Michael Tomasky's Blog, page 34

Taking their toys and going home | Michael Tomasky

I barely even remembered that there was a financial crisis commission with five Democrats, four Republicans and one independent that was/is supposed to report on the roots on the financial crisis next month. Obviously, this isn't a topic on which D's and R's are going to agree. Equally obviously, we know the Republicans like to block things. Even so, this report from HuffPo is a bit depressing:

The four Republicans appointed to the commission investigating the root causes of the financial crisis plan to bypass the bipartisan panel and release their own report Wednesday, according to people familiar with the commission's work...

During a private commission meeting last week, all four Republicans voted in favor of banning the phrases "Wall Street" and "shadow banking" and the words "interconnection" and "deregulation" from the panel's final report, according to a person familiar with the matter and confirmed by Brooksley E. Born, one of the six commissioners who voted against the proposal.

See, Obama's "hostage" metaphor was exactly right. Al Franken used to make this point when he was a mere funny author, re the 2000 election. Al would say roughly: See, the implicit Republican position is to say to voters, you want civility and cooperation all that nice stuff, elect us, because the Democrats are weak and divided and enough of them will go along with us that you'll see some cooperation and civility, whereas if you elect the D's, we're strong and united sonuvabitches and you're not going to see any cooperation and civility. That is our solemn promise to you. And that is hostage holding.

This provides an un-clumsy enough segue into my column in today's formerly arboreal Guardian, which is basically about how, two years in to the Obama term, we see clearly that the high hopes many had in 2008 just aren't going to be met but rather than mope about it let's just recalibrate hopes and get on with business. But on the subject of the R's I include this thought:

...the Republicans have become more nakedly than ever the party of rich people and corporations, and those rich people and corporations are uniting with Republicans to do everything in their power to block even mildly ameliorative reform. By all appearances, these people believe the country is theirs to run, was somehow stolen from them in 2008, and they're just going to oppose everything until they get it back in 2012.

I lean toward this interpretation, but among what we might call the "professional liberal" class of advocates and pundits, it seems I'm in the minority. Hence the classic liberal circular firing squad that's been on display in Washington over the tax deal.

But I can't really blame the president for not being liberal enough. It's not a liberal country. I do, however, blame him for being in denial about the nature of his opposition. They want to destroy him. He still seems to think he can seduce them, as if they were no different from the couple of conservatives on the Harvard Law Review whose respect he won when he was its president.

I notice our dependable friend LHB is over there in the comment thread disagreeing with me already, and a few others, but most of Tomasky blog's regulars haven't weighed in yet, so I wanted to make sure you knew it existed.

US economyUS politicsMichael Tomasky
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Barack Obama has lost his mojo. But yes, he can find it again | Michael Tomasky

If the liberal renaissance is only a dream, modest advances against hostile forces can make Obama's presidency a success

Liberal activists in America are not, to put it charitably, thrilled with the tax deal Barack Obama has worked out with the Republicans, which will extend the Bush-era lower rates for high earners for another two years. Aside from the substantive disagreements, one senses in the subtext of the commentaries two chief frustrations.

First, the suspicion that Obama is a weak negotiator who could have achieved a better deal (if indeed Obama was a poker player in his Illinois state legislator days, wrote Jacob Weisberg on the Slate site, "I suspect he wasn't a very good one"). And second, the maddening knowledge that the Republicans, backed by hundreds of millions of dollars from corporate sponsors, will always block any attempt at progressive change, and that they almost surely have the power to do so for the foreseeable future.

I was pleasantly surprised at what Obama got out of the bargain with Republicans, notably the 13-month extension of unemployment benefits. Then again, I'd expected almost nothing. So with qualms, I can live with the deal, and apparently most Democrats are deciding to: it cleared a Senate procedural hurdle on Monday night with only nine Democrats voting against.

But looking at the broader picture at the end of Obama's second year is a chastening exercise. Those thermospheric hopes of late 2008 for some kind of great liberal renaissance have steadily descended through the lower layers of atmosphere, burning upon re-entry, fighting turbulence and bumpily touching ground with the cabin's decidedly non-euphoric occupants just relieved to have hit the Earth in one piece. As of now, no future missions are scheduled.

What happened? The two frustrations noted above define and reflect the two broad interpretations of the past two years. The first is that the disappointments are Obama's fault. I expect you know the litany: he hired an establishment-centric economic team, he didn't fight hard enough, he folded his hand too early to Republicans and Wall Street and pharmaceutical companies, he endorsed his predecessor's terrorism policies, he and his people spoke disparagingly of the liberal base, and so on.

