Stand Up And Fight
December 15th 2010 21:25
President Obama, in his new persona as the great compromiser (one he had to assume when the Democrats coughed up six seats in the Senate and sixty-three seats in the House of Representatives, giving the Republicans a majority there), reached agreement with Republican leaders to extend the Bush era tax cuts.
The agreement called for a package containing a two year extension of the Bush era tax cuts for everyone, including those earning in excess of $250,000. President Obama, and Liberals were opposed to extending the tax cuts to earnings above $250,000 (the first $250,000 of earned income would have received the tax cut), but the President swallowed his pride for the sake of getting the cuts extended for the middle class, and compromised with Republicans. This really irked Liberals, who thought the President was one of them, who thought it was Liberals who put him in the White House. Truth be told, the President owes his residency in the White House, not to Liberals (although there are those in Hollywood who would beg to differ), but to independent voters who chose this time to vote Republican.
The President even held a news conference to explain his decision to compromise with the “enemy:”
““If we don't get my option through the Senate right now and we do nothing, then on January 1st of this 2011, the average family is going to see their taxes go up about 3,000 dollars,” he warned.” (“Defiant Obama defends tax cuts, eyes 2012,” Jo Biddle, AFP, 12/8/10).
““At any given juncture, there are going to be times where my preferred option, what I'm absolutely positive is right, I can't get done,” the US president said, stabbing his finger for emphasis.” (“Defiant Obama defends tax cuts, eyes 2012,” Jo Biddle, AFP, 12/8/10).
““And so then my question is, does it make sense for me to tack a little bit this way or tack a little bit that way because I'm keeping my eye on the long term and the long fight.”” (“Defiant Obama defends tax cuts, eyes 2012,” Jo Biddle, AFP, 12/8/10).
““Overall, every economist I've talked to suggests that this will help economic growth and this will help job growth over the next several months. And that is the main criteria by which I made this decision,” Obama said.” (“Defiant Obama defends tax cuts, eyes 2012,” Jo Biddle, AFP, 12/8/10).
Now, Liberal ideologues, like their reactionary Conservative counterparts in the Republican Party, are threatening to prevent the compromise from being enacted; they would rather see the country collapse and its citizens gravitate to their way of thinking (redistribution of wealth, just not their wealth) rather than come to a meeting of the minds with anyone who is not of their ilk. The President’s tried to throw them a bone by including a one year 2% Social Security payroll reduction (the tax would go from 6.2% to 4.2% on workers, but would stay the same for employers). By extending tax cuts to all, and not cutting any federal spending, it is expected that the federal deficit will grow by $900 billion over the next two years. How could Republicans agree to this, given their November election pledge, when aligning themselves with the Tea Party, to not add to the deficit, and to not cut taxes without cutting an equal amount of spending? How could the Republican leadership agree to the Social Security payroll reduction when they pledged, during the November elections, that Social Security would not be touched, unless, of course, they know that once a tax reduction is on the books, it usually is never repealed (just look at the Bush era tax cuts, for example); in 2012, Republicans will remind workers that if Democrats are elected, the Social Security payroll tax will increase to 6.2% once again, seniors be damned!
The great compromise also includes bones for Republicans besides the campaign fodder they will gain from the Social Security payroll reduction: retention of the 15% top rate for capital gains and a 35% estate tax on estates greater than $5 million. President Obama swallowed his pride and negotiated with Republicans to basically do one thing: extend unemployment benefits another thirteen months. Republicans, in spite of almost all economists attesting that unemployment benefits boost the economy more than they cost, threatened to hold the benefits hostage unless the President agreed to extend the Bush era tax cuts to all U.S. residents.
To understand this patriotic gesture better, one must understand that Republicans have pledged not to cut taxes unless there was a corresponding cut in federal programs, because they have pledged to, at the very least, not add to the federal deficit. So what do they do? They forced the President to extend the Bush era tax cuts to all U.S. residents, adding $900 billion to the federal deficit over two years, and they added to the deficit even further by reducing the Social Security payroll tax. This will add to the deficit (and reduce the viability of the Social Security Trust Fund) because the Federal government borrows from the Social Security Trust Fund to fund the Federal government, and with less money coming into the fund, the government will have to look for other sources of borrowing.
