[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoons
Title: A deepening chasm (click to view)
Date: December 11, 2010
After months of wrangling and speculation, President Barack Obama announced this week that he would, at long last, finally agree to an extension of the so-called "Bush tax cuts" that enshrine sweeping breaks for America's wealthiest two percent. The Republicans had been pushing extremely hard for this, mostly by tying the future of the entire American tax regime to the fate of the rich; if they got their tax cut, so would everyone making less than $250,000 a year, too. But if the wealthy got a tax hike, which is what most Dems wanted, then the Republicans would oppose tax cuts for anyone.

It was an extremist game of political chicken in which the Democrats blinked first. Rather than allow middle class taxes to go up, Obama conceded to an across-the-board lowering, including the cut for the wealthy.

The entire package of tax cuts is estimated to cost the federal government around $900 billion dollars, and depending how long the rates stay in place, will represent trillions of lost revenue for the country as the years progress. For the Republicans — the party of the self-proclaimed "deficit hawks" — the strategy is thus a fairly incoherent one. Like it or not, taxes are simply the financial lifeblood of government. Trying to dig yourself out of a deficit without using them is a bit like trying to turn around a failing business without profits. Or, from another perspective, one could make the case that in the present uncertain economic climate, the "conservative" position — to use the traditional, cautious, skeptical definition of the term — should be to oppose any radical dicking around with the code, period, and simply stick with the minimum rates needed to keep the status quo humming along.

In any case, the amount of Democratic pushback to the President's compromise (or sell-out) on this issue has been enormous. The Dem-controlled House has flatly refused to pass the plan unless more compromises are made, and last night Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders staged an eight-hour filibuster on the floor of the Senate rather than let the plan pass there, either.

The whole episode has been described as the most intense moment of liberal disillusionment with Obama to date, and may represent some sort of turning point in his presidency. But there's going to be a lot more of those coming, considering one can't exactly expect Obama to make fewer compromises come January, once the Republicans take formal control of the House of Representatives.

Just to repeat, the Republicans don't already have control of Congress, in case you forgot.

[Bruce_the_vii]

I read that the American economy is slowing and actually needs more government stimulus, which could come as tax cuts. As incredible as the $1.4 trillion deficit is there's a need to stimulate further. House mortgages in arrears and forclosures are something like 14% of all mortgages and there is not enough money in the system to grow. Moreover almost everyone is dependant on growth, from the unemployed to the tax payer to the pensioner, so they really see that as the way out. Just right now the numbers are bad but in a few months it might not look as dark. Europe is on the verge of some more bailouts so that's happening as well.

[Pseudonym]

To be clear, as a conservative, I am pretty displeased with the compromise from my end. 13 more months of unemployment benefits? C'mon!

If the compromise doesn't go through, I foresee the Republicans jamming their own extension of the current tax regime through Congress in the first few weeks of their control of the House. Not a good place for Obama to be, politically.

[Kjorteo]

It's not just the fate of the tax cuts for the lower classes--it's the fate of everything. Senate Republicans have flat-out promised to block any attempt to pass absolutely anything at all for any reason--more or less to filibuster the entire Senate--until tax cuts for the wealthy are passed. They've already made good on that promise by blocking attempt #2 of the 9/11 health care bill on "nuh uh, we haven't had our tax cuts yet" grounds.

As a liberal, I haven't exactly been a huge fan of the Republican party for a long time, now, so admittedly I may be a bit biased at this point, but... that's some cartoon supervillain crap, right there. With Obama's compromising and the Republicans actually taking over for real (well, at least in the House) next month, I predict that the next two years are going to suck.

[xerxes]

I have to say I'm really disappointed with Obama over this. I would like to see him actually fight for something at least once. Instead, everytime he has caved to the GOP and their efforts to undermine his preidency.

Obama should hold a press conference nad wave that letter around like he just don't care and repeat ad nauseum about the he wants to help the American worker while the GOP shits on them with their inaction.

[Mr_Canada]

Hope
and
Cave.

