« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Playing With the Two Immutable Laws of Washington

There are two immutable laws of Washington, D.C. To understand the tax compromise in the Senate, you must know the laws.

  1. Politicians in leadership believe that if they make both the left and right angry they must have done something right; and,
  2. If Democrats and Republicans come together in a compromise — no matter how bad that compromise may be — the media will herald the compromise and inevitably use the word “tone” in discussing it.

Then there is a corollary to the two rules: people who want a seat at the table with the politicians and media will turn into sycophants and tell you how delicious the compromise tastes.

Understanding those two immutable rules and the corollary tell you all you’ll need to understand about how the tax compromise will be played. Let’s review what the compromise is:

  • Extend current tax rates for two years
  • Extend unemployment benefit for another 13 months
  • A two percent cut in the payroll tax for next year
  • Death tax of 35% imposed above $5 million

We can first laugh about Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles. After all that work, lecturing, and lamenting they have been, in one act, put back under the rock from whence they came.

There will be no more hand wringing over saving social security and the deficit. We’re going to blow it up. Ironically, we’re going to blow it up to preserve today’s tax rates and resurrect the death tax.

Second, we can laugh at the Democrats who are in full meltdown over the Democrats daring to extend current tax rates for everyone. For all the left’s talk about equality over freedom, the left believes they can treat the most successful with the greatest disdain and take away the freedom to take risks in this country and replace it with servitude to government.

Had Obama shown any leadership, he could have gotten this passed months ago on the grounds that it’d help stem losses in the midterms. But he didn’t, despite pressure from many Blue Dogs who will, in less than a month, be called “former congressman.”

Just last week Mr. Obama said, in his weekly radio address, “I believe we can’t afford to borrow and spend another $700 billion on permanent tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.” My what a difference a week makes.

Ultimately though, this is a compromise that leaves both sides coming up short and is full of compromising the GOP did not have to engage in, even without controlling the Senate. They could have gotten more. We will also continue subsidizing unemployment — yes you read that right. At some point it becomes welfare, not unemployment compensation.

The compromise does little to stem the tide of uncertainty that has kept businesses from hiring. Because the fight will be wrapped up in the politics of 2012, small businesses that have been keeping money on the sidelines will keep doing so. Any politician who says this has anything to do with job creation will largely be lying.

Nonetheless, we know this much is true: the media, after weeks of taking the Deficit Commission seriously, and many of the politicians who have done the same will celebrate this grand act of bipartisan comity.

For months, the Democrats have said they would never support extending the current tax rates because of their concern for the deficit. They will now.

For months, the GOP has said they would never vote to raise taxes and will now vote to raise taxes by resurrecting the death tax instead of killing it — the only reason being Jon Kyl (R-AZ) wanted to bring it back and has held this position for a while.

For months, both sides have claimed they were committed to saving social security. Instead, they will cut the payroll tax thereby bringing the bankruptcy of social security even closer.

We will know who the real conservatives are in Congress. They’ll be the Republicans who oppose this deal.

But hey, it is bipartisan!

Maybe we can get Jeff Flake to primary Jon Kyl . . .

COMMENTS

  • davesinsanantonio

    to be a politician. These clowns will now be congratulating each other on doing such a wonderful job. And, the sycophantic media will echo those sentiments. The sad thing is that not only will the people be hurt by all this, but the chains about our children and grandchildren just got heavier and longer. No wonder the trust level of the people in their Congress is so low. The saddest thing is that we keep re-electing these criminals/bozos instead of insisting on having only statesmen in office.

  • http://www.facebook.com/BigGator5 BigGator5

    I agree with Moe that if this thing passes or not, we won. We won because we got Obama to eat his campaign promise.

    That said, this deal may still be DOA for Democrats. I forsee Nancy Pelosi killing this in the House.

  • flamerock

    …and now it’s a four poster king size bed. Say again: We’re going to add another 13 weeks (not months – as if that matters at this point) for people who think that working for less than what they got in their bubble-created job is somehow degrading?

    Erick, you describe this as an act of “bipartisan comity.” You did in fact mean “bipartisan comedy,” didn’t you? Actually, it’s tragicomic, and an omen of things to come as long as the blue blood RINOs are allowed to, er, “properly” educate the incoming GOP freshman class in 2011.

    May Almighty God have mercy on the failing American republic; we need whatever mercy He can give – although I suspect that His wrath is a more likely response

  • Martin Knight

    … welcome to the club!

    We once had a self-proclaimed “moderate” here on RS (I forget his name) who was apparently so convinced that the biggest threat to America was the “bickering” in DC that he actually wrote (after a really hostile cross-examination by the regulars) that he thinks a Congressman should vote for a policy he believes is wrong for the sake of “Bipartisanship” and changing the “tone”.

