President Obama and congressional Republican leaders have agreed on a framework for a compromise that would extend all of the Bush tax cuts for two years and keep unemployment checks flowing to two million jobless Americans for another 99 weeks.
The deal also provides for a one-year, two-percent cut in the Social Security payroll tax, and revises the death tax – aka “estate tax” – to 35 percent of all estates valued above $5 million.
Sounds great, right? Well, RedState uberman and CNN commentator Erick Erickson isn't so sure. To explain why, he offers Erickson's Two Immutable Laws of Washington and their Corollary:
“To understand the tax compromise in the Senate, you must know the laws:
“One: Politicians in leadership believe that if they make both the left and right angry they must have done something right; and,
“Two: If Democrats and Republicans come together in a compromise — no matter how bad that compromise may be — the media will herald the compromise and inevitably use the word 'tone' in discussing it.
“Then there is a corollary to the two rules: People who want a seat at the table with the politicians and media will turn into sycophants and tell you how delicious the compromise tastes.”
Erickson also contends the congressional GOPers got less than they could and should have in this opening round of the Post-2010 Democratic Debacle period. I'm not sure that I agree with Erick that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker-to-be John Boehner could have forced Obama to come even further toward their demands.
In my view, the essential test of whether a compromise should be adopted is whether it moves the government in the same direction endorsed by the electorate in the most recent election. Since voters made it crystal clear last month they think Washington spends, taxes and regulates too much, the Obama-McConnell-Boehner agreement certainly qualifies as acceptable.
You might think otherwise. You can make up your own mind by going here to read Erick's full post.