Part 1:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Worst Responders | ||||
|
||||
Part 2:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| 9/11 First Responders React to the Senate Filibuster | ||||
|
||||
Please share widely!
Does tax deal + DADT repeal = win?
No.
or only gives up the kinds of things the country can afford. The latter is an automatic fail — we can’t afford the Bush tax cuts for the rich. In reality (though few are willing to admit it), we may not be able to afford the rest, either.
<
p>I guess the former side of that equation — getting things the other side wasn’t eager to give up — is more debateable. The pay roll ‘holiday’ was McConnell’s dream — there’s already talk of making it permanent and it could be the downfall of Social Security as we know it (no exaggeration). 56% of the population is against it, only 39% supports the payroll tax holiday — so people understand how dangerous this can be for the country. That’s a huge, huge fail.
<
p>The Republicans don’t want to continue to stand in the way of DADT — it’s quickly becoming socially unacceptable for them to be so anti-gay. Ultimately, ditto things like unemployment. They don’t want to be the ones who make people homeless on Christmas. So, it’s not exactly a big ‘win’ for Obama, but it’s not a fail.
<
p>In the end, this is a strategic decision by the Republicans. They’re dumping these issues now, before they become liabilities in the future. This just takes the issue away from the Democrats to run against them, and they got $700 billion for the rich in return. Not bad.
<
p>Stuff like the DREAM Act will eventually go into this mix — things they’re willing to ‘give up,’ eager even — but right now, immigration is to the base what homophobia was in 2000-2004. Immigrant-bashing will lose its oomph, though, as demographics continue to change. I’d give it another two or three election cycles.
<
p>So… no. Obama wasn’t a big “winner.” He’ll try to spin it that way — and maybe even be successful in the pundit-class — but that’s not how base democrats are going to feel, and that’s not how Republicans will feel or act going into the next legislative session.
<
p>Obama has to do something over the next two years to bring that base back if he wants to be able to beat a Romney or Huckabee, though I’m not sure it’s possible, and his hopes may lay on getting a Palin or that crazy BP-loving nut of a Governor who’s name escapes me atm.
may be in getting 4ish GOPers to vote with the Dems on anything these days. Setting the tone that less-extreme GOPers can work with Dems to move things forward helps Obama in ’12, and helps Dems get some things they want (and move those things’ “normalcy” into more regions of the country). Will it help Dems win back the House? Dunno. If Obama wins re-election, we’ll pick up House seats for sure.
Will the Dems lose the Senate too? Lots (23 including Independents) of Dems up for reelection in the 2012 Senate, not nearly as many Republicans (10). And we go into it with a 53-47 minority (unless something changes before 2012).
Like you say it’s early, but at the moment Obama leads potential Republicans anywhere from slightly (Romney) to overwhelmingly (Palin). Brown and Snowe may be vulnerable.
the odds are really stacked in the GOP’s favor.
<
p>if we pass filibuster reform and actually get stuff done, and if Obama cleans up, then maybe.
I don’t mean to suggest that we will achieve a 60 vote margin, but from this list I don’t see any Democrats who jump out as vulnerable, but as I mentioned a couple of Republicans. I also don’t believe I’ve heard of pending retirements. We still have the majority in that chamber and I expect to retain it. There’s also hope for filibuster reform for which see my separate diary now on the recent list.
Should Reid continue on as Senate Majority Leader in this coming legislative session, he won’t be continuing on after 2012, unless we get filibuster reform and actually pass good things out of the senate, and unless Obama destroys the Republican opponent. There senate field is just brutal for democrats next session, absolutely brutal. If wish this wasn’t true, but we have to be ‘reality based.’ It will take a small miracle or maybe a week-before-the-election McConnell toe-tapping incident…
…your prediction right now is that the Democrats lose (ie come out with fewer than 50 seats) the Senate in 2012? We don’t even know who the challenging candidates will be on either side, and if Obama wins I especially don’t see us losing.
… and for the meagerly employed the payroll tax relief ought to be welcome!
<
p>The wealthy in this country were, in this instance at least, ever destined to remain: the outcome of this would have left them either wealthy or slightly less wealthy. So, I can’t see describing their situation as either a win or a loss…
<
p>A significant portion of the country, however, are not the wealthy and, in fact, are struggling for their daily bread: The outcome of this could have left them amidst much more suffering. To be sure, they are not ecstatic over their current lot, nor ought they to be, but the much needed government efforts to support them in these straits will, it is hoped, give them some breathing room while the economy continues to recover. This is a win for them.
<
p>On the passage of DADT, it’s a big civil rights victory for everyone, but a wash politically.
<
p>I think, too, the tax bill, politically, is also a wash. People are angry that the GOP didn’t suffer in the negotiations, but I don’t think Obama gave more than he wanted… It’s like that scene from “Road to Perdition”;
<
p>
<
p>The Republicans were so eager to get the tax deal done that they didn’t stop to think what they could get altogether. After the euphoria wears off they’re going to be wondering what else they could have had.
