The Blue Dogs were among the first to yell, albeit incoherently, about the dangers of deficits, even though they like tax cuts just fine. Meanwhile, I predict the Tea Party/Limbaugh/etc will drive the GOP away from any agreement that does not abolish the estate tax. So no deal by all appearances.
Meeropol's concern is the same as Baker, Galbraith, and your humble correspondent -- we need every drop of aggregate demand we can get now. High unemployment is toxic to the labor market and to politics in the longer term. The package stinks, we could do better, but there is nobody in power who wants/is able to do better. So you take what you can get and hope to fight another day. On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Louis Proyect <[email protected]> wrote: > For the most part, the liberal-left has denounced Obama’s deal > over taxes with the Republicans but it will probably have enough > votes from the Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats like Ben Nelson > to pass. Of course, according to the NY Times’s Matt Bai, the > president himself has described himself as essentially a Blue Dog > Democrat so it should not come as any great surprise that he > struck a deal with Mitch McConnell and company. > > It is of some interest that some on the liberal-left and even on > the radical left have bought into the deal as well. Kevin Drum, a > blogger at Mother Jones, wrote: > > In the end, this is the second stimulus we all wanted. It’s not a > very efficient stimulus, and it sadly caves into the conservative > snake oil that the sum total of fiscal policy is tax cuts, but > them’s the breaks. Anyone who doesn’t like it needs to spend the > next two years persuading the public not just to tell pollsters > they don’t like tax cuts for the rich, but to actually vote out of > office anyone who supports tax cuts for the rich. That’s the only > way we’ll win the replay of this battle in 2012. > > Dean Baker, an economist generally associated with populist > attacks on wealth and privilege, wrote a piece provocatively > titled In Defense of Giving Money to Rich People that reasons: > “extending the tax cuts to the richest 2 percent for another 2 > years is not especially harmful. It will hand money to people who > will spend at least some it, thereby creating demand and > generating jobs.” > > Moving over a few steps to the left, the Communist Party joins > Drum and Baker in putting a positive spin on the deal. Art Perlo, > the son of the late Victor Perlo, the party’s long-time economics > expert, put it this way: > > Spending money on tax cuts for the rich stinks. It is offensive > to the majority of working Americans who are suffering in this > economic crisis. And it is bad economics. But if it is a price > necessary to continue unemployment benefits for millions of > families, and to prevent a tax increase for all workers, it might > be worth it. > > Now it should be understood that the CPUSA no longer makes any > pretenses of being some kind of revolutionary organization and > seems intent on carving out a space on the left once occupied by > Irving Howe, but it still has some influence in the trade union > movement and in the Democratic Party where its aging cadres have > sunk their tentacles. > > Most interesting of all is the article by Michael Meerpol that > appears on The Nation website titled Obama’s a Sell-Out on Taxes? > Not So Fast that repeats the talking points found above, including > the same formulation as Dean Baker’s about doing no harm: > > I also think, however distasteful it is on moral grounds, > extending the Bush tax cuts does not do much harm. Even after > Clinton persuaded Congress to raise taxes on the highest income > earners and well before the estate tax cuts passed in 2001, the > super-rich were continuing to increase their share of the nation’s > income and wealth. Long term trends in inequality have more to do > with the decline of union membership, financial deregulation and > increased trade in labor intensive goods, while increasing > protectionism for high salaried professionals (doctors, > accountants, professors) and the fraying of the social safety net. > Tax policy plays some role, but it is nowhere near the whole story. > > Meerpol seems to have a soft spot for Obama even though his > policies are basically warmed over Clintonism, and arguably a > continuation of the Bush administration. In 1998 Meerpol wrote a > rather good book called “Surrender: How the Clinton Administration > Completed the Reagan Revolution.” Perhaps he has changed his mind > about the role of these DLC types in the interim since the same > kind of book can be written about Obama, especially in > consideration of his nod to the Gipper. In “Audacity of Hope”, > Obama expresses sympathy for Reagan’s antagonism toward high > corporate tax rates since they “distorted investment decisions” > and led to tax shelters. In the same paragraph, he blamed welfare > for creating “perverse incentives” when it came to the “work > ethic”. One wonders if the “progressives for Obama” ever read this > crap before they made fools of themselves. > > full: http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2010/12/09/starving-the-beast/ > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