    Somehow, the Beltway’s chattering class punditocracy has got it into their heads and the heads of the ignorant that disagreement has no place in politics.

  • Jack_Savage

    He really doesn’t mind because they no longer matter. Welcome to triangulation, Obama style.

    Three years of unemployment benefits. Three years. Welcome to the new dependent class, compliments of the Republicans. This sets a terrible precedent.

  • ale2x8

    this so called “compromise”. The left is now showing they have little allegiance to Obama anymore. And the right, especially the new incoming conservatives have much to prove. This may very well be killed outright in the House with real bipartisanship. Republicans should now realize that Obama is no better than “Kid Sally Palumbo”.

  • partyof1

    why did they create 3 branches

  • Michael Dugas

    N/T

  • http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

    I agree with Erick more than 9 times out of 10. On this, I disagree. The reality is, the GOP controls one house of congress, and not even that yet. 2006 and 2008 were the biggest victories for pure all-out big government statism possibly in history. 2010 was a referendum on that ideology, but it was an incomplete referendum because it takes a few cycles to flip the senate and the presidency isn’t up until 2012.

    2012 is going to be the grand finale of where the country is at. This compromise puts everything into a holding pattern pretty much until the 2012 campaign is in full swing. The tax issue will be a major issue in that election because of this compromise.

    Obama is being ravaged by his base as he is repudiating all of his campaign promises. This compromise makes it far far less likely that he will be reelected. So in my view, it is a tactical and strategic victory for conservatives, if not an ideological one. This compromise makes it more likely that conservatives will be in full control of all the levers of government following the 2012 election, and at that time we will be able to slay the beast.

  • cam1

    the dems play the GOP like a banjo and the music stinks.

  • eddie74

    In that Day & This, – they carried on with fun & games, – giving & taking each others’ wives and goods, – worshiping all manner of gods, – laying in with all sort of despicable Sin, – lazy & slothful beyond Words, – lavishing themselves on the booty of another’s Bounty, – coveting that which is not theirs to take, while laying up LAW to seize that which they will have stolen.. And GOD from Above, seeing all manner of SIN & Depravity amongst the People, – the giving & taking of all sort of sinful pleasures, – they forgetting the Gifts of His Word, – then, Almighty God in His Great Wisdom then Gave Them Over to Their Reprobate Ways, – To Reap the Wages of their Own Sins and to Harvest the Pains of their own Iniquity,, For the Wages of your Own Sins will bring you to a Death you will have surely Earned..

  • Marcus_Traianus

    We are all supposed to be very impressed that Obama ate his campaign promise and the far-left is in knots. But I am not, and it is clear the old guard Republican leadership is alive and well in DC.

    Republicans ran and won the last election on a platform of fiscal responsibility, constitutional fealty and jobs. Other that not temporarily allowing the tax rates to rise (they are not tax cuts, a message the GOP can?t seem to clarify for the public) I am not certain what was gained out of this ?compromise?.

    Most of the state?s unemployment funds are depleted and extending these ?benefits? provides no incentive for people to go back to work. In fact, most folks don?t seriously look for employment or accept offers which represent a marginal increase above these payments until they are about to run out. State bailout crisis? are on the horizon. But Republicans don?t have the stones to explain that to people so they cave. It?s a corollary to Democrats refrain ?it?s for the children?.

    Re-imposing the ?death tax? irrespective of bracket is a tax increase period. I thought tax increases, irrespective of the class-warfare rhetoric were not good for the economy? I guess confiscating (yes, 35% for dying is confiscation) money earned over a lifetime from people with ?estates? over $5 million is a good thing in the eyes of Boehner and McConnell.

    On messaging, Obama just bent McConnell and Boehner over a barrel. He ran out, stole their message and all of a sudden is Mr. Tax cut-job-creator-man. Funny, they never let anyone beat them to the microphone before. Oh wait, given this recitation I know why. They just trampled on first principles for the sake of showing people they can work with Democrats. Cowards.

    Frankly, this is nothing more than the same Republicans that sent us packing last time reoccupying the house. Their worn refrain is ?the people want compromise? which to them means abandoning principles for the sake of agreement.

    Yeah, I can?t wait until they take over in 2011….:-/

  • sparkyva

    The right must realize the importance of the one bite at a time principle. Never take too large of a bite or the eating process will be interrupted for a long fight. The other side to that is you must keep eating. What can go wrong is that the Republicans becoming sated and stopping the push for lower taxes, fewer regulations, and more economic growth. One small bite at a time, but relentless eating away at state-ism. State-ism can not be slain right out, but it can bleed to death. As our economy recovers tell the story of why. Shame those who want a government handout, and praise those who can and do contribute to our economic strength. We can beat China and Russia in this economic race for the future.