<
p>Of course the emotional infants on the left are calling this for the GOP strictly on the basis of the fact the GOP suffered no real pain here… and not looking the fact that they made no real gain here.
Um … where’d you get that? Letting the tax cuts for the rich expire was a central Obama campaign promise; not letting them do so was a super-high priority for the GOP. And, despite not having control of the White House or either house of Congress, the GOP forced Obama to renege on his promise and give them what they wanted. Looks like a gain to me.
Yes, I hope we can get back on our feet. Yes, I hope we can eventually regain the ground we’ve lost this year.
<
p>But please, petr, don’t kid yourself or us.
<
p>We just got rolled. Creamed. Taken to the cleaners.
The pubs did the next best thing to making the cuts permanent. They extended the game, hoping to have the muscle after the 2012 elections to do so, or at least work to create an environment where it is politically impossible to let them expire.
You wrote:
<
p>Perhaps in the very short term, at best. For someone who is “meagerly employed”, even the short-term gain from this change is meager indeed.
<
p>The long-term price is the destruction of the Social Security system. Do you really believe it will be easier to reverse this unsustainable decrease in the payroll tax than it was to, for example, reverse the equally unsustainable decrease in taxes that President Bush and the GOP rammed through in 2001?
<
p>We just watched a knife go through the heart of Social Security. Yes, it will take awhile — perhaps a decade, perhaps shorter — for the victim to actually die, but this wound is mortal.
<
p>In my view, that is an unacceptable long-term price for this miniscule short-term benefit for the “meagerly employed”.
<
p>… hyperbole, I’d be as panicked as you are now. No. can. do.
<
p>Why is it, do you suppose, that every gain is the merest wisp and every loss the knell of doom? I’m getting tired of hearing how crappy the gains and how terrible the losses… and the continued skew never corrects when it turns out better than crap for the wins and less then apocalyptic for the losses. It’s a pathology unique to the left and one that causes more suffering, delay and derailing than any three GOP parties put together: it’s not like rage-aholics on the left like Hamsher, Olberman and Cos, etc, etc… can ever really register simple disappointment without going straight to sackcloth and ashes!
<
p>The GOP has their reality-distortion field, to be certain, but there’s one forming on the left too and I find it tiresome.
(a) do you think that Social Security can survive if the 2-point reduction in the payroll tax becomes permanent? (b) If not, what is your political strategy for putting the tax back to 6.2%?
especially when you consider that for exactly the same money from general revenues they could have simply rebated the same amount to workers, skipping the completely unnecessary step reducing FICA and replacing the lost revenue.
But since this is a fait acompli, I propose that progressives make it a priority to end the artificial cap on the FICA tax and make the tax apply to all income. The argument against this has always been that FICA was not really a tax but more like paying an insurance premium.
Now that Social Security is being financed out of general revenues this argument does not even hold theoretically–so let’s point that out.
<
p>When it comes to Social Security, it appears, that nothing is certain; neither its death nor its taxes.
<
p>I get that the GOP is playing a long game here. But that doesn’t suddenly make them all powerful and magically more potent than us. Let them play their game. But this deal is a deal that Obama struck and I think, while decidedly imperfect (and what deal isn’t?), struck well. And one thing that I’ve become to count on is that the GOP will try to bring down the Republic and just as regular as clockwork it is certain that, in their particularly blinkered way, they will haplessly work against themselves in a pathetically twisted
<
p>I heard the same thing the night after the repubs held the vote open on Medicare D, the prescription drug plan… “This is the end of medicare!”, “why won’t the Dems be more aggressive!?!” “it’s the end of health care in America…”
<
p>What happened? The Dems retook the house and senate and, rather quietly and without undue fanfare, fixed the damn thing. One would have expected, given the sturm und drang at the time, a bigger fight, but no… I heard the same thing about “No Child Left Behind” and, while it is a giant cluster-f***, it’s not the educational ragnarok it was decried as…
<
p>
<
p>March on up to Washington and put it back. Or not. Whatever the political environment at the time will support. I’d love to be able to wave a magic wand and put all arights as I see fit… but I’d love it even more if there were no magic wand to be wielded whatsoever, whether by the good guys (me n you n mosta BMG…) or by the bad guys (Boehner, et al…) and let the politics unfolds as it unfolds without undue expectation and zero sense of entitlement on my part.
<
p>
This is a game?
<
p>There are lives at stake here, dude. Obama’s not a strong defender of SS, he’s in fact attacked it through the deficit commission. He allowed his better-for-the-middle-and-working-class tax cuts to be replaced by these fake ‘cuts’ which are the world’s most obvious trojan horse. Dude, over 60% of the country is against the payroll tax holiday… and when has ANY tax cut ever had 60% of the population against it? We KNOW its a trojan horse.
<
p>This isn’t chess dude, this is checkers. Checkers in which the opponent’s a little kid who’s telegraphing his move. This is just. freaking. obvious. And we’re playing right into it.
