Articles Tagged ‘David Axelrod’

Plenty of mud here in the trenches

Wednesday, October 21st, 2009

Since Richard Nixon, when has a U.S. Administration generated so much buzz talking about enemies?

Despite claims from the right that the so-called Mainstream Media (MSM) has been in bed with the administration from it’s early campaign days, Obama has run the white house more like Nixon than any other U.S. president - from staging press conferences to spotlighting Fox News as media enemy number one.

“They’re not really a news station,” Obama advisor David Axelrod told ABC’s This Week. “It’s not just their commentators, but a lot of their news programming if you watch, it’s really not news … .The bigger thing is that other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way, and we’re not going to treat them that way. We’re going to appear on their shows. We’re going to participate, but understanding that they represent a point of view.”

“It’s not a news organization so much as it has a perspective,” Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said on CNN’s State of the Union. “More importantly, is to not have the CNNs and the others in the world basically be led in following Fox, as if what they’re trying to do is a legitimate news organization.”

“The White House must be panicking at the thought that the “legitimate” media will only ignore these stories for so long before the lure of bigger, Foxier ratings finally proves too much,” Hot Air’s Allahpundit had to say about their opening salvos on the War on Fox. “So here he and Emanuel are, leaning on them not only to ignore Fox but to ignore stories that Fox covers, as if the underlying facts are somehow tainted by association (“Let’s make sure that we keep perspective on what are the most important stories”). Creepy.”

The People’s Cube writer Red Square turned to highly effective satire to frame the war in Obama’s War on Fox News Becomes a Quagmire.

While many observers still agree that the “War on Limbaugh” is a “just and necessary war,” even the former supporters of the war effort are now labeling the War on Fox an “unnecessary war of choice” and claim that the cable channel had nothing to do with Obama’s falling approval numbers.

But while the President drapes his unpopular policies with concern for the well-being of American journalism, more and more editors, reporters, and even unionized janitorial staff are beginning to oppose their commander-in-chief for trying to “win” an unwinnable war with their hands, instead of just using executive powers to ban all dissenting speech.

“I would gladly sacrifice any number of my fellow Americans to advance my agenda - but this is a dumb war and a rash war,” Keith Olbermann of MSNBC told The People’s Cube outside a congressional office he visited to demand a government crackdown on dissidents. “Why must we in the field put our reputations on the line when this Congress has the power to simply confiscate Rupert Murdoch’s assets and put Beck, Hannity, and Coulter in jail?”

Just One Minute put on an ironic smile and presented a “party” button for supporters of the president to show their loyalty.

I imagine this iconic image on buttons, posters, billboards - anywhere loyal journalists want to show their commitment to continuing the Good Fight for Hope and Change:

When we see Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Anderson Cooper proudly wearing these buttons we will know that America’s opinion leaders are going to Stay The Course To Victory!

I feel safer already.

“How much you want to wager he’ll soon be announcing appearances on Fox News?” Jammie Wearing Fool asked after posting this poll graphic:

obamaindex10211

Obama reaffirms support for public option in Labor Day speech

Monday, September 7th, 2009

President Obama chose an AFL-CIO picnic in Cincinnati, Ohio as the place to reaffirm his support for a public option insurance plan just two days before he addresses a joint session of Congress on health care reform.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I see reform where Americans and small businesses that are shut out of health insurance today will be able to purchase coverage at a price they can afford. Where they’ll be able to shop and compare in a new health insurance exchange-a marketplace where competition and choice will continue to hold down cost and help deliver them a better deal. And I continue to believe that a public option within the basket of insurance choices would help improve quality and bring down costs. (Full transcript of the Obama speech at The Huffington Post.)

The President’s remarks signal yet another course correction as the White House continues to get its bearings on the best way to pass an overhaul of the American health care system during Obama’s first year in office. Obama’s support for the public option marks the first he’s spoken publicly about the prospects of a government run insurance plan since senior White House adviser David Axelrod declared the public option all but an afterthought less than a week ago and since the 81-member House Progressive Caucus threatened to block any health care reform bill that did not include a public option just prior to the holiday weekend.

In the interim, it has become clear that Democrats cannot pass healthcare reform in the House without the public option and it would appear that Senate Democrats are still unable to rally the votes necessary to pass a bill that includes the government plan despite a compromise scenario that White House officials claim could involve Republican Olympia Snowe crossing party lines - a claim the Maine senator’s senior staff continues to deny.

