I think there's a lot to be said for Jonathan Zasloff's analysis of the decision to put off votes on the tax cut until after the election. Zasloff figures that neither Nancy Pelosi nor Harry Reid had the votes to actually win, and figured that the message of "Republicans block middle class tax cuts because they insist on tax cuts for the rich" would work better over the next couple of months without a vote to show that Democrats were divided on the issue. Could be. Is it the correct choice? No idea.
I would say one additional thing against the accusations that postponing the vote means that Pelosi and Reid are caving in; the real cave here would have been to go ahead and pass the bill the GOP wanted. That may well still happen after the election, but then again it may not. Let's say that neither side has the votes to get their preference -- Democrats don't have a working majority in at least on House of Congress on the issue, but Republicans don't have the votes to overturn a presidential veto. Before the election, with plenty of time remaining before tax rates actually go up, it's likely that the result would be stalemate, because there are no real policy consequences of inaction at that point, and because if both sides agree about the likely of any compromises, then the side that would prefer inaction to compromise won't take the deal, while the other side is likely to perceive inaction as preferable to simply losing. After the election, however, not only are the zero-sum electoral effects probably not going to loom as large for everyone with the next election two full years away, but the policy consequences of inaction loom much larger, giving everyone who favors some tax cuts a strong incentive to reach a deal.
*"Cave Man"? Yeah, I know -- a lot of you have never watched the last season of NewsRadio, which of course was never the same after Phil Hartman's death. The reference is to one of those episodes. The final season is, to be sure, inconsistent. Still, I think it's well worth watching through anyway; as with something like Buffy's season four, there's enough good stuff to be worth your while and a few real classic moments. Helpful hint? You know how Lisa dealt with Bill's death by drinking all week? My theory is that she never sobered up; she's drunk the entire season. And Dave is simply insane (and may have been from "Security Door" on). Watch it keeping those things in mind, and it works a lot better.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I have seen and had ENOUGH failure from the progressive side of politics. ENOUGH! I want progressives to succeed. We cannot play nice with conservatives. I save my compassion for the poor, the working man and woman, the unemployed, the retired elderly and disabled and the disenfranchised.
ReplyDeleteThis failure comes from the REFUSAL to use consumer boycotts against conservatives and their friends by progressives suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. In fact I now refuse to help so called progressive organizations that will not boycott the friends of conservatives in order to put pressure on the conservatives to do as we demand.
I do not have compassion for bull headed conservatives bent on ruining other people's lives.
The way we do not play nice involves what Gandhi would do, namely shun those and their friends who seek to ruin other people's lives. I did not originate boycotts but I appear new in adapting the boycott to political and legislative outcomes.
I have created the following strategies for getting other legislation and it appears easy to create something as I had for busting up the deal between Google and Verizon. I cannot easily drop Verizon but I wrote to Google at press@google.com and told them I stopped using their search engine and other products and I told them that I will get other people to contact them to threaten a huge boycott of them until they capitulate to our demands that they stop that deal with Verizon!
Also
I have created a new liberal legislative political party: The Liberal Democratic Party of the United States.
We do not raise money.
We do not handle money.
We do not break up your Party. You remain in your own chosen party for the purpose of elections but you also join mine for the purpose of getting needed legislation and political action.
We tell you how not to spend your money and get legislation for
not spending money with well known conservative contributors.
It costs nothing to join this party but some of your day
sending these emails and getting many others to send these emails.
We can get progressive legislation with a new strategy.
Please pass this email to your friends as soon as possible. Thank you.
Instead of petitioning a corporate corrupted congress for legislation, petition the corporate friends of conservatives in both the GOPranos and the Democratic party for legislation and include a boycott threat in your email petitions as you see below. Spread the word please.
You can find the full list of emails here
http://www.hoflink.com/~dbaer/help-me-change-america1.htm
I have seen and had ENOUGH failure from the progressive side of politics. ENOUGH! I want progressives to succeed. We cannot play nice with conservatives. I save my compassion for the poor, the working man and woman, the unemployed, the retired elderly and disabled and the disenfranchised.
ReplyDeleteThis failure comes from the REFUSAL to use consumer boycotts against conservatives and their friends by progressives suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. In fact I now refuse to help so called progressive organizations that will not boycott the friends of conservatives in order to put pressure on the conservatives to do as we demand.
I do not have compassion for bull headed conservatives bent on ruining other people's lives.
