Again, House Democrats are behaving like they're restrained by the President and his tax compromise

[bigtree]

Rep. Weiner and Rep. DeFazio are being quoted complaining that the White House won't dismantle the compromise tax 'framework' agreement they just negotiated. You have to wonder what universe they're operating in. It's THEIR job to craft and pass legislation. If they're content with just passing a doa tax bill on to the Senate and walking away, they should do just that.

However, grousing that the White House won't go back and renegotiate with their legislative colleagues ignores the fact that they are as free as ever to get back to doing the work of negotiating themselves if they think they can or want to get a better deal.

Why do they insist on hiding behind the President - waiting until he took the lead on cleaning up after their intransigence - and behaving as if he's the one who sets the agenda in Congress? What are they doing there, anyway? Who the hell is in charge over there? That's who they should be looking to to forge any agreement (if they want one), not the President.

At least the Black Caucus is moving forward with their own initiative . . .

[polichick]

1. I imagine they're conflicted - not liking the deal but not wanted to...

...hurt the president by going against him.

[jaxx]

2. What? and lose the scapegoat?

Responsibility is slim in the congress. We've seen this over and over. But they do love the soundbites.

[bigtree]

20. Right. This is about the role of Congress and their seeming abdication of that responsibility.

It's easy to pass doa bills from the House to a recalcitrant Senate. The trick is to pass something that can be reconciled with whatever the Senate will bear. It's just not that impressive for the House members to organize a majority behind a bill and send it on.

Now Fazio and Weiner may well be satisfied with just railing against the administration, but this tax matter has been in their hands for some time now. They pushed this to the deadline with their failure (for whatever reason) to accomplish the decoupling of the tax breaks. That may well have been their aim, to just let them all expire. But, if they're at all interested in doing more than just shutting out upper-income tax breaks, they need to tell us how they intend to preserve those middle to lower income tax breaks. They need to tell us how they intend to extend unemployment benefits.

It is Congress' responsibility to take the lead on matters of money and finance. Do they want to extend the child credits or not? Do they want to extend the tuition credits or not. Do they want to extend the earned income tax credits or not? Do they want to extend the unemployment insurance benefits or not?

They can walk away from all of that, or, they can do whatever they're able to preserve that tax relief. That's their job to set that agenda and do what it takes to achieve it. They've had all year to do this, by the way, so I'm not expecting miracles at this late hour.

[Volaris]

23. Yes I agree...

As long as Congress isn't acting like an INDEPENDENT branch of Government, it is effectively the lackey of the Executive,(no matter WHICH party sits in the W.H.) whether the Congress likes that fact or not.
If Congressional Democrats want to bitch about a deal that I admittedly don't much care for, they should have ACTED preemptively to keep the middle and working class tax cuts they wanted, instead of now RE-acting to what the Pres. has decided to do to maintain those same working- and middle-class rates.
NO---I am not happy with the deal.
NO---I am not happy with the President making this deal.
NO---I am not happy with the way the President addressed his own base yesterday.
But to keep all of the <positive> working-class and middle-class cuts (you know, the ones people will actually go pay bills with) in light of Congressional Democratic Majorities NOT tackling this before election, (and taking a proverbial and very PUBLIC Ball-bat to any GOP opposition) this is what the President felt he had to do.
When Congress remembers that they CAN pass things like the Public Option, (and cut whatever deal they have to IN CONGRESS to get that done) if the Pres. doesn't like it, well then , He can damn-well Veto it and suffer the political consequences.

[HuckleB]

3. Absolutely spot on!

And I am a fan of DeFazio.

[DURHAM D]

4. Obama, Biden, Summers and Geithner apparently worked with McConnell.

You are right - it is the job of the Dem leadership to participate but Obama locked them out of the room. Then he quickly called a press conference to release some details. Details the leadership found out in pretty much the same way you and I did. It was designed to out-flank his own party and get a jump on them and shut down opposition. Then today the WH released that fear mongering comment about double dip recession to further outmaneuvere his own party and shut them down.

Did you not notice how many times Obama said "I" yesterday when he should have been saying "We". That is when I first realized the Dem leadership was not in the mix. He treated them like children and is trying to marginalize his own party.

