White House blames Capitol Hill Dems in part for tax deal

[Donnachaidh]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/132581-white-house-blames-capitol-hill-dems-in-part-for-tax-deal


The White House blamed Capitol Hill Democrats in part on Wednesday for the tax cut deals that many in his party have criticized.

Senior administration officials defended President Obama's deal with Republicans to extend expiring tax cuts for two years, seeking to quell sustained anger from liberals, who complain that the Obama White House caved too quickly and too substantially to Republicans' demand that high-end tax cuts be extended.

But Democrats are at least partially to blame for the deal, said White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer.

"He and the White House, frankly, urged the House and Senate to hold votes on this before the election," he said on the liberal Bill Press radio show. "But they didn't do that, in part because there's not unanimity in the Democratic Caucus on this."

Pfeiffer's remarks underscore the tensions between the White House and members of its own party on Capitol Hill, where Democrats have threatened to vote down the tax proposal.

More at the link --

[Davis_X_Machina]

1. Pfeiffer's statement is correct.

Not that that will, you know, make any difference, or matter, or anything.

Viva Kucinich Feingold Clinton Grayson Weiner Warren Franken Mosler Sanders!

[catgirl]

2. They should have held the vote before the elections

It should have been a top priority to get it passed back then. It would have resulted in a better election result, as well.

[Dawgs]

3. I listened to that interview and his excuses for this disaster of a bill were pathetic.

During the part that the OP references I screamed "well then get the votes".

The weakness of this administration is just embarrassing.

[dennis4868]

4. Yep...

by not voting on this in congress before the eelction the dems in congress passed the ball to Obama who was dealing with a definite fillubuster in the senate...it was a no win situation.

[quinnox]

5. Wow, blame game already?

The deal hasn't even been passed yet. A pre-emptive strike from the White House. "Yea, we know it sucks, but its not our fault!"

[Dawgs]

6. Exactly. The WH loves to blame Democrats for not having the votes...

when it should be their job to get those votes. Bush and his cronies didn't have this problem.

[Davis_X_Machina]

7. Which is why his privatzation...

...of SS sailed through Congress. And his immigration reform.

Hell of an arm-twister, that Bush. Why can't Obama do that?

[Schema Thing]

8. No, but we dems DO have the problem.

pretending the President is Mr. Magic does not change that fact.




Our "big tent" should have voted on this before the election, and had a huge campaign winner for Dems; not to mention the American people. They did not.

That was stupid, but we see it over and over among Dems; I suppose because so many Dems live on the edge, trying to gain conservative cred?

[frazzled]

9. Everyone pretty much agrees the Dems should have done this in Sept.

or October. They wouldn't. It was a huge mistake.

Frankly, I'm truly pissed at the Democrats in Congress -- mainly the Senate, but those complaining in the House as well. I have not heard a single plan for how THEY were going to accomplish their goals. Not one. Especially since the vote on Saturday. I really feel they're hiding behind their own inability to either act or negotiate themselves -- and then using the President as cannon fodder for their own weak position. Shouldn't Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell be the ones negotiating? If they did, that apparently did not work out too well.

And what is this complaint that the WH "caved too quickly"? There are 8 days left in this session. What was the plan?

I know people will say that the plan should have been to just let everything expire. But that was never a possibility: not just because the vast majority of Americans would be hurt by that (the average amount a family would see their tax bill go up immediately on January 1 would be $3,000.) But because the already fragile economy could have been sent into a tailspin. And restarting the whole issue in the next Congress was going to net us a WORSE deal, not a better deal.

An imagined game of "chicken" seems to have been the only Congressional plan: and it wasn't going to work. And you don't play chicken with people's lives or the nation's economy.

Democrats need to get their house in order before pointing fingers. SOMEBODY has to govern.

[Davis_X_Machina]

11. You also leave the government..

....depending on the regular approval of continuing resolutions for its funding, instead of having passed a done-for-the-fiscal-year budget, creating multiple hostage-taking opportunities.

