« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Taxes

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  December 17th, 2010 at 08:53 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

“It will be important for conservatives to draw clear lines in the sand their leadership dare not cross before the debt ceiling fight.”

As was buzzing around twitter last night, if you’d said a year ago that in 2010 a Democratic House of Representatives would have voted for the Bush Tax Cuts with a greater margin than the Republicans, the rest of us would have thought you were crazy.

It is, however, fitting that Nancy Pelosi’s last major act as Speaker of the United States House of Representatives was was preside over re-passage of George Bush’s “failed” tax policy. The irony is rich and ripe.

Many of us, myself included, believed we could get a much better deal that we got. Nonetheless, we will now see the income tax rates stay the same and receive a payroll tax holiday — an idea first floated on the right — along with some solid business breaks the right has also championed.

We may have gotten a better deal, but this is the deal we wound up with. Seeing so many Democrats vote to extend tax cuts they said were failures was icing on the cake.

Many tea party activists will want to go after Republicans who voted for the tax compromise. I am not one of them. While I strongly disagreed and thought we could get a better deal, this is not a hill to die on. We were able to keep income tax rates down.

As James Carville said on CNN last night, this is foreplay for the GOP. The real fight comes on raising the debt ceiling. On that one we must fight hard to, at a minimum, bring some significant and wholesale reforms to key areas and work to defund Obamacare. Otherwise, we must not raise the debt ceiling.

It will be important for conservatives to draw clear lines in the sand their leadership dare not cross before the debt ceiling fight. Otherwise, the GOP, as is its tendency, will out negotiate itself.

Tags:

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • izoneguy

    So Erick what do you think of this?

    The new comeback kid – by Charles Krauthammer

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/16/AR2010121604846.html

  • wonkish1

    This needs to be said, more.

    While the deal maybe could have been better, there is absolutely no point targeting those that voted for this.

    Getting Democrats to vote for this thing was an amazing accomplishment, and the goal should be to force Dems to vote for as much things their base hates as we can. Until the Dem based is so pissed and disgusted that many of them give up for a long time.

  • http://www.buckforcolorado.com bjwilson83

    We should be trumpeting the Tea Party primary threat loudly and often from now until 2012. You have been warned, GOP; we’re taking names. And we’ve proven it isn’t an empty threat. Just look at the sad fate of Bennett, Castle, etc.

  • wonkish1

    nor political theory that most of us on here subscribe to.

    The polling data shows absolutely no movement in independents moving towards Obama, but Obama’s numbers are collapsing among registered Dems.

    Krauthammer has 2 tendencies that should make you at least skeptical of what he writes.
    1) His allegiance is to writing an opinion that isn’t being mentioned by anybody else out there. That is how he rose to prominence in journalism and that is how he made and makes his money. He will continue to do that regardless even if one of the first couple of opinions out there is right or not.
    2) He always calculates political expediency based on the middle and never on the respective bases. Now you may subscribe to that 1 dimensional look at politics but I certainly don’t.

    The first rule of politics is if you’re base isn’t enthusiastic you don’t stand a chance. And in this deal Obama and the Dems have seriously ticked off their base. Politically we should encourage that as much as possible. If Obama can’t secure volunteers, enthusiastic supporters, and the same amount of money as he did in 2008 he like Carter will be first struggling for relevance in 2012.

  • Bill S

    Especially this:

    Despite this, some on the right are gloating that Obama had been maneuvered into forfeiting his liberal base. Nonsense. He will never lose his base. Where do they go? Liberals will never have a president as ideologically kindred – and they know it. For the left, Obama is as good as it gets in a country that is barely 20 percent liberal.

    I suppose the leftist base COULD go for Hillary in a primary battle, but it’s not like she’s gonna trend any farther left than Barry. The only caveat is whether this is a one-hit-wonder, or if he’s really decided to drift more center, a’la Tubby.

  • wonkish1

    Need any enthusiasm to win elections.

    Trust me without the enthusiasm Obama had in 2008, it is impossible for him to win.

    Also, the center wont go for Obama because the GOP is going to continue to pass the repeal of healthcare over and over again(like we did with Welfare reform in the mid 90s), and Obama is going to be forced into signing the repeal or losing the election. Exactly, as Clinton’s advisors forced him into signing Welfare reform. Except Obama wont sign a repeal of healthcare.

    Obama is caught between a rock and a hard place. Either way he moves he loses. So lets make sure that not only does he lose, but that Dems grow increasingly pissed as the Dems are forced to vote for and sign one piece of GOP legislation after another.

  • csw1

    If you refuse a debt ceiling increase, it will be chaos to try and trim a $1+ trillion deficit. We could shutdown everything and the military, except for debt payments, social security, medicare, and medicaid and only will the budget be balanced.

    Obviously shutting the military down is not an option, so Republicans will be associated with kicking the elderly and poor out on the streets – something that will not carry over well for the 2012 elections. Don’t forget the government shutdown in 1995 boosted Clinton’s approval rate!

