I’ve been out of the loop for a few hours, but I see a lot of comments in the Tapper/Orszag post, including one from Jake, which you can read for yourself. As I’ve stated before, I think Jake is one of the better DC press folks, but on this, I think he just blew it and went for the easy conflict angle where one doesn’t really even exist. Let’s review what has happened here (and I’m paraphrasing everyone but Tapper. And yes, Orszag does talk like that because he is smooth):
- Obama: I’m opposed to extending the Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich.
Orszag: Look- I spent the last two years busting my hump, seriously cutting into my dating life, to manhandle this disaster of a budget the Republicans left us, and there is no doubt that the deficit can never be addressed without letting the Bush tax cuts expire. But things are such a damned train wreck with the economy that extending the middle-class tax cuts might actually do some short term good. You know and I know that congress is filled with Republican shitheads and blue-dog Democrats, so the only way we might get that done is if we compromise and also extend the tax cuts for the rich. That is a compromise that might be worth it. If I had my way, only the middle-class cuts would continue, but sometimes you have to compromise. Here are a lot of numbers and facts that will make your eyes glaze over.
Jake Tapper: Going Against Former Boss, Obama’s Former Budget Director Says Bush Tax Cuts Should Be Extended for Two Years
This isn’t even close. We’re in Megyn Doocy Kilmeade Mega Mosque territory. If all you read about this was the Political Punch piece, you would actually have spent several minutes becoming LESS informed- there will be idiots spending the next few months now saying “EVEN PETER Orszag says Obama is wrong and we should keep the tax cuts for the wealthy,” and pieces like this are part of the reason they will be saying it.
stevie314159
And don’t forget the progressives who will say that this is what Obama really wants, and he’s using Orszag to float it out there.
Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right.
BTD
Look, you’re just wrong. I agree the conflict angle is ridiculous, but there IS a conflict, or at least I hope there is a conflict.
You should back down on THAT POINT cuz you are wrong and Tapper is right.
bmcchgo
The clarifications helps strengthen your argument JC, but ‘better DC press folks’ is damning with faint praise. Remember, he used The Twitter.
Re-Tweets = Politico site hits
General Stuck
Context is everything, and Orzag is talking from one that includes the scenario of affirmative action by Obama to extend the middle class tax cuts, versus letting them expire. In that context, noting the need for compromise to get such a bill passed into law, it is not stating in a vacuum that Orzag is proposing extending tax cuts for the wealthy. Of course, Orzag is leaving out other scenarios such as letting all the tax cuts expire, and then dems proposing new middle class tax cuts that they could corner the wingers with and take credit for. Which would be the best political move, and for any benefit from extending any of the tax cuts would need to be before the election, and that seems highly unlikely. So I am with you Cole, on this one, and since I will be called a Colebot, a preliminary fuck you to those wankers.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
From Tapper’s comment here:
No, it’s not. I don’t know how anyone can read Orszag’s piece and conclude he is making and “economice policy” recommendation.
Orzag is making a political argument, a compromise, because the economic policy he clearly prefers (“ideally”) probably won’t work given the extra-consitutional requirement of sixty Senate votes, the sheer stupidity of people like Claire McCaskill, Jim Webb and Ben Nelson, and the sheer cowardice and confusion of people like Kent Conrad, Evan Bayh and Dianne Feinstein those two gutless hypocrites from Maine, and that vindictive old windsock form Arizona (these two categories are by no means overlapping). I disagree with Orszag, and maybe this is an unofficial trail balloon–though I have a hard time believing the White House is that dumb–but Orzag is advocating a political compromise because there’s too much stupid to do what both he and Obama think is the right thing to do economically.
dmsilev
Might want to double-check that one.
dms
General Stuck
@BTD: No BTD, you are wrong, and as usual, discard nuance to claim being right.
eemom
AFAI can tell, (1) the quote is absolutely right; BUT, (2) what Orszag is advocating — leave tax cuts for rich for now, and let ’em all expire in 2 years — is contrary to what Obama wants, which is end tax cuts for rich now and keep the others for the foreseeable future.
Patrick Lightbody
You guys should follow along the fun on Twitter – and join in. Jake’s being a good sport at least for engaging, even if I disagree with him:
http://twitter.com/jaketapper
And my tweets (which I hope helped bring him to respond to John’s post):
http://twitter.com/plightbo
Note: Jake is holding steady, so doubtful you can convince him otherwise :)
BTD
As for your rewrite of what Orzag wrote, it makes no sense for you to berate a reporter when you are willing to not be truthful about what Orzag wrote – what he actuially wrote is this:
“In the face of the dueling deficits, the best approach is a compromise: extend the tax cuts for two years and then end them altogether. Ideally only the middle-class tax cuts would be continued for now. Getting a deal in Congress, though, may require keeping the high-income tax cuts, too. And that would still be worth it.”
You turn an unequivocal WOULD be worth it into MIGHT be worth it.
In any event, neither description is in tune with Obama’s actual stated position. You may have some secret anonymous source that is telling you it is, but if Jane Hamsher had written what you are writing, you’d be blasting her a s Fire Bagger.
This is an indefensible position for you to take imo.
jurassicpork
Yeah, and look where compromise has gotten us. It’s going to get the Democrats pushed out in this November’s midterms.
Btw, if you follow my link, you may find something strange. No, you’re not lost. It’s just my new blog.
BTD
@General Stuck:
Nuance? You mean making up shit is now nuance?
Culture of Truth
So Tapper should have written,
“Going Against Former Boss, Obama’s Former Budget Director Says Middle Class Tax Cuts Should Not Be Permanent”
?
BTD
@eemom:
You are right and John Cole is wrong.
eemom
@dmsilev:
yeah, he got married to some hot babe, dint he.
Maybe that’s why he left — the White House gig is a chick magnet for geeks and now he doesn’t need it anymore.
Ash Can
Sounds to me that Tapper got caught not doing his homework, and is doubling down on the bullshit to try to obfuscate that fact. (As for BTD, he’s just a sideshow, as usual.)
Gebghis
He who controls the language controls the debate. This is the critical issue the Obama administration has ignored, and it is why they constantly have to play catch up. After watching him speak this weekend (the dog comment) I wonder if he shouldn’t just go ebonics on their asses. THAT would shape the language and the discussion much better than allowing Fox to have their way with them.
Best…H
General Stuck
@BTD:
No, I mean leaving out shit in this instance, which you are doing by not factoring in the context of Orzag’s statement.
Obama cannot extend the middle class tax cuts (now) before they expire. without new legislation, and Orzag is simply arguing that likely compromise will be needed to achieve that, in this case a temporary extension also of the upper tier tax cuts.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Gebghis:
actually, they haven’t ignored it. But when they tried to push back against this kind of thing by criticizing al-Foxeera, they faced resistance to that mild statement of the painfully obvious, led by none other than Jake “Roger Ailes Is My Sister!” Tapper.
Mark S.
Yes, it’s not exactly what Obama is proposing, but it’s not that far off.
JGabriel
Cole is right; he screwed up by adding Steve’s comment, which was factually wrong, but he was right about the promotion of conflict where the disagreement is NOT about the goal, but how to get there.
Obama and Orszag both want to reduce the deficit/debt but don’t want to slow down economic recovery. Tapper’s tweet suggests that they disagree on the goal, that Orszag’s goal is to increase tax cuts for the rich, when Orszag only suggests that it might be worth compromising to get to the goal of temporarily extending tax cuts for the middle class.
A more honest tweet would have been:
Or even better:
Boring, yes. But captures the situation better.
.
