Obama's Compromise Victories? Tax Cuts.

I'll start out by saying that I am disgusted with the "compromise" plan put forth by the President yesterday. I haven't really wanted to post in the last few days, because I am tired of coming on here and just expressing how upset I am with the lack of leadership. As I've made clear, I think tax cuts are absolutely the wrong thing for our country and our economy... they're a lot of the reason we have the deficit we have now* and economists are almost universal in decrying their "stimulative" power.

So you can imagine my disappointment as I looked into the compromise that the President made, and discovered that in order to "temporarily" extend the Bush-Era tax cuts ($380B/year in the deficit) the President has received the following "concessions" from the Republicans.

1. Extension of the Federal unemployment benefits. This is the only real "concession" that I can see, in that this is something that needed to be done for the country. However, there's NO WAY that the Republicans wouldn't have ended up voting for an extension of these benefits by the end of the year. If the Democrats had been able to hold their ground in congress, the Republicans would have given in on the extension, just as they have done time and time again over the last few years.

2. A freeze for the alternative minimum tax. Yes, a tax cut that will affect some middle-class taxpayers, as well as wealthier taxpayers. This is something that needs to be reformed, for sure, but it's not a pressing issue. It's just another tax cut... and considering a tax cut to be a concession from the Republicans is ridiculous.

3. A huge reduction of the Estate Tax. In 2011, the Estate Tax was slated to affect estates of over $1,000,000 in value. Yes, if you left over a million dollars to your heirs, they would have to pay 35% in taxes to the government. The Repulicans were generous enough, however, to allow the President a tax cut for the wealthy on this as well, with the new Estate Tax affecting only estates of $5M or more. WOW! How crafty of President Obama to work another tax cut out of those Republicans.**

4. Additional tax cuts, from college tuition credits to child care credits. Even better, these "tax cuts" were the same tax cuts put into the weakened stimulus package to entice Republican support. That's right, the Republicans conceded and allowed Obama to continue giving them the tax cuts he gave them back in 2008. How very generous of them!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I've read a number of "democrats" defending the President's position on this compromise, some even calling the $300 billion in additional tax cuts "stimulus." As I've said, they are the same relatively worthless tax cuts from the stimulus package of 2008, but I tend to trust economists when it comes to economic stimulation more than I do the name attached to some paperwork.

Today the President said he's "ready to fight" and that the Republicans can expect him to fight in the future. I'm pretty sure he's said that before. Like, several times. I seem to remember he promised to fight for the Public Option. That never materialized, of course, as he made a deal with the insurance industry and gave us a wishy-washy industry-friendly bill. Hilariously enough, today he compared this compromise to the health care compromise as he was chastising liberals.

I guess he does get it. I guess we liberals are the fools hoping for someone who isn't a corporatist capitulator... apparently the President feels that is what the country needs. Well, that and more tax cuts.***

I had some hopes that we'd eke out a few minor victories in the lame duck congress. I suppose that is still possible, but unfortunately the President will continue fighting against real change and economic improvement.

___
* In addition to Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the housing bubble... but they're still a large portion of our deficit.

** This $5M cap isn't enough for some Republicans who are still complaining about the existence of any estate tax at all. These complaints are somehow supposed to justify the "compromise" as they're the example of the right being upset about the tax bill.

*** Is it just me, or does all this tax cutting sound like a tea party agenda? It's like the President has adopted their point of view, but left all the personal anti-Obama rhetoric aside.

Obama's Pay Freeze Helps Keep Frivolous Tax Cuts

Yesterday President Obama called for a two year pay freeze for federal workers, estimated to save the government up to $6 billion a year for the next ten years.*  This bit of preemptive capitulation hasn't pleased anyone, angering the President's supporters while emboldening his detractors who believe that the pay freeze is merely a first step. President Obama gave up this negotiating chit the day before meeting with Repulican leaders in their "Slurpee Summit."

