Tax Cuts: "GOP appears willing to shoot the hostage" or "Why Obama is Screwed Either Way"

[Clio the Leo]

Even with tax cuts, GOP appears willing to shoot the hostage
By Adam Serwer

<snip>

On 60 Minutes, President Obama indicated he'd be willing to compromise with Republicans by extending the tax cuts for the middle class permanently while possibly agreeing to a temporary extension of the cuts for the wealthy. House Republican Whip Eric Cantor, meanwhile, said Republicans would refuse the White House proposal to "decouple" the rates in such a manner.

A comment from an anonymous GOP operative reinforces the political dynamic I described last week:

Republicans, meanwhile, have been less accommodating, with some suggesting that they could simply hold off until January, when they will control the House and hold a stronger hand in the Senate. That would set the stage for a more powerful push to permanently extend all the cuts -- the preferred GOP alternative.

"They might blame GOP obstructionism. But, you know, people are going to start missing a lot of money in their weekly paychecks in January. And there's only going to be one person in the White House," said a Republican House aide, speaking on condition of anonymity to describe party thinking.

Republicans win if the Bush tax cuts get made permanent, and they win if the tax cuts expire. If its the former, Republicans get their preferred policy option. If it's the latter, they get to accuse Obama of raising taxes. The way the White House really loses politically is if the tax cuts simply expire, since even if the White House capitulates to Republicans on making all the tax cuts permanent the administration gets to claim they worked with Republicans to cut taxes.

But because Republicans win either way, they have no incentive to compromise, and can simply hold out for whatever they want. The more willing to negotiate the White House appears, the more likely Republicans are to move the goal posts. As with health-care reform, Republicans are left with the stronger negotiating position because they're willing to shoot the hostage. The deficit doesn't matter, and even preserving tax cuts for the wealthy comes second to the Republicans' primary goal, which is to destroy the president.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/even_with_tax_cuts_republicans.html

Why White House may cave on Bush tax cuts
By Adam Serwer

<snip>

While liberals would prefer to see a fight over extending them only for those making less than $250,000, the administration likely does not want them both to expire allowing Republicans to claim falsely that Obama actually raised taxes. The advantage here is that Republicans could be portrayed as holding middle-class tax cuts hostage to tax cuts for the rich. Might as well show the country that Democrats aren't just whinier Republicans. But given the Democrats' anemic messaging and the poor economy I'd be surprised if it worked out that way.

Last year the president signed a giant tax cut that no one remembers. There must be some temptation in the White House to capitulate knowing that if all the tax cuts are made permanent, the GOP will never let anyone forget that they cut taxes, meaning that this time the administration might actually get credit for them. It would also grant the administration its first major bipartisan accomplishment.

Still, the only thing that matters is the economy. If unemployment is under 8 percent by 2012, Obama could reveal himself to be an advance scout planning a Romulan invasion of Earth and still get reelected. The GOP knows that, which is why, given the logic of their behavior so far, it makes sense for them to say they want to extend all the tax cuts while not actually doing so.

As Jonathan Chait points out, anything the president passes with Republican help will make him more popular. The GOP's desire to put more money in rich people's pockets is in conflict with their stated interest in making Obama a one-term president. Which is why we ultimately may not see anything happen even if Obama gives them whatever they want.

Even if Obama "capitulates" on the tax cuts, then, he wins. The middle class doesn't win. The economy won't be strengthened. But Obama wins, which, from his perspective, makes it worth "losing" this fight. And that's political science 101, too.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/why_the_white_house_might_capi.html

[Tansy_Gold]

1. This is why Obama's policies, from Day One of his transition period

doomed him.

He put "bipartisanship" above anything and everything else. He put it above pragmatic politics. The pukes had no intention of working with him, and they could comfortably do so. The Dems had no spines.

Obama never led; he went his own way and let everyone else fall off the cliff.



TG

[ProSense]

4. Actually, no.

People have been defining leadership as Obama not doing what they want.

The President is leading this country, doing it in an effective way, and there are those who will never agree with his choices.

Leadership is making the choices he believes is right for the country. He needs to communicate that, but there is no guarantee that everyone will be satisfied with his message. Tough choices have that effect.

[Jakes Progress]

45. So you say the president didn't want a PO.

That the president wanted to leave DADT in place longer?

That the president wanted the banks to have less regulation?