MattR
My reading of this is that Obama and Orzag’s positions are in conflict, but they are not diametrically opposed. Jake Tapper is accurate in his headline, but John Cole is also correct in his assessment about how the media will twist it.
fasteddie9318
@Culture of Truth:
Yes, pretty much. Tapper wrote what he wrote because it makes the “Obama is a soshulist and hates it when people make money” crowd see starbursts when they read stuff like that. But now, to try to cover his rear end, he’s going to say that the “conflict” he was breathlessly reporting on was that Orszag wants to let all the cuts expire in two years whereas Obama wants to extend the middle class cuts indefinitely. If that’s really what he was talking about, then his tweet should have looked like what you wrote there, and the fact that it didn’t is not helping his case.
valdivia
@Ash Can:
yep, what you said.
cleek
Orszag:
Tapper:
if we can agree that “continue” is a synonym for “extend” in this case, i don’t see how Tapper wasn’t accurate about what Orszag said.
the conflict angle was gratuitous, though.
Patrick Lightbody
@BTD
The problem with your argument is you’re not acknowledging the obvious: that Orszag wrote an opinion piece as a regular citizen who doesn’t have to play politics anymore. He *can* show his hand on how he’d compromise. He *can* play armchair quarterback. He *can* tell his readers how he’d actually get the legislature through.
The White House, on the other hand, has to play by normal political rules. That means not giving an inch until the very last second. Overton Windows, blah blah. Obama can’t govern by offering up a bunch of concessions from the start. No one does that.
So in that context, it’s pretty obvious that both parties are mostly in agreement. Orszag happens to just be showing his cards.
fasteddie9318
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Does that make Roger Ailes the number 4 prostitute in all of Kazakhstan?
Gebghis
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Agreed, but I say the White House need to set the language rather than respond. By the time they push back, it’s too late, unless they can punch back with sheer brilliance. If Jon Stewart can do it, why can’t they?
Best…H
Mnemosyne
Completely off-topic, but day-um the NCAA is pissed at USC:
Sources: Trust to take Bush’s Heisman Trophy
General Stuck
@cleek: The problem is with the work “should” that alone suggests a policy disagreement, but when read in full context, Orzag is simply speculating on what it would take “politically” to achieve what he and Obama want, to not let the middle class tax cuts expire.
Uncle Clarence Thomas
I don’t understand why they’re making President Obama appease rich people.
fasteddie9318
@cleek:
My gripe is with what his tweet leaves unsaid. When somebody writes, “Going Against Former Boss, Obama’s Former Budget Director Says Bush Tax Cuts Should Be Extended for Two Years,” that tells me on first read that this Obama person doesn’t want to extend them at all. To then say, “NO, WAIT! The conflict is that Obama wants to extend them for longer than that!” is bullshit. If that’s the conflict you’re talking about, then your tweet should say “Going Against Former Boss, Obama’s Former Budget Director Says Bush Tax Cuts Should Be Eliminated in Two Years.”
ETA: slag is right too; the implication of what Tapper wrote is that Orszag thinks extending the cuts makes sense as policy, when that’s not at all what he’s talking about.
eemom
maybe I’m wrong, but I thought Obama was fiercely opposed to keeping the rich tax cuts, even as a compromise; and also that he has never, ever advocated letting the middle class tax cuts expire in 2 years.
The latter would be political suicide, and I personally think Orszag is an idiot for even bringing it up.
But as I said, I could be wrong.
slag
The implication from Tapper’s headline is that Orszag thinks extending tax cuts for the wealthy is correct from a policy perspective. As Jim, Foolish Literalist makes clear, Orszag doesn’t think that. He thinks it would be an ok political tradeoff for his preferred policy approach.
The problem with the DC press, incl Tapper (and BTD, in this case), is that they are incapable of distinguishing policy from politics well enough to parse the substance of the issue for their audience. Imagine our collective surprise.
ETA I haven’t seen Obama mention the Bush tax cuts from a political horse-trading perspective. But from what I understand of his opinion of them from a policy perspective, he and Orszag are in agreement: From a policy perspective, Orszag and Obama think the Bush tax cuts are no bueno. According to what I’ve read, that is.
cleek
@Patrick Lightbody:
right. that would be unthinkable. especially for Obama.
Culture of Truth
If it is a conflict with regard to the Bush cuts, it’s an eminently silly one.
One might as well write:
“Going Against Former Boss, Obama’s Former Budget Director Says Getting a Deal in Congress May Require Keeping the High-Income Tax Cuts”
fasteddie9318
@Uncle Clarence Thomas:
Because the party of Real Murka won’t let anybody else have a tax cut unless the Koch Brothers get a bigger one.
General Stuck
@eemom: Orzag may well be an idiot for bringing it up, but he is a private citizen now, and can spout off at will. If you think Obama is fairly shrewd on these types of things, usually, I think he will do the smart political thing and let them all expire, and on Jan 2, 2011, have a new bill of middle class tax cuts sent to congress, that he can claim as his hand out to the middle class.
edit – and the reason Orzag may have been an idiot for bringing it up, is exactly what is happening with Tapper molding it into something it wasn’t. Dem Fight!!
Libby
Surfacing from my sick bed to say you are right John Cole and bless you for not backing down. Jake blew this one, but he’ll never admit it. I don’t believe I’ve ever once seen him admit a mistake. And I say that as someone who also believes he’s one of the more fair journos out there.
eemom
This also is true, but IMO he’s a backstabbing asshole for supporting a strategy that is contrary to what the WH is trying to accomplish in his FIRST fucking op-ed as a private citizen on the FIRST official day of the campaign season when his party is in deep, divided shit.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@slag:
Bingo! A perfect example of that from another source. The paragraph titled “Policy” is all about politics. It’s a small thing, as is this dust-up with Tapper, but a few thousand drops of water, over a few years, can have quite an effect.
General Stuck
@Libby: Go back to bed and get well:)
Bob Loblaw
@Patrick Lightbody:
Actually, he’s pretty much forced to do that every single day.
It’s the only thing that even allowed his moderate health insurance reforms off the ground, sad as that is.
MattR
@Mnemosyne: The Heisman Trust is not part of the NCAA.
Semi-related: This is old news but I just read about it today. The Justice Department opened an inquiry in May to look into whether the NCAA rule forcing schools to offer year to year athletic scholarships (as opposed to full, four year scholarships) violates antitrust laws.
eemom
@General Stuck:
I think that would be a fine idea, if it ends up working out that way.
But the present position of the WH is that the issue should be addressed before this Congress is out, right?
LT
@BTD: Why is the ocnflict angle ridiculous? With all the guessing about the motives of presidential staff, when one leaves and expresses an opinion that appears to go against stated goals by an administration, how is that not news? I mean the question of what the O admin is going to do with the tax cuts is huge news right now. This might not be a perfect look into it, but it’s a look.
General Stuck
No truer words ever spoke on this blog. And it covers a wide swath of the political pundit, blog world.
jvdChicago
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the political problem I see with letting the Bush tax cuts expire is that even if Congress crafts legislation extending them for the middle class, I don’t trust the notion that Republicans will be publicly shamed for objecting to them not also being raised for the rich, too. They, with the help of their diaper carriers in the media, will vote against the middle class tax cut extension and lay the blame on raising taxes on all Americans on Democrats and Obama. Plus, you’ll get the steady drumbeat of they are putting their boot on the throat of small businesses and are wrecking the economy. Rinse. Repeat.
And even if they get enough votes in the House, something tells me the middle class extension will stall in the Senate. Then comes winning the PR war, which I’m not convinced the Democrats can do. It will be nonstop tax and spend liberals on every major news network.
These tax cuts should expire, but I can understand why people are talking compromise. To think that the Republicans are going to let them go into that good night without fighting dirty and laying blame for raising taxes on the Dems is entirely too clever by half.
LT
@Bob Loblaw:
Actually, he’s pretty much forced to do that every single day.
It’s the only thing that even allowed his moderate health insurance reforms off the ground, sad as that is.
eemom
yes, and I totally agree with that part of John’s post, as I stated above. Whether you blame Orszag, Tapper, or both, this is absolutely going to be fodder for republican and other emmessemm liars. No question. Another stupid bullshit sideshow which is the last thing anybody needs.
FUCKED. UP.
slag
@Culture of Truth:
Exactly this. Tapper is wrong to defend his actions here.
If he were to get Obama saying that it wouldn’t be worth it to trade high-end tax cuts for lower and middle-class tax cuts, then he would have a clash. As of now, he gots nothin.
