Tax Deal Passes: Who Wins and Who Loses?
By Noel Sheppard | December 17, 2010 | 13:16
With a huge bipartisan majority, the House passed Obama's tax compromise plan Thursday evening 277 to 148.
139 Democrats voted for the measure with only 36 Republicans voting against it.
As a result, Charles Krauthammer said in the Washington Post Friday the GOP made a huge mistake supporting this plan, and that this victory by the President clears the way for his reelection:
If Barack Obama wins reelection in 2012, as is now more likely than not, historians will mark his comeback as beginning on Dec. 6, the day of the Great Tax Cut Deal of 2010. [...]
After the shambles of the election and with no bargaining power - the Republicans could have gotten everything they wanted on the Bush tax cuts retroactively in January without fear of an Obama veto - he walks away with what even Paul Ryan admits was $313 billion in superfluous spending. [...]
The president is a very smart man. How smart? His comeback is already a year ahead of Clinton's.
Is Krauthammer right or overstating things?
Consider first that Obama has now indeed flip-flopped on a key element of his campaign and his very persona: eliminating the tax cuts for the rich.
Such a flip-flop doomed President George H. W. Bush's reelection efforts, and as can be seen by much of the media's response to this compromise, the Left are as passionate about raising taxes as the Right are about cutting them.
As such, this maneuver mightn't even help Obama if the economy rebounds prior to November 2012.
Before quickly casting that aside, let's assume conditions improve in the coming months, and that by this time next year, unemployment has dropped below nine percent.
To be sure, that would be great news, but would it necessarily help the President?
Regardless of what the economy does, the deficit will certainly be growing by at least $1 trillion per year for the foreseeable future. At some point, Obama is going to have to take a position on what should be done with tax rates that he himself set to expire January 1, 2013.
No matter who the Republican presidential candidates are, it's a metaphysical certitude they will all advocate a permanent extension of these tax rates regardless of how the economy is doing.
Will Obama? Can you envision the most liberal president in the history of this great nation advocating a further extension of all the Bush tax cuts if the economy is improving and the deficit is over $1 trillion?
The far-left including MoveOn.org and George Soros will blow a gasket and likely push for a more progressive candidate to challenge Obama in the primaries.
We've already heard such grumblings from Soros, and this was before the tax compromise. Just imagine what'll be coming from him and his ilk if Obama is advocating a further extension of these rates in 2012 despite a growing economy and in the face of ever-exploding deficits.
Krauthammer is correct when it comes to what the liberal base will do in November 2012: they're not going to vote Republican no matter how upset they are with Obama.
But the President pushing for a further tax rate extension amidst a strong economy and trillion dollar deficits could certainly lead to a primary battle that Obama likely would win, but would emerge from quite damaged. It could even encourage a third party candidate like Ralph Nader to step up to the plate and hurt the Democrat just like in the year 2000.
On the flipside, if the economy is doing well, and Obama advocates letting some of the tax cuts expire with Republican candidates promising a full extension, Obama could lose the independent support he so desperately needs.
Add it all up, and the decision to put forth a tax plan expiring in 2013 might end up being very harmful to the President even if it works.
On the other hand, let's say it doesn't, and unemployment remains above nine percent. Obama would then have presided over the worst four consecutive employment years since the Great Depression implementing numerous policies - including one totally offensive to his base! - that didn't work.
How does that set him up positively for reelection?
In the past week and a half since this plan was first announced, many conservatives including Krauthammer have said it would have been far better for the GOP to not have compromised thereby allowing the Republicans in the new Congress to put together a more right-leaning package.
What this ignores is that this bill really is Obama's.
If it fails, he loses.
If it succeeds and he wants it to continue beyond 2012, he loses.
If it succeeds and he wants it to end in 2013, he loses.
And with what happened last Friday, we now have on record two very popular Democrat presidents standing side by side proclaiming to the nation that tax cuts are good for the economy and are more important than balancing the budget when times are tough.
That's a victory beyond anything conservatives could possibly have imagined after losing Congress and the White House in consecutive elections.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Krauthammer must not realize
Submitted by Hunter12 on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 1:24pm.