In his speech, Obama declared the time for debate to be over and the time to act to be now.

Now, I’ll have a lot more to say about this Wednesday night, and I don’t want to give it all away. But let me just say this. We’ve been fighting for quality, affordable health care for every American for nearly a century-since Teddy Roosevelt. The Congress and the country have been engaged in a vigorous debate for many months. And debate is good, because we have to get this right. But in every debate there comes a time to decide, a time to act. And Ohio, that time is now.

Given the continued tone of town hall meetings across the country and dismal poll numbers on Democrat plans for health care reform, it is fair to say the debate has only begun.

Congress prepares for public option showdown

Sunday, September 6th, 2009

As Congress prepares to return from what can only be described as a raucous August recess, Washington, D.C. is about to become a battleground not only over health care reform but over the future - well, at least the immediate future - of the Democrat party. If the White House fails to deliver health care reform in 2009, it can kiss any chances of maintaining a Democrat Congressional majority in the 2010 midterm elections. But, perhaps more importantly, President Obama risks losing the support of his own party for the rest of his term if he cannot rally support for a public option insurance plan when he addresses a joint session of Congress on Wednesday evening.

In a final public relations push on this weekend’s Sunday talk show circuit, White House senior adviser David Axelrod and press secretary Robert Gibbs were in full spin mode but spent most of their airtime sending mixed signals reflecting continued indecision within the White House on the President’s support for the public option.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

 On NBC’s Meet the Press, Axelrod faced surprisingly tough questions from a usually friendly David Gregory.

MR. AXELROD: You know, he certainly believes that a public option within this exchange would be important. Let’s, let’s, let’s focus on what the issue is. There are 10…

MR. GREGORY: He said it must be included, David. He said it must be included.

MR. AXELROD: He said there must–he said there must be a, an exchange where people can get insurance at a competitive price. He believes in competition and choice. The public option is a, is an important tool to help promote that where there is no competition. He still believes that. But here’s the problem, David. If you don’t have insurance today, if don’t have insurance through your employer and you need to get a policy, it costs you three times as much, on the average, as it would if you had employer coverage. People simply can’t afford it. One of the ways–so we want to create a pool in which people who don’t have insurance, and small businesses, can go and get insurance at a competitive price. And a public option would be a valuable tool within that group, that package of plans that would be offered, private and public.

MR. GREGORY: I just want to be clear here because in his statement, he was unequivocal. He said it must be included. A public plan must be included. Is he now signaling that he would compromise on that if you could still have some measure of competition?

MR. AXELROD: Well, first of all, you’d have to take the whole statement. He believes that a health insurance exchange where people can go, small businesses, people who don’t have insurance can get insurance at an affordable price is still essential to any health reform and he believes a public option would be an important part of that package. He hasn’t changed his view.

Since taking over as host of Meet the Press, Gregory has gone to great lengths to establish himself as a credible political analyst worthy of the seat Tim Russert filled for 16 years only to become a mouthpiece for the most liberal wing of the Democrat party. His grilling of Axelrod had to please the House Progressive Caucus and its leadership as they prepare to meet with Obama to back up threats they made to block any attempt at passing reform that does not include the public option.

Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, a public option built on the Medicare provider system and with reimbursement based on Medicare rates-not negotiated rates-is unacceptable.

The Progressive Caucus’ 81 House votes is no trivial matter given the deep divisions among Democrats over health care reform and a statement from Speaker Nancy Pelosi prior to the long weekend seemingly only strengthens their bargaining position.

A bill without a strong public option will not pass the House. Eliminating the public option would be a major victory for the insurance companies who have rationed care, increased premiums and denied coverage.

Meanwhile, over on ABC’s This Week, Gibbs managed to get backed into a corner over whether the pubic option was a deal breaker for Obama when questions from anchor George Stephanopoulos turned to a potential veto of a bill that didn’t include a government insurance plan.

STEPHANOPOULOS: “The president, from what I can hear, is going to make the case for the public health-insurance option — for a form of the public health-insurance option — on Wednesday, but he is not going to say: If you don’t bring me one, I veto the bill.”

