Here is a disturbing signal: President Obama refuses to say whether he would veto any legislation to extend Bush's tax cuts for the rich. As Sam Stein reports:
In an interview with ABC News's George Stephanopoulos, the president was asked on four occasions whether his commitment to letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire was strong enough to veto even a "short term extension." On each occasion, Obama demurred.
I've been encouraged that Obama and the White House came out so strongly for not extending the cuts for the rich. This after Chris Van Hollen and David Plouffe opened the door to a compromise.
More below ....
But now this. I had wondered whether he would veto legislation that extended tax cuts to both middle class and the rich or extended them for a few years to the rich and permanently to the middle class. To wit:
I'm happy to see Obama again coming out against extending the cuts for the rich in what seems to be no uncertain terms. However, he can say he doesn't want an extension for the rich and still let Congress do it. So, in the face of conservative Dems and Republicans on the other side, let's see him really fight for it. Would he have the guts to veto an extension for the rich that also included one for the middle class? What if the extension was short for the rich and permanent for the middle class? He's got wiggle room and time will tell if he uses it to cave on his position.
Stein indicates that's where the Republicans are heading, although I wouldn't trust anything they say:
The exchange, for what it's worth, was flagged by a Republican congressional aide who noted how little Democrats would likely feel emboldened by the remarks. It does, indeed, seem increasingly likely that Congress punts on the issue, passing a temporary extension of all Bush tax cuts with the goal of revisiting their expiration in two years. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) has said he would be willing to discuss this compromise. And the lack of an overt veto threat from Obama suggests that the White House isn't willing to rule it out either.
I loved this bit:
how little Democrats would likely feel emboldened by the remarks
No shit.
So I'm back to thinking he will in fact cave in the end, although I'd love to be disappointed. By not threatening a veto, he looks weak. If he doesn't veto legislation that eliminates the tax cuts for the rich, he will be weak. I don't see why he didn't say he would other than he's really a paper tiger - talking tough, but no follow through. Be ready for another disappointment, but first be ready for a non-clarification clarification from Gibbs.
Oh well, it did feel good while it lasted.