The Best and Worst

President Barack Obama reached an agreement with Republicans on the Bush era tax cuts that represents a genuine compromise.  Democrats wanted to extend the tax cuts for the middle class, and they wanted to extend unemployment benefits.  Republicans supported these two things, but they also wanted the tax cuts to remain in place for wealthier Americans and for the extra money for unemployment to be offset by budget reductions elsewhere.  Republicans got their tax cuts for the wealthy to remain in place and sacrificed the budget reductions.

Okay, I get it–both sides had to give a little to get most of what they wanted.  And the President said the deal would be a shot in the arm for the economy.  All in all it represents Obama at his best–a guy who rises above partisanship to do what is good for the country.

On the other hand, Obama accused Republicans of holding the American people hostage, and he said that when this two-year compromise expires, he will fight to end the tax cuts for the wealthy.


If it’s a good deal for the American people, why the accusations?  And why fight this in two years?  And what makes him think he’ll be in a stronger position then?  His party still controls Congress for a couple of weeks.

I like what the President did.  I just don’t get what is driving him to say what he is saying.

Meanwhile some Democrats accused Republicans of being willing to sacrifice the middle class to take care of the rich.  Some of these Dems are now saying they will fight the President’s compromise plan when it is voted on in Congress.  Does this mean that the Dems are willing to sacrifice the middle class to hurt the rich?  I wouldn’t think so, but this doesn’t look good.

Congress just needs to sign this compromise and turn the page.