GIBBS: “I doubt we’re going to get into heavy veto threats on Wednesday. We’re going to talk about what we can do, because we’re so close to getting it done. He will talk about the public option, and why he believes, and continues to believe, that it is a valuable component of providing choice and competition, that helps individuals and small business, at the same time provides a check on insurance companies, so they don’t dominate the market.”

STEPHANOPOULOS: “Even though he knows that means he is not going to get Republicans on the bill?”

GIBBS: “Well, we haven’t closed the door on Republicans that are ready, able, and willing to work with the president to try to provide a solution for this.”

The question many are asking as they await Wednesday evening’s address is whether President Obama will try and have it both ways. In what could just as easily be seen as a political stroke of genius (if it succeeds) or a complete lack of leadership (if it fails), Obama is expected to promote a compromise that would see additional regulation placed on private insurance companies for a period of time with a “trigger” that would launch a public option if private insurers fail to meet quotas designed to provide at least 95% of Americans with affordable (and presumably meaningful) health insurance. The compromise is a “put up or shut up” strategy that could back some free-market Republicans into a corner if the imposed quotas are realistic.

Earlier this week, the White House tried to leak information suggesting that Republican Olympia Snowe had been privately brokering such a compromise with the White House. The rumours surrounding the defection of Snowe, however, proved to be greatly exaggerated after Maine Heritage Policy Center’s Tarren Bragdon questioned Snowe’s chief of staff and senior health care legislative aid and set the record straight in an interview with HealthCareHorseRace.com.

I specifically asked her chief of staff that question. I said from the reports I’m reading, it seems like Enzi and Grassley are not at the negotiating table anymore and that its potentially only Snowe. And, they said “no, not at all”. There’s a conference call scheduled with all of them [today]. People are taking out of context legitimate concerns that each of them have raised at town hall meetings and some of their public comments and ten blown it out of proportion that they’ve stepped away from the table and that’s not the case at all.

At the moment, it would appear that the only Republican currently discussing a trigger option with the White House is former Republican Senate leader and presidential candidate Bob Dole who found himself (along with former Democrat Senate leader Tom Daschle) defending the trigger idea before both Republican Mike Pence AND Democrat Maxine Waters.

In our recommendations, as Tom [Daschle] can verify, we permit a public option after — an option after five years, if the insurance companies haven’t cleaned up their act. Then there is a trigger of sorts, and you could get into a public option.

The political reality is that Republicans seem content to continue to let the Democrats cannibalize both their health care reform bills and their chances at maintaining control of Congress if they cannot come together and pass health care reform over the next several months.

House Libs to Obama: No public option. No health care reform.

Thursday, September 3rd, 2009

In a not unexpected development, two leading House liberals have sent a letter to the President Obama requesting a meeting on the public option insurance plan included in the House health care reform bill and recently disavowed by senior White House adviser David Axelrod. The letter comes from House Progressive Caucus leaders Lynn Woolsey and Raul Grijalva.

Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, a public option built on the Medicare provider system and with reimbursement based on Medicare rates-not negotiated rates-is unacceptable.

In the letter, the two progressive leaders “encourage” Obama to voice his support for a public option during his address to a joint session of Congress next Wednesday. It is interesting to note that President Obama has not yet publicly denounced the public option but chose White House surrogate Axelrod to test the waters on the issue. Clearly, the White House has gotten the attention of the Progressive Caucus whose 81 votes clearly rest on the inclusion of a public option.

A health reform bill without a robust public option will not achieve the health reform this country so desperately needs. We cannot vote for anything less.

Losing House liberals likely means losing any chance at passing health care reform in this Congress. Look for a “clarification” of the White House’s position on the public option in the days to come.

Grassley, Enzi ready to walk away from bipartisan health care talks?

Thursday, September 3rd, 2009

Bipartisan talks on health care reform would appear to be all but over in the U.S. Senate. A bitter exchange yesterday between the White House and  Senate Republicans Chuck Grassley and Mike Enzi - two of the so-called “Gang of Six” - coupled with President Obama’s announcement that he will address a joint session of Congress next week on the health care issue appear to have put any chance at bipartisan real compromise out of reach.

 Attacks by political operatives in the White House undermine bipartisan efforts and drive senators away from the table. Anyone who’s working on an alternative plan — one that would actually drive down costs and not drive up the deficit — knows how difficult the issues are. (Grassley spokesperson Jill Kozeny in an interview with the Associated Press.)

