How About A Veto Promise Now?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 09:25:49 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Rather than rehash why I think "The Deal," which appears to be doing for President Obama's popularity what "The Decision" did for LeBron James' popularity, is a terrible mistake (looking through the writings in the blogs on it, my thoughts are in mostly in line with David Dayen's, the President is trading government spending stimulus for tax cut stimulus in the short term (watch the GOP slash spending in the next budget) AND destroying the long term outlook for funding critical government programs such as Medicaid at the same time), I'm going to offer my view of what the President might do to limit the damage of this terrible decision. Greg Sargent gets at a major problem for Obama:

[L]iberals and Dems just don't believe the tax cuts for the rich will ever expire, no matter how firm Obama's vow to have this fight again in 2012.

Greg understates the case though - Right now NO ONE believes Obama will hold the line on tax cuts for the wealthy EVER. That is Obama's problem.

My suggestion to the President is to say now in unequivocal no wiggle words (even though pols wiggle out of these statements anyway) that tax cuts for the wealthy will not be extended by him after The Deal expires.

The President must say that he will veto any legislation that extends tax cuts for the wealthy. He should have said it about The Deal. But at least he can say it about After The Deal.

Will no one believe him? Perhaps. But it can't hurt. The fact that he has not talked about After The Deal is one of his problems it seems to me.

Speaking for me only

< Saturday Morning Open Thread | What The GOP Will Do In 2012 On Taxes >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

How About A Veto Promise Now? | 60 comments (60 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

He looks overjoyed by the (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by observed on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 09:42:47 AM EST

deal, and not least because Dems hate it.

The promise of such a veto (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by andgarden on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 09:47:27 AM EST

would probably be enough to gain my support--and enough to scuttle the deal with Republicans.

So no, Obama has no credibility on ending the tax cuts now. The mere announcement of the deal probably made that prospect impossible for the next generation.

Even (5.00 / 6) (#6)
by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 10:09:22 AM EST

if he does what you say, who would believe him? He's been saying no tax cuts for the wealthy for quite a while and here he is extending it.

Promises (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Stellaaa on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 10:13:14 AM EST

What if any promises has Obama kept?

Well he did promise to put Social Security (5.00 / 3) (#12)
by MO Blue on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 10:39:13 AM EST

on the table and he is definitely doing that. From his actions to date, it looks like he has done a really good job of keeping the promises he made to the people who provided the seed money for him to run for president. Wall Street is being taken care of extremely well. Main Street not so much.


Well ... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by FreakyBeaky on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 04:39:35 PM EST

HCR (weak, but there it is), pulling s l o w l y out of Iraq (mostly done), doubling down on Afghanistan (done)?

I think he's mostly done, or at least tried to do, what he said he was going to, the way he said he was going to do it. That's the problem.

A better question might be "What if any of what was projected on to him has he lived up to?" The answer - "Not much" - shouldn't be a surprise.


HCR? No, that would be health CARE reform -- and (5.00 / 2) (#52)
by jawbone on Sun Dec 12, 2010 at 10:39:49 AM EST

Obama wanted and got health INSURANCE reform and profit protection for those same insurance companies by giving them mandated customers.

And he continually lied to the public about something referred to as "the public option," amorphous as it was. He'd made deals with PhRMA, hospitals, insurers from the git go that there would be no public option.


: Distinction w/o a difference IMO (none / 0) (#60)
by FreakyBeaky on Thu Dec 16, 2010 at 10:08:33 AM EST

Even the French get health care through health insurance in which they are required to participate (through taxes). It's just a matter of who pays and how it's implemented. There's no reason a private-insurance system can't work (e.g., Germany, Japan) if it's appropriately (i.e., heavily) regulated - that's where our HCR is nowhere near strong enough.
The other problem is that health insurance and big pharma are entrenched political powers. Your option other than buying them off is basically insurrection.

He did talk with dictators with no preconditions (5.00 / 3) (#42)
by ruffian on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 08:27:43 PM EST

in his first year in office. I speak of course of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell.


: rim shot (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by MO Blue on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 08:34:38 PM EST

He promised to work with the Republicans (4.00 / 2) (#28)
by Inspector Gadget on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 02:44:20 PM EST

and to find compromises. He has done that. Only problem is the Republicans keep getting what they want, then voting NAY so the Democrats get exposed for the weak spines they have. Good intentions are paving the way to a really lousy future.


: I actually disagree that Obama (5.00 / 4) (#29)
by MO Blue on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 03:05:41 PM EST

has worked to find compromises between Democratic and Republican policies.
By definition a compromise is a give and take agreement. Adopting Republican policies outright and actually giving up more than they would request in a negotiation is not a compromise by any definition that I'm familiar with.

