Why Barack Obama Compromised On Tax Cuts

Long before the midterm ballots had been counted, White House aides had begun to mull the coming agony of divided government. As the Obama team worked out its options, one priority kept coming to the top: However, the next two years shook out, they told themselves, Barack Obama needed to convince the great middle of the American electorate once again that he was fighting for them.

On Monday night, just in time for most nightly news casts, Barack Obama stood behind a podium to announce his first major gambit in this new quest, a costly compromise “framework” on tax cuts that gave Republicans a major prize, Democrats several minor prizes, and a chance for the president to position himself as a man above the Washington fray, doing what needs to be done for the American people. “I’m not willing to let working families become collateral damage,” Obama said. “The American people didn’t send us here to fight symbolic battles or win symbolic victories.”

The president presented a series of major concessions to the Republican Party, proposals he had campaigned against and with which he said he still disagreed. For two years, expiring income tax cuts put into place by President Bush would be extended for all income groups, including the richest two percent of households. A cut on the estate tax would also be extended, in a modified form, with no taxes on the first $5 million of inheritance and a 35% tax on everything else.

In exchange, Obama said he had secured an extension of unemployment benefits for 13 months and a number of tax cuts, for education expenses, families with children and the low income from the 2009 Recovery Act that were set to expire. One of those tax cuts, which had long been criticized by Republicans, the Making Work Pay Tax Credit, would be traded for a similarly generous 2 percent decrease in the payroll tax for workers. There was also a deal to extend certain business incentives.

A cynic could read the deal, which still needs to be accepted by rank and file members of Congress, as a classic Washington giveaway. In order to gain acceptance for budget-busting benefits that Republicans wanted, Obama had negotiated budget-busting benefits that Democrats wanted. The White House offered no estimates for the costs of the two-year deal Monday night, but it is likely to cost as much as $200 or $300 billion $900 billion (it’s hard to know without a proper score of the proposal), money that will simply be borrowed with expectation that another generation can foot the bill.

But at the White House, where there is much anxiety about the staggering performance of the economy, this is considered a victory. In crafting the compromise, Obama may be able to effectively sneak another stimulus bill through Congress, by capitalizing on the Republican habit of refusing to acknowledge the deficit impact of tax cuts.

Moody’s economist Mark Zandi, who advises both political parties, estimates that every dollar of federal spending on unemployment benefits would give a $1.60 jolt to the economy. Every dollar spent on a payroll tax holiday would give a $1.24 jolt. And every dollar spent on extending the Bush tax cuts would result in a much smaller, 34 cent jolt to the economy, in part because much of that money is likely to be saved. “In the current environment, emergency unemployment insurance is much more efficacious that tax cuts for upper income groups,” said Zandi, in an email to TIME. “Given the fragility of the recovery, however, I would do both.”

Privately, Obama aides still smart at the cost of giving roughly $60 billion a year for two years to the nation’s richest households. The president’s economic advisors have estimated that the multiplier effect for tax cuts to those making more than $250,000 a year is probably between ten and twenty cents on the dollar, or about nine times less effective than unemployment benefits.

But in the current environment, this may have been the only way that Obama could fire another fiscal jolt into the economy. Zandi’s estimated that if both the expiring tax cuts and the unemployment insurance program expired in 2011, the hit to the economy would approach $375 billion, or 2.5% of GDP, a number large enough to wipe out any real gains and likely return the country to recession.

In his address, Obama made it clear that he hopes to fight these battles again in his reelection, when the tax cuts again expire in two years. “I’m confident that as we make tough choices about bringing our deficit down, as I engage in a conversation with the American people about the hard choices we’re going to have to make to secure our future, and our children’s future, and our grandchildren’s future, it will become apparent that we cannot afford to extend those tax cuts any longer,” Obama said.

But for that to happen, he will need an economy that is growing faster than it is today. And he will need to have regained the trust of a majority of American voters. This first compromise, he and his aides hope, is a start in that direction.

Related Topics: Barack Obama, Budgets, Democratic Party, Economy
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • stuartzechman

    at the White House, where there is much anxiety about the staggering performance of the economy, this is considered a victory
    .
    That pretty much says it all, doesn’t it?