Kozeny’s comments came only hours after senior White House adviser David Axelrod questioned whether Grassley and Enzi were “negotiating seriously” with their Democrat counterparts in an effort to reach a compromise bill. 

If you’re sitting at a table negotiating in good faith, then you probably don’t send out mailers saying, ‘Help me stop Obama-care.’ That’s just common sense. (David Axelrod, as reported in the Wall Street Journal.)

Axelrod’s comments were in turn a reaction to a campaign letter (obtained by the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein) by the Grassley campaign in which the would-be senior negotiator on the Republican side announced “the simple truth is that I am and always have been opposed to the Obama Administration’s plans to nationalize health care. Period.” The White House was also less than pleased with Enzi’s turn at the weekly Republican radio address this past weekend in which he accused Obama and the Democrats of pursuing a “go-it-alone” strategy.

I hope the President and the Democratic-controlled Congress will reject the go-it-alone path that they are currently on.  If they do, we’ll have a chance to truly work on a real bill that will address those critical issues.

 

I think the radio address over the weekend by Senator Enzi repeating many of the generic Republican talking points that Republicans are using that have bragged about being opposed to health care are tremendously unfortunate but in some ways illuminating. It appears that at least in Senator Enzi’s case, he doesn’t believe there’s a pathway to get bipartisan support, and the President thinks that’s wrong. I think that Senator Enzi has clearly turned over his cards on bipartisanship, and decided that it’s time to walk away from the table. (White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.)

Grassley and Enzi’s supposed change of heart is no doubt the result of what Grover Norquist coined “the August Revolt” in town hall meetings across the country. In this August 12 video from Fox Business, Carl Cameron notes that Grassley’s own constituents aren’t pleased with his role as a negotiator on health care reform.

With Grassley and Enzi seemingly ready to walk away from bipartisan talks and President Obama finally ready to step into the debate in a serious way, it looks like the health care reform debate is about to take another radical turn and the prospects for a reform bill before the end of 2009 seem less likely than ever before.

Oh, How Sweet It Is… to be David Axelrod

Saturday, August 22nd, 2009

In the cruel world of American politics, a dutiful staffer will toil long into the night mulling over phone banking lists and reviewing profiles of high-power donors. He exchanges his personal life for 6 a.m. conference calls and his car becomes a billboard in transit. His diet consists of stale coffee and an endless supply of nicotine. An unenviable existence, to say the least, but one that is endured in hopes of seeing his boss declared victorious on election night and of seizing the resulting opportunities that lay ahead.

For David Axelrod, those opportunities were beyond imagine. As Barack Obama’s top campaign adviser, Axelrod carefully formulated the strategy and framing that ultimately earned the far Left U.S. Senator from Illinois the Democratic Party’s nomination and eventually, the White House. Such a feat was to be rewarded even more handsomely than previous campaign managers, who typically cram themselves into strategic, though often unwelcome, roles in the new administration.

President Obama bestowed upon Axelrod the title of “Senior Adviser” for his fledgling administration. After all, the president certainly made no secret of his plans to fill the White House with his Chicago-based allies. Axelrod joined the ranks of Windy City natives, such as then-Congressman Rahm Emanuel, who later became the White House Chief of Staff, and his brother, Dr. Ezekiel “Zeke” Emanuel, who was tasked with crafting health care reform legislation for the Administration. As if hanging out with his hometown buddies wasn’t enough of an incentive, Axelrod was encouraged by his national agenda-setting role and a $200,000 annual salary.

Despite all the perks of living a politico’s dream of further expanding his sphere of influence, Axelrod appeared dissatisfied by the substantial pay cut of shifting from the private to public service sector. According to a November 2008 Politico report, the political strategist’s firm collected more than $35 million in profits since 1998 for their extensive lobbying and consulting work, $2.5 million of which came from Obama’s presidential campaign, and Axelrod would be forced to decide whether to take a leadership role in the most liberal White House in American history, or to stick with his firm in Chicago.

Luckily for David Axelrod, he never actually had to make that choice. Axelrod began his work in the White House, but did not entirely abandon his booming consulting company. Certainly, this seems like a bit of a dilemma of ethics, with one man receiving a taxpayer-funded salary, while also maintaining private sector-based income in the same field. But in typical Obama Administration fashion, this sort of moral conundrum would not deter the President’s senior adviser, who sought to capitalize on the country’s current hot button issue: health care reform.

