Splicetoday

Politics & Media
Nov 22, 2010, 04:43AM

Executive Ballsmanship

The President needs to use the issue of the Bush tax cuts as an opportunity to show his strength.

2902165661 75b7d924cc.jpg?ixlib=rails 2.1

oporder

If President Obama collapses on the Bush tax cuts, he either doesn’t understand the power of the presidency or doesn’t want to use it to set the tone and the tactic for the political showdown of his life. It’s the one issue where he can draw a clear line between Democrats and Republicans: Whose side are you on, the average American’s or the Wall Street billionaires? Nancy Pelosi gets it. Steny Hoyer gets it. Even Harry Reid gets it. So why doesn’t Obama?

Well, a remarkable event has occurred. In a reverse of the usual Washington power play, the Democratic leaders of Congress have told Obama publicly and bluntly that he will have to assert his leadership to salvage the middle class tax cuts before the end of the year. This is his last chance.

Bipartisanship is baloney. When you’ve got power, you use it. The only abuse of power is having it and not using it. And until early in January, Democrats will still control both houses of Congress, by a wide majority in the House and just shy of 60 votes in the Senate. Obama’s willingness to toady up to Republicans is baffling, kind of like waving the white flag on the matter of tax cuts, when the GOP leadership seems intent on embarrassing the President into hasty submission. He invited them to dinner at the White House and they cancelled because of scheduling conflicts, which is the polite way of telling Obama to stuff it. Republicans learned early in the Obama Administration that if they push the president around he won’t push back.

The Bush tax cuts the Democrats want to slice and dice involve the top one percent of earners in America—millionaires, billionaires, the Warren Buffetts and the Bill Gates’ of the nation. Everyone earning less than $250,000 would retain the tax cuts which expire automatically on December 31. Those making more than $250,000 would be excluded from the cuts and pay a higher rate. Extending the tax cut to high income earners above the $250,000 cut-off would amount to giving $70 billion a year to those who don’t need it and worse, who won’t spend it to help churn the economy back to vibrancy. Those folks pay lobbyists and tax lawyers to devise angles and loopholes to shelter their loot.

Call it class warfare because that’s exactly what the tax code is—all 13,458 pages, in 20 volumes, available from the U.S. Government printing office for $974. It’s written by and for those who would benefit from extending the entire Bush tax cut. What’s even more dangerous about perpetuating the high income cut is that it further contributes to the imbalance of wealth by concentrating it in the hands of the few to the deprivation of the many. To wit: With 17 million people out of work, Republicans once again have blocked the extension of unemployment benefits for two million Americans, one of the surest ways of getting money into the hands of those who’ll spend it. This occurred a week before Thanksgiving and five weeks before Christmas. The GOP apparently views continued economic distress as their passport back into the White House.

Where Obama officially stands is muddled by his own and his Administration’s garbled messaging on an issue that is as emphatically Democratic as the New Deal. First, Obama said he was firmly committed to allowing the tax cut to expire for high earners while the breaks would continue for those below the magic number. That commitment was as firm as Jell-O. As soon as Republicans pushed back, Obama signaled that there was room for compromise. Then David Axelrod, his counselor and rapmaster, offered the usual hallucinogenic talk of bipartisanship and compromise. And when Obama attempted to back-step from Axelrod’s comments, the issue became as murky as the polluted depths of the Potomac River.

So just what is going on here? This is a knife fight, a street rumble, and not a genteel game of lawn croquet. The weapons are switchblades and it’s clear that the Republicans intend to use theirs when they take over Congress in January. Short of the face-to-face business of politics that usually get things done, the power of the presidency is awesome. The president has in his tool kit executive orders, agency and departmental rules and the most lethal of all, the presidential veto. He also should have in his top desk drawer a list of pork projects and earmarks for every Congressional district in America, which can be cancelled or delayed or even defunded at the snap of a presidential finger. These are all end-runs around the intransigence and paralysis that is gripping Washington, conceived and enshrined for one purpose—to be used as a display of executive ballsmanship.

One Republican argument for extending the tax cut beyond $250,000 is the durable GOP fable that it helps small business. That, too, is baloney. It’s difficult to determine exactly what a small business is other than a possible tax dodge. The Small Business Administration classifies a small business as one with 25 to 500 employees. Another measure is not the number of employees but its list of owners. For example, the multi-billion dollar oil business privately owned by the Kohl Brothers is a small business because it has only two owners, more than likely the constituency the Republicans are attempting to protect.