  • Cliff

    Why Barack Obama Compromised On Tax Cuts:
    .
    Because he doesn’t know what the hell he’s doing.
    .
    There, saved you eleven paragraphs.

  • mni08

    Why Barack Obama Compromised On Tax Cuts:

    Because he doesn’t have a backbone.

    This is someone who promised to bring a gun to a knife fight but did not even show up to the fight. . . yawn.

  • lilaland

    “Why Barack Obama Compromised On Tax Cuts”

    Because he has started smoking pot again.
    “It’s all cool man. Pass me the joint.”

  • lilaland

    Weed is such a social drug.. he said something like that once. Everyone gets along when they are high.

    This one goes out to Obama and the republicans he has been meeting with.

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    I wonder if independents can replace the entire Democratic base, who are probably done with this compromising weakling for sure now.

  • http://milascurtains.wordpress.com milascurtains

    how about to think, before typing stupidities here, you, brainless??????

    Maybe you have any idea?????

    You are just barking points same as palin.
    What a shame!

  • Paul-no not that one

    “Obama made it clear that he hopes to fight these battles again in his reelection, when the tax cuts again expire in two years.”
    .
    Honest to Pete, did he hire Shrum? The near uninterrupted string of bad policy combined with bad politics is staggering.

  • Art Pepper

    If you think the tax cuts will actually expire in two years, you’re smoking the same thing that Obama is smoking.
    .
    Obama may be able to effectively able to sneak another stimulus bill through Congress, by capitalizing on the Republican habit of refusing to acknowledge the deficit impact of tax cuts.
    .
    That is 100% unadulterated B.S.

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    Obama will be real tough next time around, no more compromising from him. He will be like a giant pillar of iron ore.
    .
    The Left needs a new party to support, or a few real Liberals who are not afraid to use the same tactics as the Right to get what they want. If there are any real Liberals left in the party a good time to act would be now, to stop this deal.

  • lilaland

    I seriously need some of that high grade pharmaceutical stuff Obama and the republicans have been toking together in their twinkie and slurpee love summits.
    The world is burning.. but hey, it’s all good.

  • lilaland

    Lets keep doing what we have been doing.. maybe there are purple micro dots at the bottom of the abyss. Cool man, we are on a magic carpet ride, into the flames man.
    Burn baby burn. We better spend it all because we can’t take it with us!

  • Cliff

    how about to think, before typing stupidities here, you, brainless??????
    .
    That pretty much sums up my feelings too.

  • Cliff

    That is Scherer trying his hand at steering the conventional wisdom.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    The Krug Sunday:

    “America, however, cannot afford to make those cuts permanent. We’re talking about almost $4 trillion in lost revenue just over the next decade; over the next 75 years, the revenue loss would be more than three times the entire projected Social Security shortfall. So giving in to Republican demands would mean risking a major fiscal crisis — a crisis that could be resolved only by making savage cuts in federal spending.

    And we’re not talking about government programs nobody cares about: the only way to cut spending enough to pay for the Bush tax cuts in the long run would be to dismantle large parts of Social Security and Medicare.”

  • Art Pepper

    to dismantle large parts of Social Security and Medicare

    Coincidentally, the GOP’s long-term objective, no?

  • liberalmeltdown

    He did it because he likes to hear wailing and gnashing of teeth from the rabid left.
    .
    Seriously, did he have a choice? Didn’t the Democrats just loose 85 House seats?
    .
    Here are the answers: No and Yes.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    Well, yes, the GOP and a coterie of traitorous swine who’ve destroyed the democratic party.

    http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=510&kaid=125&subid=165

    And it’s funny that even the Krug apparently considers the empire sacrosanct.

  • 3xfire3

    It is interesting to watch the Left turn on the Great one. It shows that even though Obama is a Liberal, he is not Liberal enough to satisfy many of the more extreme Liberal-Progressives in the Democratic Party.
    .
    Most Swamp liberals are Extremist. They have always given that impression from their posts on this site. Now they have proven it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
    .
    The Tax rate extension is done. Learn to live with it. Common Sense has prevailed again. As November 2 proved, the American public gets it right most of the time.

