With compromises this low ...

Obama thinks he's the king of compromise, and he may well be in a Louis XVI sort of way.  But progressives aren't mad because he compromises; it's because he compromises too soon, too often and too readily, bargaining away so-called core principles on the cheap.  He's like the Crazy Eddie of policy giveaways, with prices so low he must be insane.

Or, as Anthony Weiner says, Obama goes from "zero to compromise in 3.5 seconds.”

I know some economists say Obama got a better deal than predicted, and that the package represents a "stealth stimulus" that might nudge growth up about a point.  But most of the stimulative effect of the deal will come from the middle class and payroll tax cuts and  unemployment extension -- which are more likely to be spent than tax cuts for the wealthy.  And these policies are popular enough on their own without buying them for the price of bling money for billionaires.

Of course, this would have required stirring up a brouhaha in the media.  But it's bonus time, guys.  Goldman Sachs has gold in sacks just itching to get out out -- it's canvas, after all. And the banksters want out of the society-imposed austerity box they've been living in-- though, at 20,000 square feet, it's still a good deal.  Flaunting it a little is no longer heads-on-pikeworthy, so they're ready to rip.  Back in the real world, though, the rest of us are stocking up on Fancy Feast, and wondering how we're going to afford that X-Box or NERF blaster our kids are eyeing.  Let's just say we're feeling less than sympathetic to the "ski or sun?"quandry this Christmas.  We're ripe for a major media shitstorm, one even the average Joe -- plumbers and all -- can relate to.  And, conservative as it is, don't think the media can resist a good upper-class smackdown every now and then, especially at Christmas.  This is, after all, the time of year all the movie Scrooges and Grinches get their comeuppance.

But forget the bad bargaining and, perhaps, bad faith.  Why does stimulus have to be stealthy? Why can't we let it out of its hiding place and give it room and air and license to roam? Why can't we say: We need to jolt  the economy, and businesses, already flush with $2 trillion on the sidelines, can't grow without customers with money in their pockets? Why can't we say: The free market is just peachy till it isn't, and then government has to step in temporarily to help the economy help itself?  Would that be so hard?

Apparent-ly.

Instead, we;re negotiating on Republican terrain -- we're talking about TAX CUTS, which, middle class or rich, are still not as stimulative as unemployment benefits or other forms of direct aid.  Or, god forbid we champion a grand infrastructure and green-jobs program that not only puts money into the economy and creates jobs, but gives Americans -- of both the red and blue variety -- something to rally behind?  It might get us out of our twin economic and emotional funks.  Why aren't we fighting for this, programs that have the triple bonus of helping people in need, juicing the economy, and advancing progressive solutions? A fourth bonus? Bonuses for Goldman.

How do you change a 40-year conservative narrative of "tax cuts good, government bad" if you don't even try? You can't, especially if, as I fear, Obama actually buys that narrative.

And that's not compromise I can believe in.