Paul Krugman is one of the most influential writers on the Left. Perhaps the most influential, depending on how one defines 'Left'.  He says "No" to the just concluded with the Republicans where the Bush tax cuts for the rich do NOT expire as stipulated for this year in the original legislation, although he admits it has some improvements over expectations in the area of tuition credits, and the 2-year postponement of the wealthy tax cut expiration, and the payroll tax cut.  Even though income tax rates for working people will rise 3-5%, and perhaps more for those workers with any capital gains, he still votes “no”.  Even though saying "No" also imperils a deal on extending unemployment benefits (the most immediate requirement) -- also now held hostage to Republican demands to extend tax cuts for the rich. Even though, as he admits, it is "politically risky", he still says “no”.

Risky? I'll say! Proposing not probable -- but certain -- cash pay cuts to workers in the middle of this phony "unemployment-is-still-rising" recovery -- is very risky indeed, and a tall order for millions of workers to swallow. His reasons for assuming  the risk now are that 1) the budget really cannot sustain the cuts in revenue unless the tax cuts for the rich expire; and 2) he argues that conceding to Republicans now will guarantee even more fierce attacks on social security and Medicare and other "entitlements" (read rights) later.  (And this does not to mention the DREAM Act, START and many other matters stalled by the blockade of Republicans insisting that their big contributors from the past campaign are rewarded with the Christmas present they asked Santa to bring.)

Krugman, in effect, says: let's go on strike now (everyone makes a sharp short-term sacrifice toward a longer term right or security). Let working people suffer the tax rise and postponed unemployment extension in a soldierly way, regardless of the stress; and let this sacrifice be over higher taxes for the rich and the implications of failure there for the future. My education on strike related matters in the United Electrical Workers (UE) emphasized carefully calculating relationships of forces prior to a strike was always key in determining whether the union would survive, never mind prevail, in the ensuing struggle.

I say "Yes" to the 'deal', though shouts and protests at the utter hypocrisy of the Republican and Blue Dog forces should be heard across the land. But having a showdown fight (where the workers have to take a big hit at the git) on the tax question is suckers bait, right now. An invitation to greater divisions. Not because the risks of letting the rich off the hook are not as Krugman states. They are indeed high. And extending the cuts for the rich is fundamentally wrong.  The President however disdained the additional sacrifice on American working people that would result if ALL the tax cuts expire, which is the outrageous extortion the Republicans are pulling. He said, explaining the compromise:

“"I am not willing to let working families across this country become collateral damage for political warfare here in Washington," he said. "The American people didn't send us here to wage symbolic battles or win symbolic victories."

I agree, although Krugman is correct in pointin out that the issue is more than symbolic. Further,  the President’s promises here I think overstate what the tax cuts and unemployment insurance can accomplish on their own :

“It’s not perfect, but this compromise is an essential step on the road to recovery,” Mr. Obama said. “It will stop middle-class taxes from going up. It will spur our private sector to create millions of new jobs, and add momentum that our economy badly needs.”

It will take MUCH MORE to “create millions of jobs”. Hopefuly that speech is code for the point that “millions of jobs” and “momentum” in that direction is indeed the guiding objective and focus. There is not much time to be tarrying on the subject.

If indeed we are all going to go on strike, and win, I think it has to be on the MOST important question.  That question is jobs. If we are going to defeat the "austerity" campaign of the Republicans and financial forces it will be directly on jobs. Significantly reducing unemployment is also the acid political  test, IMHO, that will determine if the President will be re-elected.

Its better to get unemployment extension and tax cuts for workers passed, even if dirtied, and then use the latest unemployment numbers to COMPLETELY RESTART the Jobs debate. The much stronger JOBS-FIRST alternative budget reports of the Citizens Commission, as well as several positions of members of the president's deficit commission who were not in agreement with co-Chairmen Alan Simpson's and Erskine Bowles' austerity positions, provide excellent opportunities, and good platforms from which to make a much more united and broader stand. It is a solid foundation on which to defeat the phony deficit and "bond vigilante" diversions. If the right wing is determined to paralyze the government's response to the economic crisis, let it all come to a grinding halt on the most important question -- job creation.