Krauthammer must not realize that we've seen the impact of 23 months of total Democrat dominance on the economy and will realize that the actions just taken were against the wishes of the bulk of the Democrats still in office. They only voted for the package after all the carrots were tied to it. They didn't do it out of a feeling of right for the country. Any positives that come from this legislation will be laid on the doorstep of the new Repulican majority in the House. Acting ahead of the January seatings doesn't give the Democrats any credibility. They acted to squeeze one last round of graft in before they lost control.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
I think whether Obama gets
Submitted by Gothampc on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 1:39pm.
I think whether Obama gets reelected or not depends on the mood of the country in the three months before the election and how the MSM spins Obama's decisions.
There is still high unemployment and the jobless are mad about that. The gays are angry because he hasn't done anything about DADT. They would possibly vote for a third party candidate that would promise them something.
The GOP needs a smart candidate and needs to get their message out stronger. (Are you hearing me RNC? Dump the RINOs and clarify the message). Hopefully Boehner can work on clarifying the message from Congress.
The most hilarious thing right now is how Democrats are coming out and saying "Oh this is the legislation we need. Yes, tax cuts are the way to go" when two months ago it was kill the Bush tax cuts.
My personal opinion was that Obama didn't care whether tax cuts were made or not. He just wanted to stop them being called the "Bush" tax cuts. He wants them called the "Obama" tax cuts.
There is only one key factor
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 1:43pm.
There is only one key factor in determining Obama's re-election, and that is the GOP candidate. If republicans put forth another John McCain, a bland pol with few new ideas, the public might not be so willing to make a change.
Speaking of McCain, why hasn't he shared the location of bin Laden's hideout yet?
I agree
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 1:46pm.
Bill Clinton was dead meat in 1996 until the GOP nominated Bob Dole.
They run a similar risk in 2012.
Second that
Submitted by KC Mulville on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 2:18pm.
Obama is only half the equation for a winning ticket in 2012.
Hey, where did you go trollie?
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 2:54pm.
We is missing you downstairs. Come back.
I believe th GOP screwed up
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 1:54pm.
I believe th GOP screwed up and blinked, but beyond that the passing of this is good for Obama. On the other hand Obama is going down like a sinking ship and he will try to blame the GOP. The big question is has Obama cried wolf too many times already?
If he has then he will lose to anyone who opposes him and there will be a stain on the Dems. If the idiots rally around him then it will be a big fight to the finish. I am afraid the stimulus slush fund will push him to victory.
Or even worse and one of my greatest fears is that Obama will make some kind of power grab, teh non democratic kind.
Yes well..."Blaming Bush" is a bit long in the tooth
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 3:24pm.
So now Bammy will be able to blame Boehner & Mike Mitchell (sic).
I have no fear, Obama has failed so badly thus far that there is nothing he could do, short of a really hot shooting war, that would save him.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 138 (and Counting)
Dim spin -- this a stimulus?
Submitted by ThisnThat on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 2:44pm.
These dumb dims and their MSM megaphones are pushing the extensions of tax cuts as a "stimulus" that "costs" nearly $1T. I don't get it.
If a thief [think: US Gov] enters my home with the intent to steal my television; and if I successfully fight him off and throw his a$$ out the door; would we then say that my successful defense "cost" the thief, and that me keeping my television is a "stimulus"? Because that's exactly what these politians are trying to say here.
Speaking of GOP contenders -- I am going to vote for the very first GOP candidate that comes out and clearly explains why keeping our tax rates the same does not cost the Govmt a dime, and is not a stimulus. Right now, I can't identify that candidate. And Krauthammer isn't helping. Because when that thief enters my home, I certainly do not want to let him take the TV in hopes that I can round up my neighbors and the police afterwards to not only recover my TV, but also to bolt it down so he can't take it the next time. I want to prevent him from taking it -- and then use my resources to bolt it down. No way I'm going to take a chance on recovering it, first.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
Charles assumes that
Submitted by MidAmerica on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 3:43pm.
Charles assumes that ordinary people are aware of legislative details or that they have a very long memory. Obama could walk on water and catch thunderbolts in his bare hands but if the economy is not resurgent before the 2012 election he's toast.