While Axelrod worked behind the scenes to craft policy that would lead to a government overhaul of the medical industry, his firm in Chicago lobbied special interest groups to earn massive media contracts that would help dictate political discourse during the debate. According to an August 19, 2009 Associated Press report, President Obama’s efforts to push his health care reform agenda have created a “financial windfall in the election offseason to Democratic consulting firms that are closely connected” to the President and Axelrod.

These coalition groups are currently running “at least $24 million in pro-overhaul ads” with the help of GMMB, a consulting group led by a “top Obama campaign strategist” and AKPD Message and Media, the firm owned by none other than David Axelrod. Michael Axelrod, David’s son, now manages the day-to-day affairs of his father’s AKPD Message and Media, aided in part by his employee, David Plouffe, Obama’s presidential campaign manager.

One of their biggest clients, Americans for Stable Quality Care, is comprised of political and financial heavyweights like the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), American Medical Association (AMA), FamiliesUSA and PhRMA, the last promising to pony up $150 million to promote the President’s health care reform agenda.

While the Associated Press concedes that there is “no evidence that Axelrod directly profited from the group’s ads,” they also admit that he will draw $2 million from the firm over the next four years. The larger issue, Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, contends, is a “network of relationships and overlapping interests” that could become a “problem as Obama tries to win the public over on health care and fulfill his promise to change the way Washington works.”

Indeed, candidate Obama repeatedly condemned such “inside baseball” dealings, lamenting that this sort of behavior leads to the American people distrusting lawmakers to govern responsibly. Even if Axelrod is not, as he claims, directly profiting from these contracts, is it not political patronage for his firm, and really, his son, to enjoy profitable deals with longtime Obama cohorts, like the SEIU? 

And even despite attempts of both David Axelrod and AKPD to distance themselves from each other, AKDP and GMBB, a partner firm in the health care reform media blitz, both “proudly proclaim their connections to Obama on their Web sites.”

AKPD has a full page on Axelrod that includes pictures of Obama. In one photo, Obama hugs Plouffe on election night.

“We are deeply honored to have been part of Barack Obama’s historic campaign to change America and the world,” GMMB says on its Web site. GMMB’s partners include Jim Margolis, a senior strategist for Obama’s presidential campaign.

Fox News reports that  leading lobbying law expert Kenneth Gross is not at all shocked by this relationship, finding it to be only natural for such a profitable favor to be given to AKPD and GMMB. 

“To victor go the spoils. The health care message is very much like a campaign message and it’s not surprising they would use the same vendor that knows the substance of the administration’s issues,” Gross said.

It seems that the two consulting groups have even more explaining to do, as it is apparent they have profited tremendously from David Axelrod’s political affiliations on a national level (Associated Press).

Both GMMB and AKPD also have worked for Democrats this year. The Democratic National Committee paid AKPD at least $106,000 for polling, media production, communication consulting and travel costs from February through April. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee paid GMMB roughly $75,000 from February through June for ads. And GMMB took in at least $9,000 this year from Senate leader Reid’s political action committee for communications consulting.

Republicans argue that such patronage is deplorable and should serve as a cause for alarm for the American people (Fox News).

But House Republicans insist PhRMA had a hand in hiring the firms — and continue to question the motives of both the drug lobby and the White House.

“Out of all the firms Pharma could choose to do their media work, they chose David Axelrod’s firm, which still maintains Axelrod’s son on the payroll and owes Axelrod himself $2 million,” House Republican Conference spokesman Mike Lloyd wrote in an e-mail.

“It’s hard to believe the public can be assured that David Axelrod isn’t influenced by any of this in the course of the health care debate. For an administration that promised ‘change’ and to be above even an appearance of impropriety this does not even come close to passing the smell test,” Lloyd wrote.

When President Obama proclaimed that he wanted to bring about “change,” what he really meant was that he wanted more of the same, just with liberals at the helm. He got his wish with David Axelrod.

Paying for Reform: Taxing benefits is back on the table

Monday, July 27th, 2009

As reported by Politico’s Mike Allen over the weekend, taxing health benefits to pay for healthcare reform is back on the table and gaining momentum as Democrat lawmakers make a final push to get reform legislation voted on before the August recess. 