    A good compromise will be to pair the increase with a balanced budget amendment and/or phased-in spending cuts over the course of 2-3 years.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • sully21

    The Tea Party not backing Castle in Delaware cost Republicans that Senate Seat. I’d rather have a liberal GOP Senator in the hard Blue state then a Liberal Dem..

    There are fights to pick, and there are fights to leave

  • red_oakster

    Like TARP, the prospect of losing the debt ceiling vote is going to scare the daylights out of the financial markets. A large number of conservatives won’t do that, and a compromise with Obama is the likeliest result. Erick, I’ll make you a gentleman’s bet that such a compromise that raises the debt ceiling will be another messy one, just like the Bush tax rate extensions-and that it will leave you and another group of House conservatives unhappy. Cantor and Ryan and Camp will vote for the compromise, and Pence and Bachmann will vote against. Deja vu.

    In contrast, the House does have the power to re-make the rules of the game when it comes to departmental and agency funding. And more often than not, Obama is going to have to suck it up and accept what he gets out of the House-Senate compromises.

    So a few good things will happen in 2011, just not on the debt ceiling. And of course nothing really big can happen until a conservative is in the White House to work with a conservative majority in Congress.

  • texasgalt
  • texasgalt
  • gekster

    At the least a liberal Democrat is honest about himself.
    And telling liberal Republicans that we are not buying it anymore
    is worth more than a senate seat.
    Purging the liberal Republicans is what the Tea Party is all about.

  • izoneguy

    I posted Kraut’s column up front but I do not agree with him on a few points.

    All Obama did was kick the tax issue down the road a few years.
    Obama is counting on independents to flood back his way.
    I think the unemployment rate will remain at or near 9% for the next two years. Obama has meetings with CEO’s to encourage them to start hiring? I mean get real. Holding the tax rates steady is like getting the sump pumps working again in your sinking ship. At some point you have to make permanent repairs before you can sail on.

    If Obama was really going to court independents he would have made the tax rates permanent – thus putting that whole tax issue on the sideline in 2012. What Obama did was open himself up for a fight that he cannot win in 2012. Why? ObamaCare will get closer & closer and corporations will be waving their waivers and asking now what? Where do we go, what do we do???

    ObamaCare is the bigger threat to the future competitiveness of America and that is the fight Obama wants and he will get. (While at the same time fighting the evil rich people as a 2012 campaign issue) – Lose Lose

  • izoneguy

    Look how close the Omnibus came to starting up….
    We had to do a full court press on the RINO’s.
    We need reliable conservatives – not flip flop RINO”s.
    If it takes an election cycle to clense the system, then that is what we do.

    The small liberal states will keep marginalizing themselves and losing conservative voters to states like Florida & Texas.

    Eventually the small blue liberal states will collapse as they eat their own. I see a future where larger states annex smaller states.

  • wonkish1

    Anybody should really think twice about Krauthammer’s ability to prognosticate with a statement like Obama’s reelection, “Is now more likely than not”.

    Lets not confuse Kraut’s value in the world. He is not a good prognosticator. He is not someone that understands politics all that much. Nor is really all that good at policy.

    Kraut’s only value in the world is that he will always produce an opinion voiced by few if anybody else. And sometimes(rarely) that alternative point of view is refreshing as at least it gets people to think. That is it. That is the only value anybody on the left, right, up, down, or middle has with Krauthammer.

    So I’ll say Kraut, I appreciate the different point of view on this one, but you my friend are 100% wrong in this case.

  • wonkish1

    Is the expected GOP floor votes on issues. If that was true I think many would agree, but it is so far from true its ridiculous. The fact is like everybody else on here understands, one liberal GOP senator siding with the Dems on an issue can
    A) give cover to 5 Dems that would otherwise feel like they are on the hot seat in regards to deciding whether or not to vote for something
    B) Signal to independents that Dem and RINO agreement is where the center is on issues causing lasting damage to conservative priorities
    C) Can cause us to lose media fights over a piece of legislation
    D) Can cause independent and moderate voters that tend to vote for the GOP to move to left on particular issues
    E) Can dishearten elements of the conservative base effecting outcomes of future elections of GOP elected officials(such as other GOP senators)

    The list goes on an on. The fact is that someone that votes 50% with us and 50% against us does a lot more damage to the issues he or she votes against us on then he provides in benefit to the issues he votes with us on.

  • wonkish1

    In regards to the debt ceiling I think most conservatives are comfortable with just moving the significantly forward on budget cuts. No major stand should or will take place on the debt ceiling unless the Dems act like they don’t have to give anything to get it raised.

    Personally, wipe out a few half billion a year programs, wipe out a few unnecessary departments in the federal government, and score maybe a pay reduction or maybe a small deductible in federal employee generous benefits and cash in, vote for the higher ceiling, and call it a day. Move on to the next issue.

