http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/why_liberals_dont_like_the_tax.htmlCAP's Michael Linden produced a nice chart showing why the tax deal is tough for liberals to swallow:
The red and blue on the chart are a bit confusing, so read it closely: On the left, you're seeing the amount of money Obama is spending on tax cuts for individuals (so the total doesn't include business tax cuts) next to the number of people who will benefit. On the right, you're seeing the same for the Republicans.
Obama's got 156 million people splitting $214 billion in tax cuts and benefits. The GOP's got 4 million people splitting $133 billion in tax cuts. On a per-person level, the GOP's tax cuts are much larger. An individual billionaire is getting a far better deal than an individual unemployed American. And that's galling. The problem is that to take the money from the billionaire means to also take the money from the unemployed individual. Actually, taking the money from the billionaire means taking the money from a lot of unemployed Americans.
To see how much, behold the return of the "snowman" graph, now updated to compare the original Obama plan, the original Republican plan and the compromise (click on the chart to enlarge it). All groups are getting more under this framework, but on an individual level, the wealthy are getting much, much more. The question, at the end of the day, is whether stopping them from getting it is worth cutting benefits for the unemployed, and tax cuts for middle-income Americans, and the Earned Income Tax Credit. I don't think it is, and that's particularly true because it's not, to me, about the size of the transfer so much as the possibility for stimulus. But given the level of inequality in this country, and the potential that deficit reduction deals won't be worked out by a progressive congress, I see how you could come down on the other side:
