Will Wilkinson takes issue with the priorities of Democrats:

Even if it would be wise in the long run, raising taxes on top earners can wait until the economy's out of the woods. Conceding for now on taxes is a very small price to pay, especially if you think extending jobless benefits again is imperative. Is Mr Obama's willingness to kick this can down the road a couple years really worth getting in a twist about? I understand the frustration over the Democrats' failure to strike down this hated element of George W. Bush's legacy, but, but, but...

I guess wounded, wailing laments over the president's pathetic, weak-kneed capitulation wouldn't grate so much had I heard a peep yesterday about the administration's success in standing rock steady behind the president's legal right to unilaterally order the killing of American citizens. One would think this holdover of George W. Bush's reign would outrage liberals, but evidently one would be wrong. Perhaps liberals should take courage from the fact Mr Obama doesn't cave on everything. Besides, what's the power to raise taxes on the rich next to the power of discretionary assassination?

The "power of discretionary assassination" is a loaded term for killing an active al Qaeda member directly connected to ongoing efforts to kill innocent Americans, including a cartoonist now in hiding. But, yes, Will's core point rings true. The left's response to the deal really does highlight their redistributive passion, something the Dish does not share. Which is perhaps why it seems such a brilliant maneuver to me, and such a betrayal to them. I really don't hate the rich. The only reason to tax them more is the debt. And if we get a real deal to address the debt in the next two years, a little lee-way now to get a second stimulus seems to me to be political manna.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.