  • swamphermit

    The left just substitutes the word “Rich” for “Jew” in order to claim equality is their goal…yeah, right. Republicans are still spineless and I’m switching back to Libertarian Party…

  • hunter

    than to get something that helps us all, is timed to expire during a campaign, making it unlikely to ever expire, and to get a President resolutely opposed to meaningful tax relief to now start to competing to deliver tax relief?
    Sorry, but as a stockholder in a small family business, as a life long conservative and having voted straight ticket Republican, a political donor and campaign volunteer, I do not see what your problem is.
    Compromise, if you read any history, is in fact at the heart of living in a multi-party system.
    And I do not recall that we won both Houses of Congress. We won one.
    Another rule of politics you may have forgotten is that politics is hte art of the possible.
    Getting two years was possible.
    I like it.

  • hunter

    in the face of victory.

  • erp617

    Why can’t everyone see how the Republican leadership was played like a cheap fiddle. We’ll never take charge with the bunch of GOP wimps we have in the senate.

  • http://todaysasbestos.wordpress.com scotteiland

    We will get a chance to take the argument to the voting public for the critical 2012 campaign. If we nominate an articulate, principled conservative to head our ticket, I believe we’ll win the argument and ultimately be able to cut taxes further or, ideally, replace this graduated income tax with a flat or “fair” tax.

    I know, it sounds like a pipe dream.. We had to swallow welfare (‘unemployment extensions”) and some of the noxious elements of the stimulus package to make the deal, which frankly makes me a little sick

    I’m choosing to think positively here (I know, I’m naive) and point to what we can do with this.

  • napensnake

    However, one should compromise only details. The problem with compromise in DC is that “conservative” politicians are frequently too willing to compromise on principles. If you compromise your principles, you have no principles.

    Imagine a person who says he is opposed to bank robbery but is willing to overlook that crime if the perpetrator is in poverty.

    Now imagine a politician who proclaims himself to be in favor of free market solutions and a believer in the American Dream who is willing to increase taxes on the “rich” in order to help the “less fortunate.” Can a person be “principled” if he is willing to sacrifice one principle in order to preserve another? This is modern compromise in our Congress.

    Proper compromise would begin with a principle and be willing to accept that there may be multiple routes to that goal. However, the goal should never be sacrificed.

    Our republican form of government was instituted because the framers of the Constitution did not trust democracy and its potential “tyranny of the majority.” One of their concerns was for the rights of the minority. Many politicians boldly speak about the rights of minorities but are willing to increase taxes on a minority group (the “wealthy.”) If a person is worried about minority rights, how can they increase taxes on a minority? (As an aside, is the term “minority” code for something else?)

  • katnandu

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46050.html
    Why is the Republican leadership negotiating healthcare eligibility subsidies? I thought we voted to end this terrible bill? What is going on?

  • JadedByPolitics

    is WELFARE is lying. It is sickening the babyish nature that the government takes on liberals who will not or refuse to find a job and just want to keep getting a handout. I don’t know these people because the people I know would be EMBARASSED to take a government handout for 3 years. I also know that those who continue to take that money will be unemployable when jobs start coming because as a hiring manager in my past I would look at these people as not very hardworking Americans and would go with the guy/girl who has a job and is looking for a job to better themselves!

  • edintexas

    You must have been jesting. But just in case:

    Is the Pope Catholic?

    Does a wild female cat have kittens?

    Is the term “minority” code for something else?

  • swamphermit

    The Dem’s court, BTW. Why did the Republicans have to give the Democrats anything?!? Were the Democrats going to let the tax cuts expire? I don’t think they would dare, and they didn’t have the votes to pass a ‘Tax the Rich’ plan. And why aren’t more Republicans pointing out the Democrats’ patterns of HATE?!? E.g. Rev Wright, TUCC, and singling out groups to HATE, e.g. “The Rich”?!? Democrats just lost control of Congress because their polices lost Jobs whilst increasing the deficit, and those same policies have now created a permanent payment for the unemployed (do you know how much that costs?). That’s not “Compromise” … that’s just more of the same rolling over!

  • red_oakster

    Every gain conservatives make between now and 2012 will be paid for with something objectionable. If you don’t completely control the executive and legislative branches, you don’t get everything you want. Period.

    This deal maintains tax rates for two years and shifts the debate in favor of the Republicans the next time it comes up-the election year of 2012. And with taxes out of the way, there is really nothing that Republicans need to do legislatively other than to seek spending cuts and do oversight. It’s a very good strategic terrain.

    I also think there are two points where Erick is very far off base. The death tax is going up to 55% next year if nothing is done. To say that Republicans are re-instituting the death tax when there is no chance of repeal when Democrats control the White House and Senate is the rhetorical equivalent of banging on the table. 35% and a $5 million exemption and step-up in basis is the new opening bid for 2012.

