Competing explanations


Obama apologists say that he had to bribe the Republicans with tax breaks (income, estate, dividends) for wealthy people in order to get the things he really wanted (extension of tax cuts for families earning less that $250,000, extension of unemployment benefits).

But there is an alternative hypothesis that explains the same events: that what Obama really wanted was to give the wealthy their tax breaks and that he had to bribe his supporters with the other package in order to get them to support it.

Given his track record and the discussion that has ensued since the deal was announced, which hypothesis makes more sense?

Comments

  1. Steve LaBonne says

    Oh, he “supported” extending only the lower-bracket cuts, just like he “supported” closing Guantanamo, the public healthcare option, mortgage cramdowns, etc., etc. Not only is talk cheap in Obama world, there seems to be a deflationary spiral.