To be sure, and as one can gather from my previous blog on the “Bush Tax Cuts,” I was not pleased with the final tax cut compromise that continued income tax cuts for the wealthy, raised the estate tax threshold and lowered the estate tax rate below that of 2009, and did nothing to the capital gains tax inequity for hedge fund managers.
Concurrently, I was not pleased that President Obama and the “White House” didn’t make a stronger public case against the Republican position supporting the tax cuts for the wealthy which held the middle class tax cuts and unemployment insurance extension “hostage” until their position was accepted. Additionally, like other leftists and progressives, I was not particularly enthralled with President Obama’s uncomplimentary language for those who worked hard to get a singular middle class tax cut bill which was passed by the House and forwarded to the Senate. Of course, as we all know, the House legislation supported by progressives was filibustered in the Senate by the Republicans with the assistance of a few Democrats, and never received an up or down vote.
However, despite the President’s less than ideal approach to the issue and his treatment of progressives, I have concluded that the tax cut compromise was the only option available to the President to resolve the issue, at least for the time being. In general, this conclusion was based on my assessment that the agreed upon compromise, both from a policy as well as a political perspective, will benefit a majority of the American working class, will contribute to an improved job market, and will assist progressives during the next two years to improve their elect ability and amend the shortcomings in the compromise.
Having come to the foregoing conclusion, and acknowledging my disappointment with the President’s approach, I must state that I was also disappointed with the approach to the tax cut issue taken by certain recognized progressive commentators, namely the MSNBC hosts Ed Schultz, and especially Keith Olbermann.
As I normally agree with the majority of positions espoused by Schultz and Olbermann, and think they substantiate their positions with reliable evidence and argument, I was surprised that during their presentations and guest interviews pertinent to the tax compromise issue, they and their guests seemed to neglect certain obvious facts and seemed to focus on narrow term objectives, and in doing so, hypothesized scenarios that were devoid of supporting evidence. Not included in the guilty here are Eugene Robinson and Ezra Klein, both of whom appeared to rely on factual analysis and political reality rather than emotional hyperbole.
To begin the analysis of where Schultz and Olbermann went off the reservation, let’s first explore some commonly accepted facts and premises pertaining to the tax cut issue.
1. The House bill to lower the tax rates for the middle class, and extend unemployment was filibustered in the Senate by the Republicans and fell well short of the 60 votes needed.
2. The Republicans, who have set a record for filibusters during the Obama administration, are on record as stating that they would filibuster all bills that did not have provisions for extending tax cuts for the wealthy.
3. In January, the Republicans will have a majority in the House and additional members in the Senate.
4. For the upcoming year, the approximately $900 billion in the compromise tax package reduces taxes for the wealthy by approximately $140 billion (individual and estate), and approximately $470 billion for the middle class (including the payroll tax reduction), with approximately $50-60 billion for extended unemployment insurance.
5. Progressives basically agreed that there should be tax cuts for the middle class and extension of unemployment benefits, with additional funds for 99ers. This was also the general philosophical and/or campaign position of President Obama, although I am not sure that he had a specific stand regarding the 99ers.
With the foregoing common set of facts, what did Schultz, Olbermann and guests do that raised my ire and appeared counterproductive?
First, they criticized the President for not negotiating enough and for leaving House leadership and progressives out of the negotiations. Fair enough, I agree. Also, they criticized the President for his attitude towards progressives. Again, I agree. However, in criticizing the President, the most progressive president we will probably have the chance to elect, Schultz, Olbermann and some of their likeminded guests committed the same error Obama did when he criticized the progressives who did not support his position. Did these individuals really think that negative remarks towards the President would advance the progressive cause in the long-term battle against the obstructionist Republicans? After all, the President did not abandon their position or veto the elements of the progressive position. But given the political reality of the situation he was forced to compromise. The results, progressives got what they wanted, but unfortunately, had to give the Republicans what they wanted.
Second, these individuals started citing the potential harm of adding $900 billion to the deficit, and had deficit experts comment on the issue. Citing the $900 billion figure was, of course, disingenuous because all the parties favored the middle class tax cuts, the extension of unemployment, additional funds for the 99ers, and even greater infrastructure stimulus spending, at least to the tune of $500 billion plus. So, in reality the deficit increase was never an issue in principle, but it was cited using the total $900 billion fear figure to make a point when, in fact, these folks only opposed the $140 or so billion going to the wealthy and the impact of that on the deficit.
Tied into the foregoing argument was the prediction, and probably a correct one, that the Republicans would attempt to make future cuts to Social Security and other safety net social programs based on the agreement to reduce the payroll tax, a reduction that helps the middle class and working lower middle class. Although I agree that the Republicans based in the House will probably attempt to initiate such cuts, I would propose that they would attempt to make those cuts even if there was no payroll tax cut.
In addition, such proposed cuts would have little chance of success in the next year or two due to the fact that the Democrats still hold a majority in the Senate and also hold the presidency. In fact,, if the Republicans wanted to run in 2012 on cutting Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, I think that would be a great issue for the Democrats.
Third, the progressive commentators had discussions with guests who stated that a bill without tax breaks for the rich could have been passed because John Boehner stated that he would support a middle class tax cut without a cut for the wealthy if faced with that option. There was no challenge to this hypothesis although any progressive in their right mind would know that John Boehner, one of the leading obstructionists to anything progressive, would be a good bet to back off such a position. It only took a couple of days before Boehner was on television stating that compromise was not something in which he believed. And even if one gave Boehner the benefit of the doubt, our fellow progressives did not state how a stand alone middle class tax cut and unemployment extension would get by Hitchcock serial killer look alike Mitch McConnell and his band of filibustering despisers of Obama in the Senate. It should not be forgotten that the Republicans blicans were the ones that consistently voiced support on various issues only to drop their support and filibuster the minute that Obama stated that he agreed with their position. Relying on these individuals to change their positions because Obama fought harder is a pipe dream. The compromise was Obama’s only choice, and the progressive commentators should have known this.
Fourth, and the most egregious example of poor and inaccurate positioning came from Keith Olbermann. Olbermann had the nerve , after showing an old campaign clip, to interview former Clinton supporter, union representative Tom Buffenbarger, who stated that he knew all along that Obama would not be tough enough to stand up to the Republicans in support of working folks. Despite this guy being full of it, Olbermann did not challenge him. Although I agree with Olbermann on most issues, this tactic was pure BS and Olbermann might as well pulled out a Fox tape of Reverend Wright.
Initially, this jerk (Buffenbarger) claimed that Hillary would have been tougher. I don’t remember Hillary being tougher in opposing the Iraq War. She didn’t even read the Intelligence Assessment. I also don’t remember Hillary being tougher and telling Bill to veto the Graham bill that repealed Glass-Steagall or the Telecommunications Act, both signed by Bill. These failures to be tough have cost the country a lot more in blood and treasure than the two year tax cut for the wealthy to which President Obama had to agree to in order to get middle class tax cuts and unemployment insurance extended.
Further, in challenging Obama’s toughness, without a peep from Olbermann, this idiot conveniently omitted Obama’s toughness in getting passage of “Equal Pay for Women,” Childrens Health expansion, Credit Card reform, Health Care reform, Hate Crimes legislation, the auto bailout, College Loan reform, the “Stimulus,” Wall Street reform, and more. And this president who lacks toughness was able to accomplish all this while being the only president where the 24-hour cable news cycle labeled him a foreigner, a socialist, a Nazi, Hitler like, and a racist who favored “death panels” among other things. Oh no, but he lacks toughness. By the way, I don’t recall seeing any footage of Buffenbarger’s union supporters challenging the Tea Party wackos at any of those healthcare town meetings. No words from Olbermann about any of this.
Last but not least, is the charge by the commentators and guests that Obama was backing down on his campaign promise not to extend the tax cuts for the wealthy. Yes he did, but did he have a choice? I think not. But what was not mentioned was that the failure to reach a compromise would have resulted in Obama breaking his pledge to extend the middle class tax cuts and extend unemployment and do what he could to stimulate job growth. None of the commentator’s seemed concerned with this pledge.
As stated, I tend to think that the President thought that getting what he did was better than nothing and certainly better than what he might get from a Republican House and a more conservative Republican Senate. I’ll trust his judgment on this one, and continue the fight over the next two years, and during the 2012 election joining him instead of fighting him in opposing detrimental Republican proposals that will undoubtedly arise during that period.
Finally, on this day, December 22, 2010, with kudos to Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid and others, we see the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” adoption of START, passage of the Food Safety Act, and passage of the 9/11 First Responders health bill. Yes, the Republicans helped the wealthy get their four percent for the next two years, and the heirs of the super wealthy can hope grandpa or dad dies before 2012, but President Obama appears to have achieved a lot more for progressives and the nation. Ed and Keith, you are both great, but sometimes you have to reserve judgment and look at the broader picture. Happy Holidays!