All true. But let's suppose Obama had hired a fiery populist economic team; pushed for a stimulus package twice the size of the one he got; taken on the pharmaceutical and other big lobbies; somehow unilaterally shut down the Guantánamo Bay detention facility; and spent the past two years whipping American liberals into a paroxysmal state of dudgeon against corporate America. Would things be any better?

Doubtful. In fact they'd probably be worse. He might be sitting on a record in which his signature stimulus and healthcare bills went down to bruising defeat. They may not be very popular, but at least they passed. And while liberal activists would have been happier with a more aggressive posture toward banks and Wall Street, the fact is that Wall Street hates Obama as it is. At least the Dow is up 30% since he took office. Imagine where he'd be if it had gone in the opposite direction.

What does this comparison tell us? That something else has been decisively shaping our discourse besides Obama's shortcomings. And here resides the second interpretation: the Republicans have become more nakedly than ever the party of rich people and corporations, and those rich people and corporations are uniting with Republicans to do everything in their power to block even mildly ameliorative reform. By all appearances, these people believe the country is theirs to run, was somehow stolen from them in 2008, and they're just going to oppose everything until they get it back in 2012.

I lean toward this interpretation, but among what we might call the "professional liberal" class of advocates and pundits, it seems I'm in the minority. Hence the classic liberal circular firing squad that's been on display in Washington over the tax deal.

But I can't really blame the president for not being liberal enough. It's not a liberal country. I do, however, blame him for being in denial about the nature of his opposition. They want to destroy him. He still seems to think he can seduce them, as if they were no different from the couple of conservatives on the Harvard Law Review whose respect he won when he was its president.

The 2008 mojo is gone. He'll never fully get it back. The great liberal renaissance, even if he serves two terms, is not going to happen as some had pictured it two years ago. What seems more likely, at best, is a recovered economy, some foreign policy breakthrough that nudges humankind toward a more peaceable existence, and modest advances on green jobs or national broadband expansion or environmental protection on the margins.

This will be hard for Obama to accept, and harder still for liberals. He may now never be quite the transformational president of our dreams. He can, however, still be a successful one, which is a new kind of mojo and is worth something, because most presidents aren't. But even that won't happen if Obama and liberals keep at the mistrustful bickering. Everyone, from the president down, should recalibrate their hopes, deal with the new reality as it is, and keep their ire aimed at the forces that think the country is theirs by default.

Barack ObamaDemocratsUnited StatesUS politicsMichael Tomasky
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Alea jacta est | Michael Tomasky

Any of you know your Latin? I, alas, do not. But in last Saturday's times puzzle, there was a clue reading: The die is cast, to Caesar. The answer worked out to be the above. I see from the Googles that it is often rendered alea iacta est.

However you spell it, though, it's what liberal Congressman Peter Welch, who has been trying to rally the libs to fight for a change to the estate tax deal, just said, according to The Hill:

A House liberal who has led the effort to stop President Obama's tax compromise with the GOP says efforts to change the package are futile.

Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), who just a week ago circulated a letter signed by 54 Democrats urging opposition to the deal, now says the "die is cast."

"It is academic, OK. The bottom line is that it is a fast moving train and that has become clear and Washington is doing what it is finding easy to do," he said in an interview with The Hill.

"Once the president entered into that agreement with the Senate Republicans even while talks with the House were supposedly under way, that set the tone for the weekend and now you got Americans excited about a trillion dollars that is going to be in effect given away," Welch said.

So there you have it. The deal will pass. Some House liberals were still hoping for a way to tinker with the estate tax numbers, but any changes there would have given Republicans the excuse they needed to vote the deal down, wait until January when they had a solid House majority and vote again on terms more preferable to themselves. They might for example have yanked the unemployment benefits down from 13 months to six or whatever. Who knows. And everyone's taxes would have gone up for two weeks, but of course they would have just blamed that on the Democrats, and probably won that argument.

I'll have to cogitate for a day or two on the Big Lessons of this whole mess. For now, the liberal Democrats, unhappy though they may be, have done the right thing. Nearly 70% of Americans backed this deal. If the House Democrats had been seen as submarining it, deal Obama a huge defeat in the process (at the hands of his own party), it would have spawned several political disasters, most notably for the president's reelection prospects. However mad they may be at him, they don't want President Romney-Pawlenty-God-forbid-Palin.

