Talkingpointsmemo: "How Many Jobs Is 80 Votes Worth?"

[flpoljunkie]

How Many Jobs Is 80 Votes Worth?

By Dean Baker - January 6, 2009, 10:51PM

That's the question that the Obama team should be asking as they court Republican support for a stimulus package. We would all like to get beyond the partisan rancor of the last 16 years, but there are real issues at stake here. If the effort to court Republicans means switching from spending to tax cuts, which will create fewer jobs per dollar; and from tax cuts for low and middle income families to tax cuts for businesses and the wealthy, which will create even fewer jobs, then President Obama will be paying a big price in jobs lost for those Republican votes.

It is understandable that President Obama would want to reach out to Republicans on the first major initiative of his presidency. But the price of this gesture should not undermine the goal of the policy. We need growth and jobs more than we need 80 votes in the Senate.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/06/how_many_jobs_are_80_votes_worth/

[Thrill]

1. WTH is he talking about. The tax cuts are for the middle class

And the ones for businesses are to encourage hiring. They get credits for hiring people

[rpannier]

2. I think part of it is in response to mcconnell's comments I saw on TV

where he practically gushed over the idea of tax breaks for businesses.

McCOCKel made a reference to how he could support some of the proposals but on many issues there was a long way to go.

Don't know for sure if that's what got him to write it, but that would be my guess.

[flpoljunkie]

3. The R's are already bitching about giving money to people who don't pay taxes--as always,

the Republicans refuse to acknowledge that payroll taxes are 'taxes.' How despicable the Republicans are! How they continue to get away with this crap, I cannot fathom. Oh yes, now I remember! It's our feckless media!

[Freddie Stubbs]

4. Obama wants a bill with broad bipartisan support so that it will be difficult for

Republicans to attack him and congressional Democrats on it in upcoming elections.

[flpoljunkie]

5. Is it not more important to rescue our economy than pacify R's-who can't really be pacified?

And, who are shameless shills for big business and the wealthy.

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. It is not about pacifing them, it is about dividing them

[flpoljunkie]

7. More on 'the price of consensus' from Robert Borosage writing for Huffpo:

My guess is that Obama's maneuver reflects a strategic decision, not a tactical one. Substantively, he wants a broad and inclusive package -- "making sure have money in their pockets, as well as "incentives for business" and "investing in job creating growth industries..." Politically, he seeks as broad a consensus as he can get on a bold measure in desperate times.

But he's likely to pay a price both in delay and in diminished effectiveness for the plan that emerges. He'd be more likely to get a big and bold plan passed swiftly if he had put together his package, called on the Congress to pass it, invited Republicans to join or take the risk of standing in the way, while saving any concessions on business taxes until the end if he actually needed to round up the votes. I suspect that he'd have won just about as much Republican support that way.

Obama seems to be choosing a path that builds consensus at the potential cost of effectiveness. But if the plan fails, he'll take the blame no matter how many Republicans vote for it. And Republicans will attribute the failure to government spending, no matter how much of the plan consists of tax cuts.

We shouldn't treat this as a spectator sport. Americans should be getting in touch with their legislators -- particularly Republican Senators and conservative Democrats -- and calling on them to support the swift action the country so desperately needs.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-borosage/the-price-of-consensus-ob_b_155764.html