That ought to work well going forward. :sarcasm:

[Cant trust em]

5. I thought Baucus was in the negotiations too.

We don't like Baucus around here, but he is a prominent democrat in congress.

[DURHAM D]

7. I believe he is slated to be in the mix going forward.

Don't believe he had anything to do with "the deal". I understand that Geithner is the one who suggested the 2% SS reduction. I assumed it was McConnell who came up with the plan to destroy SS but he was spared the task. Who needs friends with enemies like...

First task of the Catfood Commission - check.

[bigtree]

8. why do they need to be in the 'room'?

It doesn't look like they made a move toward compromising outside of waiting for the President to do something on their behalf.

If they want to let the cuts expire they should just do that. If they want to pass the President's 'framework' plan they should get about whipping up the votes. But, if they want a deal they can live with they need to get about doing that themselves (if they're able). This grousing from House Democrats at the President is just weird.

By the way, there were at least two meetings at the White House with congressional Democrats. One Friday and one with VP Biden Saturday; each several hours long. They weren't 'locked out', they just weren't able to find agreement with the President's plan.

[DURHAM D]

10. "Find agreement" - Because the giveaway plan stinks.

"The Deal" was announced (the one Obama made with McConnell) yesterday morning. Obama held the presser before he told the leadership what he had given away.

I just love Give away Checkers. It is so much easier to understand than 11th dimensional chess and the game is over sooner.

[bigtree]

11. so they were just sitting on their hands waiting for him to finish

after squandering a year when they could have been fighting this out. They waited, instead, until a month before the deadline to scamper around behind the President. Pathetic.

[DURHAM D]

12. They aren't the "pathetic" one.. nt

[bigtree]

13. christ

the lengths . . .

[DURHAM D]

14. Defending the indefensible is such a challenge. Damn facts nt

[bigtree]

16. what facts?

Hours of negotiations and they didn't know what the President was going to propose? Bullshit.

And who cares when he brought out the goddamn deal? What were they doing this past year on this? They had all the time in the world to work something out themselves- IF they wanted to or actually were able.

[Lint Head]

6. Someone has to show some courage and go against him.

[bigtree]

9. what happened to going against the real opposition

. . . the republicans? So much of the debate has lost sight of that. I'll tell you why. It's because we're not anymore able (yet) to move them off of their bullshit than the White House or anyone else has been, so we lash out at the ones we can actually touch. We need to get our focus back to criticizing republicans first, and expecting Congress to take the legislative lead where they disagree with the President.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. DeFazio is expressing the anger of the people of his disctrict

As are dozens of good Democrats in the House. We just now re-elected DeFazio. And he is doing exactly what we want him to do, because we do not support this amoral give away to the Mega Rich. Sorry if representative democracy bugs you. Perhaps you prefer the House members who lost in November to winners such as DeFazio?
Obama has criticized DeFazio so many times, often in the same day that he praised Republicans by name. I'd trust Peter over the President any day of the week.

[bigtree]

17. he should talk to his leadership

They should be taking the lead in their own House, not the President.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. I tell you what man, you should send him an email and tell him

that. Seriously. Tell him your friend in the 4th asked you to, although your friend agrees with Pete, not with you. He reads all of his email, and he answers most of it, all of it coming from here, personally. So why are you telling DU when you could tell Peter and Anthony?
You really should ask. DeFazio has been representing this district for a long time, and he is one of the most skilled legislators in the House. He was also an early and strong Obama supporter during the Primary, by the way.
So if you think you have insight into how various House members ought to conduct Congressional business, I heartily recommend you contact them directly, especially Mr. DeFazio, who is usually very happy to state his case when asked. So while you do not have a vote in this district, you are a Democrat and a friend of this district, and you most certainly should express yourself as such. Go for it.

[bigtree]

19. well, that's all fine, but that's not the purpose of this post

. . . this is a discussion board. It shouldn't be so far out of line anymore to pose a query for the purposes of discussion.

[Foo Fighter]

21. Well done.

Ha! Pwned!

[bigtree]

24. what, are you in a high school cafeteria?

grow up.

[Better Believe It]

22. President Obama has been setting the agenda in Congress up until now.

All Presidents set the agenda.

Unfortunately, it has not been a very liberal agenda under President Obama.

[MrScorpio]

25. Ah, there's the rub

But it's all Obama's fault anyway... It's more convenient that way.