I think you might want to clarify your statement that he is effectively leading the country in the way he wants it to go. I know your first job is to attack anyone who disagrees with the president, but I though the operating meme was that he was helpless against all those nasty congress people, not that he got what he wanted because of effective leadership. You seem here to be out of step with the mainline defenders by saying that the way things are is the way the president chose to have them because he thinks it is right for the country.

And this works both ways you know. While you argue that "there are those who will never agree with his choices", I don't suppose you have the same disdain for those who will always agree with his choices.

What choices has he made and lead us to that you disagree with? Can you name the times he has done or not done something that you found to be against your principles?

[Clio the Leo]

5. And how, pray tell, was he going to "lead" those Blue Dog dems....

.... who represented districts who voted for John McCain?

An overwhelming majority of the Democratic lawmakers who opposed the bill — 31 of the 39 — represent districts that were won by Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, in the 2008 presidential election, and a third of them were freshmen

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/08/us/politics/1108-health-care-vote.html

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RBInMaine]

33. Never led? Healthcare DONE, Fair Pay DONE, Stimulus DONE, Stem Cells DONE, et.c etc. etc.

[Tansy_Gold]

35. Never led. Health care was not a product of leadership but of

capitulation to the wishes and financial interests of others (pukes, health insurers, pharma, etc.). A few individuals may have been helped by the HCR bill, but many others were hurt (rising premiums/co-pays/deductibles) and the causes of the problems were not addressed at all.

Fair Pay and Stem Cells were not major campaign issues and did not face strong political opposition from the pukes, thus did not require true political "leadership."

Stimulus may have preserved some jobs and even created a few but it did not resolve the economic crisis which is, in fact, worsening steadily, on a state and local level if not the national.


TG, NTY

[Pirate Smile]

2. K & R. Republicans are in a win-win and President Obama is in a lose-lose.

What fun. :(

[pscot]

3. Does "winning" include a 2nd term?

[AndyTiedye]

6. Only One Democratic President Has Been Re-Elected Since World War II

[ProSense]

8. And it was in 1996. n/t.

[Clio the Leo]

9. I think, in theory, you can count Johnson in that...

... it's not TECHNICALLY true ... but he was certainly given ANOTHER chance to serve.

[AndyTiedye]

14. So Was President Truman, But Neither Were Re-Elected

[mkultra]

31. and only one has not made his second term

when he party is new to the white house

[Pirate Smile]

7. Do his chances of winning a 2nd term increase if he lets taxes go up on 98% of people?

[gkhouston]

12. Would his chances be better if he continued a tax break for the rich we can't afford?

Make the Republicans defend their insistence that the rich should have their tax cuts. Let the tax cuts expire if they won't compromise and stall new legislation in the Senate until they remove the bill-killing pork for the rich. Use the recommendations from the catfood commission to underscore just how serious the deficit is and how crappy our choices are.

[AndyTiedye]

15. Obviously Yes

The Repiglickins and their toadies in the Mighty Slime Machine would call it a "tax increase" and blame it all on Obama.

Allowing taxes to go up for pretty much everyone in the current economic conditions would be electoral suicide.

Make the Republicans defend their insistence that the rich should have their tax cuts

And how do we do that? We can't make the Republicans do anything.

[gkhouston]

16. We don't have to give the Republicans what they want in advance. At the very

least, they should have to debate for it in Congress and override vetoes, if necessary. No matter what the President does, lies will be told about him, so he might as well try to create good policy instead of compromising without a struggle.

[AndyTiedye]

17. That is a Trap

If O vetoes the extension, the R's can let the veto stand, everybody's taxes go up, and it's hello President Palin :puke:

[gkhouston]

18. No, you use this manuever, suggested by another DUer, to put money in

people's paychecks and the Republicans either make the deal or they're the ones upping the tax.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=9538549#9539461

[AndyTiedye]

41. Same Conditions (or Worse) Will Apply in Another Year

…except by then the middle class will have accrued a substantial tax liability due to under-withholding.

The media will make sure that everyone knows that the under-withholding is all O's fault.

It is NOT a level playing field. We don't get to play by the same rules they do, because the refs (i.e. the media) work for THEM!

[gkhouston]

42. Oh? Well, in that case, we're totally doomed and we should just give the Republicans

everything they want all the time and never even get out of bed in the morning. :eyes:

[AndyTiedye]

43. We Need to Pick Our Battles

Increasing almost everybody's taxes in an election year, during a recession, would be electoral suicide.

