Obama May Not Undo Bush Tax Cuts
Although Senator Barack Obama has railed against the Bush tax cuts for years, claiming they only benefit the rich, and are a drain on ‘normal’ Americans, he said in an interview to be aired Sunday that he may delay rescinding them if the U.S. economy is in a recession when he becomes president.
Nevertheless, unlike his opponent in the general elections, Obama said on ABC’s “This Week” that he has ‘no intention’ of extending them beyond their expiration date. Senator John McCain, on the other hand, believes the tax cuts are fair and good for the economy; he is in favor of making them permanent.
On the other hand, Obama said, he does want to follow true on the tax cuts he has proposed in recent months; these tax cuts would only benefit the middle class, the large bloc of voters one needs if one wants to win elections. “Even if we’re still in a recession, I’m going to go through with my tax cuts,” Obama said. “That’s my priority.”
That is, of course, quite an interesting thing to say for a progressive politician; after all, the tax philosophy they adhere to is that you have to tax more, not less, when the going gets tough. Cutting taxes, they say, costs the government money, which means it can do less to help out Americans who have a hard time getting by.
The same goes for the Bush tax cuts, of course. If they are so bad for the economy as a whole, why would Obama delay rescinding them?
“I think we’ve got to take a look and see where the economy is. I mean, the economy is weak right now,” he explained. “The news with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, I think, along with the unemployment numbers, indicates that we’re fragile.”
Meaning that the government would be wise not to do anything about the evil Bush tax cuts that only benefit the rich and hurt everyone else. Right?
“John McCain,” on the other hand, “likes to talk about fiscal responsibility, but there is no doubt that his proposals blow a hole through the budget,” Obama said.
Obama’s flip-flop, because that is what is, tells us two things:
1. He does not seem to believe too much in the progressive philosophy with regards to taxes.
2. This point is related to number one; although he may be opposed to giving tax breaks to the rich on ideological considerations, he may govern more like a moderate, or perhaps better; pragmatist, than some hope / fear.
The news, then, could very well comfort moderates and independents who worried about Obama’s fiscal policies once president. On the other hand, progressives will certainly be disappointed by Obama’s words; they do believe that the Bush tax cuts have to be undone, regardless of whether or not the economy as a whole will suffer a bit because of it (having said that, most believe that it will not hurt, but help).
And so Obama’s move to the center continues, as does McCain’s. It will be interesting to see whether the two will meet face to face on some issues before these elections are over. After all, if they continue to move away from the viewpoints they expressed during the primaries with the speed they are now, it will not be long before McCain will be called a progressive and Obama a conservative.
Obama might not raise taxes on rich???? Is there any one of his red meat issues he will not flip on before the election. Drilling, taxes, wiretapping, etc.
Seriously, does the man have any friggin’ principles other than advancing his own career? Jeez…
why is it a flip flop when someone is actually practical rather than ideological? Aren’t people always talking about how Politicians are just touting the party line instead of responding to reality? Isn’t this a GOOD thing?
It’s clear from the fact the he proposed tax cuts before that he thinks they can be beneficial. And it’s obvious that he thinks his tax cuts are BETTER than Bushes. And, it makes excellent economic sense not to rock the boat too much in a recession. None of these actions are inconsistent or ‘flip flopping’.
Michael, I have been reading you for years because I thought you were interested in the actual reality behind politics, and willing to think independently and look beyond the knee jerk reaction to things. Even if I didn’t always agree with you, I had believed that you were always thinking for yourself and didn’t have a predetermined ’side’. I have been severely disappointed in you recently. I don’t know what happened, but please try to take a step back and think about if you are really trying to reach objective analysis of issues, or if you are just trying to ‘win’ or prove yourself right.
Asks the reader who skims rather than reads articles:
Back to you Kevin.
I think that you started reading me before you supported Barack Obama, meaning before you were unable and unwilling to read articles that, in two separate paragraphs, criticize and praise him (coming from me, calling someone moderate and a pragmatist is a compliment).
I mean, what is your point? That it is not a bad thing that he lets circumstances change his position (somewhat)? Right, congratulations, I don’t say it is anywhere in the post. Or is your point that progressives should not be too disappointed because they too have to learn to take reality into consideration? Right, congratulations, I don’t say anything else in the post. I merely point the change out – yes, that is called a flip-flop; immediately versus; ehhh lets wait a while – and note how different people will react to it. That you do not like the reaction of some people, or the word “flip-flop,” does nothing to negate facts summed up in the article.
As aside, consider this reaction to be an exception. I am not in the business of responding to such claims any longer; I have grown as a writer, and political commentator; I have learned that people always have something to complain about, so it is best to do your own thing. As such, no one should expect any reaction from me on comments questioning my motives, arguing I’m not ‘moderate’ or ‘objective’ enough, etc. I don’t have the will nor the time to debate about such subjects.
Lastly; some of you may have noticed I don’t link frequently to other blogs anymore. The reason for that is simple; I believe they offer low quality writing, and little to no serious analyses. Additionally, I believe, the blogosphere has become a partisan mess, in which one critical remark about a candidate can result in one getting complaints from one side, and a critical remark about someone else from the other; as a result, bloggers only criticize one specific candidate or side, and ignore the flaws on the other. Since I am not quite willing to play that game, most blogs out there do not receive any links from me anymore. (this in response to questions from both other bloggers and blogreaders)
give em a few weeks he will have republican platform and be bush"s long lost relative. This obama has zero convictions he is like leaf blowin in the wind
Drilling + other options, withdrawal date (more or less), wiretapping, umm…cleaning up Washington, the insider/outsider ticket, and probably some others.
Kevin: I must respectfully disagree with you. Besides calling it a flip-flop (it’s probably as much of a flip-flop as either candidate was on an energy deal), I thought Michael was very fair in this entry. He was very gracious to Obama.
Okay, time to eat crow.
I’m sorry. I’ve gotten a little carried away. I have obviously disagreed with you guys recently, and I read the "flip flop" line and lost it. I still disagree with the characterization of "flip flop", but obviously your analysis on whole is much more nuanced than that…
Again, I’m sorry.
LOL – it’s funny… but probably true yeah. What will matter in the end, or what should matter to voters, is how they came there, what their starting points are, etc. Basic questions, you could say.
Forget about it. And don’t eat crow; I don’t think it tastes good.
Michael: first time I’ve read your blog. I’m impressed by your thoughtful, non-dogmatic approach, even coming to this from further right than your usual readers, I suspect. So, here’s the question. How will Obama parse this argument: if rescinding the Bush tax cuts will worsen a recession, does that not prove that he believes that tax increases as he earlier promised are therefore damaging to the economy? And, if you believe the notion that recession hurts all income levels, and perhaps lower income individuals most of all, then would you not conclude that as a more general observation, highly regressive tax increases ultimately will slow the economy and lead to greater hardship for middle and lower income citizens? It’s a kind of inverse trickle-down theory: pain at the top leads to pain in the middle and bottom. Love to hear your spin on this.