The way we do not play nice involves what Gandhi would do, namely shun those and their friends who seek to ruin other people's lives. I did not originate boycotts but I appear new in adapting the boycott to political and legislative outcomes.
I have created the following strategies for getting other legislation and it appears easy to create something as I had for busting up the deal between Google and Verizon. I cannot easily drop Verizon but I wrote to Google at press@google.com and told them I stopped using their search engine and other products and I told them that I will get other people to contact them to threaten a huge boycott of them until they capitulate to our demands that they stop that deal with Verizon!
Also
I have created a new liberal legislative political party: The Liberal Democratic Party of the United States.
We do not raise money.
We do not handle money.
We do not break up your Party. You remain in your own chosen party for the purpose of elections but you also join mine for the purpose of getting needed legislation and political action.
We tell you how not to spend your money and get legislation for
not spending money with well known conservative contributors.
It costs nothing to join this party but some of your day
sending these emails and getting many others to send these emails.
We can get progressive legislation with a new strategy.
Please pass this email to your friends as soon as possible. Thank you.
Instead of petitioning a corporate corrupted congress for legislation, petition the corporate friends of conservatives in both the GOPranos and the Democratic party for legislation and include a boycott threat in your email petitions as you see below. Spread the word please.
You can find the full list of emails here
http://www.demcratz.org
Question is - after increased GOP membership of Congress; whatever Dems were likely to get, will they get in the lame duck session? Granted, newly elected GOP members will not be sitting there in the Congress til Jan 2011. But People would have spoken then and increase in GOP votes mean tax cuts for rich. Remember division among GOP is much less compared to division among Dem members on this issue.
ReplyDeleteI think the larger damage here is refusal of our Political Class to face voters with clearly defined positions so that people can make their choices clear.
When we think about it, it is actually Dem issue because that is the Party which has lesser cohesion on this issue with too many divergent views there. Think further and then we realize that this is clear failure of Liberal wing of Dem to bring Blue Dogs on the same page. One more incidence where Liberals know that Democratic Party is at least amalgamation of Liberals and Blue Dog and in that arrangement Liberals get a loser deal.
Question for Liberals, in absence of any authentic party to represent their interests, is it better to keep on ratcheting the Political Crisis further so that 'conditions for revolution' ripe or do we heed to Obama's call of not comparing Dems for Almighty and vote for them (and contribute to Dem) knowing that alternative GOP is back.
With this decision by Dems, personally I am getting inclined to go for ratcheting this pressure by not backing Dems and I suspect more and more Liberals will feel like wise. That is the contribution of this decision.
http://www.21stcenturypolitics.com/2010/09/tax-cuts-predictable-trajectory-dems.html
I think it's strategically stupid, and exhibit 2,123,513 for why Reid and Pelosi aren't good at their jobs. (I know some people credit Pelosi with nose counting for ACA, but I've yet to be convinced)
ReplyDeleteThe tax cuts for the rich are unpopular. Not "less popular," but UNpopular. 53%, in a CBS poll, and people hate taxes, so we're talking about a real sentiment. I understand that the spineless Dems are going to hand the evil ones a victory on this. I'm OK with that, because they're GOING to win on it after November. Remember, this is the same town that pronounced health care dead after the election of Scott Brown...not only because of the 41st vote he represented, but your Benators, Liebermans and Landrieus would run for the hills. Mandates don't exist, but that doesn't stop politicians from behaving as if they do. So, I think it's an easy conclusion that postponing until after the election is tantamount to handing the vote to them.
But, it's not just that. It really is that this is a good issue for Dems. In February, a CBS poll showed that 24% of people thought Obama had RAISED taxes. (oh, and 44% of Tea Partiers thought that...delusional much?) Only 12% realized that Obama had cut taxes. It kinda goes back to issue ownership, but it cuts more than just "I THINK Dems will do worse on taxes"; what people THINK a Dem will do is what they ASSUME a Dem HAS DONE. (Same is true for Reps). So, why does this matter? Call me a naive optimist, but I tend to think that Dems voting for a large tax cut for everyone but the rich (the more popular position in this debate) serves them well. Yes, they're up against ignorance, but it can't hurt. Now, every Rep on the trail can say "they're going to raise taxes after the election!" Extend them now, and you simply cut their argument off at the legs.
A few episodes of season 4 of Buffy were definitely better than the whole. Anything with Spike featured prominently is gold.
ReplyDelete