View From the Left: Obama 'Kept Giving Stuff Away'

Share with others:

Print Email Read Later

WASHINGTON -- For President Obama, the tax deal pending in the House would finally end four years of debate with Republicans about raising rates on the wealthy. But it seemed to reopen a debate within his party about the nature of his leadership and his skills as a negotiator.

While Mr. Obama got most of what he sought in the agreement, he found himself under withering criticism from some in his liberal base who accused him of caving in to Republicans by not taxing the rich more. Just as Speaker John A. Boehner has been under pressure from his party, Mr. Obama faces a virtual Tea Party of the left that sees his compromise as capitulation.

The main difference is that in the Obama era, the Democratic establishment has been less influenced, or intimidated, by the left than the Republican establishment has been by the right. Liberals have not mounted sustained primary challenges to take out wayward incumbents the way conservatives have. And so, despite the misgivings, all but three Democratic senators voted for the compromise on Tuesday, giving Mr. Obama more room to operate than Mr. Boehner.

But the wave of grievance from liberal activists, labor leaders and economists suggested that the uneasy truce between Mr. Obama and his base that held through the campaign season had expired now that there was no longer a threat of a Mitt Romney victory. It also offered a harbinger of the president's next four years as he prepared to take the oath of office for a second time later this month.

The criticism has irritated the White House, which argued that Mr. Obama held true to principle by forcing Republicans to raise income tax rates on the wealthy and extend unemployment benefits and targeted tax credits. Mr. Obama also quashed Republican demands to trim the growth of entitlement benefits. Aides dismissed armchair criticism from those who have never had to negotiate with the opposition.

"There's some frustration that over time you would think everybody would have a better understanding of the parameters of this," said Robert Gibbs, a longtime adviser to Mr. Obama who once called such critics "the professional left." "But he understands now probably better than at any other point in his presidency what it means to be a leader, what it means to have to do things that are good not just for one party but good for the country."

Still, Mr. Obama was left in the uncomfortable position of advancing a deal blessed by Grover Norquist, the conservative antitax activist, and condemned by many on the left.

That criticism mirrors past complaints when Mr. Obama included tax cuts in his stimulus package, gave up on a government-run option in health care negotiations and temporarily extended Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy two years ago. Liberals said Mr. Obama should have capitalized on his election victory and the expiration on New Year's Day of all of the Bush tax cuts to force Republicans to accept his terms.

"The president remains clueless about how to use leverage in a negotiation," said Adam Green, a co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a liberal advocacy organization. "Republicans publicly admitted they lost the tax debate and would be forced to cave, yet the president just kept giving stuff away."

Robert B. Reich, the former labor secretary, said that Mr. Obama "has stiffened his tactical resolve" but that "he's still the same President Obama who wants a deal above all else and seems willing to compromise on even the most basic principle."

Richard L. Trumka, the president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., said in a Twitter message on Monday that the agreement was "not a good fiscal cliff deal if it gives more tax cuts to 2 percent." Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, said on the floor on Monday that "this looks like a very bad deal."

Still, most Democratic lawmakers accepted it, however reluctantly, even Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont, an independent who is the only self-proclaimed socialist in the Senate. Many Democrats concluded that voting against it could cause greater economic disruption, and they grew more comfortable once they learned more about it. Mr. Trumka, for instance, later released a statement hailing elements of the deal, while blaming "Republican hostage taking" for its flaws.

Mr. Obama succeeded in forcing Republicans to raise the top income tax rate to 39.6 percent from 35 percent despite their adamant opposition, although he agreed to apply that to household income above $450,000, instead of $250,000. He also won an increase in taxes on wealthy estates to 40 percent from 35 percent, though it was not as high as liberals wanted.

The bill would extend unemployment benefits for two million Americans; renew tax credits for child care, college tuition and renewable energy production; raise capital gains taxes; and phase out deductions for the wealthy. Mr. Obama also insisted that a two-month postponement of automatic spending cuts be financed by $1 in tax revenue for every $1 in spending reductions.

"When the dust settles, there will be a lot of important elements in this for progressives," Mr. Gibbs said. The deal can be evaluated only in combination with the result of the next fiscal talks, to be concluded by the end of February, he said, adding, "We won't know the final score on that until you look at both of those negotiations together."

Some defended the White House, saying that it was ludicrous to expect that the president would not have to compromise, given that Republicans control the House and have enough votes in the Senate to filibuster a bill. Without an agreement, economists have warned that the country would be pushed back into recession.

Representative Elijah E. Cummings, Democrat of Maryland, said Mr. Obama secured important victories, citing unemployment benefits. "The president was strong there," he told CNN. "And I think he'll continue to be strong. I think, you know, I notice a different president since he won this election."

Jared Bernstein, a former economics adviser to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., said Mr. Obama did what he thought he had to, but he expressed concern that the president may have squandered leverage unless he holds firm in the coming debate over the debt ceiling. Republicans want to use a vote to raise the ceiling to force Mr. Obama to accept deeper spending cuts, but the president has vowed not to negotiate over the borrowing limit.

"While some appear to think his team folded in the cliff debate, I don't see it that way," Mr. Bernstein said. "They saw a plausible path forward, and they took it. My point is it's only plausible if they really don't get derailed on the debt ceiling debate."


This article originally appeared in The New York Times.


You have 2 remaining free articles this month

Try unlimited digital access

If you are an existing subscriber,
link your account for free access. Start here

You’ve reached the limit of free articles this month.

To continue unlimited reading

If you are an existing subscriber,
link your account for free access. Start here