Robert Reich: Why is the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers Helping the Republicans?

[ProSense]

3. Why exactly shouldn't

the WH frame it this way?

From the report:

While the President is committed to working with Congress to reach compromises on areas of disagreement, there is no reason to delay acting where everyone agrees: extending tax cuts for the middle-class. There is no reason to hold the middle-class hostage while we debate tax cuts for the highest income earners.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/consumer_report_embargo.pdf

This is to point out the irresponsibility of Republicans.

As Krugman notes, there is a consequece, but the President should hold his ground.

<...>

So President Obama has to make a decision, almost immediately, about how to deal with continuing Republican obstruction. How far should he go in accommodating the G.O.P.’s demands?

My answer is, not far at all. Mr. Obama should hang tough, declaring himself willing, if necessary, to hold his ground even at the cost of letting his opponents inflict damage on a still-shaky economy. And this is definitely no time to negotiate a “grand bargain” on the budget that snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.

In saying this, I don’t mean to minimize the very real economic dangers posed by the so-called fiscal cliff that is looming at the end of this year if the two parties can’t reach a deal. Both the Bush-era tax cuts and the Obama administration’s payroll tax cut are set to expire, even as automatic spending cuts in defense and elsewhere kick in thanks to the deal struck after the 2011 confrontation over the debt ceiling. And the looming combination of tax increases and spending cuts looks easily large enough to push America back into recession.

Nobody wants to see that happen. Yet it may happen all the same, and Mr. Obama has to be willing to let it happen if necessary.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/09/opinion/krugman-lets-not-make-a-deal.html

Americans will blame Republicans if no deal is made.

Currently, Democrats are putting up a united front:

Patty Murray: If GOP Refuses All Tax Hikes, We’ll Let Them Go Up And Start Over
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021791837

SPINE! President Obama Will Let ALL the Bush Tax Cuts Expire......if he doesn't get what he wants.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021775710

I'm not going to do that!!!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021786489

Pelosi and Reid Have OBAMA's BACK: No Social Security Cuts & Taxes MUST Be RAISED On The RICH
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021843971

Democratic Senator Introduces Bill To Lift Social Security’s Tax Cap, Extend Solvency For Decades
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021834952

Do Not Cut Social Security

September 20, 2012

A major bloc of 29 senators took a strong stand today against any cuts to Social Security as part of a deficit reduction deal. "We will oppose including Social Security cuts for future or current beneficiaries in any deficit reduction package," the senators said in a letter circulated by Sen. Bernie Sanders, the founder of the Senate Defending Social Security Caucus. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Charles Schumer, the Senate's No. 3 leader, signed the letter. So did Sens. Mark Begich, Sheldon Whitehouse and Al Franken, who joined Sanders at a Capitol news conference.

Social Security has not contributed to the deficit or to the national debt, the senators said. The program that benefits more than 50 million retirees, widows, widowers, orphans and disabled Americans has a $2.7 trillion surplus and, according to actuaries, will be able to pay every benefit owed to every eligible recipient for the next 21 years.

"Contrary to some claims, Social Security is not the cause of our nation's deficit problem. Not only does the program operate independently, but it is prohibited from borrowing," the letter said. "Even though Social Security operates in a fiscally responsible manner, some still advocate deep benefit cuts and seem convinced that Social Security hands out lavish welfare checks. But Social Security is not welfare. Seniors earned their benefits by working and paying into the system," the letter added.

Social Security has not contributed to deficits because it has a dedicated funding stream. Workers and employers each pay half of a 12.4 percent payroll tax on the first $110,100 of a worker's wages. The tax rate for employees was reduced to 4.2 percent in 2011 and 2012, but is scheduled to return to 6.2 percent in January.

To read the letter, click here »

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=066FB085-5798-4E6C-ABA2-85549D84DFA6

Other signatories:

Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), Tim Johnson (D-S.D.), John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.)

This doesn't include Elizabeth Warren and other new Senators.

A mandate on ending tax cuts for the rich
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021792535