Bad Arguments

I happen to think that this tax cut deal fiasco is a situation in which there are genuine substantive arguments on both sides both as to policy and as to politics. But there are two arguments that the anti-deal people are making that I think are just plain a load of bull:

1) "We can win this fight because the American people are on our side." If what this means is that we could make a credible threat to pass no tax bill and let everyone's taxes raise and the American people wouldn't blame us because they're on our side on the underlying policies, that's one thing (I happen to think that's wonderfully optimistic). If it means that we can bring enough public pressure on the Republicans to get a "good" tax bill passed through the Senate, what are you smoking, and can I have some? Not happening. Republicans know no shame. They are immune to public pressure, at least until the 2012 election gets a hell of a lot closer. They are fine, ceteris paribus, with screwing over anyone and everyone, especially if it makes Obama's re-election less likely. They just really, really want to give money to the rich, which is why we've been able to get them to agree to this much already. We should try to make the bill as much better *as possible*, but with a realistic understanding of what is actually possible.

2) "This deal represents a tax increase for poor Americans." Yes, the Making Work Pay tax credit which will expire was worth more to poor people than the proposed payroll tax holiday will be. But don't y'all get that, if no bill passes, poor people get no Making Work Pay tax credit, and no payroll tax holiday. Compared to a better deal, this is a tax increase. Compared to doing nothing, this is a tax cut. Do the people saying this think that Obama can reasonably get that better deal that includes a Making Work Pay extension, without all 42 Senate Republicans bolting and dooming the entire deal, and sending us back to worst-of-both-worlds? If not, then this objection is just gibberish.