December 7, 2010
IF YOU TAKE AWAY THE SANCTIMONY WHAT DO THEY HAVE LEFT?:
Tax Deal Suggests New Path for Obama (DAVID M. HERSZENHORN and JACKIE CALMES, 12/06/10, NY Times)
Congressional Republicans in recent days have blocked efforts by Democrats to extend the jobless aid, saying they would insist on offsetting the $56 billion cost with spending cuts elsewhere. White House officials said they feared a long standoff that would see benefits end for millions of Americans over the holiday season and in the months ahead.But Mr. Obama made substantial concessions to Republicans. In addition to dropping his opposition to any extension of the current income tax rates on income above $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for individuals, he agreed to a deal on the federal estate tax that infuriated many Democrats. The deal would ultimately set an exemption of $5 million per person and a maximum rate of 35 percent — a higher exemption and far lower rate than many Democrats wanted.
“The House Democrats have not signed off on any deal,” Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who has been representing House Democrats in formal negotiations on the tax issue, said Monday night. “We will thoroughly review and discuss the proposed package in the caucus.”
Some senior Democrats said an agreement by Mr. Obama to accede to Republican demands on the estate tax could lead to a revolt among lawmakers. Mr. Obama noted that he, too, still strongly disagreed with the Republican insistence on extending the tax breaks for the highest earners. “Ever since I started running for this office, I’ve said that we should only extend the tax cuts for the middle class,” he said, acknowledging that he had been thwarted in one of the chief goals of his presidency.
Obama Defends Deal, Fumes at "Sanctimonious" Left (Michael Crowley, December 7, 2010, TIME)
Having positioned himself as the protector of the public from Washington political games, Obama lashed out at his liberal critics with striking pique. He recalled criticism that his health care reform plan amounted to a huge disappointment because it lacked the "public option" cherished by liberals. "If that's the standard by which we are measuring success or core principles, then let's face it," Obama said, with his voice rising and acquiring a sharp edge,we will never get anything done. People will have the satisfaction of having a purist position, and no victories for the American people. And we will be able to feel good about ourselves and sanctimonious about how pure our intentions are, and how tough we are -- and in the meantime the American people are still saying to themselves, not able to get health insurance because of pre-existing conditions, or not being able to pay their bills because unemployment insurance ran out. That can't be the measure of how we think about our public service. That can't be the measure of what it means to be a Democrat. This is a big diverse country, not everybody agrees with us. I know that shocks people. The New York Times editorial page does not permeate across America. Neither does the Wall Street Journal editorial page.
Tough stuff--not just angry but arguably even condescending--and sure to further alienate the "professional left." That said, it's not news that the Obama and his aides feel this way. It is striking, however to see Obama say it with such obvious irritation.