According to Allen, “White House officials are embracing a plan to tax “gold-plated, Cadillac” insurance policies, giving momentum to an idea that is receiving bipartisan consideration on Capitol Hill.” (Tax on ‘gold-plated’ health care plans gains ground, Politico)

The plan, which is currently being considered by the Senate Finance Committee appears to be a merging of two less popular revenue schemes previously floated by the House and the Senate HELP (Health Education Labor and Pensions) Committee that called for taxing individuals on their employer-provided health benefits and a surtax on wealthy Americans and small businesses. Instead, the proposal being championed by Senator John Kerry would tax insurance companies or employers who offer high-end insurance plans.

Specifics on the plan itself and which insurance policies might qualify as “gold-plated” are hard to come by, but the concept is gaining support from the White House and “Blue Dog” Democrats who have proven an obstacle to getting legislation out of committee in the House and Senate. Even Senator Chuck Grassley, the senior Republican on the Finance Committee, is said to be “taking an intense look at it,” according to Bloomberg News.

What (President Obama) said was that this was, you know, that this was an intriguing idea to put an excise tax on high end health care policies like the ones that the executives at Goldman Sachs have the $40,000 policies. His big interest is in keeping the yoke of this, the burden of this off of the middle class who are struggling in this the economy. If it meets that test, then he will certainly give it consideration. So I think that is certainly a possibility. There are other possibilities out there as well. (White House advisor David Axelrod on CBS’s Face the Nation. Transcript from CQ Politics)

 

That is a very interesting and promising new development in the discussions. I think the better way to describe it is like this. First of all, this is a free country, you should be able to buy whatever health insurance you want to with your own money. But you should not be able to force your fellow taxpayers to subsidize your choice of these super luxury plans. Reading about one today for Goldman Sachs that is $40,000 per family. That is fine if you want to buy that with your own money but you shouldn’t be able to force middle-income taxpayers to subsidize your decision to buy that policy.

A lot of folks don’t understand today’s very complex tax system which does, in fact, subsidize the policies of the highest income people in America, and really doesn’t give much of a tax break at all to regular working Americans. So I think there is a way to make that tax system a lot fairer than it has been in the past. (”Blue Dog” Democrat Congressman Jim Cooper on CBS’s Face the Nation.  Transcript from CQ Politics)

But conservatives believe going after these high-end insurance policies is nothing more than an indirect tax on consumers with costs ultimately trickling down to the healthcare policies of everyday Americans.

Well, I can tell a lot of these folks (who support the idea) have not been in business. So, if you tax the insurance companies, it’s going to affect the cost of every policy. (Republican Senator Jim DeMint on ABC’s This Week. Transcript from CQ Politics)

Whether the idea is one conservative Republicans can live with may be moot if Democrats can get their “Blue Dog” colleagues in the House on board and win the support of Senator Grassley and liberal Republican Olympia Snowe to vote the bill out of the Finance Committee.

President softens on “not a dime” of new taxes pledge

Monday, June 29th, 2009

“The president had said in the past that he doesn’t believe taxing health care benefits at any level is necessarily the best way to go here. He still believes that, but there are a number of formulations and we’ll wait and see,” White House Advisor David Axelrod told George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week.”

When Stephanopoulos asked why Obama hadn’t drawn a “line in the sand” over his tax pledge, Axelrod suggested that such an ultimatum is at odds with the president’s effort to being a new tone to politics.

“One of the problems we’ve had in this town is that people draw lines in the sand and they stop talking to each other,” he said.

The blogosphere responded along party lines, with moderate or left leaning bloggers reporting the straight facts, and right-wing bloggers blasting the president and health care reform.

Instapundit responded by posting the 21-second YouTube clip where President Barack Obama promises not to raise taxes on the middle and lower income brackets.

“I can make a firm pledge,” he said in Dover, N.H., Sept. 12, 2008. “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

The RedState blog’s James Richardson attacks the President for being as weak on promises now as he was during his campaign:

“Then-candidate Barack Obama promised impossibilities—of a transparent government, of a new politics, of a hopeful and peaceful American—and performed little. Now-President Barack Obama promises nothing and yet he still performs little.”