One overriding factor~
Submitted by Georgia Girl on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 4:06pm.
There are a lot of factors to analyze with this -- and it's hard to know how they will play out -- but I think there's one overriding factor that trumps everything.
I think it comes down to trust. It's the big picture that will matter. In 2012, Americans will ask themselves: Do I trust Obama to continuing making decisions for our country for four more years?
Presumably, most liberals will either vote for Obama or stay home. Generally speaking, they love that he was bent on changing the framework of America; if anything, they wish he could have chipped away more. The burning question is if Independents and Republicans have learned the lesson that history taught -- the way by which and consequence of someone with Obama's views ascending to the "throne."
It's apparent that most voters are now accurately interpreting what Obama's agenda has been. And who on the planet doesn't get that Obama would still be going down his same radical road if he could right this very moment? Since Obama's view of what the government should be able to do is transparent to all (hey, there's that transparent gov't he promised!), it comes down to this: what are the majority of Americans prepared to do about it? Like with the November elections, I believe they'll do the right thing in 2012.
Like never before, I think people will greatly care about/ vote upon the "3 C's" the next time around -- character (including personal history as it applies to wise governing, voting record, etc.), clarity (of positions and purposes) and the Constitution (in being honored/adered to).
The Republican candidate doesn't need to be fancy. The person needs be a solid individual (calm, steady, honorable, fiscally sound principles) and a firm believer in the Constitution -- someone who will respect individual freedoms andwho values what the bulk of Americans do appreciate about America. Nobody of substance who votes will care about charisma; in fact, after Obama, people may be downright suspicious of it. The outward shell is a pretty shallow way to decide on a president. It's what they've got going on the inside that is going to count for how they run this country. I trust that Americans realize that and will be more analytical of what matters next time around.
I don't think history will repeat itself.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?" -- Ronald Reagan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6LGSzNW9xU
Excellent analysis, GG.
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 5:43pm.
Well played.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 138 (and Counting)
Thanks, Blonde~
Submitted by Georgia Girl on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 6:35pm.
:)
"If not us, who? If not now, when?" -- Ronald Reagan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6LGSzNW9xU
Good job!
Submitted by Rukus on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 11:01am.
Duplicate, dangit! NB 2.0 hates me, sigh.
Good job!
Submitted by Rukus on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 7:08pm.
Our own beloved Southern Belle comes through yet again. Good job good lady! : )
Gary~
Submitted by Georgia Girl on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 10:42am.
So sweet. And your tagline just keeps getting better and better. :)
"If not us, who? If not now, when?" -- Ronald Reagan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6LGSzNW9xU
Charisma matters
Submitted by ckc1227 on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 4:50pm.
"Nobody of substance who votes will care about charisma"
Who said voters have substance? You're fooling yourself if you think charisma doesn't matter. It's not enough to just be conservative. If voters don't like you, they aren't going to vote for you, no matter what you stand for.
ckc~
Submitted by Georgia Girl on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 6:54pm.
A lot of voters do have substance to them. A good many more who voted for Obama realize they were taken up by the shiny exterior, and they've learned a hard lesson. I've had lots of conversations with those who feel that way. They're mad at themselves for not digging deeper and for getting suckered in while they ignored the glaring signs.
And who said anything about the "likability" factor? I said charisma. There's a big difference. Of course the person needs to have a nice personality, but I stand by them not having to be a rock star. Another way to put it: who wants a super shiny, pretty car with all the gadgets that's the "latest greatest' that you have to dump a ton of money into because it won't get you around the block? We need a car that has been maintained well and one we can rely on and will be useful and sensible -- and it can still look nice, by the way. My belief is that Americans have been reminded of that lesson. Choose wisely.
Am I looking for someone with a boring personality? No. I'm looking for someone who is of high quality.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?" -- Ronald Reagan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6LGSzNW9xU
~GG
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 7:13pm.
ckc is judging other people by himself.
If Obama is fool enough to run again, he won't win.
Bru~
Submitted by Georgia Girl on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 10:55am.