I don't think anyone will believe him. (5.00 / 6) (#9)
by masslib on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 10:22:46 AM EST

I think this is a terrible mistake. When this country seems a Democratic Party and Democratic President embrace Bush tax policy by passing these cuts exclusively for the wealthy, I think they will have lost all credibility. This was a cornerstone of the platform in 2006 and 2008. I mean, I just have no idea what Democrats stand for if they don't stand for modestly progressive taxation.

Obama's tax plan actually gives more (5.00 / 9) (#16)
by MO Blue on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 10:59:19 AM EST

tax breaks to the wealthy than Bush's plan. link

Republican plan Obama plan

200,000 - 500,000 7,151 10,985
500,000 - 1,000,000 17,467 24,894
1,000,000 + 103,835 139,692

The chart was hard for me to read so a few of the numbers in the last 3 digits may be off slightly. IOW 139,692 could be 130,892 but the point remains that Obama's Tax Plan is more generous to the rich than Bush's. Also, Obama's plan increases taxes for people with incomes of $20,000 to $40,000.

So much for Obama's promise not to raise taxes on people making less than $200,000. Obama's promises to regular folks have IMO been proven worthless. A promise of a veto in 2 years would be just as worthless.


Yes, and we will be borrowing the (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by KeysDan on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 06:33:35 PM EST

money needed to give the tax cuts to the richest of the rich from the Chinese and increasing our debt and deficit.


And (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by cal1942 on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 08:37:42 PM EST

Giving a case to the GOP and conservative Democrats in Congress to cut spending all the more.


And if you know that, (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by NYShooter on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 11:18:49 PM EST

How come the geniuses in the White House can't figure out how to tell the American people that? Are there no P.R. people there? This is a gigantic slam-dunk for the President, and if he'd just get off his high horse and tell the public what's so painfully obvious to everyone here, he'd have a winner.

Don't the Democrats remember how George Bush (the Poppy) wiped out a 17 point Dukakis lead overnight with one little "Willie Horton" ad?

Gee whiz people, the ads almost write themselves.


: Because Obama is doing what he wants to do -- (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by jawbone on Sun Dec 12, 2010 at 10:45:48 AM EST

Once we view him as a conservative, a Repub conservative (not just the Blue Dog Dem he self-identified as), then his actions make perfect sense.
Why does he do what he does?
All together now: "Because he's a conservative!"

Obama has given Democrats (4.63 / 8) (#24)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 12:21:43 PM EST

No reason to vote for him over a Republican anymore. I predict Democrats will be staying home en masse. I suspect that's what Mr. Obama wants. Judging from his performance yesterday, he finds the act of dealing with issues kind of tiresome, so he really doesn't want to be president anymore. But he won't step down and let a real Democrat possibly win the election because he really isn't a Democrat and doesn't want a Democrat to win.

So he gets the best of both worlds. He "retires" and he retires to Republican hands.


There's ALWAYS a reason why Democrats (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Inspector Gadget on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 02:40:24 PM EST

should NOT VOTE FOR A REPUBLICAN. Find a better Democrat. Get the party to understand they MUST get back to their core principles if the party is to survive. Flood the democrat's mailboxes with letters, emails, and voicemails.

He is hardly the ONLY democrat. The Republicans could give him reason to withdraw from the 2012 election if they cause him enough grief. The man does not like conflict.


Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#30)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 03:20:47 PM EST

My point was that Democrats don't really have a choice in 2012. It will be Republican versus Republican.

Finding a better Democrat isn't an option. Obama is the only Democrat running in 2012. And we shouldn't hold our breath waiting for him to drop out. He won't. I hope I'm wrong.

The Democrats know exactly what they're doing. The only thing that will change their behavior is to lose elections. Period.

I've done plenty of calling and writing. My most recent writing to Patty Murray about the health care bill resulted in a form letter stating how wonderful it was...absolutely infuriating while I watch my rates continue to go up exhorbitantly and my benefits actually CUT because of enactment of "reform" in my policy.....It does no good to contact your rep. YOU aren't their real constituent.


: We have a "Democratic" (5.00 / 2) (#32)
by observed on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 03:25:45 PM EST

President who is demonstrably more conservative and more authoritarian than W., if not possibly even clueless. It's an epic disaster.

Obama needs to decide to spend more time with his (5.00 / 2) (#53)
by jawbone on Sun Dec 12, 2010 at 10:43:20 AM EST

family...soon. I doubt many Dems feel they could primary him without causing a schism in the party, primarily along racial lines.