Another audible guffaw is prompted by the duck-and-cover antics of the Tea Party winners who want no association with the budget cuts they campaigned for. Few, if any, of the Twining group are eager to accept seats on the House Appropriations Committee, usually a coveted assignment, where adjustments will have to be made to education, Social Security, Medicare and other cherished programs that they promised to dismantle. They’re as phony as the Astroturf cover they ran under. And it was also interesting to note that not a single Tea Party member spoke out in favor of the cuts and limits being promulgated by a commission studying ways of cutting the long-term debt and the deficit. The commission’s preliminary recommendations also target sacrosanct social programs. The GOP, also in a hollow display of meaningless mush, adopted a non-binding resolution in opposition to earmarks. Earmarks make up only three-tenths of one percent of the budget. And non-binding means they’ll take them when they need them, probably for bragging rights around election time.

While Obama and crew do their haphazard intellectualizing out loud, it has been Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders who have suffered the grief that Obama has thrust upon them. They were doing what Congressional leaders do—trolling for votes to adopt the president’s agenda. It’s called leadership. The most important four letters in the word leadership are l-e-a-d. The electorate did not send a clear signal to do one thing or the other. They were merely blowing off steam, as they do every two years, especially in the off years. Most people vote out of frustration on their own circumstances and not because they favor one party or the other. The party in power has remained in total control in the off-year elections only twice in the past 75 years. In politics, there is no such thing as a mandate. There is only one reality—having the votes, 218 in the House and 60 (under present filibuster rules) in the Senate.

Obama and the Democrats have the votes for the next six weeks. Lyndon Johnson knew what to do when he had the votes. So, too, did Franklin Delano Roosevelt and even Obama’s hero, Abraham Lincoln. It’s cojones time. Either Obama has them or he doesn’t. And if he has them, it’s time to rattle his junk.

Discussion
  • Frank, you call this class warfare in favor of the rich? What are you smoking? Let's treat everyone equally and let them keep their tax cuts. NOOOOOOOO, raise taxes on the rich because they are rich, or else you are commiting class warfare. Frank, I don't think "class warfare" means what you think it means.

    Responses to this comment
  • When will the Dems act like grownups and be responsible and let these irresponsible tax cuts for the rich Expire. Everyone knows that these tax cuts add to the deficit and take from the poor and middleclass, reverse Robin Hood effect! However, with the expiration of these tax cuts, more revenue will be generated into the economy, and the rich and wealthy will begin to pay their fairshare and not leave the tax burden to the middle class and working poor. For a so-called enlightened country like the U.S., to have such a discriminating ban on gays is disgraceful. As a country we are bigger than than and better than that -- or should be. What made America great was her openess and compassion for others, with the advent of the Rush Limbaughs, we lost a lot of that. We have to get it back!

    Responses to this comment
  • Written like a person who has not created any jobs. Tax cuts do not "cost" anything and I resent the fact that people like yourself seem to assume that it is the governments money and the fact that we are allowed to keep any of it is thanks for the good ole government. It might sound trite to someone like you, but I have never worked for a poor person in my whole life. How about you? Finally, taking more tax money does nothing to address the imbalance of wealth other than bring more people down and create more poor people.

    Responses to this comment
  • "...and the rich and wealthy will begin to pay their fair share and not leave the tax burden to the middle class and working poor." What makes you think that a higher tax rate for the rich is "their fair share"? How much in taxes does the "working poor" pay annually? "what made this country great was her openess and compassion for others..." I'm sure the african/asian slaves and Native Americans would disagree with you on that point. Oh yeah, Watts was a great example of pre-Rush openess and compassion as well. Rush is a jerk but his existance is not an excuse for your obvious lack of logic.

    Responses to this comment
  • Obama, the typical tax and spend socialist, went nuts and spent $5+ Trillion of our kids money - in addition to molesting them at the airports. Now he wants to raise taxes? Who would have guessed. JFK knew that lowering tax rates causes the "rich" to make even more money and it trickles down to us. But if you want trickle up poverty then listen to Dear Leader Obama.

    Responses to this comment
  • I don't think the tax cuts—on anyone—should expire either, but Perry M, calling Obama a "socialist" is silly as well as untrue. And, to be fair, when JFK lowered taxes, the highest rate was enormous, far higher than today.

    Responses to this comment
  • Just to be clear. Because I happen to be on the same side of the argument as PerryM, does not mean that I agree with the "Obama is a socialist or North Korean dictator" meme. The real problem with this issue is that neither side is willing to look at the issue logically and without glib expressions like I have never worked for a poor person.

