I got the email that many of us did from Organizing For America which contained the video statement from the President on his agreement to extend tax cuts for all income earners in the name of "bipartisanship." This is the comment I left, because they asked me to:
This was not a subject that the candidate I so strongly supported (even contributing before he formally announced) ran away from:
-------------------
"Senator Obama would extend the Bush tax cuts for people making under $250,000 a year, but would repeal them for people in the top two marginal tax brackets before their scheduled expiration two years from now. He would provide new tax breaks for homeowners who do not itemize deductions and for saving, college costs and new farmers.
And he would change the alternative minimum tax so it does not affect the middle class. To raise revenues, in addition to repealing the top tier of the Bush tax cuts, Mr. Obama would raise taxes on capital gains and dividends."
http://elections.nytimes.com/...
__________________
This was in fact refreshing to see in national politics.
What ever happened to this guy:
-----------------
"TAXES: Opposed extending 2003 Bush tax cut law through 2010. Supports eliminating marriage penalty and extending child tax credit. Supports scaling back capital gains and dividends tax cuts and re-examining tax benefits for the top one percent of earners."
http://www.cnn.com/...
------------------------
The willingness to stand up on this point (and specifically against the interests of the top 1% of tax earners who make over $1M/year) was a real issue for the 2008 election for many voters -- more important than a vague goal of "changing the way things are done in Washington."
Is it really the case that hedge fund managers have continued to make tens of millions (and in some cases billions) of dollars and pay only 15% on their income as long-term capital gains? (It is. That was rhetorical.) And we are not politically sophisticated enough to make the case out to the country why this is wrong?
I am sure this was a hard choice to have to make in governing responsibly, particularly when the GOP has shown a brutal although totally unsurprising willingness to engage in such hard-nosed tactics. But still. This is really disappointing.
Actually calling a bluff framed properly is not always a reckless act but can be necessary. Ask Newt Gingrich how brinksmanship worked out for him back in 1995. Most people didn't even know any specific policy being debated that led to the government shutdown but respected President Clinton more than they had previously for finally drawing a line.
There is a time to compromise -- we have seen multiple examples of it from this Administration in fact -- but there is also a time for principle. And credibility.