<
p>Either this payroll tax holiday becomes permanent and Social Security is brought to its knees because of it, or the Republicans get to run against the “tax hiker democrats.” It’s a win-freaking-win for them.
<
p>There is no progressive reason to support this, other than head-stuck-in-sandism.
<
p>E gads this is frustrating.
<
p>Do you find it necessary to sleep with a nightlight? Perhaps a teddy bear, too?
<
p>Republicans always run against “tax hiker democrats”. Always and forever. Nothing that Obama, or I, or you will do will change the way Republicans campaign. They make no distinctions between truth and lies: Obama already lowered tax and they’re still saying he raised them. Been going on since I was younger than you, will be going on when your children are my age…
<
p>Why then does Obama have to bear the brunt of your rage? Nothing he has done, in any way, will change what the Republicans will do. He could have gotten the best possible deal out there, and still the Republicans will tar and feather him with taxes.
<
p>It’s. What. They. Do.
<
p>What you do, apparently, is to manufacture reasons to panic and use that panic to fuel your rage. You should get that under control, or… as the kids tell me nowadays, “check yourself before you wreck yourself.”
<
p>I’m perfectly willing to believe that this tax is a threat to Social Security. But the threat, like most of politics, is fungible. I’m less willing to believe that the GOP is crafty, not to say competent, enough to make their plans work. And I’m willing to put my faith in the adults in charge who calmly keep pushing us forward, no matter how frustratingly slow. So, I’m not going to fly into a panic about the possibility of something that might lead to something else if other things hold true and still others come into play. I never plan that far ahead. I think it’s a valid, but entirely worse-case scenario, that Social Security might be ‘brought to its knees because of it.’ But a sufficiently frightening worse case scenario does not obviate all other scenarios.
<
p>And I happen to believe that Social Security is in need of, and will get, some tweaks over the coming decades. I’m fairly certain that in the coming decade we’ll see fundamental changes to Social Security. Some will be propitious, other deleterious. This kind of tax change might not be the change I’d personally like to make, but I’m not a dictator nor do I wish to play one on the internet, so I’ll leave it to the Republic to work out.
and if you think the GOP is inept, I have a bridge to sell you.
<
p>PS don’t tell people to “grow a pair” when you’re advocating the policy of the metaphorical version of DC eunuchs.
<
p>The only thing you have to sell is fear and rage and I ain’t buying. You’re practically fetal with it… and while the GOP is adept at campaigning, they’ve proven themselves, time and again, to be utterly inept, that is to say, thoroughly incompetent, in anything that resembles follow through and, you know, actual governance… It’s axiomatic that, when adept at selling an incoherent message you’ll be unable to follow through.
<
p>Of course, to you, it’s the evil Emperor and his evil-er sidekick Darth Boehner.
<
p>
<
p>You’re the one who’s already thrown in the towel,given up hope and declared defeat.
<
p>So…
<
p>Grow a pair. Man up. Get some courage. Take heart. Stop panicking. You’ve surrendered your powers of analytic observation and critical thinking in favor of impotent rage, that is to say if there’s a eunuch here, it’s you and it’s self inflicted…
<
p>Be not afraid. The situation is not that dire.
<
p>The Bush admin and Republicans of the past 20 years may not have cared how government was run, but that doesn’t mean they’ve been incompetent when it comes to politics. They have a longterm vision of the way they want things and they’ve been very effective and patient at getting that done. They know how to control the message and they know how to win both political fights and campaigns. They’ve stopped us in our track despite absolutely historic majorities and a country that wanted action. If you think these people are inept, you’re wrong — and if we, as a progressive movement, think they’re inept, we’re going to get our butts kicked.
<
p>
<
p>If I gave up hope, I wouldn’t be here right now. I wouldn’t care about politics, I wouldn’t be on BMG, I wouldn’t be pushing things at the grassroots level. I’m far from giving up hope.
<
p>
<
p>Honestly, that’s a very elitist view that’s not going to go over so well with a lot of people in this country. We’re in a new gilded age in which some of us are living in the best of times, others are living in an ongoing depression. There’s entire sectors of this economy with 50% unemployment. The situation is absolutely that dire, and people who haven’t been effected by these times as much as others need to wake up and get moving.
When the discussion was about increasing the retirement age, then Social Security was perfectly safe, in no danger, and anyone who saw any risk whatsoever was a crazy person who just didn’t understand how a trust fund works. The government can just print the money!
<
p>Now, when the tide in Congress turns, as as Republicans instantly forget about deficits, you are suddenly deficit hawks again, and a now a decrease in the payroll tax is an existential threat to the entire Social Security System, which evidently had an extreme change in circumstances over the past three weeks.
<
p>Maybe Ryan’s head exploding is from the whiplash occasioned by the extraordinary dose of stoopid you politicians are trying to cram down people’s throats.
The funding basis for Social security has been safe until now because the proceeds from the payroll tax were intentionally firewalled from the general fund. That’s the basis on which the trust fund was secure. Unless you are a closet gold-bug, you know as well as I that “the government can just print the money” is right wing balderdash.
<
p>The extreme change in circumstances is that the payroll tax rate has been reduced, and the breach has opened a gaping hole in the firewall.
<
p>I don’t know about Ryan, but my whiplash is from the onslaught of the many flagrant lies and distortions emanating from the right-hand side of the aisle.
Because I am sure that no one ever said that the entire Social Security system is absolutely rock solid, specifically because it is funded with US currency.
<
p>So, to review:
<
p>Opponent: We need to raise the Social Security retirement age by a year or two.
<
p>You: You are evil! There is a trust fund! The Social Security System is absolutely rock solid and under no financial threat whatsoever.
<
p>Opponent: Okay, lets have a temporary 2% cut to the payroll tax.
<
p>You: You are evil! The Social Security System is so fragile, so frail, so financially weak that it cannot withstand such a vicious body blow as a temporary 2% payroll tax cut; you have destroyed it utterly!
<
p>I’m impressed that you manage to keep up with your own shifting positions.
I invite you to offer a quote from anything I’ve written here where I’ve opposed raising the SS retirement age.
<
p>In fact, since I’ve been here, my position has been:
<
p>1. We should the remove the cap on the payroll tax
2. We should, if needed, phase in a 2-3 year increase in the retirement age.
<
p>As I said above, you are attempting to erect a strawman.
<
p>On the other hand, perhaps you might answer a few questions:
<
p>1. Did you support or oppose efforts to “privatize” Social Security?
<
p>2. Do you support or oppose means-testing for Social Security recipients?
<
p>3. Do you support or oppose paying Social Security benefits from the general fund?
<
p>4. Do you support or oppose reducing the Social Security payroll tax?
<
p>When we finish discussing Social Security, I’m sure we might have an analogous discussion regarding medicare.
You are correct. I confused your stance with that of others here, who are indeed vehemently opposed to raising the retirement age.
<
p>However, you and Ryan both were rather strongly of the opinion that the system was in no real distress over the short or medium term, and was indeed rock solid on account of the trust fund, among other things, as linked above.
<
p>As to your questions:
<
p>1. Oppose. Turning Social Security into a 401(k) would defeat the purpose.
<
p>2. Oppose, but open to convincing. In my view, this would rather dramatically alter the structure of the system, and not in a remotely positive way. As long as one benefits are a function of years contributing and amount contributed, it will remain the third rail of politics, because everyone has a stake. Once means testing is introduced, then there will immediately be pressure to increase the benefits to us at the expense of them, and the definition of “too rich” to qualify will steadily shift downward. Eventually, some of the “thems” will correctly begin to wonder why they are being asked to subsidize the lifestyle choices of “us” when “we” don’t make an effort to maximize “our” income. AFDC was created by the same New Deal statute that created Social Security, but no longer exists. I would prefer that Social Security avoid going down that path; that is, I don’t want it to be a welfare system.
<
p>3. Irrelevant. They are already paid from the general fund.
<
p>4. Oppose. Along with oppose letting any of the tax cuts expire, and oppose further “stimulus” spending.
Social Security WAS rock-solid, because its long-term actuarial difficulties could have been readily solved by a gradual implementation of some mix of the two changes I advocate. Such an approach (lift the ceiling, increase retirement age) has been done in the past without problems.
<
p>As I’ve written multiple times, that solidity was based on two foundation stones:
<
p>1. The Payroll Tax rate was high enough that the two approaches are sound, and
2. The trust fund was separate from general revenues (I understand that you differ with me about that). The money that has been temporarily diverted from the Trust Fund is supported by the full faith and credit of the US. That is good enough for me (at least until the crazy right wingers destroy THAT by refusing to left the debt ceiling next year).
<
p>Thus, as I attempted to explain above, in my view this sudden and gratuitous cut in the Payroll Tax rate (by an astonishing 33% in the employee’s share) has done mortal harm to the suddenly-precarious Social Security system.
<
p>Social Security WAS rock-solid. It is not now.
<
p>The right has driven a bulldozer through the foundation of Social Security, and President Obama and the Democrats stood by and watched.
Last summer, I had a rather vigorous dispute with you, Ryan, Manny Goldstein, and Hoyapaul about the financial condition of Social Security, and a significant point of disagreement was that I think the “Social Security Trust Fund” is a sham, and that the system is already failing to collect sufficient revenue to cover present benefits, whereas you (plural, I specifically recall the others on this point, but not you, BrooklineTom) others contended that this could not possibly be true, as the Social Security Trust Fund is real, and holds interest-bearing assets, and is therefore nowhere near a state of insolvency.
<
p>Given that benefit payments will shortly exceed payroll tax collections on a semi-permanent basis, the only thing that could possibly have made the Social Security system “rock-solid” last summer was the existence of the Trust Fund.