I think this pay freeze is terrible policy for several reasons, especially with the dire state of our economy.  Using the projections of the President's economic team, this pay cut will cost the country 25,000 private sector jobs over the next two years. Despite what Eric Cantor and the Republicans may say, federal employees currently earn 22% less than their private sector counterparts according to the 2009 Office of Personnel Management report.



How can we expect the government to do a better job than it is currently doing when we don't even want to pay the employees a fair wage?  How can we expect to retain the best people we currently have when they are now more open to recruitment to fill jobs in the private sector?** 

Meanwhile, the President still seems determined to allow the tax cuts to be extended permanently*** costing the country $370 billion per year.  He's covered the 2% the cost of these tax cuts with this middle class pay freeze... how will he cover the other 98%?

In 2012, President Obama will be running for his reelection, and the right will have two new memes to press in their campaign.  "President Obama wants to increase the pay of federal workers and raise your taxes."  Follow this up with equally untrue stories about his $2B trip to India, lack of birth certificate, and Muslim faith, and we'll be looking at a serious GOP tea party in November.

____
* I have seen some conservative commentators wondering how a 2-year freeze can equal ten years worth of savings, I can see how it'd be difficult to accept that not getting a raise this year will make the raises in the future relatively smaller.

** This fits into the long-term plan of the Republicans to shrink the federal government and hand it over to the private sector; as the best employees leave, the quality of work will drop, which tends to feed into more cuts/firings, which tends to lead to private contractors filling in at a much higher cost.

*** There's no doubt in my mind that if they are extended for even a year that they will be extended permanently when they come up to expire next.  If we can't allow them to expire with our large current majorities, what possibility will we have in 2011 or 2012?

Cenk Uygur's Plea to President Obama

Sometimes I regret not having cable.  While there's a lot of great television available over the internet, Cenk Uygyr's MSNBC Live is not available in its entirety.  Cenk is passionate and independent-minded, and has had some of the most on-point criticism of our President's reluctance to stand up for Progressives.  Here's an excellent example, really capturing the frustration I have with the current administration.

Rep. Bob Inglis and the Difficulty of Being Reasonable

One of the casualties of the Tea Party craze sweeping the nation was South Carolina Republican Bob Inglis.  Inglis had a moderate/conservative voting record (based on contemporary US politics) but lost a primary challenge to a Tea Party candidate, after a lot of noise regarding his votes on TARP and other "liberal" programs.

Inglis has come out recently criticizing the leadership of the GOP, ridiculing such nonsensical positions as the "birther" issue as well as climate change denial.  I applaud him for being willing to stand up to this portion of his party, rallying behind the basis of scientific consensus and facts.  He said his party is arguing against global warming "(b)ecause 98 of the doctors say, 'Do this thing,' two say, 'Do the other.'"  This is a good thing to hear from someone on the right, even if it is someone who was defeated in his primaries and will be replaced by a farther-right partisan in January.

A few thoughts come to mind after reading about Rep. Inglis.  First off, why is it that only Republicans are covered in the press discussing the nonsensical nature of climate change denial?  Is it that they are the only ones standing up to say these things?  Or is it a matter of the press only wanting to report those who go against the grain?  I suspect it's the latter... there's no "news" in a Democrat standing up and defending the science of climate change, but when a politician stands against his party, even in the defense of overwhelming scientific consensus, it's more newsworthy.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, why do we feel that reasonable discussion and debate will change the mind of those so strongly opposed to our positions?  When someone like Rep. Inglis stands up against the partisan nonsense that has come to control the Republicans, he is shouted down as a sore loser by those on his side.  On the few issues that Inglis worked with Democrats, he is reviled by his fellow party members for being weak.

How do we liberals expect to have our voiced heard when even conservatives such as Inglis can't get their message across to those who mistrust science so badly?