  • stuartzechman

    Let’s just get this precise, OK?
    .
    to dismantle large parts of Social Security and Medicare
    .
    Coincidentally, the GOP’s long-term objective, no?”

    .
    Yes, the GOP wants to dismantle entitlements.
    .
    Movement conservatives think that the money that goes into state coffers would be better spent “freely” in the private economy, thus providing prosperity for all, and therefore making state-based economic safety nets unnecessary (except for the tiny minority of unfortunates and reprobates, who would be cared for by private charities), whilst simultaneously ridding the government of wasteful, inefficient bureaucracy, corrupting political patronage and poor prioritization.
    .
    But no, Third Way centrists do not want to dismantle entitlements, even though they partially agree with those criticisms from the right.
    .
    Third Way centrists want to “save” entitlements, which means three things:
    .
    1) reform efforts must embrace the rightists’ critique as valid, and attempt to at least rhetorically address technocracy-based conservative criticism, such that reform is trans-partisan
    .
    2) reform must create a class of corporate stakeholders in entitlements, so that the state and populace can be joined by big finance/industry as interested parties invested in the future existence of the program
    .
    3) reform must create the conditions whereby movement liberalism (whom the center blames for rightist political ascendancy, and the incompetent policy orthodoxy that makes reform “necessary”) is rhetorically rejected and politically suppressed
    .
    These are not the same goals or methods at all.
    .
    The only aspects of entitlement reform shared by both right and center are that they will both
    .
    1) opportunistically use shock and economic disruption as launching pads for their long-held radical and ideologically-based programs, and
    .
    2) make life much, much worse for ordinary people while in pursuit of realizing ideological fantasies and political power
    .
    To assume that the centrists are identical to the rightists because they’re both supremely interested in reforming entitlements for the worse is not only to be simplistic, but also to be misdirected for the purposes of predicting and ultimately effectively opposing these two ideologies from the left.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    SZ,
    .
    Agreed, but doesn’t A&B are both “supremely interested in reforming entitlements for the worse” come across more palatably.
    .
    I’ll just throw this out there–I’m still feeling pretty vile from some intestinal interloper, so bear with me.
    .
    Seriously, as a wonk, as a D-party redemption strategist, as a merely engaged, educated consumer of political news, your analysis is spot-on. In terms of somehow conveying three realities in place of what Americans have taken for two for generations, such precision is hopeless.
    .
    Perhaps it can gain enough traction in dem primaries that it’ll turn the tide against corporate patronage and slick marketing rhetoric (& Black Eyed Peas). In general elections, it’s way too complex, nuanced–as Jay Rosen said of his media philosophy “complicated.”
    .
    The strategy IMO is to emphasize always first what liberals believe, what liberals would be doing in place of Obama, not expending nearly as much air elucidating who these swine are, what they or their think-tanks are about. We are liberals, we are populists, and this is what we believe, this is what we did in the past when we had the chance and this is what we will (hopefully) do in the future if this rigged experiment in democracy ever gives us another shot (especially after this latest “liberal” president is shown the door).
    .
    Again, everything you have to offer on this issue is deeply valuable, but as a resonant template for electoral success, in terms of emphasis and simplistic messaging, you get the limitations right?

  • stuartzechman

    Obama is not a liberal.
    .
    We’re not extremists, we’re just liberals.
    .
    Conservatives seem to like to call anyone who is not a conservative:
    .
    A) a liberal
    .
    B) an extreme, far left liberal
    .
    C) an extreme, far left liberal and socialist
    .
    Obama is none of those, although he did manage to convince many liberal Democrats that he was A), probably because of the time and effort spent during an extended presidential primary in which he was forced to compete for liberal Democratic votes for far longer than expected.
    .
    Movement liberals are discouraged by Obama’s politics and policies because it is becoming quite apparent that neither are liberal.
    .
    It had been argued prior to this “Read My Lips: No New Tax Cuts for the Bailed-Out Rich” moment that Obama was constrained to governing in as liberal a manner as he could. Now we are seeing that this isn’t a liberal government at all, because the contrasts are too clear to be dismissed by partisan Democrats trying to shore up flagging support.
    .
    By the way: if you’re somehow making the argument that Obama did the popular thing by giving the wealthy their own, massive bonus tax break, you’re wrong on the facts:

    Four in ten questioned in a USA Today/Gallup survey released Wednesday say that the cuts should be extended for all Americans, with 44 percent saying they support extending the tax breaks but setting limits on how much of wealthy Americans’ income is eligible for the lower rates, and 13 percent saying the cuts should be allowed to expire at the end of the year.
    .
    An Associated Press-CNBC poll released Tuesday indicates that half questioned wanted tax cuts to be extended only for families making under $250,000 a year, with 34 percent saying they should be extended for all Americans, and 14 percent calling for the cuts to sunset for everyone at the end of the year.
    .
    Forty-nine percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey conducted in the middle of November said the tax cuts should be extended for families making less than $250,000 a year, with another 15 percent that said the cuts should not be extended for anyone. That left 35 percent who favor an extension of the tax cuts for all Americans regardless of how much money they make.

    With poll numbers like these in favor of the middle-class only tax cuts he promised, ran and won the Presidency on, Obama wasn’t using good old American common sense today when he failed to heed the wishes of the electorate.
    .
    The American people got it right in not desiring an extra massive tax break for the Paris Hiltons of the world, as they do most of the time, that’s true enough.
    .
    But common sense did not prevail, and Obama got it wrong.
    .
    Because we liberals stand with the majority of Americans on this issue, it can’t be honestly argued that we’re out of the mainstream for insisting that Obama do what’s right and what’s popular.
    .
    It’s not us who are radical for dedicating themselves in ideologically pure (or corrupt, take your pick) fashion to worthless compromise (Obama) or the rich getting away with more loopholes (GOP), it’s the politicians in Washington who just made a deal opposed for good reason by most Americans.

  • Art Pepper

    Stuart: Right – I’m not saying that Obama is some kind of Manchurian candidate who shares the GOP’s objectives with respect to Social Security and Medicare.
    .
    I mean, I think that Obama is making a pragmatic decision to save unemployment benefits et al. in the face of the GOP’s hostage tactics.
    .
    But it’s playing into the GOP’s long-term strategy. (Which is important if you then try to imagine the tax cuts actually expiring in 2 years … ha!)

  • Art Pepper

    CBS News Poll: Most Oppose GOP Tax Plan

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20024494-503544.html

  • stuartzechman

    Let’s just say for the moment that I agree with everything you’ve just said.
    .
    Now the problem becomes convincing people that Obama and Bush are the same, identical.
    .
    There are two problems with that simple line:
    .
    A) they’re demonstrably not the same
    .
    We can go up and down the line talking about results, but they don’t say the same things at all, which means one says “I will repeal DADT” and the other says “I will not repeal DADT,” and then all of Ian Welsh’s admonitions that these aren’t the “key issues” that ultimately conjoin the two parties/candidates don’t matter.
    .
    They’re demonstrably different, which leads to

    B) if you say they’re effectively identical, how do you do so without simultaneously making the case to people that political participation is worthless, that nothing short of a violent revolution that nobody has signed onto can save the country?
    .
    That’s doing the anti-populist establishment’s work for them, isn’t it?
    .
    So, assuming that you’re right and that A) and B) are also right, the task becomes making my argument simpler and easier to understand.
    .
    Please help.

  • lilaland

    “A cynic could read the deal”

    You are the guy who helped paint McCain as the straight talk express… yes, back in 2004, anyway?

    Well, love, that cynical interpretation you just outlined was pretty damn straight.

    Here is some more straight talk. The only real stimulative effect those tax cuts for the top 2% has to offer is the one that find Obama on all fours bent down in front of the republicans.. head down and a$$ up.

  • allthingsinaname

    What staggers me is the 2% reduction in payroll tax for SS, for one year. It is the beginning of the end for SS, they, Obama included, will now say that it is even more broke and we need to cut services.
    .
    The man has to go.

  • sgre144

    I assume that along w/ accepting most of the R’s positions, that the President agreed to provide Senator McConnell and Representative Boehner office space in the WH, so he’ll be able to more directly contact them to see what they want. It took over a week to rearrange a meeting last time. W/ them in the WH government should operate much more efficienly.

  • liberalmeltdown

    3x good to have you back. Patrick, not so much.
    .
    The leftists here don’t even realize how left and extreme they are. Too many years in the basement living off of mama and the government.
    .
    It’s widely reported that Obama was the most liberal member of the Senate. It’s just that he is realizing how much America hates liberal politics. 85 House seats.
    .
    Obama can’t hid from this map:
    .
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/2010-race-maps/house/?wpsrc=AG0000762&keyword=2010%20house%20election&cre=5034312790&g=1&s_kwcid=TC|10356|2010%20house%20election||S||5034312790

  • liberalmeltdown

    SZ, polls from CNBC, CNN? Are you kidding? Nobody trusts either one, or watches. CNN the most disrespected name in news. CNN where reporters make up stories.
    .
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/jobs_employment/april_2010/66_see_tax_cuts_as_better_way_to_create_jobs_than_more_government_spending
    66% See Tax Cuts As Better Way To Create Jobs Than More Government Spending
    .
    .
    Fifty-five percent of Democrats think tax hikes on wealthier Americans would be good for the economy. Fifty-one percent of Republicans and a plurality (45 percent) of voters not affiliated with either party disagree.

    But then most Democrats (52 percent) oppose the extension of any of the Bush tax cuts, while 80 percent of GOP voters and 63 percent of unaffiliateds think the tax cuts should be continued.

    Not surprisingly then, if the tax cuts are to be extended, 68 percent of those in the president’s party think they should be continued for everyone except the wealthy. Seventy-five percent of Republicans and 57 percent of unaffiliated voters believe the tax cuts should be extended for all Americans.

    Most Political Class voters (58 percent) oppose any extension of the Bush tax cuts, while a solid majority of Mainstream voters (66 percent) favor them. If the tax cuts are to be extended, 59 percent of Mainstream voters want them to be extended for all taxpayers, but 69 percent of the Political Class think they should be continued for everyone except the wealthy.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    I’ll set aside A) b/c we’re agreed: they’re not the same though both are indeed very, very bad. In some instances, much to my astonishment, Obama’s policies have proven worse.
    .
    To B:
    .
    “if you say they’re effectively identical, how do you do so without simultaneously making the case to people that political participation is worthless, that nothing short of a violent revolution that nobody has signed onto can save the country?”
    .
    Isn’t this reductive? Vote D or R or begin assembing molotov cocktails in your basement? Those are our only choices, or at least for those of us who think the duopoly is largely about achieving and/or preserving the same things: empire and an expanded presence by both corporations and their partners, the state, in our daily lives.
    .
    B/C the way I see it is a plurality of Americans (not merely voters) already thinks both parties are fundamentally and irreparably corrupt.

  • http://gum0nshoe.wordpress.com gumOnShoe

    As far as I can tell you’d have to get the message across in short bursts that the republican message is bad. Which means relatively consistent “truth”-style ads (think cigarette campaign) which highlight all of the lies Republicans have been telling and which slowly erode confidence in the GOP. Without breaking the right’s strong ranks into something mushier, the dems won’t be able to move left because, just as now, there won’t be any chance for compromise and they’ll be practical. After confidence in the GOP’s “truths” has been leveled, it would be time to start building some liberal “truths”
    .
    In the mean time, the political system will likely keep throwing out center and right politicians. And, as you’ve pointed out the Center & the Right are different as far as end goals, but the Right has learned how to navigate the Center ever closer in order to meet short term goals that benefit their long term goals. The Republicans are playing Min & Max, and the dems aren’t.

