Over the weekend, I was thinking that I should write a post about the ongoing political battle over whether to renew the George Bush tax cuts for the "wealthy," meaning those earning more than $250,000 per year. The Republicans were insistent that they would countenance NO reimposition of previous tax levels on the highest income earners -- not at the $250,000 level, and not even at the $ 1,000,000 level. And to ensure that they got their way, they said they would refuse to deal on any other issue -- not on a clear need like the extension of unemployment insurance (which after all, benefits only the poorer of cour citizens), nor on matters of national security like START -- until the renewal of all Bush tax breaks was assured.
Looking at the problem, the image that popped immediately into my head was that the Republican party was holding the majority of the American people hostage.
Even though I didn't get around to writing that post, I'm pleased to see that President Obama has confirmed my view and now is describing his "compromise" with the Republican side using exactly that term: It was hostage-taking. We, the American people were the hostages.
I'd also have to agree with Obama on his argument to the complaining liberal wing of his own party: it's great to be firm with hostage-takers unless/until the hostage's well-being is being threatened. As indeed it was. The President needs to act on behalf of all Americans, and he has done so. This isn't the first case of political hostage-taking in our legislative history, but certainly one of the most egregious, and I have no doubt Republican leaders would have been all too willing to cut off unemployment benefits if their sugar daddies couldn't keep their tax benefits.
It's OK, though, for Democratic liberals to complain a bit, and to put up resistance, because it may (may!) make some voters realize whom they have just put in charge of the henhouse.
Comments