Here’s a look at opinion content published today, Thursday, Dec. 9:
Tax-cut compromise: Editorial
We comment on the compromise between Republicans and President Barack Obama on the extension of tax cuts and unemployment benefits. The compromise was staunchly opposed by liberal Democrats. We write:
… Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., complained of the “nonsensicalness” of continuing the Bush tax cuts for the rich. “If I wind up voting for this package, I will not do it silently,” she said. Robert Borosage of the liberal Campaign for America’s Future complained about the “continuing syndrome of pre-emptive concession and (Obama’s) unwillingness to take his case out to the country.” Adam Green of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee: “President Obama let down millions of voters who trusted him when he said he would fight for his core campaign promise, ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich.”
… If only such rhetoric bought groceries or paid the rent. There’s no doubt that the president blinked on the question of extending tax breaks for the rich, a giveaway he campaigned against before and since his election. But his departure was for the right reasons, as part of a compromise that needed to be made. Americans, to be sure, have had it with government stuck in perpetual gridlock. The president demonstrates that he understands that, even if his detour from the party line and his own send sometimes allies in search of George McGovern.
“We will never get anything done” if Democrats are unwilling to bend and liberals insist on ideal positions, Obama said Tuesday, staunchly defending the tax deal and countering fellow Democrats’ complaints that he bends too much on their core issues. “People will have the satisfaction of having a purist position and no victories for the American people. And we will be able to feel good about ourselves and sanctimonious about how pure our intentions are and how tough we are.” In the meantime, he added, Americans will suffer.
We think the American people want more such results, instead of words.
Vincent Leibell: Reisman
Columnist Phil Reisman weighs in again on the fall of former state Sen. Vincent Leibell, who pleaded guilty Monday to federal corruption charges. Reisman argues that Leibell’s case highlights the need to take retirement benefits away from public officials who are convicted of crimes. He writes:
… Violate the public trust and you forfeit your pension. It seems morally and ethically proper, doesn’t it?
But we are stupidly naive. We forget that Albany is where the game is fixed by the capital’s ruling class of parasitic power brokers who cynically and unendingly feed off the host of the body politic.
Periodically, a law is proposed that calls for the disqualification of pension rights when politicians commit a crime. They call these legislative proposals “bad-boy bills.”
Cute, isn’t it?
Such bills go nowhere. No doubt, somebody with a green eyeshade in a windowless office stamps them “dead on arrival.” It’s a sad waste of paper. …
Westchester budget: Commentary
Barry Kramer, vice chairman of the Westchester Human Rights Commission, argues that cuts proposed in Westchester County Executive Rob Astorino’s 2011 budget would hamper enforcement of the county’s human rights laws.
Tax cut deal could be better: Poughkeepsie Journal
N.Y.’s super boondoggle: Albany Times Union
Off track on betting: New York Daily News
Vincent Leibell: Our Towns by Peter Applebome, New York Times