McConnell, Maddow, and Capitulating with Fox's Game Plan

In my previous post, I took some umbrage with what I felt was Jon Stewart's evasion of the toughest questions in his interview with Rachel Maddow. Whenever an interviewee fails to answer the tough questions in an interview, I feel his message is diluted, and the post-rally analysis of Stewart has had that result. Although I know my blog is new and doesn't really command much attention (certainly not anyone who can influence the media or government policy... no offense, dear reader) I would like to take a moment to point out an example of where Jon was right about the left mirroring Fox's game plan.

On Friday, the following segment was the top story on Maddow's show.



To summarize:

1. According to George Bush's memoir, Sen McConnell (R-KY) privately urged Pres. Bush in Sep 2006 to bring troops home from Iraq in order to boost the Republican's chances in the '06 elections. That is to say, he suggested drawing down troops for political benefit. Sen McConnell in Decision Points "Your unpopularity is going to cost us control of the congress."

2. Bush declined his request, saying he "...set troop levels to achieve victory in Iraq, not victory at the polls."*

3. Sen McConnell, on Sep 4-6, 2006, repeatedly publicly decried the Democrat's calls for troop withdrawal. "Cutting and running is not a strategy for protecting the American people," was the basic (and most polite) jist of his condemnation.

4. When Maddow's team asked for comment on this hypocrisy, Sen McConnell's team responded with a standard "No comment on advising the president" line, stating that "the public record is clear on his unwavering support" for the war.  He pointedly did not deny the President's recollection.


This "incredible story" of McConnell's "trouble on a grand scale" and "contemptible hypocrisy" makes up the first eleven minutes of Maddow's 46 minute show. I understand that hypocrisy is shameful, and McConnell has been caught red-handed. My question is, what difference does it make? Is this going to change anything? What makes this Kentucky story an "incredible" and "grand" national story?**

What I see is, McConnell supported his President publicly while disagreeing with him privately. I believe many of us have been upset with Reid and any number of our elected officials for not backing up President Obama publicly. I know I've written about how disappointed I am that Democrats haven't stood up for Obama's policies.*** McConnell did what the Republicans always do, he stayed in line and played ball. That's why they win elections and get things done when they're in power.

More importantly, why was this the most important thing to report on yesterday? Where was the reporting on supposedly impartial Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's serving as the keynote speaker at the Nov 9, 2010 conservative American Spectator event?  How about the reporting of Debt Reduction Committee co-chair Erskin Bowle's job on the board of financial giant Morgan Stanley? There are two great conflict of interest stories, both occurring right now and not four years ago, both very relevant to issues facing Americans today.

Is the McConnell story interesting? I suppose so. Is it a more factual version of sort of thing Fox News does to democrats on a daily basis? No doubt. However, it's nowhere near as relevant as the Bowles or Alito conflict of interest stories.  If Maddow or Olbermann were to cover them, they'd add a lot of legitimacy to them. The facts are out there, but if you search Google the links I've provided are the most legitimate media sources available. No matter how many links Think Progress, Truth Out, or I provide none of us have the legitimacy of MSNBC.

So while I agree that unilateral disarmament is a bad idea, Maddow and Olbermann and the rest of the media could take an important lesson from Mr. Stewart. Stop the sniping. There is plenty of fact-based information out there to take down the right. Let the right lie and name-call all they want, put the damning evidence we have out there, rather than letting it fester on the backrooms of the internet.


____
* I do find this hilarious. Either GW Bush spoke in talking points even in private conversations, or he completely fabricated the quotes of his own speech to match up to the talking points he was making at the time. I don't know which is a more ridiculous option.

** I remember in the '08 election, when Biden was chosen as Obama's running mate, there was a rehashing of how one time he forgot to attribute a quote in a speech. I got into an argument with a conservative acquaintance of mine about how silly this issue was. This McConnell thing has about as much national relevance in my opinion.

*** Forget that Bush's team was out there pushing the same policies as McConnell, while Obama hasn't made much of an effort to get out there and push anything. Sending out a YouTube video a week before the election is hardly an effort to equal Bush's six year non-stop fear machine.