Patrick Lightbody
@Bob Loblaw: fair enough :)
General Stuck
@eemom: I think that is the official position, but they know quite well it won’t happen in an election atmosphere, nor likely in a lame duck session. The WH is saying it for political reasons before an election. In fact, about anything anyone says right now in government is for political reasons. It’s why we call it the silly season. And not the Xmas kind.
Martin
How is this anything but a disagreement of tactics to present to Congress? The default and most likely situation is that all the tax cuts expire – nothing need happen for this outcome. Obama want some tax cuts to continue, which Orzag seems to agree would help the economy, but everyone knows the GOP will filibuster this into oblivion (because they hate tax cuts!) The GOP will push for full continuance of the cuts, which Obama should feel compelled to veto because if he wins in 2012, the deficit will be such a fucking disaster by 2016 that Democrats will never sit in the White House until my kids are eligible for that office.
It seems to me that Orzag is aiming for a different middle – if the middle class cuts would help the economy, it’s worth taking the top cuts as well but limiting the whole exercise to just 2 years. Granted, that makes the whole mess another political football in 2012 so I don’t doubt that Obama would want to avoid that as well.
I don’t see that there is a big disagreement here on what ought to happen (Obama’s plan) rather on what they think is possible (something that the professional left [cough] seems incapable of recognizing). Obama thinks he might get the bottom half of the cuts for longer, Orzag thinks they might need to settle for all the cuts for shorter. In either case, it’s entirely in Harry Reid’s hands, not theirs.
Regardless, somehow Obama will come out of this being painted as an anti-progressive corporatist.
LT
@Bob Loblaw:
Can you explain that? I don’t get it at all. It’s not as simple as saying “Because it would have never passed.” How do you know? If he had come out swinging on a public option, I could counter, the PO would have gotten much more press, it would have been much more properly explained (at least from one side), and it would have kept the huge amount of support Obama had going since the inauguration alive. And since it’s actually better policy health and wealthwise, it would have won the day.
JAHILL10
Jeez, all this meta-wanking is tiring. Guess what? Orzag is no longer a member of the administration and even when he was the President was not obliged to take his advice. And Obama does not want to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest people on the planet. So, Welcome, Mr. Orzag to the world of the ineffectual pundit. Thanks for playing!
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Martin:
or a socialist class-warrior, depending on who’s doing the painting
ETA: Does the word “socialist” automatically put a comment in moderation?
Culture of Truth
“Going Against Former Boss, Orzag Suggests Obama Make a Deal He Has Not Made”
Hot stuff!!!
fasteddie9318
@eemom:
Actually, for Tapper and his bosses, it’s an easy story that doesn’t require any real reporting, just rubbernecking, and helps keep the focus on process instead of outcome so the plebes don’t have a chance to figure out how badly they’re being fucked. For corporate America the bullshit sideshow is exactly what they need.
Zifnab25
The entire debate is utter bullshit. We’re arguing what this definition of “is” is and completely ignoring the benefit / cost of extending taxes cuts to the middle class versus universal extension versus universal expiration.
What I really want to know is what is so damn magical about the 3% I save in income between Bush and Clinton? Is continuing a 25% tax rate going to save skin off my nose in ten years? If not, fuck it. Let the damn tax cuts expire already – upper, lower, middle – the whole lot of them.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
Jake Tapper, if you’re reading this please tell George Will I want my damned 8-tracks back.
MattR
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Remove the SO at the front and the T at the end and you are left with a spam word
Martin
@LT: Uh, yeah, that wasn’t going to happen. The WH needed every Democratic vote on hand to pass it, and Lieberman was going to kill any such notion as the public option. And if he didn’t, Nelson would have. It doesn’t matter if it’s better policy, these guys get their campaign dollars from the health insurers. Their states rely on health insurance companies as a major part of their economy. They simply weren’t in a position to compromise that far, and nobody in the GOP was able to come over.
With a less insane GOP, then your idea might have worked, but there were a guaranteed 40 no votes on a bill that couldn’t afford 41. That’s been the case for every major piece of legislation that Obama has put forward – everything has passed on the smallest possible margin thanks to the GOP. There was no meaningful room to compromise on any of it. We’ve gotten the most progressive stuff possible given the current realities of the Senate.
batgirl
@cleek: Except that “should” really isn’t accurate in that it misses the nuance. It isn’t that Orzag thinks extending the tax cuts for the rich is a good thing, only that it may be a politically necessary thing in order to continue tax cuts for the middle class. Tapper’s tweet gives the impression that Orzag thinks the best policy, not politics is to extend the tax cuts for the wealthy. [Baseless speculation: Would Tapper be in this tax bracket?] I agree with Cole that this makes a world of difference about the narrative.
ETA: See that General Stuck already made my point.
Martin
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Yes. It contains the name of a popular male medication.
Remember: If you experience an erection that last more than 4 hours, see your doctor immediately.
slag
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.): I understand that George Will incinerated all of the 8-tracks in his possession just to measure the non-existent air temperature changes the next day and thereby prove climate change didn’t exist.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Yes, because there is a male enhancement drug product placement hidden in the middle of the word.
Bob Loblaw
@LT:
Geez, this board really struggles with this.
Obama is an orthodox neoliberal corporatist who will capitulate to any number of moneyed interests in pursuit of moderate, revenue-neutral social justice promoting reforms. How do I know this? Because he’s the President of the United States. How else exactly was he going to get the job?
Yes, he sold out to the pharmaceutical and health care provider lobbies. He sold out hard, and he did it without compunction. He also passed a bill that will (eventually) manage to do a fair bit of good for a fair bit of Americans in need of some. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. This isn’t some Manichean dream world. Obama is, by necessity, an amoral player in an amoral system. Sometimes he is effective, and sometimes he isn’t. So grade him on that, and not whether you sufficiently “love” him enough.
BTD
@Patrick Lightbody:
How is that a problem for my argument?
Unless you are saying Obama secretly agrees and can’t say so.
I hope and expect you are wrong.
Mark S.
I disagree. Tapper’s post explains it just fine:
Maybe you can whine about the headline or some tweet, but the post itself does a good job of explaining the differences between Obama and Orszag.
LT
Bob, I won’t tell you to fuck off, but I’m thinking it. I knwo the fact that I get regularly attacked as an ObamaNOT over at DKos, but please don’t bring that shit to me, alright? Stating the obvious about what he could have done differently isn’t above “love” for Obama. (and I supported passage of the HC bill after it was obvious that it was the best we could do at that point.)
Culture of Truth
You know how former football players leave their team and join the anchor booth, and then are called on to talk about their former team, like Tiki Barber talking about the NY Giants? He was required to give his honest assessment, not what a player or coach is required to say.
You could also write
“Going Against Former Team, Barber Says Giants May Not Have Sensational Year”
LT
Fuck, This:
should hae been this:
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@slag:
This nails it. My only quibble is that IMHO “they” (the DC propaganda mill, including the so-called press) have multiple audiences and agendas, and are doing a bang up job of serving most of them. People who need to be better objectively informed on matters of policy are a small part of their audience and low down on their agenda. The mainstream so-called press long ago ceased to be an observer in DC – they have been thoroughly co-opted into the semi-permanent unofficial apparatus of power. We end up looking and smelling more and more like the corrupt and tottering old wreck that was the pre-1991 Soviet Union every day that this continues.
BTD
@LT:
Because Orzag on politics is like asking Cole on economics – an amatuer’s opinion not worth anything,
This is where Cole’s argument was quite strong – the POLITCAL conlfict of views between Orzag and Obama is meaningless – who cares what Orzag’s political judgment is?
Orzag’s POLICY judgment however, has weight. And as everyone has written, his policy judgment is in line with Obam’s on this issue (except Obama does not agree that extending the tax cut for the wealthy is worth it.)
But this is ORZAG’s fault, not Tapper’s. He knew what he was doing.
I find it hilarious that in all this Cole still has not found a way to say an unkind word about Orzag, who is the problem here imo.