Anyone else do the Saturday Times puzzle? I found it pretty easy last Saturday except for the lower-right-hand corner - the southeast, as we puzzlers say - where I'm still not done. I did however nail Lucrezia Borgia very early on, even with the z instead of the more traditional (in English) t.

US CongressUS taxationMichael Tomasky
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

The Senate cloture vote on the tax deal | Michael Tomasky

So the Senate voted overwhelmingly last night to close debate on the tax deal, by 83-15 with two not voting.

Lots of people are remarking on how surprising it is that most liberal opposition melted away at the last minute, as only nine Democrats voted no. But I'm somewhat more surprised that only five Republicans voted against. One of those five, George Voinovich of Ohio, opposed it for his own reasons, that he didn't think the tax cuts were defensible. But only four voted no from a conservative position.

So why is this interesting? Because, remember, Rush Limbaugh has been fulminating against the deal, and a couple of national tea party groups said they opposed it and would pressure lawmakers to do the same. Those are usually pretty powerful levers in GOP politics, but this time, their efforts fizzled.

Maybe they just want to get home for Christmas. Maybe they're waiting to see what the House does. Remember, the Senate will vote again on final passage. If House liberals succeed in making the estate tax numbers more progressive, maybe a lot of GOP senators will break against it and it will barely pass next time (when it needs only 51, not 60).

As much as liberals are attacking the whole business as another Obama sell-out, I can guarantee you that Limbaugh and the conservative blogosphere and commentariat will spend the holidays inveighing against this massive sell-out by establishment Republicans to Obama, thus steeling the resolve of the incoming class of tea-party-backed senators and House members to block such capitulations to socialism. It will be an interesting year.

Obama administrationUS CongressUS taxationMichael Tomasky
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Richard Holbrooke | Michael Tomasky

Richard Holbrooke had an amazing career, going back to Vietnam in the mid-60s right up through the day he died what sounds like a harrowing and almost violent medical death - a 21-hour surgical procedure for a torn aorta, and a second surgery, over the course of a weekend in which it seems he almost had to be aware that his mortality hung in the balance.

For a diplomat, Holbrooke was not by a longshot always diplomatic in the more generic sense, but no one doubted his intellect and ability. I didn't know him, so I can't say personally, but I can say that even in off-the-record around-town chatter - that is to say, the private conditions under which many public officials are disparaged - I never heard anyone say anything disrespectful of the man.

The Dayton Bosnia accords will of course be his great legacy. The United States was late to solving that problem, thanks more to George H.W. Bush and James Baker, who said the US didn't "have a dog" in that fight, but it was Holbrooke who played a key role in finally making the peace. He doesn't deserve all the credit, as Warren Christopher and Madeliene Albright and Bill Clinton himself played important roles as well. But it was Holbrooke who got Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, the Serbian military leaders, to end the siege of Sarajevo in September 1995. Think about what kind of skills were involved in doing that. And it was that development that paved the way for the Dayton accords.

On Afghanistan, his legacy will now be unresolved. With Hillary Clinton, he pushed President Obama to increase the number of troops. But apparently, according to the Washington Post's Rajiv Chandrasekaran, who wrote what I think is today's best US obituary, this happened:

On Friday morning, he was taken to George Washington University Hospital after he became flushed and suffered chest pains during a meeting with Clinton.

He underwent a 21-hour operation that ended on Saturday to repair his aorta.

As Mr. Holbrooke was sedated for surgery, family members said, his final words were to his Pakistani surgeon: "You've got to stop this war in Afghanistan."

If Holbrooke knew he might be dying and chose these as his last words, then they're words the rest of us should take to heart. But it seems unlikely to end in a clean negotiated peace, the way Bosnia did, and that outcome is probably that much less likely with him gone. A very sad loss.

Richard HolbrookeMichael Tomasky
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

The Virginia healthcare ruling | Michael Tomasky

Or the real name of this post probably ought to be, What does Anthony Kennedy think of the individual mandate?

As many of you have read, conservative Virginia federal judge Henry Hudson (appointed by George W. Bush) just declared the healthcare law unconstitutional. He did not, however, move to block implementation of the law (remember, federal bureaucrats are writing the regulations right now). So he's kicking it upstairs, as we knew he would.