  • lilaland

    So, Obama’s victory is that he is going to be the President how has put the nation in the deepest deficit spending in history. That will smear liberals even though the most spending was done on the wars liberals don’t support and the Bush tax cuts we don’t support. then the republicans can claim we need to make huge cuts to social services and those are the reason Obama has sunk us into such a deep hole and the tax cuts for the rich are what helped create jobs.. even though we know that they were the very least effective for that effort. They give pennies on the dollar back to our country in terms of growth to the economy compared to the unemployment benefits distributed.

    Obama is a gimp and he is getting played and republican strategist like you think people like me are stupid.

    Well, I’m not. This is no victory for the White House unless Obama is a republican.
    He might be in a place helpless to change the events.. although my gut tells me he could have gotten rich redefined.. that still would have been a republican victory but less severe, and a true compromise.

  • Alex Vallas

    The GOP have shown themselves to be a group of hypocrits of major proportions. During the elections, the GOP headed by the obstructionist team of McConnell, Boehner and Cantor kept stating “the American people do not want this bill,” in reference to everything the President proposed. By a large majority the American people do not want the tax cuts extended to the wealthy. Well, in this case, apparently the GOP thinks they know what the public wants even better than what the public states. They are beholden to Wall Street, Lobbyist and other fat cats. They place self above party, party above country and continue with McConnell’s vow to make Obama a one term president. Their actions are pathetic and disgraceful. Their motto should be “our lies are commonplace our interest are self serving.”

  • Alex Vallas

    They probably would not accept as they don’t want to drink out of the same fountain or go to desegregated toilets.

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    The Left needs to come together and punish the Democrats like they have never been punished. That is the only way to prevent them from taking the Left for granted. Getting rid of Obama is a good place to start the retribution.

  • freeinpa

    Conservative have been saying that since 2008. Why do liberals always learn the hard costly way

  • freeinpa

    “Conservatives seem to like to call anyone who is not a conservatives”

    .
    SZ: That may be a habit we picked up from liberals and the MSM who refer to anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders an extreme right wing conservative. Problem with the left is:

    1) they believe that

    2) they believe that extreme liberalism is moderate

  • lilaland

    Why would I punish “democrats”? The democrats in the House voted to only extend tax cuts to the middle by a landslide.

    The senate democrats also voted in clear majority to extend the tax cuts to the middle only.

    However, it seems the majority is no longer good enough and we need a super majority. Never before in history has that been the case. However, Obama seems fine to let republicans reset the majority to 60 instead of 51.

    I think Obama might really be a republican. I hate to think it.. it sounds paranoid.. but, it sure is looking that way.

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    If this thing passes it will be because no one in the Party tried to stop it. The right has proven that any piece of legislation can be stopped, especially in the Senate.

  • stuartzechman

    liberal:
    .
    Poll from Scott Rasmussen? Are you kidding?
    .
    He’s been a consistent outlier, almost always in one direction.
    .
    Here’s Nate Silver:

    Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com observed that at the end of the 2010 general election cycle, Rasmussen Polls consistently were biased against Democrats by 3 to 4 points. [26]

    I did a quick check on the accuracy of polls from the firm Rasmussen Reports, which came under heavy criticism this year — including from FiveThirtyEight — because its polls showed a strong lean toward Republican candidates. Indeed, Rasmussen polls quite consistently turned out to overstate the standing of Republicans tonight.
    .
    Of the roughly 100 polls released by Rasmussen or its subsidiary Pulse Opinion Research in the final 21 days of the campaign, roughly 70 to 75 percent overestimated the performance of Republican candidates, and on average they were biased against Democrats by 3 to 4 points. ….it appears as though the worst poll of the political cycle will be the Rasmussen Reports survey of Hawaii, which had the incumbent Daniel Inoyue defeating Cam Cavasso by just 13 points. Mr. Inouye is ahead by 55 points right now. If Mr. Inouye’s margin holds, the 42-point error would be by far the worst general election poll in FiveThirtyEight’s database, which includes all polls since 1998; the previous record was 29 points.

