Friday opinion, the budget busting edition.
NY Times on the Bush tax cuts:
But the sense within both parties was that Democrats were essentially negotiating the terms of their major retreat on an issue that they once considered a slam-dunk on both substantive and political levels.
Senior Senate Republican aides said that an extension of all the income tax cuts was a foregone conclusion, but that a deal on jobless aid was possible if Democrats agreed to cover the cost. Democrats expressed indignation that Republicans were insisting on finding offsetting spending cuts to pay for unemployment benefits while being perfectly willing to add to the national debt the $700 billion cost of continuing the tax cuts for the highest incomes for the next decade.
Oy. And note it's the Senate (as usual) that's the problem. And for those who thought they were voting for "throw the bums out", these new bums are every bit as bad as predicted.
WaPo on the Bush tax cuts:
The discussions, which parallel a more public set of talks, have left many Democrats grousing that the president is being too quick to accommodate GOP.
WSJ on the tax cuts:
The House approved legislation Thursday that would extend current tax rates on income up to $250,000 while allowing taxes on higher earnings to rise, a largely symbolic vote that pointed to divisions among Democrats in the waning days of their dominance on Capitol Hill.
The bill passed 234-188, but 20 Democrats opposed it— mostly lawmakers who lost on Election Day and who agree with Republicans that it is bad policy to let any tax rates rise amid a fragile economy. Three Republicans voted for the bill.
Paul Krugman:
After the Democratic "shellacking" in the midterm elections, everyone wondered how President Obama would respond. Would he show what he was made of? Would he stand firm for the values he believes in, even in the face of political adversity?
On Monday, we got the answer: he announced a pay freeze for federal workers. This was an announcement that had it all. It was transparently cynical; it was trivial in scale, but misguided in direction; and by making the announcement, Mr. Obama effectively conceded the policy argument to the very people who are seeking — successfully, it seems — to destroy him.
So I guess we are, in fact, seeing what Mr. Obama is made of.
No way to sugarcoat it.
Eugene Robinson:
Why did Republicans go to the trouble and expense of winning the midterm elections? It looks like they're about to prove, once again, that you can get your way in Washington without a congressional majority - if you have a firm sense of purpose. Maybe the Democratic Party will find one someday.
Robert Shrum:
Obama can't risk a middle class tax hike that would damage the recovery and hand power to a cynical GOP. So he'll cave on extending tax cuts to the wealthy instead
And on DADT, Mark Blumenthal:
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has raised many objections to a repeal of the military's controversial "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, but this morning he added something new: criticism of the polling methodology behind the massive Department of Defense survey of servicemembers and their spouses released earlier this week.
...
We sometimes overstate the precision of pre-election polls that are often more art than science, but the methodological rigor of the DOD survey puts it in a much different class. "The bottom line," David Wilson explains, "is that this is one of the most scientifically representative studies the military has ever done."
Sen McCain is a blowhard. Don't look to him for fact, integrity or common sense. McCain's stance is prejudice looking for cover, nothing more.