Tax Cut Deal Shows Obama Has to Work With GOP

December 7, 2010 RSS Feed Print

Washington is buzzing about the tax deal President Barack Obama and congressional leaders announced late Monday.

At its core, the deal as presented would extend almost all the current tax rates for two years, bring the death tax back at 35 percent with a $5 million exemption rather than 55 percent and, in a new wrinkle, enact a temporary 2 percent reduction in the payroll tax. It also allows for the extension of unemployment benefits through the end of 2011.

[Read 10 Things You Didn't Know About the Bush Tax Cuts.]

That the White House would agree to such a deal, which is being roundly criticized by its allies on the left, tells us some important things about what it is thinking.

First, despite its statements to the contrary, that the stimulus has not worked as advertised. Critics have called it an outright failure, citing as proof the fact that unemployment is up around 9.8 percent when the White House promised it would not exceed 8 percent if it were enacted. Long term joblessness is a significant problem, one that dramatically affects Obama’s re-election prospects. Both the extension of unemployment benefits and the payroll tax reduction are ways of addressing it, if even temporarily.

Second, that the White House has made the calculation that it has more to worry about from the center than it does from the left.

To progressives, sparing what is commonly referred to as “the wealthiest Americans” is fair and just. There is plenty of polling data to suggest that, to everyone else, it is unpopular – as explained here yesterday. Voters, including the independents that formed an important part of the Republican’s winning coalition in the 2010 election, see the problem in Washington as one of over-spending, not under-taxation.

[See top 5 winners and losers in this election.]

By cutting the deal they have, the White House has likely concluded that it is more important to cozy up to the middle than it is to keep it’s left-leaning base happy, probably believing that it has no where else to go and will, therefore, stick with Obama through 2012.

Third, that with the Republicans due to soon come into power in the U.S. House of Representatives and to increase its numbers in the U.S. Senate that they have to, in fact, deal with them rather than run roughshod over them as they have for the last two years.

It is clear from the election returns, and how well the Republicans did across the country at the state as well as the federal level, that the electorate is unhappy with the way Obama has governed since he was elected. In a sense, they want him to be the kind of president he promised to be during the 2008 campaign – a post-partisan problem solver that brings all sides together – rather than a “my way or the highway” kind of guy. The tax deal is the first indication that they have gotten the message.

Unlike the “triangulation” employed by the Clinton White House after the Democrats took a beating in the 1994 election, Obama seems more likely to try and build moderate, bi-partisan coalitions within the Senate in order to take the edge off what the new House Republican majority will pass, thereby enabling everyone to come out of things saying they got something and they gave something, which is more in line with what one may suspect the voters want to see over the next two years.

 

Tags:
2010 election,
Congress,
democratic party,
unemployment,
2012 presidential election,
republican party

Reader Comments Read all comments (11)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Jeff, Atheism is the most irrational psuedo-religion ever created. I use the word psuedo-religion because like other religion it requires faith and opposes other theologies that differ from its own.

FYI: I'm a scientist with a masters from Columbia University.

Atheism claims to believe in physics, science, and "rational" thought. Yet Atheists believe in "randomness creation." There is no evidence or experimental data that shows how base elements can form into amino acids and then those amino acids can form into RNA or DNA on their own in conditions similar to those found on a primordial Earth. The Miller experiments were proven to not work in newer, more enlightened understandings of actual primordial conditions on Earth. Scientists have NEVER been able to setup an experiment where, without any help, basic primordial elements and molecules create life on their own. Yet Atheists have FAITH that somehow this happened even though scientific evidence doesn't support this form of thought. Athiests aren't being rational, they are a faith-based group.

Athiesm also believes that the Big Bang originated from conditions not linked to an intelligence. Atheists believe that the Big Bang, the creation of the Universe came into being through randomness. There is no scientific evidence showing that a universe can randomly be formed along with the laws of physics. The Athiests have FAITH in the idea of a randomly started big bang.

Modern intelligence beings have proven that the can create life. Humans are now creating life, bacteria, independent of evolution. This new form of life is the first scientific evidence that DNA and RNA can come into existence through intelligent beings without traditional evolution. This is a fact. Atheists believe that only humans could ever produce life in a lab at a rate far faster than natural evolution. They believe this is a "one off" event. The Aethists refuse to rationally believe that in the next 100 years human-created life will be the majority source of organism development, not slow evolution. Atheists aren't accepting proven fact. Creationists believe that humans aren't the center of the universe, they are not humanists. Creationists and Christians believe that an advance creator created life just as the humans are now creating life. This is rational and backed up with evidence. By the way, the human created bacteria can be made without radioactive markers and if placed in a petri dish, the humanists would claim the bacteria came from evolution and not a lab. Human-created life can easily have it's origins ignored by the humanist Atheists just as the Creator's life origins are ignored by the humanists. :)

Truth Teller of MA 6:49AM December 08, 2010

Why ??

Bill Hedges of MO 9:30PM December 07, 2010

Why twice did you put same comment here ?

Bill Hedges of MO 9:18PM December 07, 2010

Peter Roff

Peter Roff

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. A former senior political writer for United Press International, he is currently a senior fellow at the Institute for Liberty and at Let Freedom Ring, a non-partisan public policy organization. His writing has also appeared on Fox News' Fox Forum.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

Get God Out of the Gay Marriage Debate

The government shouldn't tell churches who they should marry, but neither should churches tell the government which marriages it can recognize.

Mary Kate Cary

Obama Attacks as Economic Cliff Looms

The president can't afford to talk about the economy, but with a 2013 fiscal time bomb approaching, the rest of us can't afford not to.

Latest Video

advertisement