And Obama is really getting the shaft here from Cole.
HyperIon
Our esteemed blog owner wrote:
WTF?
Get help!
Listen to the pets telling you to furminate them or walk them or feed them. Ignore the tubes.
liberal
Based on the empirical data, this would appear to be false.
liberal
@Zifnab25:
3%? The difference in the marginal rate is almost certainly much more than the difference in the effective rate.
LT
@BTD:
How is that “in line”? Isn’t that a big difference? Especially with the possible Dem losses approaching?
Culture of Truth
The headline of the Tapper piece is clearly misleading. It obviously suggests that Orzag thinks extending the Bush tax cut for the rich is an objectively good idea, and argument being made mostly be Republicans and of intense political debate. But Orzag clearly does not think that, and it is incorrect to write otherwise.
liberal
@jvdChicago:
This is exactly what I’m afraid of.
Of course it’s hard to be sure how successful they would be in their blaime game.
trollhattan
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.):
Heh, George wants you to know he yard-saled all the 8-tracks because today, he’s rocking one of these:
http://www.mopo.ca/uploaded_images/record-player-car-717738.jpg
As regarding his lawn: you damn kids know what to do. (IIUC the Koch bros personally mow it every five days.)
Culture of Truth
“Going Against Readers, John Cole Goes Out Loop For a Few Hours”
BTD
@LT:
I was being sarcastic.
General Stuck
Orzag isn’t saying anything that dem leaders in congress have been saying for some time, that extending the middle class tax cuts permanently is unaffordable, and they are the only ones who can make that happen.
Tapper knows this full well, but writes a headline that is misleading, and doesn’t mention the likelyhood that even middle class tax cuts won’t be made permanent. But only extended until the economy improves.
So again, Tapper’s main angle here is to promote a dem infight and not to examine the entire arena for what is possible with policy and what is pure politics, which should be his and the rest of the pundit class’s job. What is Obama to say right now, in the heat of a bitter election. I want to end middle class tax cuts in a year or two. It is politics, his position on making MC tax cuts permanent, where he can later diffuse the blame to the many dem critters in congress, rather than absorbing it all himself and answering for that in 2012. I am quite certain this is coordinated with Pelosi, and likely Reid. And is basically good cop bad cop politics 101. Which is protect or insulate the president of your party, in congress, when you can.
LT
Well, fuck, that was dry. I guess I could have read the last line a wee bit closer.
Frank
@BTD:
No. Please re-read what Orzag said. He is NOT saying that Obama should extend the tax cuts. Instead, he is articulating what a compromise may look like.
Mr Tapper is reporting something that really isn’t there. And the MSM wonders why people don’t trust them.
FlipYrWhig
@LT:
You’re imagining a world in which politicians move from neutrality or resistance to a liberal policy to supporting it based primarily on what the public thinks. I don’t believe we live in such a world anymore, if we ever did. The public option was discussed, polled well, continued to be part of the discussion well after everyone thought it was gone… and still it didn’t get enough support _among politicians_ to make it happen. They ran up against a hard core of Senate Democrats who refused to back the policy and would not back down, regardless of its popularity, regardless of its genuine merits, because for them it was “government-run” and they refused to sign off on something “government-run.” It wasn’t going to happen.
LT
@FlipYrWhig: I see it differently. I think the Rs were going to cut off X amount of what the Dems proposed, no matter what. And the Dems came out with amount 2X instead of 10X.
jl
Cole needs to add Talkingpointsmemo to his Sh*tl*st of the Day
TPMDC
Orszag: Extend The Bush Tax Cuts
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/orszag-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts.php?ref=fpblg
and on the front page of TPM in the middle of another post, we have
“but we can afford starving the government of revenue by extending those massive Bush era tax cuts. Even Peter Orszag agrees.”
My opinion, for what it’s worth, that the proper response to these kinds of confusing statements that are liable to misuse and distortion is to use them as an excuse to educate the public. So, Obama and the administration should push hard against this reporting, make a true stink about it, and make the press talk about it. And after they get that wrong, make another stink. And another, until the facts get beat into the voters’ heads despite the best efforts of the press
I don’t think Orszag’s column was as well written as stuff by Krugman, Stiglitz or Galbraith, or what I hope to see from Christina Romer now that she is free to speak her mind.
I think an economist should very carefully separate the purely economic from the political analysis, and Orszag didn’t do that. I think the best way to do that is have a section that lays out the economics and one that discuses the political viability of different measures.
I also note that being an official bigwig, Orzag seemed to get a little over a thousand words, even though there are a number of economists who I think are better at tying together the theory and evidence (if not the budget numbers) who only get 750. So did Orszag need to lump Social Security and Medicare in discussing the debt?
Edit: IMHO, I think this issue is important enough for Obama to tell Congress what he will sign and wants passed and tell them he will veto anything else. And if the GOP stalls, then Obama should go full HST Turnip Day 24/7. But that is not how Obama operates, I guess.
Zandar
Sun is hot.
Toast lands butter side down.
Jake Tapper is a douchewad.
les
@General Stuck:
An important point; and I can’t remember Obama claiming middle class tax cuts should be permanent–but I’m old and memory ain’t always great.
BGinCHI
Has anyone blamed stupid fucking Twitter itself?
It’s like a system for enabling stupidity.
Bob Loblaw
@les:
Considering how much he loves his tax cut for 95% of working Americans talking point, there’s a good bet he isn’t going to be raising taxes on the middle class anytime soon. At least, not until 2013 or beyond.
ricky
Somebody save me some time. Did either Orszag or Obama play the race card and were either lying about smoking or smell as if they had been? Smoking I mean. Jake can print lies and he has never claimed his fine olfactory senses can detect them.
chopper
@General Stuck:
watch out, BTD’s gonna jump down your throat over your use of the word ‘right’.
FlipYrWhig
@LT: A lot of people see it as you do, so I respect that, but I really think based on the way the center-right Democrats have behaved that a lot of them are negotiating with a hard bottom line: no public option; less than $1 trillion in stimulus; can’t be budged, suck it if you don’t like it.
chopper
@Frank:
exactly. the dude isn’t being all ‘lets extend the tax cuts for the rich.’ he’s being all ‘let’s get rid of the tax cuts for the rich and keep them for the middle class. that may not be politically feasible tho, in which case it’s still better to see them extended for everyone in order to see the middle class keep their tax cut.’
what’s so hard to figure out here?
Mnemosyne
@LT:
The Rs and Blue Dogs were never, ever, ever going to accept a public option. Ever. It’s not a matter of 2X vs. 10X. It’s a matter of “death panels” vs. reality.
You can’t reduce Republican propaganda down to a number, because it doesn’t operate on a level of what’s financially worth it or not worth it. It’s an emotional argument that can’t be influenced by pointing out the cost savings.
General Stuck
@les:
I don’t remember that as well, but there are lots of stories that claim this is his position, though I could find none with direct quotes, but I suspect he has said as such at least once.
chopper
the fact that tapper took ‘orszag sez bush’s tax cuts should be extended only for the middle class, but may have to be extended to the rich to get that to work’ and boiled it down to ‘orszag sez bush’s tax cuts should all be extended! conflict! CONFLICT!!one!’ is just hackery and a lie. end of story.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@BGinCHI:
an essential point that should not be overlooked in the scrum. Were I a reporter, pundit or politician, I’d be careful about how I phrased things in a tweet. It’s like giving a bad headline to an article, or when the people at ABC hyped Jake Tapper’s interview with John “If It’s Sunday, It’s” McCain as an ‘exclusive’. You can make everyone involved look silly
Jim, Foolish Literalist
and thanks to all who taught me about an internet tradition of which I was unaware.
LT
@FlipYrWhig: @Mnemosyne: You may be right. I think you at least have to factor in Obama’s popularity and active support when the health care debate started, and how that may have affected things. But still, you may be right.
D-Chance.
Gallup says, “It’s TIED at 46%! We got us here a horse race! Woo-hoo!”