I am amazed that after Obama doing one thing he wouldn't have done if he didn't think he had to do it, analysts are now talking about him re-positioning himself and his chances looking pretty good and yada, yada, yada...wow, just wow. ^_^
"If not us, who? If not now, when?" -- Ronald Reagan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6LGSzNW9xU
A good many more who voted
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 11:09pm.
A good many more who voted for Obama realize they were taken up by the shiny exterior, and they've learned a hard lessonAnd you only need to look into their lives to see if the lessons have taken. I doubt the lessons will stick an they like a kid will be drawn into the next shiny object that distracts them. We are all like that but some of us are more mature and understand we need to look beyond the facade.
But, looking at Americas choices in entertainment Jersey Shore, American Idol, DWTS and the list of idiot shows goes on. And then there are the status symbols of a McMansion or the car we drive or school we attend or even the friends we keep and where our money goes. Why are most of the people in the USA living paycheck to paycheck or even on credit and a prayer?
No the shiny objects will always distract the little babies.
Everyone loses
Submitted by jon_torlin on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 4:51pm.
Who wins, who loses? Everyone, because of the health care and the porkulus the first time around. Not to mention the nutrition bill and everything else in between.
I said it before, the extension of the tax cuts won't help anyone as long as those things are still around.
-Jon
Who loses? America, that's who
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 11:24pm.
This country has been taking it in the neck every time a bill passes this hideous, out-of-control rogue congress, and is signed into law by that former community pisser-offer of a Kenyan fraud.
This idiot pork-laden bill, oops, I meant law, is no exception.
-Dave
Admittedly...
Submitted by NevadanConservative on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 2:44pm.
a simple (ha!) piece of legislation extending the Bush cuts and no more would have sufficed for myself. Alas, riders and greedy bastids to write them are the plague of this form of lawmaking.
However, I don't see impediment to the 112th coming in and immediately submitting legislation of their own to make the Bush cuts permanent, and using the two year extension as a bludgeon.
It won't get past Inoyue and Reid in the Senate, and it won't get past BHO if it gets past those two fossilised (un)worthies... the first time.
So we run it and run it and run it till Hell wouldn't have it, and BHO signs it just to get us off his back.
And frankly I can't see any other way of getting anything passed the next two years. I've stated in here before that if we are to be the Party of NO, then we best be expert at it. If all we have is Gridlock, then damn well USE it. And make sure that all know who drove us to it, and why.
Boehner et al has had all this time between election eve and now to starrt making plans. When Committee appointments start getting firmed up, he and his do well to be subpoenaing people about ObamaCare, putting that multitrillion dollar powergrab on the defensive, and melting it down. ( Are Cabinet members immune to subpoena? or is BHO going to pull a super-Nixon and try to cloak them in Executive priveledge?)
drifting.. sorry. As asserted, I would rather something simple, instead we now have two years of the same tax rates and three years of deadbeats, plus pork. The PORK is what is gonna cost. The only way the rates staying the same was gonna "cost anything" is if SOMEONE OR SOMEONES HAD ALREADY PLANNED ON SPENDING USING HIGHER RATES IN THE FUTURE!!
So the would be dictators started squalling 'cause their shiny new tax toy was getting taken away from them... like any other spoiled rotten infants. Unfortunately, the wild animals are still on the outside of the cage instead of in it, so we had to dicker... and some of the folks that did the dickering did not do too well, either from not wanting to miss holidays, or from being voted out and deciding to punish the home constituency , or what have you.
Simply put, we could have held the statists' feet a lot closer to the fire. Let's carry on and hope the 112th doesn't cave.
Mr. Krauthammer is a respected and respectable guy. In his commentary, though, this time, it is my chore to take issue. This will not be a pivot for BHO to be re-elected on. We are out of bread and circuses for BHO and his goons to hand out; too many people know the circuses are staged and the bread laced with sawdust.
Apologies for running long...
NVCon
PURPLE IS THE NEW BROWN
http://inlinethumb43.webshots.com/17194/2872764590061034863S600x600Q85.jpg
It is a win for President Bush.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 2:59pm.
Who knew President Obama would love the Bush Tax Cuts so much he would extend them by 20% longer?