The money men who worked to get Obama into office knew what they were doing. The Dem Party has been neutered.

Obama may well cause it to destroy itself.


He can't handle conflict or criticism (none / 0) (#48)
by BrassTacks on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 11:10:28 PM EST

How did we elect someone so thin skinned to the Presidency? A mistake of epic proportions.


My thoughts exactly! (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by BrassTacks on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 10:53:25 PM EST

Obama doesn't like the job of President. He's sick of all of it. He's sick of the criticism. He's sick of the squabbling and the politics of it. He knows little about how to get things done win Washington and he doesn't much care. He's no LBJ and he's no Bill Clinton! Letting Bill Clinton handle the presser was one more bit of evidence that Obama just doesn't care. He's done with all of it, except the perks, Air Force One, golfing, and vacations. Those seem to be the only parts of the job that he enjoys. But I don't see him not running again in 2012. He's a bit to ego driven for that. While he may not care about the country, or the people in it, he sure seems to care about what they say about him!


Errr (none / 0) (#25)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 12:22:25 PM EST

...staying home en masse in 2012.

More coffee


The Tax Deal is causing erosion of support (5.00 / 3) (#10)
by Politalkix on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 10:28:33 AM EST

in "values electorate" amongst Independents and Democrats. How can the President not understand that?

BTD, have you read this post by Mark Penn? (5.00 / 3) (#11)
by masslib on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 10:36:48 AM EST

Yeah, I know, Mark Penn. But I think this is exactly the sort of thing pollsters are whispering in the ears of the President and his Party. Indeed, I would argue Obama already governs in such a manner, and I don't see it as a winning proposition for the Party.

What Penn seems to be arguing for is embracing Bush economics, while being liberal on the social issues. That this will win over the 100k in income and over folks, and if we fight for immigration reform we can solidify support among latinos without worrying about the traditional bread and butter issues. His entire pitch seems completely devoid of principles, where Democrats simply play socially liberal Republicans. But when you think about it, in many ways, I think this is how Obama already governs. When was the last time you heard this President seriously talk about the minimum wage? Embracing Bush tax policy is the icing on the cake.

: Yup (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by cal1942 on Sun Dec 12, 2010 at 09:40:41 AM EST

A part of today's Democratic Party, the part with access to big money, has bought into that notion.
The notion that one is somehow 'liberal' even while abandoning economic justice is, IMO, a crock.
A significant part of the party believes that victory can be achieved with a coalition of women, minorities, professionals and WITHOUT the working class.
So there's a battle for the soul of the party that's been going on for some time now.
They, the Mark Penns and other elitists (including, IMO, the Obama crowd) in the party, are dead wrong IMO and the nation and its people will pay a terrible price.
Apparently principle (a quaint old fashioned notion) is not part of the equation with these people.

: As if another trillion (none / 0) (#14)
by observed on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 10:45:18 AM EST

is nothing---sheesh!

: Except Obama isn't all that SOCIALLY LIBERAL! (none / 0) (#55)
by jawbone on Sun Dec 12, 2010 at 10:47:38 AM EST

No, Obama is a not a Northeastern Moderate Republican of the good old days; Obama is a conservative...in Dem's clothing.

"And this time, I mean it!" (5.00 / 5) (#13)
by Anne on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 10:40:11 AM EST

is what it would sound like to me - it already sounds like that to me.

And he absolutely just doesn't get that no one is hearing the modifying word "temporary" with which he prefaces "extension," and I think he's really getting irritated that no one's applauding this big concession he's so proud he got from the GOP which wanted "permanent."

Guess he's still fine-tuning that message...

I'm pretty sure that, after the GOP and Obama get to work on tax reform in 2011, and start making those tough choices on spending that will ensue when they contemplate the huge hole in the deficit - how'd that happen? - this tax deal is going to make, and the economy inexplicably (well, inexplicable only to those who think tax cuts create jobs and growth) doesn't rebound, he will, with a heavy heart and a we-have-no-choice attitude, announce that these "temporary" measures are going to have to be extended...

And since it's not going to help the economy then, anymore than it's going to help it much now, they are going to be quite puzzled when, after all their "hard work on behalf of the American people," they get booted out on their asses in 2012.

Will Republicans be better? Of course not. But, maybe if we start regarding this administration as a Republican one, it would give us more options for pushing back and finding a more suitable Democrat to run in 2012. The current occupant of the WH is never, ever going to morph into the kind of Democrat we desperately need.