And the accompanying graph is exactly what our advertising media and two-party political system want. It causes otherwise semi-sentient, semi-normal people to post silly “send them money” posts and waste sorely needed funds that could be going to rescue shelters or other more worthwhile charities.
Just Some Fuckhead
I heard Rahm disagreed with both of them and said “Fuck the middle class!”
Just kidding. I think this entire exercise is retarded. You Obots need to start carrying smelling salts.
BGinCHI
@Just Some Fuckhead:
I hope when Rahm is elected mayor he just walks around the city and says to people “How’s it going, retard?”
Odie Hugh Manatee
@BTD:
You emphasize that there “IS a conflict” and follow that immediately with “at least I hope there is a conflict”. You really like to pull shit out of your ass just to get a closer look at it, dontcha?
Fucking idiot.
arguingwithsignposts
What is amusing to me is that the whole tax increase for the wealthy would affect approx. 2 percent of the entire population. Last I checked, that means that 98 percent wouldn’t be affected. If ever there is a case to be made for “tyranny of the majority,” this would seem to be it.
ETA: Of course acknowledging that every damned fucker who gets to shape the debate is squarely located in that 2 percent.
BTD
@Frank:
He is pre-endorsing that compromise. Which is foine if you agree with that.
As far as I know, the President does not.
Ergo,there is a conflict between Obama and Orzag on this point.
Pretty simple. Funy to me to see how the folk who love to scream firebagger are endorsing this mindreading of the President by Cole.
BTD
@Odie Hugh Manatee:
What precisely did I pull out of my ass? The part where the President opposes extending tax cuts for the rich, or where he wants to extend them for the middle class?
Do you folks realize what you are arguing?
General Stuck
@BTD:
LOL. Orzag can’t pre endorse anything. He is a private citizen now. His opinion on speculating on how to attain something both he and the president wants is about as interesting as watching the grass grow. Because neither gets the final say on what gets extended, or not. That is congress’s job.
Correct, because he hasn’t addressed it. So there can’t be a conflict on something the president hasn’t addressed. Takes two to do the conflict tango. Otherwise, it is impossible for conflict to exist at this point in time.
shortstop
If BTD misspells Orszag for the 500th time, everyone gets ice cream.
Steve
Tapper is right and John is wrong. I was wrong, too, and someone had to point it out to me.
The error people are making is to focus solely on the issue of what happens to the tax cuts for the “rich.” Obama says let them expire now; Orszag says it would be okay to extend them for two years if you have to. If that were the only issue, we could argue about whether it is a big conflict, a small conflict, or maybe not a conflict at all.
But that’s not the only issue. Orszag takes a different position from Obama on TWO issues: the tax cuts for the “rich,” and the tax cuts for the middle class too. On the latter subject, Obama says make them permanent; Orszag says only extend them for two years, and then let them expire in order to help address the deficit. That’s a big difference; among other things, it would mean Obama was breaking his pledge not to raise taxes for families making under $250,000.
If you go back and re-read the comment Tapper left, he explains this clearly and calmly. Some of us, myself included, got so distracted by the shiny “tax cuts for the rich” argument that we failed to understand that a second issue is in play.
JAHILL10
@BGinCHI: I’m sure it’s just a sign of my rampant immaturity or the fact that I drank that first beer too fast, but this made me laugh out loud.
BTD
@General Stuck:
WTF? Provate citizens can’t endorse things? This is where the argument is going? My gawd.
Orzag. Ice cream for everybody!
BTD
@General Stuck:
On point 2, you are just wrong. Hell, Gibbs said the President disagrees with Orszag.
At this point, this is just dumb.
General Stuck
@Steve: The point about the tax cuts for the middle class being permanent, or not, is a difference between the two men. But that is not the point of Cole’s argument. The point it first the headline which is always the most important part of any story, and the narrow focus of highlighting conflict, when there are other more important considerations to the story. Tapper is a reporter, the real deal, by self description. His job is to consider all the factors of a story and let the chips fall where they may. Obama has said he would like to make the mc tax cuts permanent. Well, that’s a pretty flimsy reed to hang onto that he would fight to make them permanent. Especially, when it is congress that does that, and in the House, they have said no to that. And despite some dem senators making noise about extending the tax cuts for the rich, it is very unlikely they will, nor make permanent the mc ones. If Tapper was being a real reporter here, he would have factored all that in to his story, but he cherry picked an item on the surface that looks like a disagreement, and is, but hardly worthy of molding his story in the narrowest possible light to create a meme of dem infighting, especially from a now private citizen. Who cares what Orzag thinks?, and he didn’t even mention the WH policy, nor any internal dissent that may exist there now, nor anything else. He just stated his personal opinion as a private citizen.
FlipYrWhig
@arguingwithsignposts: The most diabolically brilliant thing the Republicans ever did was start talking about taxes in terms of dollars. They make it so they can say “they raised taxes by $20,000,000,” for example, so that sounds like 50,000 people paying $400 more apiece, rather than 49,000 people being completely untouched and 1,000 RICH DUDES WHO CAN AFFORD IT paying $20,000 apiece.
This is why I always think Democratic candidates should expose the scammer techniques Republicans always use, _then_ explain how what Democrats are proposing is different.
Mark S.
@General Stuck:
Yeah, Stuck, Obama said about 3 billion times during the campaign that he would raise taxes on people making over $200,000 but he would cut taxes on everybody else.
General Stuck
@BTD: Well, yea, private citizens can endorse things. I endorse the Cleveland Browns and the fact that firebaggers suck eggs and are not helpful. @BTD:
Cool, is that all you got, it’s dumb. It’s actually the silver bullet that destroys your argument with basic logic. You claim Orzag has pre endorsed something the president has not addressed, ie any needed compromise to get now the middle class tax cuts passed through congress. Something Obama has not addressed. Now go eat your ice cream. Firebag Mint.
FlipYrWhig
For some reason, over the past two years there has been a precipitous decline in the way people comprehend concepts like “support.” Does Orszag think it’s a good idea to let the tax rates for the wealthiest people reset? Yes, he does. Does he think that it’s worth making a tradeoff to keep the tax rates on the wealthiest people where they are, in the interests of getting a deal done? Yes, he does. These really aren’t difficult things.
I mean, do people run around screaming when their favorite football team punts, because they’re supposed to be trying to gain 10 yards, making the punt some sort of inexplicable betrayal?
General Stuck
@Mark S.: You miss the point. My comment you quote was on speculation of what it would take to actually get a bill through congress now to extend mc tax cuts, the exact same thing Orzag is addressing, which Obama has not. You guys must think the president by saying he wants something, that is all there is to it for it to happen. That was often Bush, but he is in Texas picking his teeth.
Corner Stone
@FlipYrWhig: Most teams can not be counted on to punt again the next series.
The concern here is that under similar pressure 2 years from now, these tax cuts will be reauthorized again.
IOW, in 2 years we’re all going to be having this discussion again. And you will be making the exact same mild mannered commentary.
Steve
@General Stuck: I guess I see Obama’s promise of no tax increases for families making under $250,000 as a central pillar of his campaign, a rock-solid pledge he repeated over and over and over again. Of course he can’t single-handedly extend the tax cuts. But there’s no question that it was a fundamental component of his platform and that he hasn’t shown any indication of backing away from it.
I feel like we’re back in the health care debate where the argument is that unless and until a bill is sitting on the President’s desk, he hasn’t taken a position on anything because it’s all just hypothetical.
Let me attempt an analogy. Say, hypothetically, there was a President who campaigned vigorously on a promise to “stay the course” in Iraq, a phrase he repeated day after day after day. Say this guy got elected. Now let’s say that within the first two years of his administration, a senior advisor who recently resigned writes an op-ed saying we should start withdrawing from Iraq within the next six months. Now, do you think the disagreement with the President’s position might be a pretty important part of that story? Or would you say, “Look, the President only said he would like to stay the course if it was up to him, and in any event it’s all hypothetical until there’s an actual withdrawal plan on the table”?
slightly_peeved
@FlipYrWhig:
Back at the time, Obama was pushing for more of a dialog with Olympia Snowe over a public option with trigger. The one way around Lieberman/Nelson – getting some Republicans on board – was the one thing Obama was pushing for Reid and others to do.
Also, if you remember back to the negotiations, there were a few times where the following happened:
1. Reid promoted compromise position X (in particular, medicare buy-in)
2. Position X becomes popular among left commentators,
3. Lieberman announces opposition to X.
4. Reid comments that opposition to X wasn’t the original deal.
5. Lieberman comments that he has altered the deal and that Reid should pray he doesn’t alter it further.
What they ended up getting for giving up the public option was federal oversight of the state-based exchanges by the Secretary of HHS. This will result in a far stronger exchange than a state-administered exchange. It brings the exchange closer to the current FEHBP system. Considering how compromised the public option already was, it may over time prove to be more valuable to the usefulness of the exchanges than having a relatively limited public option.
General Stuck
And it is ironic that some of the same people on this blog that have been arguing to no end Obama is mainly concerned with reducing the deficit over creating jobs, are the same ones claiming Obama must be serious about making the mc tax cuts permanent that would greatly increase the deficit.
Mark S.
@General Stuck:
Whatever.
The interesting thing would be if Congress extends the tax cuts for everybody. Would Obama veto it? I seriously doubt it.
FlipYrWhig
@Corner Stone: I have no problem with debating what to do about tax rates. And, yes, I don’t think it’s a good idea to let the rich babies have their bottle, and, yes, a two-year non-solution leaves us in the same place two years from now, and two years after that, etc. Let a thousand policy positions bloom.
It’s just bizarre to me to make no distinction between what someone believes in and what that same person is willing to accept. Orszag is saying, IMHO, “I think this is a stupid policy and don’t want to do it, but if it’s the cost of doing business, I say we should bite the bullet and accept it.” He opposes the policy but supports a deal that allows it because he thinks there’s a greater goal to aim at. That’s _not the same thing_ as supporting the policy. I don’t know why we have to act stupid about that very basic and obvious distinction.
Let’s fight instead about whether it’s a smart or stupid deal to accept, as opposed to how it must be part of a double-ricochet stab-in-the-back fake-drama switcheroo from Orszag.
General Stuck
@Steve:
But this is not analogous what Orzag said. Obama was talking as the head of the executive branch wanting to reduce taxes for the mc. That is different than what it would take to actual achieve it through legislation via the legislative branch. The analogy you cite is self contained withing the executive branch.
I swear, I blame this disconnect on how this country is designed to operate on Bush and his “decider” bullshit, where the gooper controlled congress sat around waiting for presnit marching orders for years. Shit is different now a days. Obama lets separation of powers be what it is supposed to be. I like that.
General Stuck
@Mark S.: He probably wouldn’t if it arrived in Orzag’s description, of temporary. But this is an important ideological as well as practical issue for funding the government. I see no chance of either the rich tc’s nor the mc tax cuts getting made permanent during Obama;’s term so long as at least one branch of congress remains in dem hands, and likely not then. We have a huge deficit the wingers are demagoguing to death, that puts them in a place that even their epic hypocrisy could not likely make those heights. though some of them will no doubt try.
FlipYrWhig
@slightly_peeved: Right, I’m in total agreement; if you wanted to stop Lieberman and Nelson from having veto power, the only alternative was to find some Republican support.
(That’s my theory for why the Baucus working group kept going on ad infinitum; he must have thought that some of the old hands like Grassley and Enzi [probably personal friends of his, too], as well as Snowe, were open to some kind of compromise. As it happened, they weren’t.)
But people like Atrios howled every time they tried to end-run their own problem children by sucking up to Republicans. Given that there are a lot of conservative Democrats in the Senate, as well as the unorthodox (ahem) Lieberman, you can’t hope both to (1) ignore wavering troublesome Dems, _and_ (2) spite less-troublesome Repubs. If you do, you end up with what us liberals would consider a kickass bill… that can’t get out of committee, doing no fucking good to anyone.
Keith G
You blew it Cole.
This thread’s title should have been “Won’t Back Down”.
Steve
@General Stuck: Let me put it to you this way. When Obama was running for President, and Republicans attacked him by saying “he will raise your taxes,” which of these did your reaction resemble?
A) “That’s a dirty lie! Obama has repeatedly said that no family making under $250,000 will see a tax increase under his plan! Stop the smears!”
B) “Well, the Constitution says all bills for raising revenue must originate in the House. So whether Obama will raise your taxes depends largely on what sort of bills Congress decides to send to his desk, etc.”
Just let me know.
There is a very serious policy disagreement here that you’re not grasping, and it has nothing to do with the political question of what can be achieved in Congress. Obama has made it crystal clear that if it was up to him, his preference (I’m using your terminology here, as if Obama was just another guy on the streetcorner with an opinion) is that the middle-class tax cuts should be extended permanently. He campaigned on it every day. He thinks it’s a great idea. Set aside for the moment whether Congress will pass it.
Whereas Orszag believes that even if Congress was willing to extend the middle-class tax cuts indefinitely, they shouldn’t do it. It’s better if they expire after two years, because the deficit is a higher priority. That’s his policy stance, and it is different in a major way from the President’s policy stance – as the White House freely acknowledges. That’s newsworthy.
kommrade reproductive vigor
Christ, someone put Dana Priest on suicide watch.
The nicest/em> thing I could think of to say about Fapper is he’s a lightweight. And even then I’d have to grit my teeth a bit.
Bob Loblaw
@General Stuck:
They’re trying to make the bottom 98% cuts permanent now, you fucking dingleberry. That’s the whole point of the reauthorization.
General Stuck
@Steve:
You can’t set that aside as the House leadership has stated emphatically that the country can’t afford to make the mc tax cuts permanent. I put a link earlier to Hoyer saying this a few months ago. Please grasp that the executive and legislative branches are separate and co equal branches of government. Even when the same party controls both, well, at least with dems who care about constitution stuff.
Do you really think Obama doesn’t know that Orzag is right in the real world of passing bills? He is a president, and part of that is being a good liar for good causes. Obama is good at it, because he mostly just lies by omission and to double spoof the wingnuts.
Now the question of whether they approve of Orzag voicing reality is another matter.
BTD
@General Stuck:
Gibbs said the President has consistently addressed it. Don’t know what you are talking about.
Uncle Clarence Thomas
Attention balloonbaggers: The thing to remember is, fuck the rich and anyone who enables or supports appeasing them or their depraved agenda.
General Stuck
@Bob Loblaw:
Who is “they”./ The house, like leader Hoyer who says they can’t afford to make them permanent. Now piss off and go firebag with your idiot friends.
Steve
@General Stuck: Orszag did not write an op-ed saying “in the real world of passing bills, we should extend the middle-class tax cuts for two years because we can’t do any better than that.” He wrote an op-ed saying “we should let the middle-class tax cuts expire after two years because deficit reduction is more important.” He made a policy argument on this issue, not a political argument, no matter how badly you want to rewrite it.
General Stuck
@BTD: What? addressed any possible compromise to make the mc tax cuts permanent. You mean like Orzag wrote about today. You are destroying your own argument of conflict then. Show me links where Obama has offered compromises to get the mc tax cuts extended, or have some more ice cream with moran lobslaw.
Nick
@LT:
A progressive policy getting more press isn’t a good thing. Usually means it’s going to get bashed even more. As it was, we’re lucky we got out of that fight with the PO still popular, perhaps we’ll have a better chance after we neuter the media.
Bob Loblaw
@General Stuck:
So it is your contention that the House and Senate are not currently preparing on a vote to reauthorize the Bush tax cuts for 98% of all wage earners, rather than allow all the cuts to sunset before Jan 1, 2011?
That this impending vote is somehow a fiction being perpetrated by the press? This is your contention?
I don’t know why anybody even bothers to engage you. Barney Frank had a choice definition for people like you…
General Stuck
@Steve:
Yes he did. Read it again. In the first few sentences. The rest was his personal opinion that we can’t afford any permanent tax cuts. He did make a policy argument on ending the mc tax hikes, something Obama cannot do, but congress can and will because they believe they should let them expire to Clinton levels. The pol back and forth between Obama and a former WH official is irrelevant, or at least not to a degree Tapper should make it into what he did, and not considering all the other factors involved. namely congress.
