Reply #30: all of that assumes that the present economic strategy is just wrapped around Bush policy [View All]

[bigtree]

The President's negotiators have also included many of his own economic initiatives to be considered as part of any compromise. The President laid out, passed through Congress, and executed a recovery plan. The tax portion of that recovery plan he's focused on preserving now is considered necessary to buttress wage earners during this economic free-fall. It just so happens that it was laid on top of the Bush cuts. It's unfortunate and frustrating that he's been unable to get the cooperation from republicans to provide more revenue by making the wealthy pay more, but that doesn't release him from his initial responsibility to keep the Americans he has recognized as most vulnerable to the faltered economy safe from any government induced wage decrease.

I would do as the President is doing. I'd argue to preserve as much of his recovery plan as he's able and I'd resist doing anything that would cause those millions of wage earners to be forced to fork over more of their money. That's what I believe he's engaged in right now. Later, they may be some opportunity to address the upper-income cuts (hopefully they won't agree to more than a year extension for those so that he'll be able to force another vote and carry that issue into the election). Unfortunately, the politics that would accommodate Congress adopting a more progressive approach to the economy will not favor Democrats in the next two years - except, maybe as an election issue.