    Second, Jon Kyl has been one of the effective conservative senators. Unlike Jeff Flake, he does not want to lift the embargo on Cuba. Kyl has been the one of biggest advocates of tax cuts. He stopped Clinton’s test ban treaty and he’s killing off START. He also torpedoed Harriet Miers’ nomination. He is a solid reliable pro-life and pro-family vote.

    He also happens to be the whip and that means working with all members of the caucus to get things done. There’s a difference between a Trent Lott or Lamar Alexander on one hand, and a Kyl on the other. That difference is working the system in behalf of conservative objectives wherever possible.

    Erick, I think you are failing here to distinguish between a porker like Bob Bennett, who richly deserved a primary challenge, and Kyl, a principled conservative who pushes conservatives principles as far as they can go before striking a deal.

  • runner12

    Too much of this seems like capitulating to the Dems. But at the same time, if we allow the tax cuts to expire, we risk hurting the American people. But it also makes me want to gag that we are extending welfare for the unemployed (welfare is exactly what it has become). I guess I will take a wait and see approach. I am cautiously optimistic that perhaps Repubs are biding their time and fighting for as much as they can get until they take over the House in Jan.
    However, if they fail to follow through on their campaign promises when they take office and do not have a new bill every week to present in an effort to undo the fiscal mess and socialist policies of the Left, then I will be screaming from the rooftops.
    As for now, I am just keeping a watchful eye on them.

  • Goldwater_Conservative

    Is that in the new deal, I guess I missed that part. If so thats another big win for the GOP as the DEMS had an entire year to get thier proposal of 45% with a 3.5M cap rammed thought but since they didnt make a decision Obama has to take the GOP proposal.

  • IJB

    Having not accepted that they *lost* this year, I don’t see how they can allow this deal to go through.

    So, Nancy Pelosi will kill it. And if she somehow fails, I believe Chuck Schumer will kill it.

    We’ll soon see…

  • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

    In my humble opinion, the main reason incumbent Republicans don?t go out on a limb on issues and stick to principle is because, on average, in every state, the Republican Party is a ?shell? ? over half of the precinct committeeman slots are empty. That means, as long as that does not change, history being their guide, the incumbents believe they will win the all-important, traditionally-very-low-turnout primary election. On the other hand, if conservatives flocked, in droves, by the thousands, into the Party to fill up these seats, then every incumbent Republican would face a credible threat come primary election time ? because all those conservative PCs might not only work to Get Out The Vote for a ?more conservative, non-professional politician? challenger, but they might also vote to have their local and county committees endorse the challenger.

    The tea partiers and 9.12-ers in Utah figured this out, and successfully unseated incumbent ?less than a true conservative? Bob Bennett. I wrote about it here:

    http://www.redstate.com/coldwarrior/2010/05/08/2101-of-3500-of-75000-denied-bob-bennett/

    Regarding the endorsement power, for example, the Maricopa County Republican Committee voted to endorse newcomer Bill Montgomery for County Attorney over incumbent RINO Rick Romley. Bill went on to win by an 11 per cent margin in the primary and cruised to a general election victory.

    Also, here in Arizona, when a state legislature seat becomes vacant (as when some of ours ran for Congress in 2010), if there?s 25 or more PCs in that district, the PCs ? and only the PCs, not the registered voters ? of that party get to nominate three people from which the County Board of Supervisors select a replacement. If conservatives have a majority in the PC ranks in that district, they’ll nominate three conservatives. No matter who the Bd. of Supervisors selects, a new conservative Republican will take the seat in the legislature. Now that?s real political power, no?

    Right now, here in Arizona, there?s a battle going on for the soul of our Party. I put together a slate of conservatives in my Legislative District and we did pretty well, and we had success elsewhere that I helped with. I wrote about it here:

    http://www.redstate.com/coldwarrior/2010/12/04/they-stopped-complaining-about-the-republican-party-and-did-something-about-it/

    It?s real simple ? we?ve lost, as a nation, the knowledge of basic American civics. It?s not taught any more in the public schools. In 1968, I had a full semester of it in my public school in a small town in Wisconsin. In my summer before senior year, I was fortunate enough to attend Badger Boy?s State hosted by the American Legion. But most people today I meet at the tea parties and other conservative gatherings, at which I recruit, usually respond to me with, ?What?s a precinct committeeman?? Even long time Republicans I?ve met at fund raisers. They just don’t know. And, by and large, the “old guard” in the Party doesn’t want them to know. Because they like running things. And incumbent Republican congresscritters don’t want “the little people” — the voters — to know they could take over the Party, easily, if they united within it. Because of all those vacancies, the Party is there for the taking.

    Good, decent, conservative people flocked into the tea parties and 9.12 groups and other grass roots conservative organizations that sprung up because they didn?t know that the BEST place to unite was inside their local Republican Party committees. And it?s not like the Party is advertising that conservatives ought to join it.