Nick
@slightly_peeved:
this is key, Lieberman and Nelson never would’ve opposed anything Olympia Snowe agrees to.
General Stuck
@Bob Loblaw:
@Bob Loblaw:
reauthorizing is not making permanent.
Now shut up you ignorant fool.
MNPundit
No. Better that all the taxes go back than that the Tax Cuts for the rich are extents. There’s been far FAR too much of propping up the rich as a necessary evil so far. The thing about propping up the rich is that because they’re rich and have power they will NEVER go back.
Enough.
Creative destruction is the only way forward even if I have to suffer for it.
FlipYrWhig
@Nick: Let alone something Baucus had managed to hash out with Grassley and Enzi. The Senate Finance Committee version would have crowded out all others and become The Bill. I don’t know if it would have been a better or worse bill than the final product, but it would have been done MUCH sooner, and we would have never had that horrible summer of “death panels.”
xian
Isn’t the correct way to frame this (obviously), something like:
The crazy rich-favoring tax cuts are about to expire on schedule, which is mostly a good thing, but it does mean that the middle class will also lose the small tax cut they got in the Bush package.
We Democrats, therefore, are proposing a bill that will give the middle class a tax cut to replace the one you’re about to lose BUT the Republicans are threatening to filibuster your tax cut unless their multibillionaire buddies and Arabian royal friends get a huge new tax cut.
Then the old tax cuts expire on schedule and how is it Obama’s fault that the middle class takes a hit?
jl
@Steve: I agree. but after thinking over this momentous issue, I agree with Cole that the reporting is poor and designed to emphasize the immediate political conflict at the expense of a adequate understanding of the issues at stake.
The headline emphasizes ‘extending’ tax cuts. It should not have, if the reason for paying attention to Orszag is that he knows something about economics, his economic analysis leads him to recommend ending ALL of the Bush tax cuts as soon as consistent with short run economic stabilization policy. Simply saying that Orszag wants to ‘extend’ the tax cuts gives a misleading impression. For the long run big policy picture, he is to the left (in the simplistic spectrum recognized by the press) to Obama.
I think Orszag is partly to blame here for, as I said above, for being unclear about when he is doing economic and when he is doing political analysis. For example, Orszag writes
“the best approach is a compromise”
I cannot see from Orszag’s piece whether he is referring to compromise dictated by economic analysis (finding the optimal balance between two competing policy goals) or a political compromise about what can be passed.
So, what we have is poorly written analysis that mixes economics and politics, that is poorly reported in way that is misleading and obscures the true position of various Serious Authorities.
And, which, perhaps coincidentally, aids the GOP in its short run goal of keeping a very harmful and failed tax policy that benefits the very rich at the expense of everyone else a few more years of life.
Bob Loblaw
@General Stuck:
You simply don’t know what you’re talking about. Not that I’m surprised.
This is the administration’s tax cut plan:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001438-tax-cuts-debate.pdf
It calls for a permanent tax cut for 98% of the working population. It will cost 300B/yr over the next decade compared to a full sunset. It saves roughly 70B/yr, compared to a full reauthorization of the tax cuts on all wage groups. There is no plan for a phase-out, no matter what Steny Hoyer says. Steny Hoyer doesn’t matter. Your contention that Obama plans to raise income taxes on the middle class is wrong.
Nick
@FlipYrWhig:
General Stuck
@Bob Loblaw: You crazy fuck, you linked to a goddamn thinktank policy paper, as far as I know, they don’t send bills to congress. I don’t think, but could be wrong, that the House and Senate have not formally proposed what they will vote on. That is the debate we are having/
You really are an idiot.
My contention is that it is not up to Obama, it is up to congress, and I fully expect them to reauthorize the tax cuts temporarily. And to get through the senate, they may well have to do what Orzag suggests, also temp reauthorize even the upper level tax cuts. Now go back to your crack pipe.
Corner Stone
@FlipYrWhig:
I oppose the policy of people squirting you with water guns, but if it moves the discussion forward regarding everyone getting squirted then I guess I’m ok with it.
Let me ask you, do you still end up all wet?
Bob Loblaw
@General Stuck:
Jackass, read the Obama budget instructions. That’s what the TPC was analyzing. What was in Obama’s budget. That’s where the 98% came from. You do not get to make your own facts.
Corner Stone
@MNPundit: Why we are even being subjected to discussions about it tells us all how far down the chute we have come.
FlipYrWhig
@Corner Stone: Yes, I do; you could say you don’t support my getting doused with water, but if it prevents everyone else on the thread from being soaked, you might overcome that resistance. In the absence of any alternatives, a starving vegan might eat bacon, but that doesn’t mean he’s not a vegan anymore. Let’s just talk about the implications of the choices, what the repercussions would be of doing one thing vs. another, rather than doing this shtick where we try to spot conflict and hypocrisy at a deep-down level and never talk about the underlying decision.
chopper
@BTD:
orzag is a provate citizen, unless you can refudiate that.
Corner Stone
@FlipYrWhig: I don’t care about the stupid fucking useless argument about “conflict” or no “conflict”.
God damn man. I want all the tax cuts to expire. That’s it. Done.
We have to reset the baseline or we’re gonna be bitches for the foreseeable future.
FlipYrWhig
@Corner Stone: I am very pessimistic that there will ever be a successful effort to raise taxes on anyone for any reason. I bet the Republicans could harangue the public and the media into opposing a tax hike for billionaire pedophiles.
General Stuck
@Bob Loblaw: I read the thing and didn’t see one mention of making tax cuts permanent, everything was based on “extending” and it looked like projected out over ten years. Not fucking permanent, unless I missed it. And it is still a goddamn comparison wonk study, that is not a formal bill submitted to congress from the WH, which if you have a link to that, then you might have something worth discussing. This is low quality trolling on your part, and an apparent complete lack of knowledge how bills are formed and passed in this country. The president can send his own to congress, but it is up to them solely on whether accept it as is and vote on it, which never or rarely happens, modify it, or more likely create their own to vote on. And that has not been done yet.
Take a fucking government class before coming here and wanking bullshit lobsterclaw. And quit wasting my time with this garbage.
FlipYrWhig
@Corner Stone: Um, OK. I was under the impression you had an interest in talking about, like, the directly-stated subject of the thread.
Bob Loblaw
@General Stuck:
This is just pathetic.
The President offered his 2011FY budgetary instructions last February. Google the damn budget. Containing therein was a 3T tax cut for 98% of all wage earners. It is a permanent tax cut (from the Bush rates) that was scored over the first ten years, as is standard actuarial procedure.
The tax cuts are permanent. There is no phaseout. There will be no vote on a phaseout. The Democratic congress will not vote to increase income taxes on the middle or lower classes. The only question is what to do with the other 2%. Orszag is recommending the top 2% rates (and only the top 2% rates) be extended until 2012, in order to secure the permanent tax cuts for the other 98% before sunset as a political tactic. In his budget hawk recommendation, he wants to see 100% of the tax cuts expire, because they cost 3.7T dollars over the next decade. But that is not on the table. There is no appetite for tax hikes of such magnitude in this Congress, or any other. Obama wants to spend 3T on the cuts, the less “fiscally responsible” position. That’s the difference between the two.
Corner Stone
@Nick:
Or slapped his mighty pen1s across your waiting face!
Corner Stone
@FlipYrWhig: No, sorry. I find the distinction between conflict or no conflict to be a waste of time and useless.
I don’t care what a former adviser thinks, nor if that does or does not match up with the putative thoughts of his former boss.
There’s only one outcome that’s going to matter, and that is what interests me.
FlipYrWhig
@Corner Stone: OK, well, there’s no shortage of other threads to do that. This one is about whether Orszag and Obama have different views and the right way for the media to characterize them.
