Actually the President doesn't need to do anything. Just let the Bush Tax Cuts expire. Should Congress send him a bill extending them he can do nothing and not sign the extension.

Likes the idea of expanding free trade? Frustrated by congressional stalemate? Doesn’t necessarily believe that the rich should pay more in taxes? I smell a flat tax proposal in the works as the next noble act of “compromise” by practical-minded (read capitulating) Democrats. Was this person selected at random, or what? Compromise with Republicans, and their supply-side economics mantra, is what brought us to the edge of global financial collapse. I do agree that “taxing the rich” is an oversimplification of the sort of tax policy changes necessary to address our debt and fiscal concerns. I see no reason why passive income (capital gains) should be taxed at a lower rate than wage income. The idea of “fairness” in taxation, however, always ends in a flat tax proposal. Although it sounds fair—fair is not the point. We didn’t adopt a steeply progressive income tax base because it was “fair.” We adopted it because history proves that wealth is power, and unrestrained power destroys democracies, economies, and societies. The goal of capitalism, after all, is not to create competition and free markets; it is to control and consolidate wealth, create private monopolies, carve out market share, subordinate labor (and governments), eliminate competition, and build empires. The progressive income tax structure we once had helped to ameliorate the most abusive and egregious forms of unrestrained capitalism, which otherwise leads to rampant speculation, government corruption, and casino capitalism; or, what we have today, that is, complete with taxpayer bailouts. We’re not even close to appreciating the mixed economy we once had, let alone getting back to it. Barack Obama’s legislative record is not one of a progressive, and is really no cause for celebration by Democrats. His articulate speeches are great, but let’s face it—the GM bailout was originally approved by GW Bush, as was the bailout of our financial industries. Unions had already made massive concessions, with wages cut in half for future hires. The argument that things might have been worse notwithstanding, another precedent was set (as with Continental Bank and the financial industries – ‘84ish) for future public/private partnership bailouts, where, ultimately, Americans finance capitalism as wage-earners, taxpayers, and consumers, and then foot the bill when it all fails. (Investors’ productive role is a bit more mysterious; getting filthy rich seems to be about it.) Keeping Fannie Mae on life support may incidentally help homeowners from going into foreclosure, but it also helps keep a securitization process rife with fraud and lending abuse alive—a market worth $700+ trillion in the global marketplace—still unregulated and utterly opaque. (This market ballooned $100 trillion in just six months in 2011—see link). The healthcare bill was a gift to private industry—a mandate for profiteering originally dreamed up by Mitt. Although any Republican alternative would surely be much worse, I don’t regard anything Barack Obama has done to date as a great victory for progressive change. I would include myself in the 91% that approved of his message, but “how” remains my biggest concern.

(Sorry - didn't note the restriction; just search market ticker forums - zero hedge)

Follow-up question: will Congress act on President Obama's policy initiatives? Speaker Boehner & Senate Majority leader have made it very clear that their #1 priority is to obstruct the President. They want to make him a one-term President. Why help him succeed now? Doesn't seem fair to put it all on President Obama to succeed when success by definition requires Congressional cooperation.