    Indeed, I challenge people to find me video of ANY ?conservative? incumbent Republican imploring a conservative audience to come into the Party to become ?card carrying, voting members of it.? I have some of Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce saying as much to the April 15, 2009 Tea Party on the Arizona Capitol Mall. He said it because I asked him to. While he was saying it, I was out in the crowd with a sign and a flyer recruiting precinct committeemen. We?ve gone from 1,989 in 2008 to 2,936 in 2010 in Maricopa County. Here?s the breakout in the Legislative Districts:

    2010-11-25 Republican Party PC Quotas for each Maricopa County Legislative District, PC slots filled, Vacancies and Per Cent Full

    LD PC Quota PC slots filled Slots Vacant % filled

    4 622 201 421 32.3

    6 445 207 238 46.5

    7 443 180 263 40.6

    8 531 299 232 56.3

    9 401 111 290 27.7

    10 269 74 195 27.5

    11 444 407 37 91.7

    12 504 112 392 22.2

    13 129 23 106 17.8

    14 98 10 88 10.2

    15 163 72 91 44.17

    16 151 66 85 43.7

    17 277 113 164 40.7

    18 263 159 104 60.5

    19 461 299 162 64.9

    20 384 120 264 31.3

    21 539 169 370 31.2

    22 583 293 290 50.25

    23 28 13 15 46.4

    25 19 6 13 31.6

    Countywide, we now have 2,936 elected PCs but, currently, a quota of 6,754. That means there’s 3,820 vacancies — only 43.4 of the slots available are filled.

    Saying ?we?re going to vote them out? and actually having the boots-on-the-ground in the precincts are two entirely different things.

    I listened to Hugh Hewitt’s radio program yesterday. All the callers said some variation of, “I’m mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.” Hewitt’s couldn’t figure out why these Republican congresscritters don’t “get it” and won’t stand on principle. He told his callers to ?call, call, call? the Republican congresscritters. In my humble opinion, the only calls that matter to the incumbents are the ones where the caller can say, truthfully, one of the following:

    I am a conservative Republican Party precinct committeeman and I am recruiting every conservative I can to come into the Party with me as a precinct committeeman for the sole purpose of making sure you and all like you who do not uphold your oath of office will not be returned to office in the next election

    or

    I am a conservative Republican and I am taking steps to become a precinct committeeman and I am recruiting every conservative I can to come into the Party with me as a precinct committeeman for the sole purpose of making sure you and all like you who do not uphold your oath of office will not be returned to office in the next election.

    To recap, half the PC slots in the Party are, on average, unfilled. In every locale. In yours. The filled slots are split ideologically about 50-50 between conservatives and moderates. Michael Steele is a reflection of that split. Do the math. Fill up all the empty seats, and you?ve now got a party that is at 100 per cent strength with conservatives enjoying a 75 per cent majority.

    We HAVE enough conservatives to do this. They?re in the grass roots conservative organizations. About 2 million of them appeared in DC on 9-11-2009 and three Republican incumbents, Rep. Mike Pence, Rep. Tom Price and Sen. Jim DeMint all spoke to them. It was broadcast on C-Span. Not one of them said anything like the following:

    Now, all of you, go back to your home towns and get involved in your local political party at the precinct level. Attend the local party committee meeting of your choice. Call your local party chairman and get involved in party politics as a precinct committeeman. We need you in the party of your choice.

    Why didn?t they say this? Because they are terrified that we conservatives may do this. That we may unite, politically, inside the Republican Party. Because even these three have, on occasion, not fought hard enough for our liberties. They, too, have ?gone along to get along.? And they, too, fear a primary challenger emerging with a credible chance of defeating them. But that won?t happen as long as the Republican Party back in their districts and, in Jim DeMint?s case, across South Carolina, does not change at the precinct level. And they know it. And only individual conservative Republicans can make that necessary change happen.

    I aim to recruit every conservative I can find to become a Republican Party precinct committeeman.

    I hope you?ll help me.

    I can’t guarantee that if we conservatives, collectively, unite inside the Republican Party at the precinct level, now, we’ll be able to save America. But I believe that if we don’t, it’s likely the America we desire and enjoyed will be lost. Forever.

    Thank you.

    For Liberty,
    ColdWarrior

  • IJB

    Just a couple of days ago, Orrin Hatch had an idea on how to use the ‘Doc Fix’ to knee-cap ObamaCare.

    So, what happens? Just ONE DAY LATER, the Senate GOP leadership caves on a deal on the ‘Doc Fix’ IN THE LAME DUCK in which they TOTALLY IGNORE Hatch’s plan and give the Democrats nearly everything that they want.

    All signs point to the Senate GOP completely mishandling the next two years.

