Monday punditry.
NY Times:
With the Senate poised to hold a key vote on Monday on the tax cut deal between President Obama and Republicans, the political jousting has focused on what the agreement does for the wealthy by extending all of the Bush-era tax rates, and for the unemployed, by continuing jobless aid.
But a hefty portion of the $858 billion tax package will benefit middle- and upper-middle-income Americans — precisely the demographic that felt neglected the last two years as the White House and Congress focused on the major health care law and on helping the unemployed and people facing foreclosure.
These new tax breaks are in addition to the cuts Mr. Obama had always planned to maintain on all but the highest incomes, and they could pay big political dividends to Mr. Obama and other Democrats in 2012 — a point that the president and some senior advisers are counting on, and one reason that they were willing to give in to Republican demands to extend all Bush-era tax rates.
Paul Krugman:
The deal will, without question, give the economy a short-term boost. The prevailing view, as far as I can tell — and that includes within the Obama administration — is that this short-term boost is all we need. The deal, we’re told, will jump-start the economy; it will give a fragile recovery time to strengthen.
I say, block those metaphors. America’s economy isn’t a stalled car, nor is it an invalid who will soon return to health if he gets a bit more rest. Our problems are longer-term than either metaphor implies.
And bad metaphors make for bad policy. The idea that the economic engine is going to catch or the patient rise from his sickbed any day now encourages policy makers to settle for sloppy, short-term measures when the economy really needs well-designed, sustained support.
EJ Dionne:
American decline is the specter haunting our politics. This could be President Obama's undoing - or it could provide him with the opportunity to revive his presidency.
Early mid-morning in America?
Fareed Zakaria:
This is the wrong time to raise taxes, say the politicians. The economy is fragile, say the economists. The recovery is halting, say the pundits. In a few years, they all affirm, we will need to get our fiscal house in order. Of course, just a few years ago, the economy was doing fine, and Washington decided it wasn't the moment to worry about the deficit. Instead, over the past decade, we cut taxes, added a massive entitlement program (prescription drugs for the elderly) and spent trillions on two wars. Somehow, no matter what the economic clock says, it's never time in Washington to cut spending or raise taxes. Call it manana economics.
Recessions are certainly not the time to cut spending. As for raising taxes, talk to the GOP.
Christopher Caldwell:
Congressional Democrats, while not necessarily doubting Mr Obama’s intentions, are feeling the smart of an electoral slap in a way he is not. They worry that he has walked into a trap. Fears about the deficit will not take two years to materialise. Treasury yields rose steeply in the hours after the tax deal, and the long-term deficit is now a great, galvanising issue in the electorate. Mr Obama’s own blue-ribbon commission has deepened the public’s worries and amplified its calls for action.
Huh? The public doesn't give a crap about deficits. They care about jobs.
Mark Blumenthal:
A focus group of suburban Philadelphia voters convened Monday night by Democratic pollster Peter Hart praised former President Bill Clinton as a "paragon of greatness," as Hart later described it. Friday afternoon, Clinton met with President Barack Obama and then spoke to reporters, offering his support for the tax deal Obama recently reached with Republican congressional leaders.
Coincidence? Perhaps, but either way, the White House has good reason to tout Clinton's high-profile advice given the popularity of the former president, evident in both Hart's focus groups and in more rigorous national-media opinion polls.
And from last week, Michael Wolf and Daniel M. Shea:
As this year's midterm campaign was ending, a political advertising analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project found that 2010 was the most negative election in recent history. Not surprisingly, survey results from the Center for Political Participation at Allegheny College and Indiana University -- Purdue University Fort Wayne fielded by SurveyUSA showed the public largely agreed that it was the most negatively toned campaign ever. The negativity did not have a uniform effect on the electorate, however. Instead, the negative tone clearly aided Republican mobilization, while demobilizing Democrats and many Independents. Rather than simply quenching a thirst for negativity, the campaign tone resonated with Republicans who wanted candidates to stand firm on principles. At the same time, negativity did not convey a willingness to compromise, which is what Democratic voters wanted out of their candidates.