    It looks like the two big hills that nobody is thinking about are the issues of a few states becoming insolvent of which we hold all the cards and they hold 0 cards. And the issue of multiemployer pension plans of which the Dems loyal union crooks are going to demand work on and we personally couldn’t care less if they collapse. So in those two instances we should either score a lot or let them fail.

    Otherwise it comes down to the budget.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    it is hard for me to see how he could possibly be re-elected.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    the House…

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    I was reminded of the racism endemic in the Dem Party that will scare off any potential contenders for fear they will called a racist for daring to challenge the first black president.

  • Bill S

    You assume that public opinion on HCR will remain static, and I contend that it will moderate over time. The recent bump in how many folks would like to see it repealed is undoubtedly due to the big increase that most (including myself) saw in their premiums. That will no doubt wane in months to come as they forget it happened. I predict that the longer nothing happens in Congress, the higher the “popularity” will rise. It’s not like the Dems are gonna sit around and let people steam. They know that the GOP House is gonna be firing at the bill. They will be pimping it like crazy. And Americans are notoriously gullible and have short memories. This is why I published a front-page article a few months ago dinging the GOP for ignoring HCR in the months leading to the election.

    If the GOP acts in the first couple of months of the new Congress, there MIGHT be some impact. But the longer they wait, the more time the Dems and the media have to start sweet-talking HCR and moderating the minds of the middle.

  • fpete13527
  • izoneguy

    Even if our candidate turns out to be a person of “color” they would cry racism. In means nothing now. We must not be afraid of words.

  • Paul Seale

    Time to go to the mattress on the budget (e.g. debt ceiling, omnibus, etc). That is where the war will be won or lost.

    Extending the tax rates ensures that government wont get used to bloating.

    Of course I dont subscribe to the belief that we could retroactively get a better deal, either.

    Why not?

    Simple – if taxes were to go up it would in bring up tax receipts in the short term – thereby justifying them to “fight” the debt.

    Instead of debating the topic on – what we should cut, the discussion goes back to “why are we giving tax cuts to the rich” again.

  • wonkish1

    But the data show’s that they can pimp it all they want to, its not going to help the bills popularity. It seems that everyday it is talked about the numbers move in one direction not the other. I’m not saying that couldn’t change, but up until now it hasn’t.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    that makes what out to be an inevitable primary challenge to Obama, not likely at all, despite his dismal performance and low poll ratings.

  • acat

    we may see a repeat of members of the House of Representatives going over to the White House to ask the President to resign for the good of the party….

    Of course, last time that happened, the president was Nixon…

    (I don’t recall any serious Dem pressure on Clinton to resign… but I don’t speak Liberal so I often misunderstand their idea of ‘serious’ as ‘humor’…)

    Mew

  • acat
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • acat

    And I expect him and Michelle and the girls to retire to Hawaii… (what kind of lunatic retires to Chicago?)

    I’m not expecting him to want to retire, but … think of it as the ‘b’ side to the Chicago way. Someone knows enough to bring him down .. and if it becomes necessary to press Obama, it will come out…

    Better to lose some Dem clout in Illinois than to lose the whole party.

    Mew

  • pastorbear

    I was okay with this tax deal, as long as Republicans don’t stop there. Now, we need to start working for actual income tax rate cuts, rather than just preventing income tax rate increases.

  • antisocial

    That is not happening. I’d rather lose a seat than have a liberal GOP Senator.

    This is a use case that all GOP incumbents need to have on top of their lists. Liberal politicians are not welcome. Ask Spector… Crist…. Bennet…

  • victrola

    I really do believe Republicans could have destroyed Obama’s Presidency with this one issue (and from reports, Obama seems to think the same way)

    I don’t know why Republicans always have to be the nice guy, they should have said either make the rates permanent or raise them all, in which case we’d win either way. Obama would be unelectable if he raised taxes on the middle-class after his dramatic promise not to.

    As a tax payer, I’m glad to have the compromise, and this is good policy, but looking through a purely political lens, we could have “checkmated” Obama.

    Now the issue of Obama’s reelection will hinge mainly on the economy. If it bounces back, we’re in for a battle that will come down to the wire.

  • aesthete

    Krauthammer knows that. Do the liberals know that? Dunno where you live, but in Tucson (two steps to the left of Stalinist Moscow), most liberals think that they are losing because Obama didn’t go hard left. That, and the rancor coming from the online left, tells me that there’s going to be a challenge on Obama’s left. Granted, it will probably be Some Crazy Guy (D-VT) backed by grassroots rather than a candidate with organizational support, and it won’t be a strong challenge, but it will be enough to depress voter turnout. With the weakness of the GOP roster in ’12, there is a good chance that Obama will make it through no worse for wear (see: Bush ’04), but I think that he will be bloodied up by some on the left.

    As an aside, it’s interesting that the revolt is not over foreign policy, civil liberties, DADT, gay marriage or any of the other, non-economic issues that liberals are allegedly so good on: it’s on taxes. Progressivism really has become a parody of itself: a movement that has no principle but to make sure that the kleptocracy is kept fed, clothed, and comforted at the expense of the kulaks.