

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Despite loud warnings from many quarters that 'no deal, was better than a bad deal' the US Senate passed a fiscal agreement two hours after midnight in order to meet a self-imposed deficit deal deadline masquerading as a financial crisis.
With bipartisanship evidenced in the 89-8 vote, the agreement was interpreted as a "lousy one" by economist Robert Reich, who had been among those publicly advising Senate Democrats and President Obama to avoid making unnecessary concessions to Republicans in a fight that was contrived to protect the nation's wealthiest from tax increases in the New Year.
Nobel economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman--who spent much of New Year's Eve excoriating President Obama for the direction of developments and calling him the 'world's worst poker player'--argues the deal is less bad than it could have been (given the Obama's earlier willingness to concede much in terms of cuts to social programs), but said the real problem with the deal was the path taken to achieve it.
"[Obama] kept drawing lines in the sand, then erasing them and retreating to a new position," said Krugman in response to the Senate deal. "And his evident desire to have a deal before hitting the essentially innocuous fiscal cliff bodes very badly for the confrontation looming in a few weeks over the debt ceiling."
Enumerating the negative aspects of the deal, Reich explains:
1. Republicans haven't conceded anything on the debt ceiling, so over the next two months - as the Treasury runs out of tricks to avoid a default - Republicans are likely to do exactly what they did before, which is to hold their votes on raising the ceiling hostage to major cuts in programs for the poor and in Medicare and Social Security.
2. The deal makes tax cuts for the rich permanent (extending the Bush tax cuts for incomes up to $400,000 if filing singly and $450,000 if jointly) while extending refundable tax credits for the poor (child tax credit, enlarged EITC, and tuition tax credit) for only five years. There's absolutely no justification for this asymmetry.
3. It doesn't get nearly enough revenue from the wealthiest 2 percent -- only $600 billion over the next decade, which is half of what the President called for, and a small fraction of the White House's goal of more than $4 trillion in deficit reduction. That means more of the burden of tax hikes and spending cuts in future years will fall on the middle class and the poor.
4. It continues to exempt the first $5 million of inherited wealth from the estate tax (the exemption used to be $1 million). This is a huge gift to the heirs of the wealthy, perpetuating family dynasties of the idle rich.
Noam Scheiber, writing at the New Republic, echoes some of these concerns, but also comes down with Krugman when it comes to putting emphasis on the "strategic dimension" of how the deal developed and the manner in which Obama continues to negotiate. Scheiber writes:
[the deal] will reinforce the convictions that have made theGOP such a toxic presence in Washington. If Obama will cave even when he's got all the leverage, when won't he cave? Never, the Republicans will assume. If Obama's too scared to stop bargaining and let the public decide who's right in this instance, when the polls appear to back him, then he must think our position is more popular than he lets on. Suffice it to say, these are not sentiments you want at the front of Republicans' mind as they prepare to shake him down over the debt limit in another two months. The White House continues to maintain that it simply won't negotiate over the limit. After this deal, why would any Republican ever believe this? I certainly don't, and I desperately want to.
As in previous rounds of Obama-GOP negotiations, a lot of liberals are surely hoping that the lunacy of the House Republicans will save us from Obama's overly generous offers. And, it's true, House Republicans can normally be relied upon to reject a deal that's absurdly generous by any objective measure but falls short of their virtue-police standard of purity. They may well do so again tonight, inshallah. But that doesn't solve the broader strategic problem. Obama has already shown his cards on the parameters that will define his negotiations with Republicans throughout his second term. And there's no one to save us from that.
For a summary of what the deal included, the Washington Post's Suzy Khimm provides this rundown:
______________________________
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Despite loud warnings from many quarters that 'no deal, was better than a bad deal' the US Senate passed a fiscal agreement two hours after midnight in order to meet a self-imposed deficit deal deadline masquerading as a financial crisis.
With bipartisanship evidenced in the 89-8 vote, the agreement was interpreted as a "lousy one" by economist Robert Reich, who had been among those publicly advising Senate Democrats and President Obama to avoid making unnecessary concessions to Republicans in a fight that was contrived to protect the nation's wealthiest from tax increases in the New Year.
Nobel economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman--who spent much of New Year's Eve excoriating President Obama for the direction of developments and calling him the 'world's worst poker player'--argues the deal is less bad than it could have been (given the Obama's earlier willingness to concede much in terms of cuts to social programs), but said the real problem with the deal was the path taken to achieve it.
"[Obama] kept drawing lines in the sand, then erasing them and retreating to a new position," said Krugman in response to the Senate deal. "And his evident desire to have a deal before hitting the essentially innocuous fiscal cliff bodes very badly for the confrontation looming in a few weeks over the debt ceiling."
Enumerating the negative aspects of the deal, Reich explains:
1. Republicans haven't conceded anything on the debt ceiling, so over the next two months - as the Treasury runs out of tricks to avoid a default - Republicans are likely to do exactly what they did before, which is to hold their votes on raising the ceiling hostage to major cuts in programs for the poor and in Medicare and Social Security.
2. The deal makes tax cuts for the rich permanent (extending the Bush tax cuts for incomes up to $400,000 if filing singly and $450,000 if jointly) while extending refundable tax credits for the poor (child tax credit, enlarged EITC, and tuition tax credit) for only five years. There's absolutely no justification for this asymmetry.
