, to work spin against the Republicans and the "death panelers" and the tea partiers and Fox...how different things would be.

I'm not buying the Democratic Dog-spin now. Too little, too late. And it's insulting they sent the dogs out on their own supporters, instead of doing this for the right reasons, for the right people.

[ibegurpard]

19. yup

[AlinPA]

18. Why would republicans go along with New START and DADT Repeal? They hold the cards now. nt

[donco6]

25. START - maybe. They don't wanna die either.

But DADT? HAHAHAHA! No chance.

[karynnj]

22. Fantastic article that does put the deal in perspective

I would add to the highlighted last paragraph that not only would Obama lose the PR battle if he did not make this deal, there is no hope of winning what we want in 2011 with a Republican House and more Republican Senate.

It looks like Obama had two main goals - to stimulate the economy (something the republicans were fighting), but needed for recovery and to pass the middle class tax cuts. He got both - and the cost was - increased debt.

I would argue that Obama NOT putting debt reduction ahead of the needs of the unemployed and the need for more stimulus is incredibly important. Think about it - at the national and state level, a game is constantly repeated - when the Republicans are in they cut revenues and give tax cuts - making every one happy. When Democrats are in, suddenly, they are told that the "adult" thing to do is to deal with the raising debt - no improving services. Obama REFUSED to play this game. The economy needs stimulus - and it will get some. Given the tax cuts to the wealthy, the Republicans are in no position to claim the good parts of the deal raise the debt - everything in the deal does.

If you believe -as must do - that the condition of the economy is the key to 2012 - Obama won as much stimulus as he could get from the Republicans. This gives the economy the best chance of contining its very fragile, too slow recovery.

It was also interesting that earlier in the day, Obama was speaking of restarting the economy. Others in the JK group noticed that Obama used "Kerry's line" on the Meet the press - of this being our Sputnik moment - when another person noted that Dr Cho had used the same phrase last week. Three mentions suggests this is a real theme - and a very positive one. As Kerry said on MTP, you need to invest in technology and industry - not just cut spending.

To me, the combination of Obama's speech in NC and this plan shows that he will not accept the role that Democrats have in the past of taking the debt MORE seriously than the republicans do. That could lead to balance when both sides work on the issue.

[bushisanidiot]

24. Good article.

Count me as a PROUD democrat who has our President's back on this. We know it's not what he wanted, but with time running out for middle class and poor americans, he had little choice. Not budging and allowing the tax cuts to expire would have hurt everyone, 98% of which are middle to low class tax payers.

[demwing]

27. How do we know "its not what he wanted"?

How can you believe anything this man tells you anymore?

[Boxerfan]

30. Dribble & unrec!

No way that was a "good" deal...

If you don't know why I can't tell you-