Summer Sale! Get unlimited digital access for 13 weeks for $13.
News Opinion Editorial

Obama talks tough on taxes, fiscal cliff

Anyone who wondered whether a vote for President Barack Obama meant something should have been reassured by his performance in today's news conference. In the central issue that faces the country right now, whether the resolution to the so-called fiscal cliff will involve higher taxes on the wealthy, he could not have been more clear. Republicans who think they can blackmail the president into backing down on that question, as he did two years ago, had better think again.

Mr. Obama outlined several reasons why he was willing to accept an extension of all the Bush tax cuts, including those for the wealthy, at the end of 2010. The economy was particularly weak then, he said, and the extension was packaged with a number of other, crucial proposals, like an extension of unemployment insurance benefits. What he did not mention was perhaps the key difference between 2012 and 2010: Then, he had just stood up at a post-election news conference and admitted to taking a "shellacking"; this time, he was just re-elected decisively, while Republicans lost seats in both the House and Senate. As Mr. Obama noted, exit polls showed that substantially more people believe in higher taxes for the rich than voted for the incumbent president.

That's why he could be confident in outlining just two options for how we proceed: Either the nation goes over the fiscal cliff, taxes go up on everyone and the economy suffers; or Congress agrees in the next six weeks to legislation that keeps the Bush tax cuts in place for the middle class but not the rich. Republicans would be wise to take the latter approach. They lost the fight over taxes on the wealthy at the ballot box, and seeking to evade that fact by holding the middle class hostage is not going to further endear them to the American people. There are plenty of other fronts on which to make their voices heard.

Higher taxes on the wealthy will not single-handedly solve the nation's fiscal problems, but that's no reason to reject them. As a matter of simple fairness, it would be wrong to demand sacrifices from those who cannot easily afford them — as we almost inevitably will be forced to do — without first asking those who have plenty to contribute more.

And it is by no means all that the president is proposing that we should do. His opening bid in negotiations for a grand bargain on deficit reduction includes about twice as much new revenue as the failed deal he discussed with Republican leaders in the summer of 2011. That includes higher taxes on corporations as well. But the president also indicated that he is willing to accept cuts to entitlement programs and discretionary spending as part of a deficit reduction deal. Elections have consequences, and Republicans need to accept that the ground has shifted under their feet in the last 18 months.

Although talk of the fiscal cliff and taxes dominated the news conference, the moment that is likely to be most frequently repeated on television is the president's response to a threat by Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham that they would block any attempt Mr. Obama made to nominate United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice to the post of secretary of state because they believe she answered questions about the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, dishonestly. Mr. Obama, showing unusual fierceness, saying that if the Republican senators "want to go after someone, they should go after me."

On the substance, though, he still largely dodged questions about the Benghazi attack, both in terms of what went wrong with the security at the consulate and of the administration's shifting descriptions of the nature of the attack. Likewise, although he offered some assurance that the sex scandal surrounding David Petraeus' resignation from the CIA — which has now expanded to include the commander of American forces in Afghanistan — did not involve any breaches of national security, the president dodged questions about whether he and the American people should have known about the FBI investigation into the matter before last week's election.

And sadly, this may be the last good opportunity the news media (and by extension, the American people) have to directly press him on those issues. Mr. Obama's news conferences have been infrequent, indeed; the last was eight months ago. If he was serious when he said he is looking for ways to improve upon his performance from the first term, this would be a good place to start.

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • The real problem with David Petraeus

    There are a lot worse things going on in our country right now than Gen. David Petraeus cheating on his wife, and one of them is our country's invidious use of drone warfare. The worst part about it is that we have been brainwashed to believe that it is an acceptable plan of action. The only television...

  • The Paula Broadwell I know

    The Paula Broadwell I know

    My friend is an accomplished, caring person who is being unfairly demonized for her mistakes

  • After a sex scandal, men still go their merry way

    Columnist Jean Marbella implies that men are treated differently in sex scandals because they often go on to have successful careers after an extramarital affair is exposed, while women rarely do ("In all these sex scandals, see a double standard," Nov. 18). I disagree.

  • Obama, Petraeus, and who should resign

    I think if President Barack Obama proposed a balanced budget in return for taxing the wealthy, a compromise would be attainable. As to Benghazi, either Susan Rice (on the Sunday shows after the ambassador to Libya was killed), or President Obama (in the second debate when he told Mitt Romney to...

  • CIA killings continue, Petraeus or no

    Susan Reimer's column, "Surprising reaction to L'affaire Petraeus," (Nov. 15), brings up a number of salient points, most notably that male readers in large part thought that Gen. David Petraeus took the honorable, necessary course of action, while women who responded pointed out that chief executives...

  • The frump factor and Holly Petraeus

    The frump factor and Holly Petraeus

    Last week was a historic one for women. Eighteen women won or reclaimed Senate seats, bringing the number of women in that body to 20. Nearly 80 women now occupy the House. New Hampshire became the first state to elect a female governor and an all-women congressional delegation.

  • Affair wasn't Petraeus' only faulty judgment

    David Petraeus betrayed his wife; that is between them.

  • Petraeus right to step down

    In response to Susan Reimer's column ("Did Petraeus have to step down?" Nov. 13), I think Ms. Reimer is missing the bigger point when she writes "Men such as he are going to have to be able to survive these intensely private falls from grace or we are going to run out of talent." The bigger point...