Anyone who believes the Democrats, at least, got a 13 month extension of unemployment and other benefits for the middle class in the second bailout for the wealthy bill should think again.
It is more like 2 months. Unless a rise in the debt ceiling beyond the 2012 elections is part of the package.
Republican strategy has worked even better than the pundits and liberals believe. They have their second $700 billion bailout for the wealthy neatly tucked away. And, while they were at it, they also took care of the dead (and wealthy). For Republicans, dead-and-wealthy trumps alive-and-middle class.
Ostensibly, all this is in exchange for a 13-month extension of benefits for the unemployed, a 2% one-year reduction in payroll taxes, an extension of the earned-income tax credit and a few other little goodies.
Ostensibly.
Just wait until February. Suddenly, as we approach the debt ceiling, we will not be able to afford any of those. And, of course, the second $700 billion bailout for the wealthy will exacerbate that shortfall.
The Republican House will then axe them all. And, then some. It will be quick, sharp, and deep.
Then, the blackmail will begin again. As the debt ceiling approaches, so that the full faith and credit of the United States will risk becoming junk bond quality, the Senate and President will be forced to accept the changes in order to have the debt ceiling raised.
Gone will be all unemployment compensation. Gone will be the earned income tax credit. Gone will be all unspent money from the stimulus bill. Gone will be the 2% reduction in the payroll taxes. Gone will be money for any part of the health care reform bill. Gone will be the funding for the Environmental Protection Agency (unless it reclassifies carbon dioxide as a non-pollutant). Gone will be enough funding for the key regulatory agencies like the Bureau of Mines, the Food and Drug Administration, the Consumer Financial Products Commission, to do adequate jobs. Gone will be the key funding projects of the Department of Education. Gone will be any clean energy initiatives from the Department of Energy.
Last night I saw a very angry President. Angry that the Republicans could be so despicable, so disgusting, so dastardly, to risk the lives and well-being of 2 million unemployed and their families to get a second $700 billion bailout for the wealthy. Although I remain critical of the entire process that got us there, I saw the President seething.
I did not see a President who was happy with what his prized bipartisanship had wrought.
But, if anyone believes the President was emasculated by the threat of cutting off unemployment insurance to 2+ million needy people, wait until the entire full faith and credit of the United States is dangled as the cost of cooperation.
They did it before under Newtie and the boys. They lost. But, they think they lost because they did not carry through on their threats.
Moreover, we know the Republicans' priorities: bailouts for the wealthy, whether living or dead. Use this moment, and that opportunity, to avoid disaster in February.
So, Mr. President, Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid: do not bring to a vote ANY package that does not have a substantial rise in the debt ceiling as part of it. Design it to take us beyond the 2012 elections.
I am as sympathetic as anyone to the plight of the unemployed. If I could believe they really would be helped for 13 months, and other benefits would not be gutted in February, I could, in the end, swallow my disappointment in how this entire situation was handled and accept the trade-off.
Come February, they will be gone. Like the wind. Without a trace.
I just wrote a letter to President Obama saying the exact thing myself. To pass a package that does not sufficiently adjust the debt ceiling to reflect and accommodate these obscene additions would simply be asking for trouble.
Sen. Bernie Sanders is correct: you just know that as soon as they get their tax cuts, the GOP will "suddenly notice" how large the deficit is, and then start screaming for cuts to "socialist" programs "for the sake of our children and grand-children". It's all part of their grand plan ...
And thanks to Newt, Clinton left office with a 70% favorability rating, double that when Bush left office.
That's what happens when you are living day-to-day, hand-to-mouth. It's called tunnel-vision, as you fight to get through each day, only what is happening right now has any meaning.
Since 2006 when Democrats took control of Congress annual spending by the federal government has increased by 40%. This while tax receipts have shrunk(though the rates were the same through out). The spending path that we are on is unsustainable. That is something every American should be able to recognize. We can disagree with what we should spend money on. Reality is that cuts need to be made across the board. We need to change the way the budgetary process works in government. No automatic increases. More incentives to be under budget instead of the opposite which is the way it works today. I could go on. These are serious problems that aren't easy decisions for politicians to make because lots of voices will complain about even the smallest cut in spending. If politicians aren't willing to do it though they are essentially unwilling to do their jobs. It is their jobs to make those tough choices.
