Thankfully, I now get to go back to one of my favorite pasttimes: bitching about politics!
This latest tax deal proves once again that the only thing worse than the two parties not working together is when they do. Allow me to set up the impasse. The Democrats (and Obama, at least until recently) were committed to letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire for all those making $250,000 per year or more and extending them for everyone else, while the Republicans wanted them extended for everyone across the board. In other words, in the name of getting the deficit under control, the Democrats' solution was additional taxation and the Republicans' solution was to cut spending. That seems about right. So what compromise did they reach (they being Obama and the GOP)? Extend all the tax cuts and in return extend unemployment benefits and lower the social security payroll tax for next year. In other words, reduce taxes and increase spending.
If you're hearing a dull thud right now, that's the sound of me banging my head against the desk (or, if you're reading this after business hours, my palm slapping my forehead). What's perhaps even more dumbfounding than this is the fact that it's Congressional Democrats who are set to rebel at this. Aren't Republicans and those associated with the Tea Party supposed to be the ones all about fiscal responsibility? This is just a horribly irresponsible deal and the kind of thing Republicans always campaign against.
I'm sorry, but this is our government at its worst. This was financial shenanigans when Reagan did it in the 80s, it was shenanigans when Bush did it in the 00s, and it's shenanigans now. I've often been accused of being a fence-straddler when I say that I want a balanced budget and I don't really care if it comes via increased taxation or cutting spending. But this is why I say that! I can't afford to be picky with my ideology; I just want someone who can do math! You don't want to raise taxes? Fine, then you need to cut spending. Don't want to cut spending? Fine, then you have to raise taxes. It isn't quite, but it's damn close to a zero sum game. The cut to Social Security payroll tax is just the coup de grace. Hey look! We've got a program that's on pace to go bankrupt in 25 years. Let's cut the amount of money we pay into it! (THUD) (THUD) (THUD)
If you supported the Replublicans or the Tea Party last month, you should be furious right now. This is exactly the type of short-sightedness that let the deficit get to this point. But the truth is that the real agenda of the Republicans is simply low taxes at any cost, with lip service paid to the idea of a balanced budget via vague promises of budget cuts that never materialize. To be sure, the Democrats are no better but at least they haven't campaigned on it incessantly for the last 30 years.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
The agenda of the Republicans isn't lower taxes at any cost, it is the defeat of anything the Democrats want to do, and ensure the next president is a Republican. They've said it in code or many years, and said it straightforwardly for the last two.
Policy be damned, science be damned, truth be damned. And that eventually leads to citizens/country be damned.
There is a saying that you can't govern if you aren't elected, which is true, but that presupposes that at some point you're going to stop running and actually govern.
Also, don't dignify it by calling it a tax increase. It is going back to the REAL tax rate. If a store puts something on sale for a week you don't say the next week that they've raised the price, it is just back to its original price.
But this whole drama this week has made me sick. The democratic compromises make me queasy and the republican stance makes me puke.
Protecting a (small) tax cut on income over $250k while simultaneously trying to cut benefits for people with NO income is borderline criminal.
/rage
"Protecting a (small) tax cut on income over $250k while simultaneously trying to cut benefits for people with NO income is borderline criminal. "
Really?
THAT is what's borderline criminal?
Really?
Okay, I'll bite... How is that borderline criminal? Or is it just "Hitlery", or "Evil"? Or is it more like "SATANIC"?
Is hyperbole the bailiwick of the party in power?
There was no hyperbole in that statement.
Cutting unemployment benefits denies people and families access to the fundamentals of human life: food, clothing, and shelter.
I know that the above statement does not apply to everyone receiving unemployment benefits, but it does apply.
And to leverage the lives of those barely managing to get by against a tax cut for families on income over $250k is both morally reprehensible and borderline criminal.
Trading one person's ability to live for another's to live well is just plain wrong.
But, the Senate just passed the compromise by a HUGE margin, with the House to follow most likely later today, so we're left with the modern political conundrum: both sides get their way, both sides spend more money, both sides complain about deficits.
But I love you Mike, if only for your use of the word bailiwick.
Weir, I didn't disagree with your sentiment but it certainly is hyperbole.
Calling something "borderline criminal" by definition is stating that it's right on the edge of being illegal (e.g. driving a vehicle with a BAL of exactly .08), but what law are they close to breaking? Congressional members have the right to vote and utilize procedural rules any way they want. They can all decide "we won't let anything at all come up for a vote unless you eliminate all social programs and bring the income tax rate down to 2%." That would be a lot of things (unethical, immoral, politically suicidal) but it would not be anywhere near criminal.
And yes, I'm aware that I'm arguing semantics with a guy who has an English degree.
So, Weir, when did you become pro-life?
I think a better "borderline criminal" act would be taking that which someone else has worked for, and giving it to someone that hasn't. That could come close to theft.
I was listening to the news yesterday, and one reporter asked a business owner (of UPS, if I recall) if he understood why people were upset that they have 3 billion "sitting on the sidelines" when they aren't hiring.
Can anyone tell what's inherently wrong with that question?
I wasn't ducking the question, the power supply on my computer blew and I was without proper internet for a week. I cried myself to sleep every night in the loving embrace of the tiny browser on my cellphone.
Now that I've placed a slightly too large power supply (physically, not power-wise) into my 6.5 year old dell case, I'm back in action.
Can't argue with your pro-life comment. Just can't do it. Plenty of people would say that the government has been complicit in murdering fetuses for decades.
But I was thinking about the math on this the other day, and it comes down to an individual making $300k would see a tax rollback of only 1% even though they are in the highest bracket. $3k for someone making $300k. The only people paying the full 3% are individuals pulling down $1.2M/year and above (for simplicities sake.)
I had a point there somewhere, but I'm getting picked up for dinner and have to cut this short.
I suppose this argument really just comes down to whether or not you feel an obligation to take care of your own needs over those of others. I'm of the opinion that everyone needs to take care of themselves to the best of their ability, and this will sometimes mean that equity in quality of life is not possible.
But, equity in tax burden is totally possible. Abolish income tax completely, and place a flat consumption tax on everything. Everyone gets to take more money home, and they can pay tax for what they purchase. Of course, certain food staples would be exempt, as well as clothing under a certain amount.
For example, bread, milk, cereal... things like that, would be tax free. Soda, candy, beer (sorry), fast food (or any restaurant for that matter; these would be examples of taxable food items.
Ditto for clothes. Perhaps that would be a flat amount per person. Call it a rebate on, say, the first $2000 per year per person. Send in $2000 in receipts, and you get the rebate. This would have to be administered by the IRS, but they would have a lighter work load anyway.
So, wouldn't this really solve all those problems? From my understanding, with a 15% to 20% federal sales tax, you would increase income by quite a bit, while personal incomes would increase. And you would now have a higher percentage of the population participating in the economic responsibility for the country. This would hopefully have the effect of people better understanding that "government" money is really OUR money. Then watch the budget cuts to federal programs happen!
I just lost a nice long post. I offer it up as a sacrifice to the internet.
It had to do with distribution of wealth (not RE-distribution) and the gap between the bottom 20% vs. the top 5%. Lots of facts and figures, but I'm tired now and just feel like playing some Pants vs. Zombies.
Hope everyone had a nice new Year. I look forward to antagonizing you this year.
Post a Comment