    Responses to this comment
  • Texan, here's my honest question: is there some base level of taxation that differentiates between high taxes and low taxes? You say it's class warfare to only tax the rich. I'd agree, except the tax rates would simply revert to their levels during the Clinton Administration, a time when were were running surpluses. Obviously the two are 100% related to each other, but they're certainly in the same ballpark. As BillFranklin said, those tax rates were even higher before that. All of these tax cuts were set to expire at the end of this legislative session. I don't like the idea of only removing the highest bracket tax cuts, but it's pretty hard to ignore the very real facts that the wealth discrepancy in this country has increased exponentially. The top 1% rake it in while wages have stayed flat, costs of living (education, health care, et al) have skyrocketed. Now, there's a reason why our economy is still the biggest in the world by a lot. Really effin' rich people and their massive business have a lot to do with that, and I can't begrudge a reality that is responsible for so much of life's comforts. But here's why I'm in favor of only letter the highest bracket tax cuts expire: I believe the long term debt is going to screw us all with our pants on in one way or another. I consider that the edge of the umbrella that covers everything else: health care, climate change, education, crime, you name it. I guess that's how I rationalize letting those cuts expire: all strata of America are hurting right now, and letting those cuts expire is how to keep the pain as fair as possible.

    Responses to this comment
  • @Frank DeFilippo, GREAT JOB on the article. Your words are not only true but fiery and poetic. Let's hope the Obama Admin reads this, wakes up, and saves the U.S.A from the grips of another Repub = Corporation crash.

    Responses to this comment
  • Andrew, please read before typing. I did not write "it is class warfare to only tax the rich". What I was stating is that it is not "fair" (your term) to raise taxes on only one portion of the public. The fact that they can afford it does not mean it is not class warfare. As for your comments regarding " keep the pain as fair as possible", since when is the government supposed to make everyone suffer equally? So what the rates would be the same as under Clinton, they sucked then and they would really suck now. Ending the wars and all the merc./contractor agreements and the deficit will decline just fine without killing the economy or penalizing the wealthy for being wealthy. Once that is done, other spending cuts should be considered.

    Responses to this comment
  • You see government/taxes as making people suffer, I see it as part of the social contract that brought the government into being in the first place. Any tax whatsoever can be narrowly misconstrued as a "penalty" (you seem to harbor a pretty righteous grievance factor, here...is Big Bad Brother picking your pockets?). Taxes aren't penalties. They're the price we pay for a civil society. But if you can only see them as penalties then your line, "The real problem with this issue is that neither side is willing to look at the issue logically," looks, well, more than a bit silly.

    Responses to this comment
  • Once again Andrew, please read before typing. YOU are the one who brought up pain/suffering as taxes. Perhaps you should direct your own drivel inwards

    Responses to this comment
  • "it is not "fair" (your term) to raise taxes on only one portion of the public." It's also not fair that some people, generally through no particular skill or virtue of their own, have tons more money than some other people who often work harder and at more dangerous and unpleasant jobs. The wealthy could not be wealthy without, say, roads, or schools, or police, or (in many cases) truly massive government handouts. They have, in general, reaped more benefit from these structures than have the poor. Presumably, they therefore have a larger incentive to make sure that said institutions remain in place. It therefore seems fair to ask them to pay a larger portion of their income to preserve them. Or, you know, alternately we could just get rid of every instance of corporate welfare on the books. That would be fair, and would be far more lucrative than just raising taxes on the highest tax bracket.

    Responses to this comment
  • Care to back up your statements about the wealthy reaping more benefits from roads, schools, and police? It seems to me that the wealthy tend to send their kids to private school and the police protect everyone. In fact, I think (but am not sure)it is more expensive to police poor communities than wealthy ones since poor communities have more crime.Not that your point is at all relevent. If everyone pays the same percentage, the rich do pay more. Also, why do you think the majority of the wealthy did not earn their wealth? Care to back that up with facts?

    Responses to this comment
  • Ah, Texan, now the good ol' asinine curmudgeon I know so well is back to play. The rich are lucky to have you at bat for them.

    Responses to this comment
  • Wow, perfect timing Tex. I came across the perfect definition of your worldview: http://www.gabbysplayhouse.com/?p=1444

    Responses to this comment
  • Typical Andrew. Can't make a reasoned argument so you make personal attacks. Here is a suggestion, go to rehab (your first post was incoherent) and then take a reading comprehension course. Clearly curmudgeon does not mean what you think it means.

    Responses to this comment
  • Texan, I've long learned you don't have the capacity to listen to reasoned arguments, and thus I enjoy smacking you around.

    Responses to this comment
  • Real nice Andrew. Resorting to deaf jokes. What's next, handicap humor?

    Responses to this comment
  • You can't possibly be serious with that last comment. And so it must be a joke, and a pretty decent one at that. So: good show.

    Responses to this comment
  • Until our next melee... Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.

    Responses to this comment
  • And a happy one to you as well. May the tryptophan be with us.

    Responses to this comment

Register or Login to leave a comment