Swallowing the Deal

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.


Comrade Rotwang, whose lefty credentials are unassailable, says that treating tax cuts for the rich as a hill to die for is an indication that liberalism in America has become “withered and puny.” Sure, Obama’s deal may not be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but its five provisions are all worthwhile:

The rationale for all of these is to stimulate spending, by individuals both rich and poor, by workers, and by business firms. We desperately need such spending now.

Some features will be more effective than others, but all will be more effective than doing nothing. The rich may not spend much of their tax cut, but they will spend something. We could all think of alternatives that would be more effective still. A different president and congress might have spent the past 18 months making a case for such measures, but that was not to be. Nobody has explained how any politically-viable alternatives would be available now….At the end of the day, a small tax cut for “the rich” (small in terms of the incomes of the beneficiaries, small in terms of the overall deficit) should not be a big progressive issue. There are much bigger fish to fry, and we need the stimulus now.

Comrade Baker agrees. For myself, I’d just say that the spectacle of lefties blaming Obama for the current mess is a little hard to take. I have my own problems with both Obama’s negotiating prowess and his distressing eagerness to lash out at his own base, but the time when Obama had some leverage to get a better deal was over the summer. His position at the time was clear, but congressional Dems caved in to their centrist and Blue Dog factions and failed to even bring up a tax plan for a vote. This made Democratic disunity so obvious that Obama simply had no credible negotiating position left after the midterms. He needed a deal during the lame duck session, and Republicans knew perfectly well that his own party wouldn’t support a hard line. Under the circumstances, he did about as well as he could have.

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.

And now let’s move on. With taxes out of the way, it’s time to repeal DADT.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest