On Tuesday reports from the bi-partisan summit President Obama convened with congressional leaders suggested that a deal might be reached to break the legislative logjam threatening to paralyze Washington: in exchange for giving the Republicans' the tax cuts for the wealthy they desire, Republicans would stop threatening us all with nuclear annihilation. If you care about the national security of the United States, as Obama apparently does, then passing a budget-busting inequality-increasing tax cut is a small price to pay. But what does a tax cut have to do with nuclear security?
Here's the back story: earlier this year the administration negotiated a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia. This how the world's two biggest nuclear powers agree to not waste money and risk nuclear terrorism: by mutually reducing their vastly excessive stockpiles of nuclear weapons and cooperatively inspecting, safeguarding and disposing of the materials so that they cannot be obtained by terrorists. Back when Republicans believed in helping, rather than hindering, efforts to protect the U.S. from nuclear attack, they supported these policies. That's why former Republican Secretaries of State and National Security Advisors including Brent Scowcroft, Henry Kissinger, James Baker and, on Wednesday Colin Powell, have gone to the White House to endorse the deal. Like all foreign treaties it requires Senate ratification. Arizona Republican John Kyl, aware that threatening to withhold support for the treaty and risk nuclear materials in Russia going unsecured was a powerful card to play, shook down the administration for spending on building fancier nuclear weapons as part of the deal. The administration acquiesced, and Kyl and his Republican colleagues moved on to a new set of complaints, such as saying that two weeks is not enough time to consider START. (The last START was ratified in five days).
Meanwhile, Republicans have been demanding that the Bush tax cuts, due to expire, be fully and permanently extended. President Obama, who was overwhelmingly elected on a platform to extend only the tax cuts for income below $250,000, maintains that the estimated $670 billion difference between his plan and Republicans' is unaffordable given our long-term budget deficit. He also notes that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has found lower marginal tax rates to be the least effective economic stimulus proposal of eleven ideas it considered.
Caving to Republican demands on tax cuts to pass START seemed like a painful, but possibly necessary, concession on Tuesday. Back then Republicans were willing to at least be bribed into supporting national security. But on Wednesday, Senate Republicans determined that defending the United States by passing START, honoring the sacrifice of American military members by passing the DREAM Act, or doing anything else the government exists to do, is simply not worth doing if they can't first have their way on tax cuts. All 42 Republican senators signed a letter to Reid saying, "we write to inform you that we will not agree to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to any legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all American taxpayers.” This is a remarkable demand since they are asking Reid to perform a magic act: pass a tax cut and "fund the government." Never mind the fact that cutting taxes is counterproductive to funding the government.
"The nation’s unemployment level, stuck near 10 percent, is unacceptable to Americans," says the letter. "Given our struggling economy, preventing the tax increase and providing economic certainty should be our top priority." Once upon a time, in 2002, when Republicans wanted to invade Iraq, they said nuclear proliferation was the most pressing problem the U.S. could possibly face. And although the action they suggested in that instance was wrong, their premise at the time was correct. So the assertion that economic concerns must take precedence over START ratification is questionable and, coming from those quarters, inconsistent. Given that there are more effective ways of reducing unemployment, Republicans should be advocating infrastructure spending, a payroll tax holiday or accelerated depreciation of business expenses if they are so concerned about unemployment.
As the New York Times' David Leonhardt explains, Democrats have painted themselves into a corner by refusing to pass their more popular tax cut package before the election. Now their options are to either pass a compromise such as Chuck Schumer's suggestion to raise taxes only on income over $1 million per year, if they can find a few Republican votes for it, or risk having to vote up or down on the total Bush tax cut package after Republicans take control of the House of Representatives next year. Or, they could trade tax cut passage for something useful, like START.
Obviously Democrats would be stupid to give away the bargaining chip they currently hold -- passage of tax cuts -- in exchange for nothing in return. If they are going to bite the bullet and pass tax cuts they should at least get some useful things in return. But what seems obviously stupid to the average person seems often to strike the White House as a brilliant political maneuver.
Next
http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/12/01/senate-republicans-hold-national-security-for-rich-tax-cut-ransom.html
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