3. It doesn't get nearly enough revenue from the wealthiest 2 percent -- only $600 billion over the next decade, which is half of what the President called for, and a small fraction of the White House's goal of more than $4 trillion in deficit reduction. That means more of the burden of tax hikes and spending cuts in future years will fall on the middle class and the poor.
4. It continues to exempt the first $5 million of inherited wealth from the estate tax (the exemption used to be $1 million). This is a huge gift to the heirs of the wealthy, perpetuating family dynasties of the idle rich.
Noam Scheiber, writing at the New Republic, echoes some of these concerns, but also comes down with Krugman when it comes to putting emphasis on the "strategic dimension" of how the deal developed and the manner in which Obama continues to negotiate. Scheiber writes:
[the deal] will reinforce the convictions that have made theGOP such a toxic presence in Washington. If Obama will cave even when he's got all the leverage, when won't he cave? Never, the Republicans will assume. If Obama's too scared to stop bargaining and let the public decide who's right in this instance, when the polls appear to back him, then he must think our position is more popular than he lets on. Suffice it to say, these are not sentiments you want at the front of Republicans' mind as they prepare to shake him down over the debt limit in another two months. The White House continues to maintain that it simply won't negotiate over the limit. After this deal, why would any Republican ever believe this? I certainly don't, and I desperately want to.
As in previous rounds of Obama-GOP negotiations, a lot of liberals are surely hoping that the lunacy of the House Republicans will save us from Obama's overly generous offers. And, it's true, House Republicans can normally be relied upon to reject a deal that's absurdly generous by any objective measure but falls short of their virtue-police standard of purity. They may well do so again tonight, inshallah. But that doesn't solve the broader strategic problem. Obama has already shown his cards on the parameters that will define his negotiations with Republicans throughout his second term. And there's no one to save us from that.
For a summary of what the deal included, the Washington Post's Suzy Khimm provides this rundown:
______________________________
Despite loud warnings from many quarters that 'no deal, was better than a bad deal' the US Senate passed a fiscal agreement two hours after midnight in order to meet a self-imposed deficit deal deadline masquerading as a financial crisis.
With bipartisanship evidenced in the 89-8 vote, the agreement was interpreted as a "lousy one" by economist Robert Reich, who had been among those publicly advising Senate Democrats and President Obama to avoid making unnecessary concessions to Republicans in a fight that was contrived to protect the nation's wealthiest from tax increases in the New Year.
Nobel economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman--who spent much of New Year's Eve excoriating President Obama for the direction of developments and calling him the 'world's worst poker player'--argues the deal is less bad than it could have been (given the Obama's earlier willingness to concede much in terms of cuts to social programs), but said the real problem with the deal was the path taken to achieve it.
"[Obama] kept drawing lines in the sand, then erasing them and retreating to a new position," said Krugman in response to the Senate deal. "And his evident desire to have a deal before hitting the essentially innocuous fiscal cliff bodes very badly for the confrontation looming in a few weeks over the debt ceiling."
Enumerating the negative aspects of the deal, Reich explains:
1. Republicans haven't conceded anything on the debt ceiling, so over the next two months - as the Treasury runs out of tricks to avoid a default - Republicans are likely to do exactly what they did before, which is to hold their votes on raising the ceiling hostage to major cuts in programs for the poor and in Medicare and Social Security.
2. The deal makes tax cuts for the rich permanent (extending the Bush tax cuts for incomes up to $400,000 if filing singly and $450,000 if jointly) while extending refundable tax credits for the poor (child tax credit, enlarged EITC, and tuition tax credit) for only five years. There's absolutely no justification for this asymmetry.
3. It doesn't get nearly enough revenue from the wealthiest 2 percent -- only $600 billion over the next decade, which is half of what the President called for, and a small fraction of the White House's goal of more than $4 trillion in deficit reduction. That means more of the burden of tax hikes and spending cuts in future years will fall on the middle class and the poor.
4. It continues to exempt the first $5 million of inherited wealth from the estate tax (the exemption used to be $1 million). This is a huge gift to the heirs of the wealthy, perpetuating family dynasties of the idle rich.
Noam Scheiber, writing at the New Republic, echoes some of these concerns, but also comes down with Krugman when it comes to putting emphasis on the "strategic dimension" of how the deal developed and the manner in which Obama continues to negotiate. Scheiber writes:
[the deal] will reinforce the convictions that have made theGOP such a toxic presence in Washington. If Obama will cave even when he's got all the leverage, when won't he cave? Never, the Republicans will assume. If Obama's too scared to stop bargaining and let the public decide who's right in this instance, when the polls appear to back him, then he must think our position is more popular than he lets on. Suffice it to say, these are not sentiments you want at the front of Republicans' mind as they prepare to shake him down over the debt limit in another two months. The White House continues to maintain that it simply won't negotiate over the limit. After this deal, why would any Republican ever believe this? I certainly don't, and I desperately want to.
As in previous rounds of Obama-GOP negotiations, a lot of liberals are surely hoping that the lunacy of the House Republicans will save us from Obama's overly generous offers. And, it's true, House Republicans can normally be relied upon to reject a deal that's absurdly generous by any objective measure but falls short of their virtue-police standard of purity. They may well do so again tonight, inshallah. But that doesn't solve the broader strategic problem. Obama has already shown his cards on the parameters that will define his negotiations with Republicans throughout his second term. And there's no one to save us from that.
For a summary of what the deal included, the Washington Post's Suzy Khimm provides this rundown:
______________________________