<
p>Well, comes now the recent tax deal, and among its provisions is a temporary cut in the payroll tax. This will reduce payroll tax collections during the holiday year by $120 billion, AND will cause the government to issue $120B in debt– the same thing the Trust Fund gets when it “invests” its surplus, when there is one– to the Trust Fund.
<
p>So, at the end of the holiday year, the Trust Fund will have exactly what it would have had, if the payroll taxes had been collected and “invested”– a net change of precisely zero.
<
p>But , the same asset that made the Trust Fund “rock solid” in July is a worthless IOU in December, and has undermined the entire system and perhaps civilization itself.
<
p>I call this something of an inconsistency.
<
p>2. If the entire economy resumes a more robust growth, especially in the consumer sector, the entire problem disappears.
<
p>I strongly advocate lifting the payroll tax and extending the retirement age to, say something like 67-70. My argument for the latter, by the way, is driven by societal issues more than economics. Older Americans are living longer, and are productive far longer — especially in the information and services sector, which continues to displace manufacturing in the overall jobs picture. As baby-boomers pass 65, their knowledge cannot be replaced by younger workers coming up behind them — their aren’t enough younger workers, and our education system has failed them miserably. I argue that our culture will be harmed by gratuitously dismissing baby boomers at 65. Boomers will want to be valued, and our culture will need them in the workforce. Many of us work because we love our careers, not because we are wage slaves.
<
p>As you observe, we’ve already thrashed out our differences in monetary policy and its relationship to growth last summer. Perhaps you will admit, though, that a growing consumer economy (whatever its mechanism) will solve the Social Security actuarial problem (along with most of our deficit problem if we can stop the GOP from spending the increased tax revenue on even more tax cuts for the wealthy).
<
p>Meanwhile, my issue with using general revenue to fund Social Security is not that the debt instruments are unreliable (if we blow through the debt ceiling, the Social Security problem is the very least of our worries). It is, instead, that relying on general revenue sucks Social Security into the GOP-created economic black hole that has already swallowed so much of everything else.
<
p>The GOP will argue that ANY tax increase is bad, and therefore that Payroll Tax should stay at 4%. They will then argue that Social Security will run a deficit every year (which will, of course, be true with the employee share at 4%). They will then argue that continuing Social Security is growing the national debt. This, of course, undermines the entire system and perhaps civilization itself.
<
p>I know you and I see all this differently. I don’t ask you to agree with my analysis. I, instead, ask you to acknowledge that it is internally consistent.
Okay, you’re less concerned that there is a one year holiday than you are concerned that the holiday might be extended ad infinitum. If that be the result, with nothing more, we have indeed made a problem into a bigger problem, long term.
<
p>That’s a fair enough view, and might be exactly how it plays out, but might be overly pessimistic in my view. Here is why:
<
p>I think that most people, from the time they earn their very first real paycheck and ask a parent or teacher “What is ‘FICA’?” get that Social Security is not the same thing as income tax, and I therefore don’t think the usual “tax and spend” GOP playbook is as effective with respect to FICA. Everybody gets their annual Social Security statement, which makes it hard to call the program “tax and spend” effectively, except with respect to the most extreme libertarians. Indeed, everyone knows someone who relies to a greater or lesser extent on their Social Security income. (I would retract that view if benefits become means tested.)
<
p>If there is a little pushback, I think that the expiration of the holiday may present an opportunity to set the whole program on a more stable path: a small increase in retirement age, raising the cap of the payroll tax a bit, and increasing the rate a bit (maybe less than the 2%), and put the non Medicare portion of the program safely to rest for another generation.
I sincerely hope my assessment turns out to be overly pessimistic.
<
p>My prescription is to restore the payroll tax to its original rate and lift the cap altogether (perhaps phased in over a number of years as was done in the eighties). I agree that the more incremental change you suggest might be necessary, and would at least help rather than hurt. I’d just as soon bite the bullet sooner and solve the problem, but then I’m just an engineer.
I don’t think we disagree, on this at least, so much after all.
<
p>My only quibble with you– and I think it a minor one– is that I think it quite important that the benefits remain a direct function of years and contributions, which is another way of saying that I would strongly object to means testing.
<
p>That means that, if there is no theoretical limit on contributions (no cap) then there should be no theoretical limit on benefits. Otherwise, it has indeed been converted to a welfare system, not unlike its AFDC counterpart.
<
p>Without having seen the math, it seems like that at some point, collecting a lot of $$ from Manny Ramirez, and then owing Manny Ramirez a lot of $$ doesn’t actually improve the overall financial position of the system long term. That point should be the cap.
<
p>On the other hand, removing the income cap without changing the present benefit structure would without question eliminate any future financial vulnerability, but would, I think, introduce significant political vulnerability. That would be a lousy tradeoff
you clearly haven’t been paying attention.
Reasonable people can disagree here on BMG and still be paying attention 🙂
but if you saw the deficit commission, and the 14-out-18 members who were on record before being appointed as supporting some kind of rate cuts… and if know the GOP has long been gunning for SS and attacking it through many forms… and if you saw the best defense for SS is that it’s solvent for decades to come, then see the GOP — along with the administration — go along with supporting the one policy that would undermine SS’s ability to stay solvent for those decades… What other conclusion could there be?
