Most Congressional Democrats and supporters of President Obama are anxious to see an end to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Nevertheless, as of this writing, the President has yet to even vote “present” on this issue. Obama’s waffling throughout the tax cut debate has once again exposed his weak leadership skills, which are never overlooked by the people at Fox News:
“The players on the field want a game plan,” said one senior Democratic congressional aide who requested anonymity to be candid about caucus sentiment. “There’s an increasing frustration from members that there is not a plan … There is just tremendous frustration. I mean, where are they?”
The aide noted that Senate Democrats, meeting behind closed doors Wednesday and most likely Thursday, intend to discuss the tax cuts, but there is one notable absence.
“Where is the White House? There’s no one here talking to us today or tomorrow,” the aide fumed . . .
* * *
Democrats are waiting for an express statement from the President, despite the fact that Obama opened the window on a temporary extension just after the midterm elections.
“We should have done this already. Our bosses go home and are hounded about this. I don’t get it. Just extend the cuts for a few years and be done with it. There are way too many fingers in the wind on this from both sides (of the aisle),” another senior Democratic aide involved in tax policy for years told Fox.
Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor for President Clinton, began a recent blog posting with this observation:
The President says a Republican proposal to extend the Bush tax cuts to everyone for two years is a “basis for conversation.” I hope this doesn’t mean another Obama cave-in.
Unfortunately, in all likelihood it does mean “another Obama cave-in” — and it probably won’t be the last. Professor Reich ended that piece with this rhetorical question:
If the President can’t or won’t take a stand now — when he still has a chance to prevail in the upcoming lame-duck Congress — when will he ever?
Answer: Never (unless it means taking a stand – once again – in support of the Wall Street banks).
In the mean time, while Obama dithers, a group of 40 “Patriotic Millionaires” has stepped forward after writing a letter to the President, in which they urged him not to renew the Bush tax cuts for anyone earning more than $1 million a year. Joe Conason included the text of that letter in a recent piece for Salon. The Patriotic Millionaires expressed an opinion, which the President apparently fears might not be shared by his top campaign contributors:
We have done very well over the last several years. Now, during our nation’s moment of need, we are eager to do our fair share. We don’t need more tax cuts, and we understand that cutting our taxes will increase the deficit and the debt burden carried by other taxpayers. The country needs to meet its financial obligations in a just and responsible way.
A similar stance was taken by billionaire financier Warren Buffet, during an interview conducted by Christiane Amanpour on the ABC News program This Week. When confronted by Amanpour about the claim that those tax cuts for the very wealthy are what energize business and capitalism, Buffet gave this response:
“The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we’ll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on,” Buffett explained.
Writing for The Hill, Alexander Bolton discussed the frustrations experienced by Congressional Democrats, who are often left twisting in the wind while the President works out a strategy for traveling up a fork in the road:
Senate Democrats want President Obama to take a more hands-on role in legislative battles next year, when Republicans will have additional clout on Capitol Hill.
Democratic lawmakers say Obama could have done more to connect his legislative agenda to the concerns of voters — a shortcoming the president himself has admitted.
As the moment approaches for 2012 Presidential aspirants to declare their candidacy, Mr. Obama’s shortcomings are widely understood. If the Democrats want to hold the White House, somebody with some guts should step forward pretty soon.
A Preemptive Strike By Tools Of The Plutocracy
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) was created by section 5 of the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act (or FERA) which was signed into law on May 20, 2009. The ten-member Commission has been modeled after the Pecora Commission of the early 1930s, which investigated the causes of the Great Depression, and ultimately provided a basis for reforms of Wall Street and the banking industry. As I pointed out on April 15, more than a few commentators had been expressing their disappointment with the FCIC. Section (5)(h)(1) of the FERA established a deadline for the FCIC to submit its report:
In light of the fact that it took the FCIC eight months to conduct its first hearing, one shouldn’t be too surprised to learn that their report had not been completed by December 15. The FCIC expects to have the report finalized in approximately one month. This article by Phil Mattingly and Robert Schmidt of Bloomberg News provides a good history of the partisan struggle within the FCIC. On December 14, Sewell Chan of The New York Times disclosed that the four Republican members of the FCIC would issue their own report on December 15:
Beyond that, Shahien Nasiripour of the Huffington Post revealed more details concerning the dissent voiced by Republican panel members:
I gave those four Republican members more credit than that. I was wrong. Commission Vice-Chairman Bill Thomas, along with Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Peter Wallison, and Keith Hennessey issued their own propaganda piece as a preemptive strike against whatever less-than-complimentary things the FCIC might ultimately say about the Wall Street Plutocrats. The spin strategy employed by these men in explaining the cause of the financial crisis is to blame Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for the entire episode. (That specious claim has been debunked by Mark Thoma and others many times.) This remark from the “Introduction” section of the Republicans’ piece set the tone:
Many economists and other commentators will have plenty of fun ripping this thing to shreds. One of the biggest lies that jumped right out at me was this statement from page 5 of the so-called Financial Crisis Primer:
That lie can and will be easily refuted — many times over — by the simple fact that a large number of essays had been published by economists, commentators and even dilettantes who predicted the housing collapse.
Yves Smith provided a refreshing retort to the Plutocracy’s Primer at her Naked Capitalism website:
The fact that a pre-emptive strike by the Plutocratic “Gang of Four” has been initiated with the release of their Primer could indeed suggest that that their patrons are worried about the ultimate conclusions to be published by the FCIC next month. The release of this Primer will surely draw plenty of criticism and attract more attention to the FCIC’s final report. Nevertheless, will the resulting firestorm motivate the public to finally demand some serious action beyond the lame “financial reform” fiasco? Adam Garfinkle’s recent essay in The American Interest suggests that such hope could be misplaced:
Will this situation ever change?
href=”http://statcounter.com/wordpress.org/”
target=”_blank”>