    If I’m right on this, we’re only about 2 years from riots in the streets…

  • Raven

    Perhaps not by much, but it Was a victory.

    Another UI extension is a paltry price to pay, especially compared to what our leadership was talking about offering up in order to continue current tax rates. And only 13 weeks. Allowing our new electees to fight it out as well.

    The Death Tax was only going to be at 0% This year. It was slowly fazed out over the last 8 years. Next year it was resetting to 55%. We’re keeping it down to 35%.

    2% payrole taxcut may not seem like much, but it Is an aid to business. It may not get more people hired, but will likely keep a few more people in their current jobs.

    We’re going to fight it out next time over the course of a Presidential election. Who really thinks that a majority of voters will again believe Obama’s promises to cut taxes?

  • acat

    Primary the bums.

    Mew

  • texasgalt

    the strongest position, meeting in the middle is not a good result.

  • katnandu

    Apparently they are also negotiating how much of a subsidy people get under Obama Care. WTH?

  • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

    No one in the Senate wants to run in 2012 explaining why these people are getting unsubsidized care in emergency rooms and forcing hospitals to shut down.

  • Raven

    Considering our teammates, this was an excellent result.

    Right now it’s the Bills vs the Patriots. We may have had the ball on the 1 yard line, but we’re still the Bills. Expecting a touchdown and 2 point conversion is a tad much. A field goal is very much acceptable.

  • IJB

    No, it doesn’t make any sense, unless you read this as the Senate GOP’s unwillingness to repeal, or even knee-cap, ObamaCare.

    They had a good option, thanks to Hatch, and passed on it. This tells me all I need to know.

  • annplato

    is unfortunately a necessity at this point in time. What are the alternatives for people who are out of work and CANNOT find ANY jobs? Work for food only or get on welfare?

    As it is with the extension of tax rates for the “rich”, so is the extension of unemployment benefits: two years. No? Do I misunderstand something here?

    I do see this “compromise” as a trial period for the job creators (as the ?win? of the Republican Party is for Congress) to put their “money where their mouths are” and start investing in creating jobs here in the Untied States. I understand that the “bottom line” is “supreme” and manufacturing labor costs as well as lax regulations favor “outsourcing” practically any and every manufacturing job to “developing” countries, so purchasing markets can be expanded, but come on! Enough is enough. A little “patriotism” (call it “protectionism” if you will) would not hurt the standing of America as the number one economic force on the planet.

    The “middle class”, aspiring to get into the “high class” IS the major domestic job creator, but the “big” corporations should be somehow discouraged build factories in hinterlands, then “import” the finished goods at American living-standard pricing. Yes profits reign supreme, but for the Republic to stand, we DO need taxpayers, and that can ONLY come from employee producers as well as consumers.

    This “extension” of lower tax rates of course cannot work positively if labor unions are not cut down to size (or at least dismantled into locally formed negotiating labor protection organizations) AND tariffs for import from non-American product purchasers are not coerced into buying American. I am thinking of China, India and Singapore, just to mention the most threatening economic forces to the US economy.

    Without re-negotiations of trade deals (tit for tat trade deals) this “compromise might turn out to be a boondoggle for the Republicans. I hope they WILL follow up this “victory” with sane trade deals, that puts us back in the international market as producers, not only consumers.

  • mustango

    “Politicians in leadership believe that if they make both the left and right angry they must have done something right.”

    I think you’ve just explained how they came up with last month’s TSA airport security “upgrades”.

  • talgus

    the reason repubs lost was the middle was tired of same old Washington BS. Some of this was evident in 2010. In 2006/8, the media convinced the sound bite listeners that GWB was evil walking. (Forget about Cheney). The combo got dems in. The time has come to make all spending bills SUNSET. The tax rate extension has the right idea, time for sunsets of everything. Spending some of your effort to defend your funding renewal may be wasteful, but at least the agencies are not spending that money to fund yet higher growth rates. The message is clear: No more business (politics) as usual in Washington. No more entitlements.

  • katnandu

    You are right, and I’m not happy

  • http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

    The answer should be NO. This is not a bad compromise because it doesn’t do permanent damage and yet postpones the day of reckoning to a time when conservatives will have the upper hand.

    So, stand obstinate and let taxes go up . . . . great idea!

    To reiterate, this is NOT an ideological or principled victory but it IS a tactical and strategic one. When the default (if nothing is done) results in taxes going up . . . we are responsible for ensuring that doesn’t happen.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

    Though civic lessions teaches 3 branches, which is the way it is today, the consequence of direct election of Senators.

    But as originally set up the Senate and House should be considered different branches: the Senate representing the states’ interests and the House representing popular sentiment

  • joayn

    as a hiring manager, you really wouldn’t consider hiring a woman (or man) returning to the work force after staying home to raise kids? You really wouldn’t consider hiring someone who had to take off a few years to care for a sick child or parent?