Me? I'm praying for gridlock; I think it's the only thing that's going to stop the damage from getting exponentially worse in the next two years. Considering that I have yet to get what I want in this arena, I'm pretty sure I won't get that, either.

I loved that Obama talked about... (5.00 / 3) (#18)
by Dadler on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 11:32:29 AM EST

...Republican belief in tax cuts for the rich, and I paraphrase him, is one of their pillars of economic belief, and he just accepted that explanation and went along. Would have been nice to hear a Dem president say, sorry, that's not one of my pillars, in fact it's a pillar that harms the nation and needs to be torn down.

One can only conclude, on some very profound level, that Obama is a supply-sider at heart. Either that or he thinks proper governance only possible when he's handed a congress and senate to slavishly in love with him that passing legislation requires no effort or fight at all.

I need a Bloody Mary.


honestly (5.00 / 3) (#21)
by The Addams Family on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 11:50:56 AM EST

One can only conclude, on some very profound level, that Obama is a supply-sider at heart.

i don't think Obama has enough of a clue to espouse any economic ideology

i can only conclude that Obama is a great campaigner & an incompetent president who is in way over his head on economic policy & many other things


: I concur, but... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by Dadler on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 04:52:20 PM EST

...I still think his leanings are conservative, and he views genuine progressive economics with grave suspicion.

Waiting for Godot, it seems (5.00 / 3) (#19)
by polizeros on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 11:40:11 AM EST

Do you really think Obama is somehow going to realize the error of his ways then morph into Liberalman and do the right thing?

Has he shown even the slightest indication of wanting to do this?

> The President must say that he will veto any legislation that extends tax cuts for the wealthy.

I understand your sentiment but hoping he will do so is beyond wishful thinking.

What I still can't figure out (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by rennies on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 11:54:13 AM EST

is why Democrats drank the Koolaid in the first place (in the primaries). He lied blatantly during the campaign (FISA), reversed his position on campaign financing, and had no signs on his resume that he could lead.

There's a (5.00 / 4) (#23)
by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 12:08:22 PM EST

few reasons IMO

Since he was AA and a Dem, soft racism played into their thinking making them think he was "progressive".
They really, really wanted an AA president to "reward" AA voters for their years of loyalty to the party.
The fell for the lies about him being anti-Iraq war even though there are numerous quotes of him sounding just like Joe Lieberman regarding the Iraq War.
They have a deep seated hatred of women as authority figures. I see this even now where Palin gets trashed more than any other Republican.
They hate Bill Clinton but embrace Jimmy Carter so maybe they dont' like successful Presidents?

An absurd analysis (none / 0) (#31)
by BobTinKY on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 03:22:07 PM EST

deep seated hatred of women in authority????

Palin deserves to be trashed for being dangerously stupid, not because she is a woman.

I voted for OBama thinking his policies were nearly identical to HRC, who I believe is the most hawkish and therefore unacceptable Dems of national stature. Between the two of them I believed Obama had the most ability to learn and grow. & therefor offered the greatest probability fo a progressive administration.

I was wrong about him, but that does not make me wrong about her. She wants to attack Iran, her and Gates are leading the chorus within the Administration.


Well, (5.00 / 4) (#33)
by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 03:53:44 PM EST

since they trashed Hillary many of the same talking points that's where I get my opinion from. So many of them did not attack her policy which IS insane but trashed her personally.

No, she does not want to attack Iran and I'm afraid that Obama being as weak as he is will get talked into it.

The odd thing is Obama fooled a lot of people who didn't really want to see who he is.

Her policies and his policies on the economy could not have been more different. The only difference was foreign policy where you knew where she stood and he was all over the place but now you have the same foreign policy.


: policies on the economy (5.00 / 2) (#40)
by noholib on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 07:17:05 PM EST

I agree with the last paragraph. She's always been more liberal (in a traditional Democratic sense) than he on domestic economic issues.

Grow and learn?? (5.00 / 3) (#46)
by BrassTacks on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 11:03:04 PM EST

That's what we say about a seven year old! Not someone who is running for President!
America was foolish. They believed what they wanted to believe with NO evidence whatsoever.


Please! No more promises (5.00 / 3) (#27)
by oldpro on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 02:40:57 PM EST

from this president...a veto threat the least believable of all.

The veto king was Bill Clinton and although he can't/won't say it publicly, no doubt he's telling a clueless and feckless Obama in private to FOCUS! Bill did NOT look happy to me to be called in to rescue the president from hmself.

No wonder Newt is back for a second try at taking down a 'Dem president!'

