In The Tax-Cut Racket, Paul Krugman almost gets to the point I am making about this tax cut war.

Almost everyone agrees that raising taxes on the middle class in the middle of an economic slump is a bad idea, unless the effects are offset by other job-creation programs — and Republicans are blocking those, too.

If he could only get to the point of explaining that raising the taxes of the wealthy in the middle of an economic slump is not a bad idea if the effects are offset by other job-creation programs, then he will reach the epiphany that I have reached.

I am afraid that the previous paragraph’s cut and paste operation that I did on Krugman’s statement is too complicated for people to figure out on their own.  Someone in the administration has to come out and actually say it explicitly.

The McClatchy news story Obama Puts Bark In Consumer Watchdog: Elizabeth Warren, says:

President Barack Obama’s decision to appoint Harvard Law School professor Elizabeth Warren on Friday to oversee the creation of the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection cheered consumer advocates and Democrats Thursday, while dismaying Republicans and business groups.

That is the glass half full version of the story.  For the glass half empty version we have to go to OpEdNews, Triumph of the Money Party!!! Warren’s role downgraded, reports to Geithner, which starts out with:

The White House snatched back one of the few bones it’s thrown to the people outraged at the looting of the United States Treasury by failed financial concerns – the big banks and Wall Street. The promised appointment Elizabeth Warren  as head of the new agency to protect consumers from the financial services industry has been seriously downgraded. Instead of running the Consumer Finance Protection Agency, Warren’s role has been diminished to that of special assistant to the president and adviser to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.

The OpEdNews story predates the one in the McClatchy news.  My response to OpEdNews was:

There is a way of looking at this move by Obama in a charitable light. I am not saying this charitable way of looking at it is more correct than the name calling going on here, but it is a possible alternative.

Of course she is opposed by the banking crooks. That is exactly why she is needed. It is possible that Obama realizing he does not have the political muscle to get her approved the normal way, this is his way of sneaking her in the back door. Once she sets up the agency, it would be harder to argue that she shouldn’t head it. Getting Warren’s foot in the door may be Obama’s getting her in a position from which she can shove it open later. By giving Geithner this so-called subordinate, this may be Obama’s warning to him to shape up or ship out.

Also this will postpone the fight over her appointment until after the election. If the Progressives do not abandon Obama now, the political pundits might be proved wrong. The Democrats might still have control over both houses after the election.

Do you want to hold out for the hope of this positive spin on the story, or do you want to make sure that only the negative outcome is possible?

An addendum to my OpEdNews response was:

By the way, do you want Obama to openly admit his stealth plan so that you can support him? Maybe he has a way of communicating to progressives in a way that the Republicans won’t hear.

How plainly do you want him to spell out his negotiating bottom line so that the opposition has all the advantages?

Do you go into the car dealer saying, my absolute bottom line is to pay $20,000 for this car, but my first offer is $18.000? Do you think you are going to get the car for anything like $20,000 or less? When did you fall off the turnip truck?

In response to the author’s claim is that all he wants people to do is to tell the truth about the redistribution of wealth to the wealthy, I had this to say:

One style of motivation is to focus on what people do right and don’t make too big a deal of the things they do that do not live up to your expectations.

Apparently the other style of “motivation” is to find something to fault in whatever people do and never mention the things they do that you like.

In reality, there needs to be a balance. However, I favor a preponderance of the first style. Especially with people who I think can be or are motivated to do good.

So, sure, tell people what you want them to do – talk about the redistribution of wealth to the wealthy. However, castigating them for every thing that doesn’t quite go the way you want seems very counter-productive to me. Even worse is the attribution of evil motives to those people rather than considering that they may have a different tactical approach than you do.

That castigation and evil motive attribution kind of behavior might motivate you, but it doesn’t motivate me. In applying the golden rule, I try to treat others as I would have them treat me. I much prefer that tack until proven that something else needs to be tried. I don’t start off with the stick approach, which much on OpEdNews seems to do.