    Seriously? Do you really think these people would not qualify as hardworking Americans?

    So, for the past two years the Democrats have done absolutely NOTHING to create jobs, focus on the economy, etc. Am I right so far? We all agree on that don’t we? Haven’t they basically done everything in their power to portray the business community as evil capitalists? Wasn’t that the understanding of anyone with a brain in their head – the Dems were focusing on everything BUT the economy? And hasn’t everyone at this site asknowledged and posted and commented about the absolutely devasting path we were on before the elections?

    What, so now you have amnesia as to what’s happened to the job market for the past two years because of these fools?

    Do you really think Americans who lost their jobs through no fault of their own are not hardworking?

    I know quite a few people who lost their jobs in 2008/2009. They are all conservative Republicans, vote straight Republican and have all their lives. They read this site religously. They are not nor have they ever been liberals. They worked hard, played by “the rules” and did their bit to support this country and then some. They’ve probably paid more in taxes in their working life-time than they’ll ever recoup in unemployment compensation. They were successful, not rich, and lived within their means. They worked in the financial, insurance and retail industries. Some are single and some have families.

    I would like to know why these people, and many more just like them, are not worth saving. And I’m certainly impressed that the people you know would be above reproach in accepting any help or assistance they could to support their families.

    Sanctimonious much?

  • swamphermit

    Republicans are great at rolling over…problem is, they are not dogs, they are humans. If taxes – FOR ALL – go up, then the Democrats would be responsible, and they would be hearing about it for the next two years (especially early next year). So now we add to the debt by printing more money – for thirteen months, for starters – to pay unemployment benefits…basically, being unemployed is becoming some kind of Federal Job now. By rolling over, Republicans have let the Democrats off-the-hook!

  • JadedByPolitics

    I think you misread what I wrote because a stay at home Mom has not collected unemployment for 3 years now HAS SHE? NO! I would rather not hire someone who has sat on their computers putting in 3 resumes a day for 3 years taking unemployment and instead hire that person who has shown that for the past three years they got up put on their BIG GIRL and BIG BOY suits and actually worked or who have spent those 3 years in college better educating themselves….OBTW get over yourself and your pathetic tripe!

  • http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

    Apparently not because this comment is grounded in an abundance of idealism and theory and not in reality. I don’t care who would be responsible for taxes going up if no deal is reached, I PERSONALLY DO NOT WANT TO PAY MORE IN TAXES COME JANUARY. They already take too much of my money.

    Not even considering how the GOP could easily be blamed with the help of the MSM (taxes went up because they were holding out for the rich!!! waaahhhh!!!) Bottom line, I am happy that my taxes aren’t going up. That’s a good dose of reality in a Democrat world.

  • http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

    Bottom line: I won’t be paying more in taxes next year. And it happened under the Democrats. That’s something REAL to celebrate.

  • Jack_Savage

    Is it right to take money from me and my children to extend unemployment benefits? Or do you believe that the main focus of government should be charity, instead of the main focus of charities being charity?

    I work in commercial construction. I don’t need any lectures about people losing jobs or income being reduced. As far as sanctimony goes, well….

  • texasgalt

    . . . like very high unemployment.

    Here’s the truth a lot of people struggle with: We get the level of unemployment we are willing to pay for. Congress just decided to pay for a lot more unemployment.

  • Jack_Savage

    “Democrats have the majorities in this lame duck session. They have kicked this can down the road for months, and now it is time to make a decision. We don’t even have a budget. We hope they do the right thing and keep tax rates the same for all taxpayers. We also hope they do not increase our debt by an unprecedented extension of unemployment benefits. We will not filibuster these bills unless we believe they pose a grave danger to the future of this country. We are waiting on what the lame duck Democrat majority and President decide to do.”

    Easy.

  • nessa

    between someone who took time off to care for elderly parents and someone who remained unemployed for two years because… Because why? When I was holding a stack of applications, picking out who I would call for interviews I would ask myself why. Was it because they could survive by drawing unemployment rather than accept a lower paying job? Was their desire for my position due to a desire to work or were they forced to work? It requires too much effort to force someone to work, I’m going to do my best to hire the ones who want to work. And I’m not going to waste my time calling them in to ask in person, I’ll just hire the young kid who has enough ambition to suffer through the fast food industry, he deserves a break today.

  • texasgalt

    Anyone short on personal resources who has been unable to find a job for much over a year needs to rethink their expectations or really get out and look. Yeah, that might mean moving to where there is a job or taking something that has work hours not so great. Welfare is definitely an option for the long term, chronically unemployed.

    Protectionism didn’t work out so well in the past. I can’t find one thing you suggested that is grounded in anything close to the way things really work.

