Roy Sekoff appeared on "The Ed Show" Thursday night to discuss the reasoning behind Obama's willingness to extend the Bush-era tax cuts to the richest Americans.
The bottom line? "Sometimes the simplest answer is the right answer," Sekoff said. "[Obama] is just not that into forcing the wealthy to pay their fair share."
Sekoff cited the White House's unyielding fight on other issues, such as the START treaty, as evidence. "They're fighting on the hill tooth and nail to pass the START treaty," he said. "The White House is doing things they've never done for tax cuts. They're pounding the pavement. They're twisting arms. They're calling out Republicans. And you know what? It looks like they're going to get their way on that one. It shows that when they want to fight, they can do it."
Sekoff offered a somber analogy to sum up his feelings on the matter: "I feel like I'm a divorced guy looking at the old home movies of the president I used to love...what happened?"
WATCH:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson: The Great Disconnect
Romney: Tax deal, bad deal - USATODAY.com
Obama: Tax Cut Deal Not Perfect, But Worth Passage (VIDEO)
Tax-cut deal barely dents Obama's high support among liberals ...
Angry Democrats rebel against Obama's tax-cut deal with Republicans
Obama Urges Passage of Tax-Cut Deal, Pledges to Work with Business ...
Obama's tax-cut deal upsets many major donors - Los Angeles Times
House Votes to Begin Debate Obama's Tax-Cut Extension Plan
GOP lets Obama off the hook by giving him tax-cut deal
Democrats need to be fighters!
Let's do something about it my blog: http://jbiÂÂrdz.org/
Oh, the fire and brimstone, yesterday!
The President passed HCR: We're unhappy
The President is winding down Iraq (it's not even in the news anymore): We're unhappy
Elizabeth Warren is at work: We're unhappy
Guantanimo is winding down: We're unhappy
The world respects us again: we're unhappy
DADT will pass: We're unhappy
The wealthy got less in this compromise bill than EVRERYBODY else: We're unhappy
I can understand the President's frustration.
Sheesh!
Maybe the president can try understanding OUR frustration --- and attack the Republicans with even half the vigor with which he attacked us!
Obama had 58 Dems for 6 months, and 57 the rest of his first two years.
That means that the Dems systematically needed ALL the Blue Dogs and two Independents during 6 months, and all the Blue Dogs, 2 Independents and at least one Republican for the rest of the time.
So it's actually very simply: if "we the people" give the GOP 41 Senators, then we give them the legal power to block or strongly water down each and every bill (because remember, Congress, not the WH, has legislative power: only Congress has the constitutional right to write and pass bills).
So as I progressive I'd say that I don't understand the frustration of part of the progressives. They should attack those who are responsable for the fact that the Dems HAVE to compromise: the GOP, and the American people who elected those 41 Senators. AND we should work hard to get as soon as possible a Dem Congress again.
Dem Congress means: a 60+ Dem majority in the Senate, just as FDR had.
That still won't make it possible to send progressive bills to the president's desk, as there are only 10-15 progressives in the Senate for the moment, the rest being moderate Dems and Blue dogs. But at least the compromises would be compromises between progressive Dems and conservative Dems, and no longer between a Dem ideology and a GOP ideology.
As to "attacking progressives": as I progressive I never felt attacked by what Obama said. On the contrary, I was happy that from time to time he criticized the 'professional left', which means those pundits on the left who aren't really informing the American people of what's happening in Congress and are blaming Obama for things that he could not possibly avoid or do.
Criticism isn't a one way street. Pundits on the left have been attacking Obama very early in his presidency, and it only became worse since then. I don't agree with them, and I'm glad that the president has to guts to say what a lot of us think: many of those attacks weren't fair and weren't based on all the facts.
What it has not been marked by is courage and a willingness to stand by ideals and do what is best for the American people in any and all cases.
Had the Democrats and Obama drawn a line in the sand and fought for us on ANY issue, they would have inspired the American people - and we, the People, would have held on through any privation forced upon us by the greed that drives the Republicans until we could give the Democrats the reinforcements they needed in both the House and the Senate.
What we got, instead, was a good reason to give up any hope for the Democrats, for compromise by definition moves you closer to the other side - and now with this latest kowtowing to the wealthy and their tools, they're nigh indistinguishable from Republicans in the perception of the American people.
When it comes right down to it, just what have the past few years taught the American people is the difference between today's Democrats and the Republicans?
Only that Democrats speechify before they do the bidding of the Republicans.
Doth has a DEEP and ABIDING faith in the American electorate that just voted against their interests in droves. And the press would have played the tax hikes to the point where the avaerage American would believe s/he was screwed by the President. The President was right to compromise to help the unemployed and middle class Americans. This is not an abstract exercise based on hunches about Americans' willingness to sacrifice. The rich would not suffer one bit from their taxes going up 3%. Your anger should be against the GOP.
If you don't see the many differences between a Dem who governs and a Republican, here are some examples:
- when Bush left, GDP was at -6%, and we were heading into a depression (= GDP < -10%). It was the worst recession since the Great Depression. After less than a year of Obama, GDP was at +6.4%, and the economy has been steadily growing since then. One thing has been absolutely crucial to obtain this rather amazing result, and that was the historic stimulus package the Dems passed very early on. Bush would NEVER have passed something like that, because the GOP only believes in tax cuts. If Bush would have passed even a smaller package already in June 2008 for instance, we'd have an unemployment rate of 6-7% today instead of 10%.