<
p>Reasonable people can disagree about things on BMG and elsewhere when there are facts to support their case. In this case, all the facts support the assault of Social Security. Just as people are not entitled to their own facts, they are not entitled to make up their own phony conclusions that aren’t supported by any facts… at least if we’re still calling ourselves a Reality-Based Community.
<
p>Social Security is under assault, whether we like it or not, and the other side is about to win a major battle. Those are just the facts.
How is this an attack on Social Security?
<
p>If this hadn’t happened, the money would be collected by the government and turned over to the Social Security administration, which would have lent the money to the government in return for bonds held to be held in the Social Security Trust Fund. The government would have then spent the money.
<
p>As it has happened, the money is not collected and turned over to the Social Security administration, but the trust fund gets the bonds anyway. Net change: zero.
<
p>So, what, precisely, is so terrible about this?
will see their taxes go up because they got more bang for the buck from the expiring Making Work Pay credit than they will the payroll holiday. The GOP traded extending the credit for the payroll tax holiday.
we should be dancing in the streets because the conservatives’ ultimate goal, the complete dismantling of the government, has been forestalled for maybe a few years. What’s wrong with you glass-half-empty folks? Let’s party!
<
p>I’m going to stop you right there and ask that you actually read what I wrote.
<
p>This kind of hyperbole (“What? You’re not convinced it’s a loss? That MUST mean you think it a victory worthy of a decisive street mamba!!”) is counterproductive. If you’re actually going to come here to discuss issues, perhaps you should start by actually informing yourself of the issues. Replying to me in this manner suggests the presence of a fully formed argument you’ve already held with yourself: masturbation is never an effective debate tactic.
solely in the political terms that you do suggests that you are not that informed of the disastrous consequences of this deficit-exploding tax bill. The effects, in my opinion, will be devastating to our democracy and will continue to push us intractably in the direction of plutocracy.
I read what you said, and my sarcasm was a relatively benign reaction to your naivete about this.
Moody’s and others are threatening our interest rates over this, which is a giant cost factor not even entered into the equation. It could double the cost of the $700 billion in millionaire/billionaire tax cuts and $300 billion in estate tax cuts in the grand scheme of things.
<
p>”intractably”? Really? You think it should be easy? You were expecting, maybe, ‘well oiled’ and ‘tractable’? Was it not ever thus?
<
p>We live in the greatest democracy that has yet existed. I travel 87 miles of commute each day and pay less than 10 dollars a day to do it. You and I have amenities and comforts at our fingertips that John D. Rockfeller, at his very richest, couldn’t acquire. My cell phone has more computing power than the computer that landed Neil Armstrong on the moon. My children understand, at 12 and 14 years of age, more about calculus than I did at 22. The nurses in my doctors office know more about medicine than the physicians my father had when he was my age. I’m free, as are you, to pish about for hours on an electronic discussion board like this, airing our grievences, both petty and mighty, to the world.
<
p>Where, in all this wonderment, is the incipient plutocratic apocalypse? What fell gravity it must possess to so hold sway over our daily lives (or, at least your imagination…)
<
p>All of this, I hasten to add, brought to you in the face of grievious intractability. For nearly everything in your life, someone, somewhere, once opposed it.
<
p>Yet despite all this progress, despite all the battles fought against enemies intractable for time immemorial, you still think the allure of “plutocracy’ is a fait accompli, somehow already a done deal and an inexorable outcome of one change to the tax code? I think your hysteria is intractable.
<
p>And you somehow, also, think that you and a select few others, are privy to the truth? And that I, with my head snugly in the sand, am in dire need of convincing. Where would that kind of… plutocratic… idea come from???
we know it’s a trojan horse
57% are opposed to the payroll tax holiday (I thought it was over 60, but 57% is a pretty strong majority nonetheless).
<
p>Only 39% of the population supports it.
<
p>http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…
It reads like a good poll, and the questions are good. I’m surprised it didn’t get more publicity, but I see it was embargoed until 12/13, and by then the vote itself was getting all the attention.
over a trillion in tax cuts for the rich (including the estate tax) isn’t a “real gain”
<
p>We traded all that away for $54 billion in unemployment benefits that we could have passed on its own anyway. We look like clowns next to them.
Repubs got to set tax policy, now they get to set spending policy. They win. Oddly, DADT repeal may go forward in spite of the Obama administration:
<
p>
<
p>http://hamptonroads.com/2010/1…
<
p>It is a win for civil rights though, and frankly, that matters more than what is a win for Obama.
The thing to not lose sight of is that the Republicans are executing a long-term plan, one with its origins in the 60s (after Goldwater) and which really started taking hold with Reagan in the 80s. So, despite their “losses”, which include the Nixon and W presidencies, along with the 2006 and 2008 elections (and maybe even the emergence of the Tea Party), they have their eye on the prize, which is far as I can tell is a corporate environment last seen before the Great Depression.
