If Obama Will Not Fight for Fair Taxes and Fiscal Stability, What Will He Fight For?

[unhappycamper]

If Obama Will Not Fight for Fair Taxes and Fiscal Stability, What Will He Fight For?
by John Nichols
Published on Monday, December 6, 2010 by The Nation

When Barack Obama walked out of last week's meeting with Mitch McConnell and John Boehner and started talking about developing a "productive" working relationship with Republican congressional leaders who have sworn the political equivalent of a blood oath to destroy his presidency, it was clear that the president planned to abandon his many years of advocacy for ending Bush-era tax breaks for millionaires.

Now, with the lame-duck session of a Congress still entirely controlled by Democrats races toward a earlier-than-expected conclusion, the deal is being cut.

Obama's representatives-Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and White House budget director Jack Lew-have reportedly entered the final stages of a negotiation with the Republican team of Arizona Senator Jon Kyl and Michigan Congressman Dave Camp to extend all Bush tax cuts for for at least two years.

In return, federal unemployment benefits will be extended for up to one year.

The only remaining sticking point has to do with the question of whether to offer a small tax credit for working Americans-the "Make Work Pay" provision-and a tax credit for students, both of which were developed as part of the 2009 economic stimulus package. Remarkably, Republican negotiators who are going to the mat to defend $140 billion in tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans are objecting to maintaining $70 million in tax credits for the other 98 percent.

[Lasher]

1. A fucking free trade agreement with South Korea.

Just what we need.

[Rockholm]

3. He pardoned a couple of turkeys for Thanksgiving.

Don't forget that one.

[Lasher]

5. Yeah, that should count for something.

I shoulda given him credit for that.

[Erose999]

20. He probably had the CIA covertly assasinate a couple more turkeys though. I really doubt the Pres.

spent Thanksgiving without eating a turkey dinner.

[TheFarseer]

8. actually, without looking at the actual agreement . . . . .

South Korea is not that bad of a trading partner. They have a per capita income of $28,000 so it is not like they are a cheap labor third world hell hole.

[w8liftinglady]

10. my only question...what will they buy from US?

We have shipped all our plants overseas...

[Lasher]

13. Neoliberal free trade agreements have not been good for the US

Unless you happen to own a multinational conglomerate or two. Obama is going in the wrong direction. He said during the campaign he would renegotiate NAFTA. Guess what, he didn't. He should be dismantling existing free trade agreements. Instead he's creating yet another nightmare to help destroy what's left of the middle class.

[TheFarseer]

38. when it comes to NAFTA, CAFTA and WTO I agree totally

outsourcing jobs for cheap labor is killing us. There is simply no way to compete with people who will work for a monthly wage that is closer to our hourly wage. When it comes to countries with similar standards of living - and South Korea is not a perfect example because they are somewhat lower than we are - if we can't compete with them, it's our own damn fault.

[Lasher]

41. That sounds just as reasonable as it did when Clinton was pimping NAFTA.

But NAFTA didn't work out like he and others promised, did it? It's just the same with this one. I have learned that when I do something and it hurts, it's best to stop doing it. The bottom line is, I don't trust our government to do anything but sell us out in free trade agreements. Let's stop doing them, and let's dismantle the ones we have.

Entering into more free trade agreements, any free trade agreements, is going in the wrong direction.

[whyverne]

2. Why doesn't Obama attack the rich?

I'm sure DUer's can come up with the 3/4s of a billion dollars he spent on his last campaign.

[polichick]

4. More and more I think he IS fighting for what he believes in...

...by NOT fighting for what progressives believe in - just watch what happens with deficit reduction. Nobody will be wondering after that.

[Lasher]

9. A logical conclusion.

If Obama seems a lot like Republicans, it's because he is. Remember, awhile back how he was saying how great Reagan was? Obama believes in Reaganomics. The concept has evolved into neoliberalism.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

Check out the list of things that neoliberals do. Then ask yourself, how many of these things has Obama done, or 'gone along with'? How about that free trade agreement with South Korea he's been pimping? How about that catfood commission that he formed?

[TBF]

15. Yes, unfortunately that is what is happening. nt

[chimpymustgo]

19. This has been "Groundhog Day" since the beginning. It plays out the same EVERY time. Next up -

deficit reduction. Cuts to social security. Take it to the bank.

