Although I realize this is a day late – our semester started yesterday – I wanted to make a quick comment on Peter Orzsag’s “first column at the NY Times”:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/opinion/07orszag.html, which was published yesterday. In the column, Orszag urges the Obama administration to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years, but then let them expire for everyone (advice which is apparently “not being followed”:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/us/politics/09obama.html?hp). I found the column an interesting read, but did want to draw attention to one part of the argument. Orszag writes:
bq. Finally, a key part of this deal is actually ending the tax cuts in 2013 — and that will surely require a presidential veto on any bills to extend them after that. (Failing to follow through would be particularly problematic if the high-income tax cuts are made permanent — at a 10-year cost of more than $700 billion.) Minimizing this risk requires as much upfront clarity and commitment as possible, including a strong and unambiguous veto threat from the president.
In other words, what Orszag wants is for Obama to _credibly commit_ now to vetoing any extension of the tax cuts later. My question, is there any way that Obama could actually do this? If he followed Orszag’s advice exactly, would there be any reason for anyone to believe that two years later he would actually veto another extension? My gut instinct is no, but maybe I’m wrong on this. For the presidency scholars out there, are there any good examples of presidents pushing for legislation at some time _t_ by making threats to veto legislation at some time _t+1_ and then actually following through on those threats?
Moreover, the particular commitment Orszag wants Obama to make seems especially fraught with political peril. Essentially, Orszag is suggesting that Obama commit to repeatedly (if necessary) vetoing tax cuts for middle and lower class Americans precisely when he (Obama) will be running for re-election. Especially in light of Obama’s 2008 campaign, such a strategy strikes me as political suicide. Indeed, this seems like such a bad move politically that I really wonder what it tells us about Orszag. Is there something about being director of the OMB that really isolates the office holder from political pressure? Or was he just looking for a catchy first column for the Times? Either way, it seemed an odd suggestion from a former Obama insider.