Jon Cohn notes hopefully that the score is still 2-1 for the pro-reform forces:

Two other federal district judges have already ruled that the Act passes constitutional muster, with a fourth decision, by a judge in Florida, still pending. Hudson refused a motion by the plaintiffs to block implementation of the law. That means it will be left to higher courts to sort out the conflicting rulings. Most legal experts expect that, eventually, the case will come before the U.S. Supreme Court.

As Cohn notes, those two judges who upheld the law were liberals, and the Florida judge whom we await is a conservative, so it'll likely wash out 2-2. Then on to the high court.

It would seem to me that the only question mark is the aforementioned Kennedy. Yes, Antonin Scalia once backed a pro-federal government interpretation of the commerce clause in a marijuana-growing case. But if you think Scalia, the most political judge of my lifetime, is going to hand Obama a win here, you are on several different kinds of acid.

It will all come down to Kennedy. But let's say for the sake of argument it's overturned. Is that bad or good for Obama?

The immediate reaction will be "In a devastating blow for Barack Obama..." And on the most superficial level it will be that. But after that first wave, is there an argument to be that it'd be good for him to be able to dislodge his leg from this unpopular political coffle? I'm being cynical and unprincipled here, but come on, folks. The law is unpopular. Most people want it repealed. Facts is facts. Maybe Obama would be better off politically without it, depending on the timing and how he handles it.

Now, being non-cynical and principled, I think it would be a tragedy in that this country would again probably do nothing about its healthcare system for another 20 years. This was a flawed bill in many ways, but at least it opened the door to the idea of making changes, which we badly need. That door would slam shut for another generation or more.

US healthcareVirginiaMichael Tomasky
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

The tax deal and Social Security | Michael Tomasky

I meant to get to this subject last week, to wit, the pause given many liberals over the tax deal over the Social Security implications. As we know, the deal lowers the payroll tax, which is basically the Social Security tax, from 6.2% to 4.2% for a year. Right now, both employees and employers pay 6.2% of the person's salary into the Soc Sec trust fund.

This proposed change would be for the employee only. The idea is, it puts more disposable income in the pockets of middle-income earners, about $1,000 for a person who earns $50,000.

At the time the deal was announced, administration officials said that the shortfall in Social Security revenues would be supported through general revenue. But then some liberals began to wonder, well, exactly how are you going to re-hike that tax in a year's time? Re-raising taxes not being particularly easy in today's Washington, some liberals smell the rat of an eventual assault on Social Security. Liberal economist Dean Baker:

However, after further thought and conversations with people around Washington (first and foremost, Nancy Altman, the co-director of Social Security Works), I have become convinced that this deal would be a disaster. Paul Krugman does a nice job laying out the limited benefits of the stimulus, but my greater concern is what happens to Social Security in this story. Effectively, this deal would give us a permanent two-percentage point reduction in the payroll tax in a Washington climate very hostile to Social Security...

...The prospect of this tax cut being the basis for a renewed attack on Social Security could be dismissed if the program had defenders in high places, but this does not appear to be the case. Most of the Republicans would almost certainly like to privatize Social Security.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration cannot be counted on to defend the program either. In fact, top officials in the administration seem to view attacks on Social Security and its supporters as a way to prove their manhood. President Obama's decision to appoint two arch-enemies of Social Security to chair his Fiscal Responsibility commission certainly does not inspire confidence among supporters of Social Security.

In short, supporters of Social Security have good reason to oppose the tax deal...

This is a fair point. Maybe a more-than-fair point. However, I would also add that not all taxes are created equally or seen equally.

Re-raising an income tax rate is well-nigh impossible, yes, as we're now seeing. But there's reason to think the Social Security tax is different. It has long been among the least unpopular of taxes, because the program is popular and because people know where the money is going. So I wouldn't think re-hiking it would be as hard as re-hiking an income tax rate.

Not as hard. But still hard. Obama should speak, and soon, on the question of his commitment to getting this tax back up to 4.2%. And maybe this too is a chance to revisit the whole kit and kaboodle. As you know, Social Security taxes hit only the first $107,000 of income. Why not raise that? Well, because to Republicans, it's a tax increase. But as currently structured it's a regressive tax. There's also the "donut hole" theory, which Obama seems to like: cap it at current levels (which rise with inflation), but add a provision taxing every dollar earned above, say, $175,000 or whatever.

In any case, several people are now opposing the deal on these grounds. However, the first polls are now coming out on the deal itself (previous polls have been about the policy questions involved, but not the deal qua the deal). Pew finds overwhelming support across the spectrum:

The agreement between President Obama and congressional Republicans to extend tax cuts and unemployment benefits is getting strong bipartisan support. Overall, 60% approve of the agreement while just 22% disapprove.

There are virtually no partisan differences in opinions about the agreement -- 63% of Democrats approve of it, as do 62% of Republicans and 60% of independents. Among Democrats, liberals are as supportive of the agreement as are conservative and moderate Democrats.

So do this WashPost-ABC survey:

But put all four items together, and 69 percent of all Americans support the package. Large majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents alike favor the agreement, which has drawn stiff opposition from some Democrats in the House. In the poll, 69 percent of liberal Democrats support the agreement, which Obama has called a framework for legislation.

Of course, this support is in no small part just everyone being relieved that the two sides actually appeared to be able to agree on something. It's not to say the deal is great, because it is not. But it will pass, and we will see what happens.

Obama administrationUS CongressUS taxationMichael Tomasky
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Boehner on 60 Minutes | Michael Tomasky

Lesley Stahl of 60 Minutes did one of those "getting to you know" profiles of incoming House speaker John Boehner last night. What's interesting, to the limited extent that John Boehner is interesting, is the public persona he seems to be developing.

Most Republicans want to be tough guys. Reagan, "Read My Lips" Bush Sr., Gingrich, "Bring it on" Bush Jr...that's what they understand. Boehner, by contrast, is more of a wounded puppy type:

John Boehner thinks President Barack Obama is "engaging" and "smart" — but the speaker-elect is also still smarting over the president's claim that he took taxpayers hostage to secure a tax break for the rich.

In an interview with Leslie Stahl of "60 Minutes" for broadcast Sunday night on CBS, Boehner said Obama showed him "disrespect" by calling him a hostage-taker.

Isn't it usually liberals and Democrats who whine about respect? And then, of course, Boehner cried again last night, just as he did on election night, when discussing the American dream. No reason to doubt the sincerity, I suppose, but I wonder how often a Republican man wants to tear up in public.

Oh well, we could hardly ask for two better representatives of the different Americas. Obama grew up in an educated household, with a PhD mother and grandparents who made sure he read books and went to a posh school. Boehner grew up the poor son of a barkeep who fathered 12 kids. Obama became a community organizer, Boehner a small businessman, working in plastics sales. Obama was a city guy, Boehner a small-towner (although his small town is actually a suburb of Cincinnati, which is a big city but one of America's most conservative).

Boehner's substantive job is on one level the same substantive job every president-elect has: don't overreach, don't interpret the vote as some mandate for your own greatness. Virtually every president-elect makes this mistake. Newt Gingrich made this mistake in 1995 when he was in Boehner's shoes. I don't think Nancy Pelosi made it in 2007 when she took over, but probably only because, given the size of her Blue Dog caucus, she didn't have the votes to remake America in the style she hoped for.

As large chunks of the GOP base have veered off to some other planet ideologically, and considering that maybe 40 of the new GOP House members are pretty far out there themselves, Boehner has his work cut out for him. The debt ceiling vote, coming in probably March, will be the first big test of whether he can corral votes for responsible legislation or let himself be overrun by conspiracy theorists.

John BoehnerMichael Tomasky
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Nixon: Irish were bad drinkers | Michael Tomasky

Every so often, a new batch of tapes from the Nixon White House is released, and we hear again some fresh evidence of his distrust, shall we say, of Jews and blacks. But the newest tranche reveals that some white people were not immune. From the NYT's report on Saturday:

In a conversation Feb. 13, 1973, with Charles W. Colson, a senior adviser who had just told Nixon that he had always had "a little prejudice," Nixon said he was not prejudiced but continued: "I've just recognized that, you know, all people have certain traits."

"The Jews have certain traits," he said. "The Irish have certain — for example, the Irish can't drink. What you always have to remember with the Irish is they get mean. Virtually every Irish I've known gets mean when he drinks. Particularly the real Irish."

Nixon continued: "The Italians, of course, those people course don't have their heads screwed on tight. They are wonderful people, but," and his voice trailed off.

A moment later, Nixon returned to Jews: "The Jews are just a very aggressive and abrasive and obnoxious personality."

