Obama bashing

I'm as frustrated as anyone that there don't seem to be the votes in the Senate to extend the "middle class" portion of the Bush tax cuts while letting the rates for the top income earners expire. Liberals are heaping opprobrium on Barack Obama for not taking a principled stand on this issue. But as I recall in September Obama proposed exactly what the liberals want, but neither the Senate nor the House took this up because the votes weren't there and they were worried about the political consequences (leave it to the Democrats to not be able to figure out how to make political hay out of a vote to cut taxes for 98 percent of Americans two months before an election!). Now the votes still aren't there - why is it unreasonable, given the lack of votes for allowing the top tax rates to expire, to strike a deal?

Paul Krugman urges Congress to reject any deal and carry the fight on into next year. I think this is a bad idea. First, it could have an adverse impact on the economy, and economic recovery is and ought to be the number one priority for this government. Second, striking a deal with Republicans may allow Congress to bring other important measures to a vote, including START, extension of unemployment benefits, Don't Ask Don't Tell, and others. There's even talk of voting now on an increase in the debt ceiling in order to avoid a bitter fight in the spring that could lead to a government shut-down and an interruption of payments on US debt. This is an excellent idea. Third, there's a good chance that some version of the deficit commission's proposals will come before Congress this year. The proposals include a reform of the income tax code that trades limitations on tax expenditures (mortgage interest deduction, etc.) for lower marginal rates. I don't agree with the exact rates that the commission chairs proposed last month, but changes could be made to make the package more palatable. If so, then extending the Bush tax cuts beyond 2011 becomes moot. Why have a huge fight over this now if we're going to scrap the current tax structure next year anyway?

Having said all that, I would like the answer to the following question. The 2001 Bush tax cuts were passed through reconciliation precisely to avoid the filibuster. This is why they had to expire in 2011 and why we're having this fight today. Why can't the Democrats similarly extend the tax cuts for people earning under $250,000 by reconciliation? If they did this they could either (a) get the tax cut package they want, or (b) put themselves in a stronger bargaining position vis-a-vis the Republicans that they could use to strike a better deal than the one they're currently looking at.