- when Bush left the Oval Office, we were losing 800,000 jobs a month and each month 100,000 more than the previous month. Obama managed to STOP that downward spiral, and then turned it completely around: we soon started to loose each month 100,000 jobs LESS than the previous month, and now already had ten consecutive months of private sector job growth. The difference: one MILLION more jobs a month under Obama than when Bush left.
- the HCR, when fully implemented, will save more than 100 lives a day, and is already saving lives now. It will also reduces costs for families who have an individual policy by 50%. For the first time in history, ordinary Americans will have access to exactly the same HC options as members of Congress have. Pre-existing conditions and annual and lifetime caps on the amount of care are banned. The GOP completely OPPOSED this law.
- student loan reform will give access to college to more than 12 MILLION students. The GOP opposed this bill.
- investments in clean energy have doubled. The GOP rejected this bill.
- Obama is completely reforming the education system, so that within a decade, America is once again leading when it comes to knowledge of science, math etc. The answer of the GOP? They want to REDUCE the education budget by 20%.
- DADT will probably soon be repealed, and if not, this administration fought really hard to get us there, while the GOP has been doing everything it could to block it.
Martin Luther King had a Dream. Barak Hussein Obama killed the Dream!
Problem is, it's our cheek they're offering up to be smacked.
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#the-gap-between-the-top-1-and-everyone-else-hasnt-been-this-bad-since-the-roaring-twenties-1
The answer is imho simple indeed: part of the pundits on the left seemed to have believed that Obama would change things overnight, and when he doesn't, prefer to blame it on him instead of reflecting on the extent to which those expectations were realistic.
Of course Obama wants to tax the rich and increase help for the middle class. Just look at what he asked Congress to do, and what Congress did when they didn't had to compromise with the GOP (= before Scott Brown was elected): the Recovery Act and the HCR INCREASED taxes for the 5% wealthiest Americans.
We all know that the GOP would NEVER let that happen. That's why after months of campaigning on it (just watch the videos on www.whitehouse.gov, if you didn't know this), Obama still couldn't convince the GOP to drop the tax cuts for the rich. So he HAD to compromise.
On START on the contrary there's NO ideological disagreement between the Dems and GOP at all. The opposition of the GOP in this case is merely political. They want to be able to say that THEY are responsible for START, and that's why they only want to vote for in next year.
What strongly disappoints me is the fact that the 'professional left' seems to forget what the word "compromise" means. Every compromise that Reid can pass in the Senate suddenly is supposed to reflect Obama's strongest desire and deepest wishes.
It's like - to continue Roy's comparison - being married to a woman who has a job with a lot of responsibilities, and blaming her when instead of staying in bed with you, she has to get up and work. To conclude that apparently she "doesn't love you" when she leaves to meet a colleague is as absurd as supposing that suddenly, because of the inevitable compromises with the GOP in the Senate, Obama or the Dems would have forgotten their own ideology and adopted a conservative belief system ... .
Now it's to the point Barack Obama is passing basically Republican legislation with mostly Republican votes and a handful of Democratic votes instead of honoring his promise to return to the tax rates from the most prosperous period in human history. All the while the same Republican leadership Obama is in cahoots with says their number one mission is to make sure he doesn't get re-elected. Obamas strategy makes zero sense to me. I was prepared for sacrifice and pain when our President was elected to his mandate of change. The promises were worth suffering for, and they still are but apparently our President disagrees.
Here is my answer: Mr. President, sorry 2 years is not enough time to give up trying. I'm pretty disappointed that you feel Republican legislation is the best deal you can get for us and that we should be glad for it. America I say if our President won't give us the change we want and he promised; let's get it from someone else.
Let's do something about it my blog: http://jbirdz.org/
Because remember, the Constitution says that Congress, not the president, has legislative power. So Congress, not the WH, writes and passes the bills.
And with 41 Senators we gave the GOP the legal power to block or strongly water down each and every bill, which is of course what they're doing, especially when part of the left will imagine that it's Obama who's responsable for the fact that the GOP is perverting the Senate rules, as the Dems have a 50% majority in the House and Senate and have the WH.
As long as part of the left doesn't want to accept this reality, we'll always blame the wrong person, and be the first to undermine our elected officials, instead of using them to get as much as we can for the middle class.
The Democratic Party itself, including the President and Congress, I expect to work together and fight if necessary for important issues, especially ones they have campaigned for and rallied the whole country around.
Let's do something about it my blog: http://jbiÂrdz.org/
The relevant argument is that the Republicans just aren't that into ensuring Americans' basic necessities. For all of the rhetoric about 'protect America' they don't seem to care about protecting Americans. And what belies their esteem for the collective America is an individualism where a well-to-do American shouldn't give a carp about the plight of a fallen-on-hard-times American.
In the arena of stand-offs, who do you think will blink first: the one attempting to ensure people's ability to shop at Cartier or the one attempting to ensure people have food and shelter? Luxury or necessity? Republicans are stroking the vanity of a few while endangering the lives of a significant percentage of Americans.
Who would we attempt to save: those in imminent danger of not being able to buy food or those in imminent danger of not being able to buy a top of the line Mercedes that would replace their two or three year old model? And if the only choice was both, would we do it to save those who couldn't save themselves? Because, unfortunately, that's what it's come down to.
To me, it's incredible that when the GOP uses its legal power to impose a tax cut for the rich, the 'professional left' doesn't blame them for it, but instead blames the only one who has been consistently fighting against it.
Divide et impera in action ... .