Tough choices usually involves who you are going to save. Tough choices are not a matter of "politics" or "reality". It is a matter of doing the right thing, no matter how hard that is.
You are arguing for a pragmatic approach, at a time when Americans are suffering. America's house is on fire, what's the pragmatic/realistic approach?
"Don't go in there." That's what the realist would say, because you could get hurt or killed in that burning building.
The *right* thing to do is get in there and save the people still inside that house. It's not the smart thing to do, not the realistic thing to do, or the pragmatic thing to do. But it's the right thing to do.
Meanwhile, the Theo-cons are doing a Chinese fire drill, passing empty buckets around in a circle and saying that they are fighting the fire. In another state.
No, the spending *is* unsustainable. But until the economy recovers for everyone, not just the rich, *everything* is unsustainable. We can get things fixed, once we have money in our economy. But we don't have that.
I'd like to remind you that the Theo-cons are saying that we can't fix DADT in a time of war. Yet we can fix the budget and the deficit in a time of economic Armageddon???
$2.65 trillion in 2006. $3.72 trillion in 2010.
Also, if you are going to count outflows necessary to fix the disastrous Bush economy, then you also have to count the paybacks...eg, GM, TARP, etc.
It seems that the effort to transfer wealth has been very successful. By denying the benefits of unemployment to so many, the working class will be further pushed to produce more with less compensation. Those without will burden support and welfare groups driving them to insolvency. When society crumbles beneath the stress of supporting those who can not find employment, the wealthy will offer new opportunities to dig graves and maybe build interment camps to house them. Will they revolt? yes, will they succeed?, that depends upon how long they are allowed to starve before they begin.
If we are to be a thriving society, we need to become altruistic and leave greed behind. That might require us to 'fire' our current politicians. The wealthy probably won't like that but then what are the other choices? Death by starvation or working to support the rich? Personally, I would rather starve. At least I would have the satisfaction of knowing that they didn't get more from me than my life, leaving my principles and ethics intact.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, or PBGC, was created by Congress to “insure participants in defined-benefit pension plans against losing their pension if their employer is in financial distress or fails to fully pre-fund its pension obligations.” About 44 million Americans are protected by PBGC. Unfortunately, it appears the PBGC will soon be unable to meet its obligations for retirees. The agency is constantly facing billions of dollars in deficit, and it seems that a taxpayer-funded bailout may be inevitable.
All under the "common welfare"
Then raise the personal detection by $10,000 for all tax payers !
People being allowed to keep money that they earned is a far cry from taking money from individuals and giving it to companies which ran themselves into the ground and through lobbying and cronyism were deemed 'too big to fail' and were thus deemed worthy of federal assistance.
Obviously you're aware of this as well... but it's more effective politically to call this a 'bailout for the rich' because of the term's negative connotation.
This tax policy has measurable effects on all tax paying individuals, $2,500 in savings for two income households making around $30,000 - $35,000 each. While the extended rates should likely have been capped, as stated, trying to pit the "Middle Class" against the 'Bailed Out Rich' in this situation is simply politicking.
Since the money to pay for the tax cuts is havign to be borrowed (and we will have to pay it back with interest) than it is taking money from some (people in the future) to give to those that have connectiosn and lobbyist (chamber of commerce americans for tax etc) These are the same people that for the most part outsorces and bankrupted this country...so i think that bail out is only inaccurate because they dont need the money - they dont need to be bailed out, but it is a give away.
It seems likely that we would have a fundamental disagreement on the nature of what taxation is. It is a taking... not money that the federal government is inherently entitled to. One that, through necessity, government partakes in so that it can provide government services but a taking nonetheless. This money is the product of someone's work... that was earned through their labor or contractual gain. As stated before, in this situation of fiscal necessity, it seems as though we must increase this taking... but the burden of scrutiny would inherently fall more stringently with the spending... as the government can only spend what it takes from its citizenry. As you pointed out... with smaller revenue, choosing to spend anyway creates a borrowing situation... obviously less than ideal... but this is a problem of the government's own creation.
If an individual chooses to live beyond his means those are the consequences... he may be able to go to his employer and negotiate a higher salary, but no inherent right to that higher salary exists.