Congress -- a Democratically controlled Congress -- screwed the pooch on this one, on the basis of short-term political calculation, and no amount of hand-waving by 'real progressives' can unscrew it.

[sasha031]

10. yesterday the WH was lecturing his base, now their blaming the Dem's

it seems immature to me and counterproductive.

[Robbien]

14. He is the one pushing GOPer demands and somehow it is everyone else's fault

funny how that works

[Supersedeas]

12. and the fragging of those who stand up to hostage takers continues

Following the President's metaphor, the Republicans are holding the American people hostage for the sake tax cuts for the superwealthy.

During the hostage crisis, principaled Democrats demanded that the Republican be forced to vote on single issues of unemployment benefits prior to Christmas break, to vote on the single issue of tax breaks for the middle class prior to the Christmas break, to vote on Start prior to the break, to vote on the repeal of DADT prior to the break.

Loud narrow-minded Republican responded by THREATENING to filibuster anything and everything that did not have a super-tax cut for the superwealthy.

What should a person in charge do when faced with this hostage scenario?

On the ground, at the hostage scene, a few Republicans are threating, threatening the unemployed, the middleclass, and foreign treaties, and everything with a filibuster. On the ground, at the hostage scene, principaled Democrats radio the President about the threat---a few Republicans are wearing trench coats and threatening to shoot the hostages.

What should the person in charge order the principal soldiers to do in response to a few Republicans in trench coats...negotiate, press forward, attack, risk the lives of those held hostage? The principal soldiers on the ground demand that we press forward and make the hostage takers show us whether they are even armed--will they really shoot the unemployed before Christmas...to they even have any weapons hidden in their trench coats.

What should a person in charge do when faced with this hostage scenario when a few trench coat draped terrorist are threatening innocent people with trench coats for the benefit of the super wealth?

Well, I think we should force the small band of trench coats to at least show us that they are armed.

But instead, the President cedes to the threat of a few trench coats, capitulates to the demands of the terrorist, who may not have been armed in the first place, then...and here is the kicker...THEN

turns the guns and the propoganda against those who had the NERVE to demand that the trench coats show us their arms. Instead of confronting the trench coats, the President and his fan boys are assaulting the principaled soldiers who were there at the hostage scene staring down the small band of terrorists.

And the fragging continues in the Corp Media, from the White House podium, and right in...in DU.

So much for principal.

[KharmaTrain]

13. Even If True...

It shows a breakdown in communications that sits squarely in the White House. As we saw in the recent House vote, there were plenty of votes then to detach the tax cuts at 250k and Pelosi was set to go and then pulled back. Reports at the time were that it was on orders from the White House. The Senate is another story. Reid was scared shitless of losing and others in the caucus were looking over their shoulders as well. There weren't the votes to bring the bill to the floor but there wasn't even an effort to try...to force Senators to go on record as to who favored the cuts for the rich. A squandered opportunity and the signs of a party and administration in bunker mentality.

The Senate has been the problem and will be an even bigger pain next year, but it's also been mismanaged by this administration in what to fight for and when. Instead of confronting, this administration and Senate Democrats have run from almost every important battle; settling for watered down or kicking the can instead.

[Liberalynn]

15. Yeah this administration is never responsible for anything bad, only the good.

No one else helps them, its everybody elses' fault but theirs, their totally innocent, totally perfect, they never make any bad judgement calls ..... Yadda, yadda, etc, etc.....

Same old speeches just from different mouths.:nopity: Heard the same type of excuses from your predecessors.

[xiamiam]

16. except landreu made a comment that the wh did not dialogue with ANY of the dem caucuses,,nt

[Caretha]

17. White House Press Release:

The beatings will continue until morale improves

[Angry Dragon]

21. +100

[Ganja Ninja]

18. Once again the Senate blue dogs are the problem.

It's not Obama's fault he took advice from Blanch Lincoln.:banghead:

[ladjf]

19. Total bull.... nt

[Angry Dragon]

20. I guess that just shows his lack of leadership skills

When he can not even move the elected people of his party