[LibraLiz1973]

30. Wow. What a thought. I think you might be right. (n/t)

[VMI Dem]

6. His admin will fight for the continued enforcement of DADT.

:shrug:

[Vinca]

7. Apparently he's going to fight for the Republican agenda.

Maybe McCain/Palin should have been elected - at least there would be a few laughs with a senile, old coot and a dimwitted, hot babe. (No, I'm not serious.)

[dennis4868]

11. I am still waiting to find out what fighting actually means...

Considering we have an opposition party that will not give in no matter what Obama does because they don't give a shit about the country. Plus, there are 5 dems in the senate that go sling with the repubs on tax issues. So fighting would not get Obama anywhere except lose unemloyment insurance. If Obama was dealing with an opposition party that cared about the country (and not solely to destroy him), I would say fight (i.e., use the bully pulpit) but that's not the case. Obama and the country are being held hostage by the repubs stategy of not giving a shit about the country and to destroy Obama by blocking everything that may be good for the country.

So someone needs to explain to me what fighting means?

[eomer]

17. It's too late now. What it would have meant is getting some things done through reconciliation.

Fighting would have been twisting the arm of a couple of Democratic senators (if necessary) to get 50 votes and twisting the arm of a few Democratic House members (if necessary) to get enough votes to push a bigger program through reconciliation. A bigger program would have included permanent tax cuts for the middle class together with stimulus spending (in a way specifically geared to creating domestic jobs, not just shoveling money to corporations). It would have paid for those things through a combination of cuts on corporate welfare, cuts to the defense budget, taxes on corporate offshoring of jobs, elimination of tax breaks for the wealthy, and similar things, and finally, if necesssary, an increase in marginal income tax rates on high incomes.

[dennis4868]

21. Reconcilliation cannot be used in the way you think....

For most everything, Obama needs 60 votes in the senate....which means he would need to twist repubs arms (which we know cannot be twisted since they believe on party over country).

[eomer]

26. No, that's not correct. Here are a few selected past reconciliation bills:

                       Senate   Policy
Year   Administration   Vote    Changes

1981     Reagan        80-14    Made significant cuts to discretionary programs, including welfare and food
                                stamps.

1982     Reagan        67-32    Reauthorized and made changes to the food stamp program.  Made changes to
                                federal employee pay formula to limit inflation estimates; cut spending on
                                government pensions, farm programs and veterans' benefits.

1982     Reagan        52-47    Rescinded some tax cuts from 1981; limited some Medicare reimbursements to
                                hospitals; opened Medicare to H.M.O.'s.

2001     G.W. Bush     58-33    Cut income tax rates; repealed itemized deductions and personal exemptions;
                                reduced the marriage penalty and the impact of alternative minimum tax;
                                phased out estate and gift taxes.

2003     G.W. Bush     51-50    Reduced dividend and capital gains taxes for investors; accelerated tax rate
                                reductions for top brackets; expanded lower tax brackets; raised tax credit
                                to $1,000 per child; adjusted the alternative minimum tax and business taxes.

2005     G.W. Bush     51-50    Reduced Medicare and Medicaid spending; changed student loan formulas; 
                                reauthorized the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.

2005     G.W. Bush     54-44    Extended capital gains and dividend tax rates through 2010; extended the
                                alternative minimum through 2006 and adjusted it for inflation; extended
                                through 2009 a tax deduction on depreciable expenses for small businesses.

2007     G.W. Bush     79-12    A $20 billion student-aid reform package that included grant increases and
                                loan-rate reductions, and created a public-service loan forgiveness program.

Source: This http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/03/07/opinion/07opedchart_graphic.html">graph from this http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/opinion/07mann.html?_r=1">article.

Which of the changes listed in my previous post do you believe cannot be done in a budget reconciliation bill, and why?

_{Edit: formatting}

[dennis4868]

27. As I understand it....

Congress can only use reconcilliation once per budget cycle (which ended 9/30/2010) but because we have not passed a F2011 federal budget we are still in the same 2010 budget cycle. Remember, the F2011 budget deadline was Sept 30, 2010 but Congress dide not pass a new budget.

[eomer]

29. Yes, please reread my original comment.

That's why my subject line read:

It's too late now. What it would have meant is getting some things done through reconciliation.

They (Obama and Democratic leadership in Congress) failed to act when it was actually possible to get it done. Now they're going to make a big show of *trying* when they know the chance has already passed.

[dennis4868]

32. Are you actually saying that Obama should have done the tax cuts at the same time....

as HCR? Are you kidding me?

