The tax cut compromise is less about ideological betrayal or spinelessness and more about generating economic and political recovery.
We may have dodged another Great Depression, but the unemployment rate hangs stubbornly near 10 percent six months after the "recovery" began. And among the less educated, unemployment is at 15 percent or even more. Simply waiting for things to naturally get better is not an option for the millions of Americans still feeling the intense pain of joblessness, bankruptcy, and foreclosure.
From day one, Obama and his team -- led by Larry Summers and Tim Geithner -- understood this. In early 2009, they passed a stimulus package bigger than most thought possible.
By early summer, it was clear that the first round of stimulus was insufficient to jump-start job creation, despite the public optimism emanating from the economic team at the White House. Due to the conservative counter reaction to round one, it was impossible politically to raise the issue before the election. If Democrats won the House, undoubtedly we would be looking at a second stimulus package in a lame-duck session. But the pasting delivered by the right sealed the deal and made another any additional stimulus based on spending an impossible dream.
But team Obama wasn't going to give up that easily -- because there are two ways to skin a stimulus cat: through tax cuts as well as through spending.
Smartly, Obama realized the best opportunity to get the largest tax package with Republicans was now -- while everyone wanted to take a pause from contact sports and show they could govern. Boehner and McConnell feel that way now, but they might not in February or July. So Obama boldly struck quickly and cut a deal that will inject one trillion dollars into the economy over the next two years -- compared to allowing an expiration of the Bush tax cuts.
Yes, he could have cut a better deal. Isn't that the definition of dealmaking? It always can be made better, including this one. The pure of heart progressive caucus would rather fight and be right, in June or July, than move forward on a deal right now. But that path would have delayed any eventual tax cut stimulus to a point in the future when it would be too late to have produced fast results.
Whatever you think of throwing in the towel even before Speaker Pelosi becomes Speaker Boehner, the injection of stimulus via tax cuts will happen in record time. Speed is the name of the game if the economy and employment is to create jobs in significant numbers in the next two years.
High unemployment is also a political death sentence -- ask Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush -- and read Gerald Ford's 1976 epitaph: Here lies a one-term president who ended his term with 7.7 percent unemployment. Only Reagan escaped their fate with a high jobless rate continuously plummeting in the lead up to the reelect. The current administration knows this history well and is determined not to repeat it.
The left shouldn't feel betrayed. Obama is a calculating political animal who knows that without a second term, liberal priorities will be shelved for another four or eight years; he can't afford to mire himself in ideological purity..
He's right: Reelection is key to the broader agenda. And that rests on jump-starting the economy to start producing jobs before the end of next year. The White House has made the clear-eyed calculation that the unemployed don't care a hill of beans about philosophical fights inside the Beltway. They care about results.
Hopefully, this dose of good policy will result in more jobs and less economic pain across the board. And just maybe, Obama in the White House until 2017.
This is and interesting "White Board" explanation from the White House - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOH6t6mxuJM&feature=player_embedded
If this is truly part of a re-election strategy, one would think the far left would be thrown some kind of bone. Instead, chatter about a Grayson challenge increases.
Anyway, you can't prove a negative - it's pointless to argue that because there is no depression Obama had something to do with that, since, afterall, it didn't happen (in other words you first have to prove that there was a depression looming, and accountancy and statistics won't get you that).
As for this ridiculous McConnell plan to extend the Bush-Obama tax gifts to the wealthy benefiting the middle class - since it includes reduction of revenue for Social Security, thus making dismantling that program inevitable (a move Obama intended to make anyway, as his Deficit Commiion signaled), I'm afraid that as this dawns on voters, as it will, they are not likely to find this 'compromise' so appealing in the long term.
Be angry, but focus your anger on the right target!
Maybe that would be the right target.
The fix? Watch the President.
summers and geithner are from the "kings of deregulation" set that brought us this mess to begin with: enough with the pretending that these people are interested in or capable of returning the country to economic sanity
"could have cut a better deal"... if he had tried at all yes, just what kind of deal do you think this is? I don't have to tell you, Arianna will tell you herself elsewhere on this same website
please stop pretending that "tax cuts" in any way shape or form is the equivalent of an intentionally structured jobs plan! the "compromise" of last night is not a jobs program, it is not additional stimulus
“...what could you, or I, or anyone not walking in this president'Âs shoes do differentlÂy?
PersonallyÂ, playing a game of chicken with republicanÂs with this much at stake is not an option.
Maybe for some, that alternativÂe is acceptable but not for me.
I would like to hear the opinions of those actually collecting UIB.
I've heard the media, the politicianÂs and the activists screaming in outrage over this but what about those for whom that benefit is their only income?
One activist stated they wanted this president to fight on into next year "...JanuarÂy, February, March if necessary.Â.."
Again, folks with jobs...gooÂd jobs, in many cases...arÂe demanding the president play chicken with millions of people's welfare.
And finally, despite all that's scary about the economy right now, how does tossing several millions more into the mix with no income make it any less scary?â€
Posted elsewhere, earlier today:
“Am I missing something here?
For all this handwringiÂng about President Obama's betrayal of progressivÂe ideals, what should he have done, what were his choices?
Fight or compromiseÂ.
I am one of those unemployed for over a year. I am also a single parent who rely on those unemploymeÂnt benefits to keep my family fed, a roof over our heads, and our utilities on.
Today, I honestly don't give a damn that the richest 2% get a few extra bucks, maybe I should but I don't. I am too busy being relieved that I have a little more time to possibly find a job. Too busy being relieved that a homeless shelter and a soup kitchen are no longer a very real possibilitÂy for this month.
As a longtime viewer of the nightly MSNBC lineup, I'm feeling a special disgust for the attacks on this man from the professionÂal left. They sit atop their multi-millÂion dollar thrones and scream, curse, and pound the table because he didn't fight for ideals.
Here's a newsflash from an Obama supporter:
I cannot feed my family with ideals.
Until I find a job, if my benefits are cut off...beneÂfits I've paid for...I will be out on the streets.
Who's door can I knock on, which of these angry pundits can I call to help pay my rent, heat, electric or water bill?
Food?
I thought not.â€