<
p>Unfortunately, the Democrats do not have a similar long-term plan. So we end up celebrating our little victories perhaps a little too vigorously given their significance in the larger picture, and we spend too much time decide if we’ve won or lost a minor battle in a much larger war.
<
p>BTW, that Daily Show footage is must viewing. That should be shown on the floor of the Senate.
Whoever is running those “Tell President Obama” not to cave on the Bush tax cuts ads should probably pull them down and save themselves some money.
David says:
<
p>The Republicans were 100% dead-set against helping unemployed Americans. They were 100% against an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit for hard-working folks. They also wanted to continue tax cuts for the wealthiest people for perpetuity. Heck, since they have said that their focus is simply on beating Obama in 2012, the Republicans aren’t particularly in favor of improving the economy for most Americans, either.
<
p>We can say a lot of things about Obama “getting rolled” and not doing enough to stand up to the Republicans. But let’s be clear here — the Republicans did not get everything they wanted. Important portions of this bill help the middle-class and the working poor, and let’s not pretend that congressional Republicans give a damn about either of these groups.
What they were dead set against was the extension of Make Work Pay credit, which was dropped for the payroll holiday. They were “dead set against” extension of UI benefits the other five times they passed in the last two years as well, and let’s remember, there was no new bracket added for the 99ers. This was just an extension to those under 99 weeks. Further, I’m with Barney Frank, UI benefits are not a concession. They could have been won and should not have been linked to a tax cut deal.
Correction: the earned income tax credit used to be bipartisan. More recently, many Republicans have been bashing it as “welfare.”
<
p>And UI benefits could not have been won as simply as you make it seem. Republicans, to a man and woman, were dead set against extending them past 99 weeks. As long as they had the 40+ votes to stop it, they were going nowhere. That’s why they were part of this tax deal.
Barney Frank certainly disagrees and he knows a thing or two about Congress.
I don’t think you’d have Barney Frank disagreeing with my comments about the Republicans. Unlike a few so-called progressives, he’s one that spends most of his time criticizing Republican right-wingers, not his political allies.
not before, not now, not ever.
<
p>This was never about that. If it had been, it may have been a legitimate concession. But it wasn’t.
The UI benefits were not extended past 99 weeks in this tax deal, you are absolutely correct. The provisions of this bill benefit only those who have not used the 99 weeks by extending their eligibility for UI. Unfortunately, as you point out, the package failed to do anything about the 99ers, who will be cut off even in a time of high unemployment.
<
p>Of course, the Republicans were not only against extending UI past the 99 weeks, but against extending the eligibility period for anyone. All while demanding extensions of tax cuts for the wealthiest.
they weren’t that dead set against unemployment benefits the first 3 times. It had the support of 72% of Americans, almost certainly a majority of Republicans with those kind of numbers. The last time they tried filibustering it, it lasted about a week until they were shamed into submission. During Christmas season, a filibuster of unemployment benefits wouldn’t have even lasted that long. Had we fought that fight, we would have easily won it and gained a lot of capital in the process. Instead, we played on their terms, advanced their narrative and set the state for a terrible state of a difficult legislative session.
to argue that the Obama and many congressional Democrats screwed up the strategy here. In fact, I’d agree with you.
<
p>But that’s no reason to make excuses for the Republicans here. The vast majority of Republicans absolutely WERE dead-set against UI benefit extensions, both now and in the past. That’s simply a fact. They could have been on the side of the people suffering most as a result of the sluggish economy, but they decided to gum up the works in order to benefit the wealthiest. That’s a greater sin in my book than the Democrats’ screwing up the political strategy.
we haven’t had trouble getting them passed in the past. The one time a Republican tried to filibuster it, they were lambasted across the country and the GOP was begging him to stop the filibuster. I’m sorry, but your just wrong. There are certainly a lot of Republicans who oppose it, but ultimate — as they have before — they wouldn’t stop it from coming to a vote, and they wouldn’t stop some in their caucus from voting the right way.
The unemployment extension bill that passed in 2009 was blocked for weeks by the GOP. And it was not “a Republican” who was filibustering it. It was the entire party gumming up the works. I don’t know where you get this stuff from.
<
p>And as you should remember, the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2010 signed by President Obama back in July received a total of eleven Republican votes in both houses of Congress combined, after weeks of Republican procedural delays.
<
p>So, you’re just wrong on this. And on another thread, you suggested that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell should be easy to repeal because Republicans aren’t opposed to it like they used to be. That suggestion is also just plain false — look at the votes.
<
p>Why do you continue insisting on making excuses for the Republicans?
You may not believe that Obama had much to do with these legislative victories, but that’s sort of beside the NYT’s point that a relatively high number of priorities were accomplished in a short amount of time (albeit with compromise), and that these three bills will pay political dividends for him.
