I thought Obama Was Supposed To Be A Good Poker Player-- At Least When He Was Back In Springfield

It was sickening yesterday watching virtually the whole left blogosphere jump all over Obama over a report at HuffPo that he had given up on fighting for a solution to the Bush tax cuts issue that extended sensible middle class tax cuts while ending tax cuts to the wealthy. I'm no big Obamabot but this kind of reaction, based on an interpretation of inartfully expressed perspective from David Axelrod seemed a little harsh. I actually felt sorry for Obama, especially because he's the one who has all along been clamoring for an extension for the middle class and a cutoff for the rich. Actually, to be more specific, Obama's formulation calls for a solution in which every family get an extension of the taxcut for the first $250,000-- so rich and middle class alike-- and that anything over $250,000 be subject to normal taxes.

This has also been a solution that has polled well among Americans and most congressional Democrats were eager to go to the voters with it as an issue and were urging Nancy Pelosi to let them vote on it before the midterms. Unfortunately, the Blue Dogs got to Hoyer and whined that it was a no-win situation for them-- that they would be forced to vote against it because Republicans would paint them as tax raisers and then their Democratic bases might be angry. Putative Democrats like Bobby Bright (AL), Gene Taylor (MS), Travis Childers (MS), Glenn Nye (VA), Frank Kratovil (MD) and Allen Boyd (FL) persuaded Hoyer to postpone the vote until after the midterms. That proved catastrophic for Democrats. The die was already cast for the half dozen most reactionary Blue Dogs, all of whom lost their seats anyway, but the problem was that by catering to them and coddling them-- once again-- Hoyer sacrificed Democrats who actually fight for middle class families... and the Democratic majority. Boehner and his cronies were able to claim that Democrats hadn't extended the tax cuts for middle class Americans-- which, thanks to Hoyer and the Blue Dogs, they hadn't-- and twist the argument in their own favor.

Yesterday President Obama reiterated what he's been saying all along:

President Obama was adamant on Friday that he isn't caving in to GOP pressure to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, despite a recent report claiming that he already has.
He told reporters at the G-20 summit in Seoul, South Korea that his "number one priority" is extending tax cuts for the middle class

"I continue to believe that extending permanently the upper-income tax cuts would be a mistake and that we can't afford it," he said. "And my hope is, is that somewhere in between there we can find some sort of solution."

...Obama said the Huffington Post article was the "wrong interpretation" because he hasn't yet spoken to Democrat and Republican leaders. In the piece, Axelrod suggested that accepting the GOP's demands may be the only way to extend the tax cuts to the middle class.

"Here's the right interpretation: I want to make sure that taxes don't go up for middle class families starting on January 1," Obama said. He later added, "I'm not going to negotiate here in Seoul, my job is to negotiate back in Washington with Democratic and Republican leaders."

As Obama correctly points out, "it would be fiscally irresponsible for us to permanently extend the high-income tax cuts. I think that would be a mistake, particularly when we've got our Republican friends saying that their number-one priority is making sure that we deal with our debt and our deficit." The fact that he's inserted the word "permanently," suggests he has a "compromise" in mind that will allow the GOP to get its way by extending the tax cut for the top 2% of Americans now... and, of course, just extending it again when they win control of the Senate and White House in 2012, something they probably will if Obama and the Democrats just keep compromising on everything and turning off Democratic voters while muddying the waters that define the two parties. Cenk gets it:

Meanwhile, there is at least one Democrat who isn't being ambiguous and isn't playing footsie with the reactionaries. Speak Pelosi says she won't compromise the good of the country so Republicans can give billions in tax cuts to the richest 2%. Even if Obama is getting soft and fuzzy around the edges on this, she's standing firm.

Asked whether she would accept even a temporary extension of all the cuts like some Democrats want, Pelosi said that it is time to let them expire for the upper income brackets and be extended for the middle class.

"The position that we have, and which is the position the president has put forth, is that everybody should get a tax cut in our country," the outgoing Speaker told NPR. "The problem comes," she said, "when an additional tax cut to the wealthy is two percent that will heap $700 billion in debt" upon the country's children.

Pelosi's comments indicate that Republicans and Democrats are headed for a stand-off on the tax cuts when Congress returns for its lame-duck session next week.

House GOP Whip Eric Cantor (Va.), the incoming majority leader, and other key Republicans said this week they do not plan to back down on their support for extending all of the tax cuts, which expire Jan. 1. Even though House Democrats were swept out of power in the midterm elections, they will still control the lower chamber when Congress meets starting Nov. 15.

...Pelosi said that the cuts, instituted by the GOP in 2001 and 2003, have not been effective.

"Those tax cuts have been effect for a very long time, they did not create jobs," she said, adding later, "From day one, President Obama and this Congress have been job creators."

But Democrats have been pulled apart over what to do with the tax cuts. Centrist Democrats, many of whom were not reelected but will return for the lame-duck, support extending the cuts for at least one or two years due to the poor economy.

Yep, there we have it again-- the muddying of he water-- the conservative Blue Dog tail wagging the whole Democratic Party and dragging it down into hell. When you get angry at Blue Dogs and conservative Democrats, go here. We helped rid Congress of Bobby Bright-- the single worst one-- this year... and we have no intention of stopping with him. It should be an active primary season. One caveat to the argument that Obama is selling out the middle class is a bit of realpolitik that he may be thinking about when he agrees to a compromise that makes the middle class tax cuts permanent while the cuts for the wealthy temporary. It would weaken the leverage Republicans may have to extend them for the rich any further because they would be decoupled from the middle class cuts. Obviously, he could veto stand-alone cuts for the rich until 2012, even if the Senate agreed to them. Then the GOP could run on giving tax cuts to the wealthy. Of course if they win on that and there’s a Republican president and they control both houses of Congress, they can pass stand alone cuts for the rich anyway. But that’s true regardless of whether they’re temporarily extended now or not.