Thanks for coming out Obama.

[Bruce_the_vii]

I find this all very shocking. It's known they don't know how to deal with the budget deficit. If they grow, raise taxes and cut heavily they still may not get the $1.4 trillion deficit under control. And so far they have not made much in the way of proper plans.

I saw an economist explain politics once on TV. He enthused that deficits are good because it keeps them from spending more. About all the Republicans and Democrats in Congress know is how to spend, it's pretty much a truism. Tax cuts are a backhanded way of spending.

[Proculation]

How letting money in people's pockets can be called a cost for the government ? The leftists in Quebec always use that akward logic to increase taxes.

[Marcus_Ozius]

Bipartisanship in our time!

[Kjorteo]

Proculation wrote:

How letting money in people's pockets can be called a cost for the government ? The leftists in Quebec always use that akward logic to increase taxes.

It's the interplay between income and expenses that lead to the bottom line, just line in any business. You can have higher taxes and higher spending, lower taxes and lower spending, or lower taxes, higher spending, and deficits. We can argue about options one and two vs. each other all day long (especially because, as I've said many a time before, everyone likes "lower spending" but significantly fewer people have solid, defensible ideas on what specific programs to cut) but I don't think anyone wanted option three because that's just crazy. Well, anyone except the President and Congressional Republicans.

(There's also the option that apparently no one wants where you have higher taxes, lower spending, and use the surplus to pay down the debt, but... shh.)

[Pseudonym]

The phrasing is always a little awkward - we're talking about the extension of the current tax regime, so it's not properly called tax hikes or tax cuts. The lost revenue to the government can be properly called a "cost", but that often brings along the assumption that the money is the government's in the first place, which is certainly not the case.

I would really like to see more of what the debt commission is proposing - all the news over that got drowned out by the debates over the tax cuts extension.

[andyt]

Kjorteo wrote:

Proculation wrote:

How letting money in people's pockets can be called a cost for the government ? The leftists in Quebec always use that akward logic to increase taxes.

It's the interplay between income and expenses that lead to the bottom line, just line in any business. You can have higher taxes and higher spending, lower taxes and lower spending, or lower taxes, higher spending, and deficits. We can argue about options one and two vs. each other all day long (especially because, as I've said many a time before, everyone likes "lower spending" but significantly fewer people have solid, defensible ideas on what specific programs to cut) but I don't think anyone wanted option three because that's just crazy. Well, anyone except the President and Congressional Republicans.

(There's also the option that apparently no one wants where you have higher taxes, lower spending, and use the surplus to pay down the debt, but... shh.)

Both Democrats and Republicans before and after Clinton were all in favor of running deficits, as have been the govts of all other western nations for years. Reagan really got into it with his tax cuts, which just made it all the harder to balance the books, but Republicans haven't reduced spending when in office, and Democrats are too chicken to raise taxes. Bill Clinton is the only guy who seemed to manage both.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Debt is a cost? What the fuck. The issue with the $1.4 trillion deficit in the USA is not semantics, it's hard cold cash.

[Pseudonym]

andyt wrote:

Both Democrats and Republicans before and after Clinton were all in favor of running deficits, as have been the govts of all other western nations for years. Reagan really got into it with his tax cuts, which just made it all the harder to balance the books, but Republicans haven't reduced spending when in office, and Democrats are too chicken to raise taxes. Bill Clinton is the only guy who seemed to manage both.

That is one of the things that makes me hopeful about the upcoming Congress - it will be a similar situation with a Democrat in power and a Republican House, if not a Republican Senate. We could get the survivable tax rates with the spending reductions. Of course, with our luck, we'll probably get the increased taxes and increased spending, but one can dream.

[Pseudonym]

Bruce_the_vii wrote:

Debt is a cost? What the fuck. The issue with the $1.4 trillion deficit in the USA is not semantics, it's hard cold cash.

Debt is a "cost", but in my post I was talking about the problem with the debate, not the issue itself. The issue itself is, as you say, very clear: too much spending, too little revenue.