Rising From the Ashes

It's my hope that the losses of last Tuesday will spur progressives across the country to stand up for our values and get our voices out. There's some sign that this might be the case, the blogs I've been reading have been pretty consistent on that tone. I think Keith Olbermann's suspension (and hasty reinstatement) will serve as a reminder to the power of the true left, and how we are capable of rallying together. Let's hope we can do so for our country which, no offense to Mr. Olbermann, is a much larger issue than an influential news personality.

One voice I am glad to see return to the national dialogue is Sam Seder. Sam was one of the original Air America radio hosts (hard to believe that was 6 years ago!) and has been sort of hard to hear from in the last couple of years. He has started a new daily podcast, "The Majority Report," which can be downloaded from Majority.FM, or subscribed to through iTunes or any RSS reader. He's only done a couple of episodes so far, he's calling these first shows their beta, but they're already well worth listening to.

If you're not familiar with Sam, he's funny and smart. While he is unhappy with the weak-kneed policies of the outgoing congress, he does realize that the Democrats are the best chance we have to improve our lot in the current system. Since he's also a pretty funny guy, I think his voice is one that could really help shape the dialogue over the next few years. If nothing else, he'll make it easier to get through the difficulties of the 112th Congress.

On 2010 Results, Oregon's Governor's Race

I attended the Kitzhaber "victory" party last night, thrown by the Democratic Party of Oregon in downtown Portland. It was a nice party and it was fun to see the candidates who spoke there. You can see additional photos of them on my flickr page.

The overall election for the nation went about as I expected. The Democrats got hammered in the house, and lost a lot of ground in the Senate. I suspect the overall spin will be that the election was a repudiation of the progressive agenda, and that the President should move even further toward the right with additional spending on tax cuts for the wealthy, additional spending on the military, and less spending on social programs.

However there is some light for progressives, as the House results show that the progressive caucus held 76 of 80 seats, while the Blue Dog Republican Lights Democrats lost more than half their caucus vacating a surprising 29 seats.*

Despite the loss of Sen Feingold (D-WI) (who tried to run a progressive campaign on the coattails of Obama/Reid's corporatist successes) the progressives did very well. If anything, the Democrats should learn that voters appreciate people who stand up for their values, who promise a progressive vision for the future. I seem to recall a black guy getting elected president running on that platform... whatever happened to him?



Here in Oregon, we were fortunate enough to hold on to our four Democratic congressional seats, with two moderately contested races holding true for Reps. Wu and DeFazio. We had a very mixed bag of ballot measure results, with progressive parks funding passing, along with a conservative (unfunded) mandatory minimum sentencing measure... both by similar margins. Our neighbors to the north really took it hard when it came to state revenue, all three Washington state tax measures fell on the tea party side of the vote by considerable margins.

Two important Oregon races remain up in the air at this time... the race between former Governor John Kitzhaber (D - Picuted above at last night's rally) and former Trailblazer (and Camas, Washington resident) Chris Dudley. Their race is down to the wire, with the final votes from Multnomah county being tallied to decide. It looks very likely the final count will fall within the 3000 votes requiring a mandatory recount, so it will be days before the results are know.

Also still up in the air is the Metro Presidency, with a very close race between progressive Bob Stacey and slightly less progressive Tom Hughes. While I would like to see Stacey win (I applaud his views on the urban growth boundary) it looks likely that Hughes will hold on to take it down. As a bicyclist, I hope Hughes' "Bike Registration Fee" plan doesn't actually materialize.

Can't wait to see the results, and it'll be an interesting journey to 2012.

Update: Kithaber pulled ahead with the Multnomah county results and ended up winning a third term (non-consecutive) as Governor with a 1% margin. Congratulations, Governor! At this time, the Hughes/Stacey race is too close to call, the current margin is within 0.2%, which means an automatic recount will be required. Thank goodness for our mandatory paper write-in ballots!


_____
* The numbers aren't quite equal in those two articles. The first lists 77 of 80 seats holding for the progressives, while the second lists 75 of 79. I split the difference with my figure, but the point is the progressives held.