[eomer]

37. Yes, sure, why not? Or else at a different time, that was an option as well.

In 2005 under G.W. Bush they did two reconciliation bills. Both of them passed with narrow margins (on one V.P. Cheney had to break the 50-50 tie in the Senate). One of the reconciliation bills made changes to Medicare, Medicaid, student loans, and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program; the other reconciliation bill in the same year made major tax changes. Imagine that, who would have thought it possible!

There were reconciliation bills in two consecutive years under Clinton: 1996 and 1997. The one in 1997 implemented tax cuts and at the same time created the new Children's Health Insurance Program. Unbelievable! (Or to you, anyway.)

In 1990 under G.H.W. Bush a single reconciliation bill made major changes to Medicare and Medicaid and at the same time major changes to income taxes, capital gains taxes, and other taxes. Who would have thought!

At the start of Reagan's term they did a reconciliation bill in 1981 and then two more reconciliation bills the very next year in 1982. Later in his term they did reconciliation bills three years in a row: 1985, 1986, and 1987.

These things are all apparently inconceivable to you but on the contrary are actually commonplace.

So, yes, of course they could have added a popular measure like middle-class tax cuts to the reconciliation bill or else could have done it in a separate reconciliation bill, either in the same year or in the other year. They could also have done the health care public option, another popular measure, in a similar way.

It would have required actually fighting for the things they promised to do. But the fight would have been completely inside the Democratic Party and all they had to do was dish out favors to those who would play ball and withhold them from those who wouldn't.

[GOTV]

24. So you are saying that if everyone already agreed with Obama - then he would fight?

Are you saying the opposition party is more powerful than the majority party?

[dennis4868]

25. Are you saying the opposition party is more powerful than the majority party?

Yes, because of the way the repubs use the fillubusters....everything needs 60 votes in the senate, not the normal 51 votes. The senate rules are really fucked up whereby the minority party, if they want to, can stop everything as long as they have 41 votes (which they do now and even have more because of DINOs).

I admire Obama in that he did something very unpopular to his base (tax cuts for the wealthy) in order to get unemployment insurance for so many Americans who cant even put food on the table right now (including a family member of mine).

[GOTV]

33. That's feeble. The filibuster gives them a lot of power, but not more than the majority party ...

... which has control of the floor and can determine chairmanships and the legislative agenda.

[Poboy]

12. The OP question must be rhetorical, as the clear answer is

'not a god damned thing.'

[xchrom]

14. Recommend

[LWolf]

16. Race to the top.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Issues/Budget-Impact/2010/07/16/David-Obey-Locks-Horns-with-Obama-in-his-Last-Budget-Battle.aspx

[Catherina]

18. The bankers, corporations and the war machine. Rec'd n/t

[billlll]

22. how replace obama?

Sure I'll work hard to reelect him if its him or a GOP

But I sure would like a new head of our party and perhabs Biden as POTUS.

Obama should retire immediately to kennebunkport next to Bush's house.

[GOTV]

23. Well, I bet he fights Bernie Sanders

[billlll]

28. again- How do we replace obama? see my re above

How retire that spineless person to some house near Bush?

[bvar22]

31. What WILL Obama fight for?

He fought hard FOR more money to expand the WAR in Afgh/Pak.
Ask the Progressive Democrats who dared to vote against it in 2008.
They got personal visits from White House Enforcers.

And remember when Kucinich was holding out FOR a Public Option?
Ask him what happened on his little joy ride on AF1.

[northernlights]

34. Wall Street nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. Hopefully, he will have to fight for renomination against a progressive.

[alfredo]

36. He knows the deal is DOA. This was all about independents

it wasn't about his base. He wants to define himself as the mature person in DC.

His actions have given us so many talking points we can run on for the next few years.

Republicans were willing to punish the unemployed if their rich friends didn't get tax breaks they didn't need.

The Republicans don't have any credibility on deficit reductions because of their willingness to bust the budget to give the rich huge tax breaks.

The Republicans held emergency unemployment insurance hostage to get tax cuts for the rich.

Republican used blackmail to get tax cuts for the rich.

Republicans only care about the Rich.
~~~~ add your own

Remember, Though Obama made a deal, there is no guarantee that the Reps won't filibuster. If they do, it is a win win for Obama and the Dems.


BTW,

Our reaction to the deal burnishes his image of a centrist, a pragmatist, a man willing to work in a bipartisan manner. Let them crow about falling into a trap, if Obama plays it right, we will be the ones trapping the Republicans.

[Major Hogwash]

39. Define "fair taxes".

That's just to start.

[QC]

40. Continuing to kick gays and lesbians out of the military.

He's fought pretty hard for that.