    Employers can’t be forced to put their money where their mouths are. It’s THEIR money . . . unless some little tyrant looter can effectively steal it.

  • earlgrey

    needed to support themselves that others are unwilling to make. There is always an excuse to be made for not making a move or settling for a lower pay rate or different job, but survivors find a way, and they shouldn’t have to keep supporting others. It weakens each and every one of us.

  • joayn

    to Jaded’s opinion that unemployed people aren’t worth hiring because they aren’t hard working Americans. And I don’t agree with her. Plain and simple.

    Having been a hiring manager myself I would never disqualify someone for an interview just because they hadn’t worked for a few years (prison being the only exception). In today’s market, I would most certainly grant that person an interview because I want people to get back to work. I happen to think giving someone a break when no one else will would be appreciated by that person – I know I would work my butt off for someone who did that for me.

    Look, my response to Jaded’s comment was a reaction to the many, many comments along the same line I read at this site yesterday and today. And I guess it’s the coarseness and callousness of these remarks that grind me down. I would like to think folks here are better than that. And I know what my friends have gone through these past few years and they deserve defending.

    I probably shouldn’t have made that remark about being sanctimonious because that’s not condusive to getting people to listen to one’s point of view and I regret that.

    And no, Jack, I don’t think you or your children should be robbed of a promising future to fund this administration’s abdication of its responsibilities to all Americans.

  • joayn

    a new tier of unemployment benefits, it does nothing for people who have exhausted their 99 weeks of benefits.

  • Jack_Savage

    She was saying that she did not know anyone that would take unemployment benefits for three years. She also said that if they did, they would be all but unemployable should they ever decide to seek work.

    I understand your point, but we are talking about two different things. I am absolutely against extension of unemployment benefits for anyone. I think the existing 99 weeks is far too long. I think that unemployment benefits are a stealth way of creating a new dependent entitled class among those who would never have thought of themselves in that way before – “I’ve paid into this my whole life, I’m gonna take a little time off”. We’ll call it a gateway benefit, for lack of a better term – if you took extended unemployment benefits, why not a little WIC, etc etc.

    I am absolutely for helping those who need help. I give a fair amount to do that, in addition to a chunk of my time. The big difference – the BIG difference – is what I have that the government doesn’t, and that is discernment.

    It has been said that there will be no end to what the left does because it is done in the name of kindness and humanity. I am saying that there has to be an end.

  • JadedByPolitics

    I know a guy, a Civil Engineer well Civil Engineering is done about 5 years earlier then the Construction so he was out of work, he looked for work in his area of expertise but after 5 months of nothing he looked for work “beneath” his college degree and that was doing collections for a major phone company, he did NOT sit around for years because there was no Civil Engineering jobs so do I hire him or do I hire the guy who is a Civil Engineer as sat back taking 99 WEEKS of benefits because he could not find anything in Engineering? I am taking guy number one. I will NEVER believe that there is NO JOB to take for 99 weeks, whether that job is fast food or collections or customer service or the gas station on the corner, there are jobs the question becomes what type of person are you and what are you “willing” to do to put food on the table for your family.

  • Martin Knight

    … they’re means to an end as opposed to ends in and of themselves – which can be good or bad. The current unhealthy fetishization of Bipartisanship has made it synonymous with good.

    The effect is that crappy legislation/policies get passed simply because the sponsor appended “Bipartisan” (e.g. McCain-Feingold) to it and of course, like clockwork, idiot media talking heads automatically start calling it “centrist”, “moderate”, etc.

    Otherwise I think we agree.

  • Raven

    We got the GOP Leadership to back down on START and DREAM and a few other Horrible, HORRIBLE ideas they were willing to compromise (read: “give the Dems everything they want”) on.
    Sure, they weren’t as hard-line as we wanted them to be. As they could have been or should have been. But we got them to hold against all the other garbage they wanted to give up.

    That’s still a victory in my book.

  • joayn

    Probably the only thing I’d disagree with or look at differently is that I don’t expect someone to take a minimum wage job and give up their maximum benefits. But take a $10,000 or more cut in pay? Yeah, it’s a buyers market out there and that’s just the way it is. But I agree that people must expand their searches, and they have to – and I can’t stress this enough – they have to start looking for a job immediately! Time is the enemy. Not only in the job search, but mentally and emotionally.

    I live in California (the land of “youth is everything”) and it’s really tough if you’re in your mid-to-late 40′s and 50′s. The job market here is extremely bad. Tadpoles are running businesses and they don’t like anybody who might be smarter than they are. Truly, this state has the shallowest people in charge of million dollar industries. Well, let me ammend that. This state has the shallowest people PERIOD. You would not believe some of the behavior qualifications companies actually list in their job requirements. Junior high all the way. Don’t get me started.

    Hey, the idiots reelected Boxer – I rest my case!!