Matthew Yglesias doesn't think President Obama should take the lead on tax reform:
If the President goes and leads the charge for tax reform, what happens is that tax reform passing becomes “a victory for the White House” and we start getting stories about “President Obama’s goal of overhauling the tax code.” And a proposal like that will be dead on arrival. Fundamental tax reform has a chance if and only if there’s a bipartisan group of hardworking members of the House and Senate who sincerely want to reach consensus on a tax reform proposal.
Andrew Sullivan is baffled:
So why on earth shouldn’t the president try and get this started? I think Matt is seriously wrong here - and my own personal test for the seriousness of this presidency from here on out is its commitment to long-term fiscal balance and tax reform.
I sympathize with Sullivan, but I'm not sure that he gets Yglesias' point. Simply put, on sensitive issues where bipartisan compromise is necessary for a satisfactory result, presidential leadership is usually counterproductive. When the president takes a position, that position tends to polarize. Not only will his rhetoric intensify already-held views, but the sheer act of taking a stance will push the other side into opposition, even when there's plenty of agreement. The DREAM Act was relatively uncontroversial up until a Democratic president decide to stump for it. At that point, Republicans -- even former supporters -- found reasons to vote against the bill.
Yglesias doesn't want presidential involvement in tax reform because presidential involvement in tax reform would doom the project. As soon as Barack Obama came out in support of one element, conservatives would come out in opposition. Like Yglesias said, fundamental reform is only possible if the president stays out of the conversation.
-- Jamelle Bouie
