Not His Fault

On Monday, December 6, President Obama announced an agreement with the Republicans to extend all Bush tax cuts for the next two years, as well as inject short-term fiscal steroids into the economy. The new package, worth some $800 billion, could potentially be good news for the economy in the short term (if it passes the parties’ respective caucuses). Yet, it has also been regarded by some as “an abandonment of liberal, Democratic principles on the part of the president;” another presidential failure (CBS News). Some liberals even took the news personally, claiming that “[Obama] betrayed Democrats by cutting a deal with Republicans” (FOX News).

Obama’s announcement does appear to be a dramatic reversal of his long-term stance on the economy. In his 2008 campaign, Obama vowed not to extend the tax cuts for the rich, promising that tax cuts be only extended for those individuals with incomes up to $200,000 and couples with incomes up to $250,000. Later, he compromised and sought to extend the tax cuts for the rich temporarily, while making the rest permanent. The new package announced on Monday is a “retreat” on both counts. However, it is not fair to pin all the blame on the one man, just because he hasn’t been able to realize his vision and fulfill all his obligations.

While it is easy to think that the president has enormous powers on his own to do public policy, he is in fact, limited by Congress, popularity, time in term, and other factors -- especially on the domestic front. One of the problems this time was that Congress leaned toward short term and popular policies, and so the debate was mostly on an all-or-nothing basis with regard to extending the Bush tax cut. Introduction of new sets of tax rates were out of the question. Obama did personally oppose the extending income tax cuts at upper income levels and the more generous deal on estates. However, unlike prime ministers in parliamentary systems, as the president, he was forced negotiate on the mostly all-or-nothing basis. Should he insist on discontinuing tax cuts for the rich and risk the Congress session coming to an end without any conclusion, or should he give in to the Republicans for a temporary solution? In the end, “an agreement with Republicans was more important than a stalemate that would have resulted in higher income taxes at all levels on Jan. 1” (CBS 8).

This new package represents not so much Obama’s betrayal or abandonment of Democratic principles, as much as the complexity and power checks of the American political system -- especially in regard to presidential powers. It will be interesting to see now, how (or if) Obama can persuade his own Democrats that this new package is the best deal for the nation at this moment in time. If the Democrats cannot be persuaded, they may not even allow it onto the floor and then we may be forced back to square one. Hopefully, that will not be the case. In the mean time, it is important for us to remember that the president does not have complete command over our nation and so we should not blame him for everything that doesn't go our way.