For Obama, Championing Compromise May Be Lonely
This post originally appeared on Slate.
President Obama leaves after making a statement to reporters after his meeting with Democratic congressional leaders on a year-end bipartisan agreement to extend expiring tax cuts, at the White House, Dec. 6, 2010.
/ AP PhotoPresident Obama could have worn a cape. Speaking to reporters about a deal to extend the Bush tax cuts and unemployment insurance, he offered a dire narrative of what might have been. Ideologues in both parties were locked in a dangerous game with no concern for the welfare of the American people. "Without a willingness to give on both sides, there's no reason to believe that this stalemate won't continue into next year," he said. A stalemate would mean a tax increase for everyone, and tax cuts for the hardest-hit would expire, along with unemployment benefits.
In the nick of time a hero arrived to save the parties from themselves. Who was that quick-thinking citizen? Why, it was Man of Reason! "I know there's some people in my own party and in the other party who would rather prolong this battle, even if we can't reach a compromise. But I'm not willing to let working families across this country become collateral damage for political warfare here in Washington."
Obama Tax Cuts: Winners and LosersObama Announces Tentative Pact on Bush Tax Cuts
McCaskill Notes the "Irony" of GOP Stance on Tax Cuts
Obama ran in 2008 as a man who would bring both parties together. Monday night he presented himself as a man who had done just that. The difference was that two years ago it sounded like a process where everyone locked arms. This time it was more of a headlock, and any collateral damage is likely to be among the president's own liberal base.
Obama presented himself as a warrior for agreement. He was also a lecturer. "The American people didn't send us here to wage symbolic battles or win symbolic victories," he said. "I want everybody to remember over the course of the coming days, both Democrats and Republicans, that these are not abstract fights for families that are impacted.... We cannot play politics at a time when the American people are looking for us to solve problems."
The White House holiday party for its liberal friends might be awkward (or empty). Liberals were already upset with the president when it looked like he was going to cave on his previous opposition to extending tax cuts. They are not likely to enjoy this lecture about the need for putting the middle class ahead of playing politics.
On the substance, there are parts of the $900 billion deal that liberals should find attractive: a reduction in the payroll tax, extension of unemployment benefits for 13 months and extension of the Earned Income Tax Credit. The lesson from the president is one White House aides have been making one way or another since last month's election: The world is different. The things we want will come with a price determined by the GOP.
The questions for liberals are a) whether they buy that formulation and b) whether they think the president overpaid. Not only did Republicans win on extension of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, they also won a new lower rate for the estate tax, and a higher exemption for it. Democrats in the House and Senate made it clear Monday night that they had not yet signed on to the president's deal.
Wall Street Worries as Congress Debates Bush Tax Cuts
McConnell's Reality Distortion Field on Tax Cuts
The president said the tax cuts for the wealthy would not last beyond the two-year extension, because after the coming deficit debate, Americans would see how the country just can't afford them. He said he would "engage in a conversation" about the choices to help them get to this position. But he's been engaged in that conversation about these tax cuts for months. Americans already agreed with him. Only 26 percent favor the GOP view in a recent CBS News Poll. It was the need to get a deal when faced with an immovable opposition (including some in his own party) that caused Obama to give in on his tax cut position. That kind of dynamic isn't going to change in the next year, when the GOP will have more control.
Washington has been flooded with deficit reduction plans of late. They have different ideological shapes, but most require everyone to sacrifice something they want. That wasn't how this deal came together. Both sides agreed to give each other largely what they wanted. It is financed entirely by adding to the national debt. (Whee!)
As the president spoke, he sounded like he did when announcing his Afghanistan policy: We have to escalate this war in order to end it. The majority of economists seem to agree that this kind of stimulus is necessary now before we buckle-in for that grueling conversation about austerity. This may be the last agree-and-spend deal of its kind. Maybe the next grand bargains will be measured in terms of dollars saved. Of course, that will depend on political courage, which will in turn depend on what voters think. Right now the American families president Obama talked about are grateful, but they might also learn a lesson that will make things harder for him: Even in the Age of Austerity, there's always room for pie.
More from Slate:
Why the WikiLeaks cables won't bring down governments.
Why the technical "standing" issue properly decides the gay marriage appeal.
How much will Obama's tax compromise actually help the economy?
John Dickerson is a CBS News political analyst. He is also Slate's chief political correspondent and author of On Her Trail. You can also follow him on Twitter here.
Popular in Politics
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice" 437 Comments
- IRS' Lerner: "I have not done anything wrong" 200 Comments
- Anthony Weiner comeback try begins: Running for NYC mayor 102 Comments
- Major immigration overhaul passes first big test 66 Comments
- Will tornado relief funding escape politics?
- Top IRS official to invoke 5th Amendment at congressional testimony 212 Comments
- U.S. IDs several men possibly responsible for Benghazi attack
- Va. GOP candidate won't apologize for comments on abortion, gays
Obama is trying to pull pork barrel politics, and get an outrageous spending package approved, so he can squander more hundreds of billions of dollars, as his "payback" for letting the Senators from both parties, keep their personal tax cuts!
Hopefully, the House will stop it!
I have decided to form a new political party. It will probably be a party of one, but I don't care. I thought of several names, Americanist, but then there is Central and South America....Moderate...but that sounds "tea partyish".
No name fits my agenda except this one. No motto fits my agendaexcept this one. No policy fits my agenda. I'll make my own. Join me if you wish.
I am a member of the party:
UNITED PARTY OR singular Uniteder or plural Uniteders
The Uniteder Motto: United We Prevail; Divided We Fail
The United Pledge: We the United Party of America pledge to uphold the Constitition of the United States to the best of our ability. We pledge to uphold the laws presented to us by the Judicial Branch of The Federal Government or seek to change those laws by popular vote. We pledge to uphold the legislations presented to us by Legislative Branch of The Federal Government, or to seek to change those legislations by popular vote. We pledge to uphold the procedures of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, or to seek to change those executive procedures by popular vote.
We pledge to the best of our ability to preserve this great nation as one, to ensure a Federal Government body who is for the greatest interest of all citizens, and we pledge to place the health and well being of the citizens of the United States above any personal or political agenda.
Uniteder Beliefs:
No economic class of persons in the United States should ever bear a tax rate of greater than 20% of their fiscal income for any year.
A flat tax would be the most fair tax to the citizens of the United States.
No corporation or business should have greater advantage or greater tax breaks than any other corporation or business in these United States.
No corporation or business should be allowed by government to do any foreign import trade or manufacturing without proof that it is providing an equal number of employment opportunities to United States citizens by equal exportation of goods manufactured here.
No Federal Government program that is labeled "ineffective" at any point in time should receive any further revenue from the Federal Government.
No one person, including the President of the United States, should be able to constitutionally make a lone decision in matters that affect all of the citizens of the United States.
No person who is over the age of 62, or disabled, should be denied the funding needed to live without fear of starvation, without fear of death due to climate related conditions, or denied needed medical care.
The Federal Government should limit its powers and services to the United States and to the World as to the powers given to it by the constitution, and designated as constitutional by Congress.
For example, Russian missiles are on the way. We only hvae minutes to respond. And your line that says the president cannot make a lone decision in matters that effect all Americans would cause a huge problem with this.
Military issues do not do well run by committee.
Second, Congress should never be the decider on what is Constitutional. That should be the role of the States...from whom all powers the Federal government has are derived.
Third, you talk about care, food, etc to people over 62. But someone has to pay for that. Which means, someone has to be pressed into involuntary servitude in order to provide for someone else who did nothing to earn the labors of that person. OldBasicGal, that is a form of slavery. What we should be doing is promoting freedom. And with that, promoting charity. Charity is NOT the government forcing people to help. Charity is giving of your own abundance to help another. Forcing people to help is immoral.
Most of the budget is NOT legitimate functions of government. Entitlements are not legitimate functions of government, they are instead organized theft.
OBAMA GAVE AWAY $140 billions to the rich
___________
I'm not rich, but Obama now gives us our own income ??? wow, you have things backwards.....keeping more of our income is not "given" by Obama.
It's like cleaning out your closet. Start with the most undesirable. Get a little braver and continue to the mass programs that really have no use.