Why on earth (none / 0) (#38)
by BackFromOhio on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 06:53:00 PM EST

did Bill do this; I understand being a party loyalist, but in supporting non-Dem policies? Now is the time for wise ones to speak the truth, IMO


His wife is in the cabinet... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by oldpro on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 06:57:15 PM EST

and he could hardly refuse. That would have created problems for her with Obama and Michelle. Besides...he got out a double message...one of the few Democrats who did.


My response is (none / 0) (#56)
by BackFromOhio on Sun Dec 12, 2010 at 11:33:23 AM EST

so what if his wife is SoS? Does this mean those who care about real Dem values should allow themselves to be used by the chief enabler of the Norquist policy? I've always been one of Bill Clinton's staunchest supporters. But I do not support his support of Obama's deal, and I think now is the time for people who care about the future of the nation to speak out.


Didn't BC say this was (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by nycstray on Sun Dec 12, 2010 at 01:14:16 PM EST

the best deal O could get? There's prob a lot of truth to that . . . .


I don't agree at all (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by BackFromOhio on Sun Dec 12, 2010 at 02:47:09 PM EST

Obama could use the fact that 1/1 all tax cuts for the wealthy expire, and any new bill Repub Cong proposes for cutting taxes for the wealthy could be vetoed by him, but no, as others here have pointed out, Obama is of the Austen Goolsby et al school of economics which is Repub -- trickle down, etc. In my opinion, it's voodoo economics, because there isn't any empirical support for the notion that tax cuts for the wealthy will create economic or jobs growth, and there is in fact evidence that since taxes were cut for the wealthy under Pres. Bush, we've lost tons of jobs and the economy has faltered.


: I think I was too subtle (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by nycstray on Sun Dec 12, 2010 at 03:27:05 PM EST

it's not the best deal we could have gotten, it's the best deal Obama could have gotten for us with his beliefs and negotiation tactics. Bloomberg essentially said the same as BC.
Expecting a good Dem deal outta Obama is prob pretty much futile.

Read my lips: this veto promise (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by observed on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 04:53:35 PM EST

is a bad idea.

What would it help if he made such a promise? (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by ruffian on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 08:25:25 PM EST

It would not make anyone any happier now. No one would believe it, and it would just be one more promise he would not keep.

If he believes it so strongly he can show us in two years. (assuming he is not going to show us now)

This tax cut is permanent (5.00 / 3) (#47)
by BrassTacks on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 11:07:20 PM EST

Democrats have fussed about it for 10 years and done nothing. Anyone who doesn't believe that it's now permanent, is being as naive as the masses who believed that this experienced man could really change anything in Washington. It's also the beginning of the end for SS because the President is not going to be campaigning in 2012 and supporting raising the SS tax back to what it was. No Presidential candidate EVER campaigns on increasing taxes, especially a payroll tax. That's permanent too, and the beginning of the end of SS.

Who would have ever thought that a democrat President would do this? Very sad for all of us.

: Only Nixon (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by cal1942 on Sun Dec 12, 2010 at 09:53:32 AM EST

could go to China. So only a Democrat can destroy Social Security.
He said he was willing to put Social Security on the line during the primaries.
During the primaries I felt he'd do great damage to the Democratic Party. All he needed to affect that damage was to be elected.

has Obama used the veto (none / 0) (#3)
by jeffinalabama on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 09:50:56 AM EST

yet? He's gotten all he wanted so far, right? Wasn't there one pocket veto?

Yes (none / 0) (#4)
by jbindc on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 09:55:18 AM EST

A bill in October that would have required states to recognize documents notarized in other states.


Let's hope he recognizes the power (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by jeffinalabama on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 09:59:15 AM EST

of the veto, and walks away, at least a few steps, from bipartisainship for the sake of bipartisainship.


oh (5.00 / 0) (#8)
by The Addams Family on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 10:17:56 AM EST

pocket veto of

a bill in October that would have required states to recognize documents notarized in other states

11th-dimensional-chess method of upholding Proposition 8 (ruled on in August) if the Supremes end up striking it down?


Hmmmmm..... (none / 0) (#15)
by jbindc on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 10:50:47 AM EST

Never thought of that.


Me neither... (none / 0) (#17)
by jeffinalabama on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 11:04:46 AM EST

I thought it was about the forclosure fiasco.


: that was my first thought too (none / 0) (#20)
by The Addams Family on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 11:47:44 AM EST

then i thought . . . hmmm, a twofer
from what i've seen of Obama, i could not really say that back-door reinstatement of Prop. 8 w/b an "unintended consequence" . . .