Liberals are demanding that the President stand up and fight. I agree, but instead of standing up and fighting for Liberal principles, he should and stand up and fight for what he truly believes the direction of this country should be. He’s got two more years to prove himself, and if this lesson in dealing with Republicans takes, maybe he’ll get four more.
The agreement called for a package containing a two year extension of the Bush era tax cuts for everyone, including those earning in excess of $250,000. President Obama, and Liberals were opposed to extending the tax cuts to earnings above $250,000 (the first $250,000 of earned income would have received the tax cut), but the President swallowed his pride for the sake of getting the cuts extended for the middle class, and compromised with Republicans. This really irked Liberals, who thought the President was one of them, who thought it was Liberals who put him in the White House. Truth be told, the President owes his residency in the White House, not to Liberals (although there are those in Hollywood who would beg to differ), but to independent voters who chose this time to vote Republican.
The President even held a news conference to explain his decision to compromise with the “enemy:”
““If we don't get my option through the Senate right now and we do nothing, then on January 1st of this 2011, the average family is going to see their taxes go up about 3,000 dollars,” he warned.” (“Defiant Obama defends tax cuts, eyes 2012,” Jo Biddle, AFP, 12/8/10).
““At any given juncture, there are going to be times where my preferred option, what I'm absolutely positive is right, I can't get done,” the US president said, stabbing his finger for emphasis.” (“Defiant Obama defends tax cuts, eyes 2012,” Jo Biddle, AFP, 12/8/10).
““And so then my question is, does it make sense for me to tack a little bit this way or tack a little bit that way because I'm keeping my eye on the long term and the long fight.”” (“Defiant Obama defends tax cuts, eyes 2012,” Jo Biddle, AFP, 12/8/10).
““Overall, every economist I've talked to suggests that this will help economic growth and this will help job growth over the next several months. And that is the main criteria by which I made this decision,” Obama said.” (“Defiant Obama defends tax cuts, eyes 2012,” Jo Biddle, AFP, 12/8/10).
Now, Liberal ideologues, like their reactionary Conservative counterparts in the Republican Party, are threatening to prevent the compromise from being enacted; they would rather see the country collapse and its citizens gravitate to their way of thinking (redistribution of wealth, just not their wealth) rather than come to a meeting of the minds with anyone who is not of their ilk. The President’s tried to throw them a bone by including a one year 2% Social Security payroll reduction (the tax would go from 6.2% to 4.2% on workers, but would stay the same for employers). By extending tax cuts to all, and not cutting any federal spending, it is expected that the federal deficit will grow by $900 billion over the next two years. How could Republicans agree to this, given their November election pledge, when aligning themselves with the Tea Party, to not add to the deficit, and to not cut taxes without cutting an equal amount of spending? How could the Republican leadership agree to the Social Security payroll reduction when they pledged, during the November elections, that Social Security would not be touched, unless, of course, they know that once a tax reduction is on the books, it usually is never repealed (just look at the Bush era tax cuts, for example); in 2012, Republicans will remind workers that if Democrats are elected, the Social Security payroll tax will increase to 6.2% once again, seniors be damned!
The great compromise also includes bones for Republicans besides the campaign fodder they will gain from the Social Security payroll reduction: retention of the 15% top rate for capital gains and a 35% estate tax on estates greater than $5 million. President Obama swallowed his pride and negotiated with Republicans to basically do one thing: extend unemployment benefits another thirteen months. Republicans, in spite of almost all economists attesting that unemployment benefits boost the economy more than they cost, threatened to hold the benefits hostage unless the President agreed to extend the Bush era tax cuts to all U.S. residents.
To understand this patriotic gesture better, one must understand that Republicans have pledged not to cut taxes unless there was a corresponding cut in federal programs, because they have pledged to, at the very least, not add to the federal deficit. So what do they do? They forced the President to extend the Bush era tax cuts to all U.S. residents, adding $900 billion to the federal deficit over two years, and they added to the deficit even further by reducing the Social Security payroll tax. This will add to the deficit (and reduce the viability of the Social Security Trust Fund) because the Federal government borrows from the Social Security Trust Fund to fund the Federal government, and with less money coming into the fund, the government will have to look for other sources of borrowing.
Liberals are demanding that the President stand up and fight. I agree, but instead of standing up and fighting for Liberal principles, he should and stand up and fight for what he truly believes the direction of this country should be. He’s got two more years to prove himself, and if this lesson in dealing with Republicans takes, maybe he’ll get four more.
| 63 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