<
p>Presidential power is derived from a complex set of interacting factors. Will the narrative of getting three “wins” – all three of which enjoy substantial popular support – translate into a larger media narrative change about the president? Increased Obama popularity? Recapture of that much-discussed “swagger”? A more compliant GOP caucus?
<
p>I’ve been fooled too many times to think the GOP will do anything but try to piss off liberals, but there’s a legitimate case to be made for the other three effects.
…is how do you weigh each factor. Are some things more important or signficant than others? I’m hestitant to just say something like, “The President won three and lost two of these items, so net win.” Also, can you count even passage of the tax deal as a “win” if it were compromised to death before hitting the Congress?
DADT – Obama “won” only because he wanted a legislative vote and didn’t have the guts to make it happen immediately through orders as commander-in-chief.
<
p>Taxes – Obama extended middle-class tax breaks (which the Republicans weren’t going to vote against anyway).
<
p>Only if one accepts the astounding lowering of expectations that Obama seems to surround himself with did he “win”. Only if one accepts “conceivably could have lost by more” is this a win. Only if one hides behind temporary and easily altered procedural rules in the Senate is this a “win”.
<
p>I won’t lower standards for a Democratic president, only because Obama’s miniscule definition of a “win” will too soon become a heroic victory for the next Democratic president, as Democrats insist on defining victory rightward and downward.
Just to set the record straight, the GOP did vote against middle class tax breaks.
…John Boehner said on TV that he would vote for under 250K by itself if that’s what was offered. It’s amazing how many simple messaging opportunities we have squandered.
…that was all that was being offered. He had the opportunity to vote up or down on the first 250K only and voted it down – shame on him! Our side should be harping on that until 2012. We all know that if a Democrat voted against that measure his GOP opponent would be running ads saying the Democrat voted to raise your taxes.
Putting aside the debate about whether the Senate rules are easily altered…
<
p>The deal is that we can change the Senate rules on the first day of the next Congress, right? But at that precise moment, the GOP gains control of the House.
<
p>Even if the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate, what do you think could get accomplished in the next Congress (once Senate rules are changed) that would pass a GOP-controlled House?
I have a diary to that effect on the recent list as of this writing.
Another is through a Senate President’s ruling, or revisiting an organizing resolution. Democrats chose not to take either choice.
<
p>Things are going to be much tougher for the next two years, yes. Partially because the previous two were wasted by spineless “Democrats” in the Senate.
I had intended to vote for the guy that understood the difference between a president and a king
It is what it is.
<
p>Politics is a chess game, not a game of bridge. In bridge, you win enough tricks, you win the game. In chess, position and timing are key. Sacrifice is important. Is our position better than it was before now? I don’t think so. Obama’s “compromise,” I think, has put us in worse position for 2012, a loss of timing and position. It’s going to be harder to let the tax cuts expire in an election year.
<
p>Does it put Obama in a better position for re-election? I think it’s a wash. He lost out with us. We will probably support him, but losing our enthusiasm could matter. Partisans don’t like bipartisanship. In spite of what the MSM thinks, independents don’t care about bipartisanship. The economy will remain front in center.
<
p>The only way the country wins is if Obama comes back in a second term with the gloves off and does more of what he should have done this term. I’m not sanguine about that.
<
p>After this latest deal, I don’t trust him (his motives or his skills) to revise the tax code. He’s part of the elite–the socially liberal, economically conservative Northeastern establishment that is willing to feed the rest of us crumbs in the name of what they’ll term “fiscal conservativism.” He’ll shake his head sadly when he puts the stake through the heart of social security, but as a Very Serious Person wed to the conventional wisdom of his class, I’ll be surprised if he doesn’t do the wrong thing.
<
p>At this point, I wonder if it doesn’t make more sense to let the country go to the dogs Republicans. Maybe then, the American people will wake up to what’s happening.
<
p>As far as DADT goes, it will be a win for Obama, but again, one played for minimal political gain on his part.
In terms of actual elections, whether or not you manage to pull out some legislative victories at the end of a term that you’ll manage to move the needle much on popularity. Most people don’t follow politics all that much, and elections are mostly determined by people looking at the broad direction the country is moving and then deciding whether they want to vote for the incumbent party or not. If the tax policy makes the economy better and then the voters feel better about the Democrats, then that would encourage future victories. But the actual act of legislation itself will be ignored by all but those wonks who tend to have opinions already.
<
p>And in terms of future conflicts with Congress, those people do follow the news very closely (they ARE the news) but momentum still isn’t really a useful model. If the president can manage to make Republicans more willing to work with him that would be a good thing, but it’s the making Republicans more willing to work with him that effects future votes, not whether or not this becomes a win. And unfortunately, we’ll be getting a new boatload of Republicans in a few weeks and he’ll have to form new relationships with those people.
<
p>And in terms of actual policy merit, saying win or lose is kind of arbitrary. There is good legislation and there is bad legislation but it’s a gradual spectrum of better to worse with no obvious place to draw the line.