Corner Stone
@FlipYrWhig:
You mean like letting them expire?
Corner Stone
@FlipYrWhig: Meh, maybe you’re right.
The only important thing in this matter is if a former employee agrees.
I cede your point.
General Stuck
@Bob Loblaw: Moron, presidents always submits budgets that are summarily ignored or changed to suit congress. They hold the purse string and pass laws, EXCLUSIVELY. To permanently extend or to make permanent the tax cuts, the congress has explicit control over that part, and the House must initiate any further tax cuts before or after the bush ones automatically expire as if they never existed in the first place.
They could leave it in a budget proposal if they wanted, but THE LEADERSHIP OF THE HOUSE, DOES NOT WANT TO MAKE THE MIDDLE CLASS TAX CUTS PERMANENT. And you are a fool to make the statement that Steny Hoyer doesn’t matter. You don’t understand how government works. period. THE PRESIDENT CANNOT MAKE NEW LAW, TAX LAW IN THIS CASE. HE CAN SUGGEST IT BY SENDING CONGRESS HIS PROPOSAL IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT FORMS. BUT HE CANNOT PASS LAWS NOR RAISE TAXES. THE CONGRESS DOES THAT, AND THE CONGRESS ONLY.
And the House has repeatably stated they have no appetite for making any of the tax hikes permanent. Doesn’t mean they possibly won’t in the end, but you have no evidence they want to and I have evidence they don’t want to. Produce some evidence or stfu.
And pardon me for shouting, but this asshat troll keeps pushing the stupid meme that Obama can make the tax cuts permanent on his own.
Bob Loblaw
@General Stuck:
Then what’s the controversy over the 2% Stuck, huh? Fun and games?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/us/politics/08obama.html?_r=1
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/01/29/83338/extending-tax-cuts-or-letting.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/07/28/extending-high-income-tax-cuts-wrong-answer-recovery
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/why-the-fight-over-the-bush-tax-cuts-is-just-the-beginning.php
http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/01/pf/taxes/obama_budget_tax_changes/index.htm
We can do this all night. If the Congress is prepared to allow every single tax cut to sunset, then what’s the controversy over the 2%? Why would anybody be talking about extending the top 2% if they weren’t already going to vote on permanently extending the other 98%? There is a permanent tax cut for 98% of Americans in the Obama budget instructions. The House and Senate will be voting on those budget instructions this year. There are no plans to raise taxes on 98% of individuals in this Congress. You’ve been unable to offer a single one. You have a one-off quote from Steny Hoyer, and not a single corroborating link. Not a single link from anybody in a leadership position supporting the sunsetting of all the Bush tax cuts. Not a single link from leadership supporting a 3.7T tax hike in the middle of a recession. Because that is what you are saying here. You don’t even fucking realize what you’re saying, that’s how far gone you are. You’re deluded, misinformed, ignorant, and loud. You have no substance. Stop it.
Steve
@General Stuck: You’re getting extremely bent out of shape here. A Steny Hoyer trial balloon hardly deserves to be treated as gospel truth.
General Stuck
@Steve: I didn’t say it was gospe truth, I said it was evidence the house did not want to make the mc tax cuts permanent. I can find no evidence that either Pelosi or Hoyer has uttered a word proposing this. They have said they support extending the mc tax cuts, not making permanent. Big difference. Now that may change, but if anybody has evidence to contradict what I say, that they now plan to make the mc tax cuts permanent, then bring it on. And not idiot evidence of loblolly linking to a thinktank paper, claiming it proves the tax cuts will be made permanent because Obama put it in his budget proposal, when the paper linked to does not mention anything about making anything permanent. Plus, I simply do not like Loblolly. Aside from his clueless wanking.
General Stuck
@Bob Loblaw:
gawd you are a mendacious motherfucker. I said I fully expect them temporarily extended, the middle class tax cuts, due to hard econ times, like Hoyer says and Pelosi. They may let them expire and immediately propose their own mc tax cuts, or do it before they expire, where they will likely have to compromise like Orazg says. If and when the economy recovers, I don’t expect them to support further extensions, like Hoyer says. But who knows what will happen then.
And I have provided a statement on this issue from the majority leader of the house, and you have provided nothing in the way of evidence to show the leadership is prepared to vote to make permanent any of the bush tax cuts this fall. Until you do, I am not getting paid enough to give you basic government lessons, so bring your counter evidence, or again, stfu. And if you want we can do this all night. Your call. But it will get nasty from here on out. Because you have nothing but bullshit.
Bob Loblaw
@General Stuck:
“Making Work Pay Tax Cut: Provides immediate and sustained tax relief to about 95 percent of American workers and their families through the Making Work Pay tax credit, a refundable tax credit of up to $400 per worker ($800 per couple filing jointly), phasing out completely at $190,000 for couples filing jointly and $95,000 for single filers.
These tax cuts will be distributed to 129 million families by reducing tax withholding from workers’ paychecks by April 1st. These tax cuts are a downpayment on President Obama’s plan for permanent middle-class tax relief, but were scaled back to gain the support of the needed Senate Republicans.”
–Nancy Pelosi, http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/legislation?id=0273
“Democratic leaders still vow a big effort this month to boost the top tax brackets, now 33 and 35 percent, back to 36 and 39.6 percent, the rates that were in effect in the 1990s. Both House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D- Calif. , and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D- Nev. , who faces a tough re-election fight, want a vote before the election Nov. 2 .
“We still expect to have a bill on the ( Senate ) floor at some point in September,” Reid spokesman Jim Manley said. “Whether Republicans will allow us to pass anything is a whole other story.”
“The speaker and the president have been clear they want to extend the middle-class tax cuts because they have the greatest economic benefit,” Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100901/pl_mcclatchy/3613756
And the dagger:
“Under the White House plan, the top two tax rates would revert to where they were in the late 1990s: The 35% rate would go to 39.6% and the 33% rate would go to 36%. The highest-income filers would also see their tax rates on capital gains and dividends go up.
Making tax cuts permanent just for families making less than $250,000 would cost estimated $2.2 trillion over 10 years. Extending tax cuts for everyone costs $3 trillion over 10 years.
Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., who runs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said Friday that House Democrats have secured votes needed to pass the Obama-proposed plan of limiting tax cuts for middle class families.”
http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/27/news/economy/bush_tax_cuts/index.htm
But hey, that’s only two direct statements from the Speaker’s office and an on the record quote from the head of the DCCC confirming the House’s intent to pass permanent middle class tax relief. And it took all of 6 seconds on teh Googlez.
That’s such a position of strength. Still working hard on the nicknames too? Don’t worry, champ. You’ll get there.
db
When do Tapper and Cole resolve this in a wrestling match?
General Stuck
@Bob Loblaw:
First off, the link to Pelosi’s office is two years old for the Stimulus bill, and generically mentions Obama’s plan for permanent middle class tax relief, not specifically related to making permanent Bush’s tax cuts two years in advance, and alludes that they had proposed making stronger tax cuts in the recovery act permanent, but wingnuts wouldn’t go for that.
It is a different thing to generically relate to Obama’s plan, or desire to have permanent tax relief for folks under 250,000 income, and linking that directly to the current situation of making permanent Bush’s tax cuts. And did I mention it was two years old. My statement from Hoyer is about 2 months old.
And once again, you seem to not know the difference between “extend” and make permanent.
“Limiting” is not a statement proposing permanent Bush tax cuts for lower income people. And here is Obama’s official plan, and does not address making permanent Bush;s tax cuts, but follows Obama’s MO of making broad policy proposals and letting congress fill in the details, in this case, permanent or temporary. This is also what the TPC indicates as well, that there is nothing in Obama’s plan that calls for anything permanent. Just re authorization on a ten year basis.
In any case, we will find out shortly what the congress comes up with to vote on, and they could well propose making the lower Bush tax cuts permanent. And you may end up being correct.
If you have a current statement by Pelosi directly supporting making these GWB tax cuts permanent, then that would win you the argument. I looked but could find none. And Hollen is deep into electoral politics right now, and liable to say about anything, true or not.