    Here’s some of Scott’s polling language that’s been criticized for bias, can you detect a slant, liberal?
    .
    Do you agree or disagree with the following statement… it’s always better to cut taxes than to increase government spending because taxpayers, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how to spend their money?
    .
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/january_2009/most_say_tax_cuts_always_better_than_increased_spending

  • hippooath

    3x,
    ,
    thanks for coming back to us once more talking about your wisdom, lamenting the trash talking liberals while generalizing about what we are and stand for.
    .
    Someone as wise as you are should know that you can be fiscal responsible and add trillions more to the deficite.

  • http://2thirdsrocks.wordpress.com 2thirdsrocks

    I say we cut the education budget drastically. By half, and there would still be enough to brainwash and produce the braindead sheep that our ed system has lately turned out. Would not hurt a thing. Leave the old folks’ money alone. They need it the most. Especially when B.O’s death panels kick in.

  • mbaaar

    What do you expect Obama to do when the American electorate cut him off at the legs last Nov. proving that the GOP continues to have the ability to fool the working public that it rather than the Democrats represent their best interests. And the rules of the Senate are so ridiculous. 60 votes needed when for centuries it was a simple majority.

    When the senate rules change & the public begins to show signs of waking up, Obama will deliver. But so long as the Senate rules remain the same & public continues to put radical conservatives in office, conservatives will be able to hold the public welfare hostage & Obama will be forced into making ugly compromises.

  • http://2thirdsrocks.wordpress.com 2thirdsrocks

    Are you serious?!

  • http://2thirdsrocks.wordpress.com 2thirdsrocks

    “Obama is not a liberal.”
    .
    There’s where ya lost me stu.

  • http://2thirdsrocks.wordpress.com 2thirdsrocks

    The public woke up. And all it took was a couple of bill shoved down their throats. You’re just another lefty calling the majority of the country stupid, though that strategy always fails.

  • formerlyjames

    The thought of Obama being a closet Republican is interesting, but in any event, this isn’t compromise, it’s appeasement, it’s counterproductive, it is harmful to the economy and government. Aside from that, all the appeasement in the world won’t result in right wing cooperation in a productive manner, nor redirect the right wing hatred of him.

  • mbaaar

    Well, let’s just see what your brilliant GOP comes up with that actually benefits the country? After all, we did so well under George W Bush & an all Republican Congress, didn’t we?

  • http://2thirdsrocks.wordpress.com 2thirdsrocks

    Actually we did pretty damn good. We just spent to much and reached across the aisle too much. We became too liberal. The public rejects liberalism.

  • mbaaar

    Like most conservatives your response makes no little sense & as usual depends on mindless labels & name calling.

  • dpeterson157

    Can anybody put together a properly formed english sentence anymore? In half of these posts, I can’t understand if the author supports or rejects the issue.

  • robbiecollins

    If Obama seems liberal and liberals are extremists then its because the GOP is skewed so far right.

    Republicans have this Utopian quasi-libertarian thing going on where they think, like Pangloss, that this is the “best of all possible worlds” – meaning laissez-fair economics – but actually their “philosophy” is more about how they’d like the world to be rather than how is really is.

    If only they read non-ideological books occasionally rather than those that validate their prejudices.

  • freeinpa

    Yes Rev Wright, Van Jones, Bill Ayers and all the rest of Obama’s friends and advisers are just moderates. If liberals would only take their medication they would not have these delusions of reality

  • bobleeswagger308

    Are you offended? Obama is the best president we’ve had since FDR and yet all these people hallucinate and think he doesn’t know what he’s doing, or he hasn’t a backbone. Some even claim he’s stupid, but I say if you don’t vote for Barack in Nov. 2011, you need to be committed to an institution.

    Feel better now than you’ve been lied to again?

  • bobleeswagger308

    Derek: Are you really serious. The Obama runs off at the mouth and thinks he’s tough. It took the weasal a year to get his healthabortion passed because he was afraid of the minority party. This guy is toast and come January 3, he’ll be under house arrest. Instead of campaigning and blaming George Bush, he should have did a little studying to find out what his job was. Stick with him pally and we’ll try to get you dug out after the cave in.

  • http://myfh.wordpress.com centerista

    2012 is going to make 2010 look like 2008.

blog comments powered by Disqus