I can only wonder, as Yglesias did yesterday, which Irish people Nixon met. Every Irish drinker I've ever met was loads of fun to get drunk with. In fact they're pretty much the best. I'm not wild about those Irish drinking songs, like "Harrigan, That's Me." Many many years ago, Saturday Night Live did a very funny parody of a record-album of Irish drinking songs. The funniest one was simply called "The Drinking and Fighting Song," and the lyrics consisted entirely of "First we'll drink and drink and drink and drink and drink and drink and drink; then we'll fight and fight and fight and fight and fight and fight and fight."

I see I wasn't alone in finding this funny. The bit still lives on the web, and you can download the mp3 here.

But I jest; songs aside, the Irish are great fun in my experience. It was Nixon who was the mean drunk, according to various sources. It would be my guess that we'll get more evidence of this. There are still about 400 hours of tapes left to be released by the Nixon Library.

Now, you may be asking, why is the Nixon Library releasing tapes damaging to its hero? Because the library gets federal funding and is obligated to do so, and because the director is a real and respected historian, Timothy Naftali, and not some Nixon crony. Just watch, someday, the George W. Bush library will find a way around these rules.

In the meantime, there are still Nixon cronies aplenty. A friend of mine is taking odds on which old Nixonite will pop up on the Times op-ed page this week to avow that in all his years of dealing with Dick, he never heard the man utter one bigoted syllable.

Len Garment is usually a leading candidate for this task, but in this case it would seem an Irishman or perhaps an Italian is required rather than a Jew, because the Jewish stuff is old hat now.

Richard NixonMichael Tomasky
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

The significance of Bernie Sanders' filibuster | Michael Tomasky

Bernie Sanders' filibuster won't sink Obama's tax cuts deal, but it may help stiffen Democrats' resolve on tax justice down the line

For the past two years, Harry Reid could, conceivably, have forced the Republicans to mount an actual filibuster. That is, nowadays, as we've often discussed, the minority party merely needs to threaten a filibuster, and the majority, knowing that it does not have 60 votes, will just put off the vote so as not to waste everyone's time (in part, because they all have to spend so much time calling donors and raising money, and yes, I'm being serious about that).

I can't count the number of times I've heard liberals say, "Reid should just make them filibuster! Make them hold the floor for 24 straight hours, as Strom Thurmond once did. They will look ridiculous to the American people, especially as said people figure out they're trying to block a relatively inexpensive unemployment benefits extension, and the opposition will crash down like a house of cards."

In a session with a record number of filibusters threatened and cloture motions filed, it never happened. Almost, once or twice; but it didn't. So, it's kind of sad that the only actual filibuster of the whole dysfunctional session is the one happening right now, but it doesn't involve Republicans at all.

Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont is not a Democrat but a socialist. However, he does caucus with the Democrats, and he has been mainly an Obama supporter. But there he is, as I write, finishing his fifth hour of filibustering the tax deal.

I admire Sanders, and although I think the deal is pretty good, under the circumstances, and should pass, I do take my hat off to the guy. It's just nice to see someone taking a stand for the view that upper-income households don't need a tax cut, and the view that we're going to have an estate tax that will impact – get this – just 3,500 families in the entire country (see that chart, and look at "taxable returns" for 2011 under the Lincoln-Kyl proposal).

Sanders is not expected to pull a Thurmond. The Senate put together a package last night and this morning that added a few meagre sweeteners for the Democrats (extending subsidies for alternative energy and ethanol that were slated to expire). It will almost surely pass, with most Republicans and enough Democrats. Then, the action moves to the House, where things are a bit iffier but, most suspect, only a bit.

Still, it'll be enough to make Sanders a hero to the left. "Bernie for President" talk will … heck, there's probably already a website. Let's hope he doesn't drink any Ralph Nader juice. He's a good senator and should stay there.

However, let's also hope that there arises a popular groundswell behind his efforts today, enough that some other Democrats and – God help us – a few Republicans see that his view is a responsible one. It is one, after all, that majorities typically support in polls.

People, especially liberals, need to remember that even if or when this deal passes, the tax fight is a long way from over. Obama and the Democrats have a mulligan here, a 2012 do-over. Sanders and simpatico colleagues like Sherrod Brown can lead a progressive charge to strengthen the no-upper-bracket-cuts position when all this comes up again. Two years will pass quickly enough.

In the meantime, even though I disagree with Sanders' position, I do like his style.

Obama administrationUS CongressUS taxationDemocratsRepublicansUS politicsUnited StatesMichael Tomasky
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds