Reply #13: The thing about spin is that it can be right or left. [View All]

[Igel]

Not politically, necessarily. Just that objects can spin in multiple directions--and so can facts.

So two years ago by saying "no new taxes" Pelosi could engage in a kind of starve-the-beast stratagem. Remember--two years ago, which is to say f/y 2008, deficits were bad. Okay, the recession kicked in two years ago, but still--deficits were the devil's work, and even though Congress passed the budget, * was the devil. Moreover, the war was bad--well, not necessarily the Afghan war, but two years ago the Iraq war was front and center, and it was bad. War's war. Not funding it was the correct line to achieve the desired policy *and* make the devil look as bad as possible.

Now, however, things are more complex. Deficits good, but deficits bad. Obama good, but war bad. What to do? How about a similar two-fer, but softened a bit? First, propose a tax. That still goes to "starve the beast", because it makes the question of war-funding a problem. Does Obama raise taxes? (Sure, Congress would originate and pass the tax increase, but that's a bit of trivia.) If he doesn't, there's pressure to end it. At the same time, it says, "We're engaging in massive deficit spending for a lot of things--but let's focus on the war. Then we're deficit hawks, as well!" And since a lot of people, esp. independents, are concerned about the deficit, there you have it. It does put Obama is a little of a jam--he has to either side with higher deficits or raise taxes, or he can use this as a reason to limit troop deployments in a kind of cost-benefit analysis where he gets to stipulate the costs and the benefits. On the other hand, it the dems in Congress are in much less of a bind, and they're the ones facing an election in 2010. Anything Obama does this yearly will have little effect on 2012.