OBAMA TAX CUT COMPROMISE

Pres. Barack Obama has recently agreed to extend the Bush-era tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, which provide tax cuts to all Americans including the nation's wealthiest and now even the wealthiest estates. He has further sought the support of former Pres. Clinton to endorse the tax cut deal. The Bush-era tax cuts were due to automatically expire at the end of 2010.

The problem with Obama's endorsement to extend the Bush-era tax cuts is that for the past two years of his administration he has denounced the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans as bad economic policy and that it actually hurts the economy because it increases the deficit. The president has maintained that the tax cuts are not economically sustainable because of the deficit problem as the tax cuts are totally unpaid for.

A staple principle of the republican party has been reduce taxes for the individuals that create wealth in this country and that will grow the economy. In the past this idea has been coined as "trickle down economics" and has been vehemently opposed by the democratic party. Obama's tax cut is being called a compromise in which both parties walk away with elements of the deal that they don't like.

Let's see if that's true. Republicans achieve an extension of the tax cuts that they idealise, plus a further tax cut to the wealthiest estates and payroll. The President achieves his promise of extending tax cuts to Americans earning $250,000 or less plus an extension of unemployment benefits.

Now what exactly did the Republicans not achieve with this so called compromise which makes them unhappy and what exactly did the democrats get for their compromise which Republicans would not otherwise give? Unemplyment benefits?

This so called tax compromise begs this question: If Bush-era tax cuts and Republican economic policy are good for the economy, why do we need a democratic president?