WE WOULD GET BLAMED FOR IT, NOT MATTER WHAT OBAMA AND EVERY OTHER DEMOCRAT IN WASHINGTON DOES OR SAYS

[gkhouston]

44. Shouting in a loud font doesn't make something more convincing or true.

Over and over, I hear "we need to pick our battles" used as an argument by Dems who melt away but never actually seem to pick a battle.

Leaders have to be willing to do good things even if they will be unfairly blamed for doing bad things. There's no point in electing a smart, capable leader if all you expect is that he will sit on his hands because the monkeys fling feces every time he tries to do something useful. That's the point of the feces-flinging; it's an intimidation tactic. There's no need for us to participate in it by saying, "woe is me, the Dems will be blamed, blamed, I tell you if they try to do anything, so they can't act". If Grayson can get air-time for saying things like the Republican health care plan is to die quickly, the Dems can push back on this meme if they choose to.

[AndyTiedye]

46. Yes, We Do Need to Pick Some Battles and Win Them

I would have liked to see a lot more effort made to end the tax breaks that our corporations get for throwing Americans out of work.
If they want tax breaks, let them hire more Americans instead of firing us.

No amount of Faux spin can put lipstick on that pig.

If everyone's taxes go up in an election year, the repig media can easily ensure that the Democrats get the blame.
Then there won't be enough left of the Democratic party for a skirmish, let alone a battle.

[gkhouston]

48. If they're going to hand the rich an extra helping of tax cut out of fear of Fox News,

then there isn't enough left of the Democratic party for a skirmish now, and 2012 is irrelevant.

[Clio the Leo]

19. No one REALLY votes because of the deficit....

.... it's something that needs to be fixed, but people vote because unemployment's too high, the deficit is a red herring. The right's total and absolute silence in response to the debt commission report is proof of that.

Lowering the deficit wont send people to the polls .... RAISING taxes will. This is one of those times when doing what's fiscally sound is diametrically opposed to what is politically wise. It's either add to the deficit problem and let the GOP get the glory or add to the deficit problem and let the Dems get the glory.

I'll leave it to you to decide which is the lesser evil.

[gkhouston]

32. And people use that festering argument again and again to make short-term decisions

with disastrous long-term consequences. The truth is, the Republicans want to obstruct the President and have something to crow about and they don't give a damn about what it does to the country or to most of the people who live in it.

We will not get glory by extending tax cuts for rich people. No matter what we do, we're gonna end up with shit on us. Let's at least get shit for doing something that won't make the overall situation worse. Despite the midterm results, polling indicates that people understand this shitty economy is Bush's fault, not Obama's, so the media is not 100% powerful. What is wrong with saying that the tax break that people get flattens out to a set amount at 250K, as the Dems want, instead of swelling up like a poisoned pup, as the Republicans insist? That chart that floated around for a few days should be so omnipresent that everyone is so sick of seeing it and the Dem messaging should be, "why are we paying the rich ransom money to keep tax cuts for the middle class? Why do they need so much extra?"

[Clio the Leo]

38. oh, is that what "polling indicates"

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-31-poll_N.htm

Most polls aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

[gkhouston]

39. Especially ones that are several months old. n/t

[Clio the Leo]

40. ...

http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2010/10/29/what-the-polls-are-saying-about-obama/

I cant see how throwing a tax hike into what's listed there is a good idea but ... hey .... that's why I'm not President.

[sweetapogee]

52. hello

until the end of the year, dems have a majority in both houses. We don't "need" the pukes for this one just pass the bill.

[glitch]

10. If he fights for the people, he wins. If he capitulates to the corporations he loses.

Fighting for the people would overcome the corporate media and even the Citizens United disadvantage. I wish he had more confidence, if that is the problem.

[Clio the Leo]

11. It never ceases to amaze me....

.... how those who use fluffy action verbs describing what the President is doing wrong, never seem to add specifics on how this translates into the legislative process.

Does he need to go to Congress and start literally punching people? What's involved in this "fight"?

[glitch]

27. I am here to amaze you. You have heard of the bully pulpit, no doubt. Do you know what it means or

how it is used. Here's a clue: it's not pre-emptive appeasement.

[Clio the Leo]

37. What does the President need to say...

... to sway the McCain-voting constituencies that comprise the right half of the Democratic caucus that might change their minds?

And how are we supposed to hear him when Ed Schultz (and the like) wont stop screaming long enough to breathe?

[pscot]

30. In the past

Presidents who actually expected to get something done gave the leaders of their party a legislative agenda, helped draft the legislation and set out clear goals. Giving away key parts of your agenda as a pre-negotiating technique is somethin entirely new in my experience.

[Clio the Leo]

36. In the past, Presidents had members of opposition parties...

... who were willing to negotiate with them. This lock-step "destroy the President just by saying no to everything" is a new invention.

In the past, a President didn't NEED 60 votes just to get a bill to the floor FOR DEBATE.

[AndyTiedye]

50. Even 60 Votes Isn't Enough - when some of those 60 are "Blue Dogs"

[Kablooie]

13. 2012 will all be about the economy so the GOP will insure it will be worse than now.

It's hard to fix it but easy to make it worse.

[Clio the Leo]

20. I dont normally kick my own threads....

... but, after reading this morning's posts, it's clear more of you need to read this.

[RedSpartan]

21. Clearly...

[LatteLibertine]

22. Just let them all expire

[GSLevel9]

23. my thoughts exactly... nt

[Phx_Dem]

24. I don't understand how they win if the tax cuts expire. They're

the ones holding the middle-class cuts hostage, and they're the ones who vote on legislation.

It's all about messaging. The WH needs to keep insisting on middle-class cuts every day. And BTW, that's why the WH is not drawing a line in the sand on tax cuts for the rich. If they appear unmovable, it will be easier for the GOP and the public to blame them if all the tax cuts expire. Better to publicly appear ready to compromise, and privately, tell the GOP to fuck off. Then blame the GOP when they are unwilling to compromise.

They need to get rid of Axelrod though. I like him but he is not a good messenger.

[Clio the Leo]

25. That seems to be the plan....

... which is why I think the President insisted again today his first priority was extending the midd. class cuts ... but to answer your question, if all of the tax cuts expire, it's WAY too easy for the GOP to blame the President. For the WH to insist otherwise is MUCH more difficult to explain.

As for Axelrod, all I can say is .... hold on, Plouffe is coming.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/01/rahms-departure-plouffes-impending-entry-moving-obama-closer-to-campaign-team/

[Cosmocat]

34. Blame them?

BO has helped to save the economy and they blame him for creating the mess he inherited ...

They are going to blame him of beating puppys, being a socialist, hating america REGARDLESS ...

They lost the HCR debate because they went into a corner and let the GOP rail on them with all they had ...

They will lose this debate just the same ... Right or wrong ...

Only way to win is draw the line in the sand and fight ...

Again, THIS shiite is what separates us from the Rs - you don't hide from it, you don't parse it, you don't worry about the political chess match ...

We just got our arses handed to use 10 days ago, and ALL the momentum is going against us ... Worrying about this or that ain't going to turn it around ...

Rs are going to be raging douchebags regardless ... BO goes limp on this issue, and it WILL cost him support with the base he will NOT be able to get back ...

[Enrique]

26. no one will die if the tax cuts expire

the tax rates would go back to Clinton levels.

[karynnj]

29. The reality - if we consider it carefully - is they CAN'T shot the hostage

What would "shoot the hostage" mean? I think some see it as not passing legislation to renew the middle class tax cuts before January 1.

The fact is that if the President (or Congress) refuses any bill with permanent tax cuts for the weathy and the tax cuts expire, that the "hostage has been shot". In fact, what do you think would happen in January 2011? The first thing is that there will be a scramble to change withholding. If there was a bill that the DEMOCRATS in the House and Senate put up for a vote in both Houses that did just the tax cuts for the below $250,000 marginal bands, President Obama could say that is the bill that he would sign and that it gives a tax cut for everyone. It just doesn't give an additional tax cut for the wealthy.

We would need EVERYONE out there pointing to the same acceptable bill and speaking of how the main concern of the country is the deficit. We could point out that the cuts are not affordable - and they were not affordable long term when they were passed through reconciliation.

We need to take the concern about the deficit from the Republicans. That they want to be seen as the ones concerned about the deficit AND the ones wanting to cut the tax for the very wealthy should be called for what it is - incredibly contradictory.

[budkin]

47. This is why it was so important to vote on this BEFORE the elections... too late now.

[Mass]

49. So, it is all about Obama, not the people?

[coti]

51. I'm sorry, how do they win if we propose extending only the middle-class cuts during the lame duck

session?

If they vote for them- which they'd pretty much have to do- the issue would be over.

If they vote against them, or hold up the bill, we destroy them with it in 2012.

We have to put the onus of the issue on them.