I remember during the 2008 presidential campaign, the message of hope and change, of bringing the Country together, of making progress. Frustrated and seeking some kind of change Americans made the serious mistake of giving total power to one party. Not long thereafter the minority party was labeled the party of no, meaning it did not go along with each and every idea the party in power had and thus it was only obstructionist…so much for bi-partisan action, with all the power, why bother?
During the health care debate, it was more of the same. While the Republicans admittedly had little concrete to offer, there was no chance anything they offered would be considered. I recall the farce of the President’s health care meeting with House and Senate leaders of both parties. I am not even sure why Republicans came to that party, even one detailed assessment of the fiscal impact backed in large part by the CBO numbers was ignored, the party in power had its mind made up…full speed ahead and so it was.
Now the party in power no longer has all the marbles and it appears harder than ever for those who criticized Republican obstinacy to make even small compromises. The President, facing the reality of opposition with power, cannot grasp the concept of compromise. Rather than seize the moment and promote the benefits of the new tax deal that he wanted, he could not resist the “held hostage” analogy (I had no intention of compromising, they made me do it.) Apparently sharing is not one of the Presidents strong points. I am glad I did not have to deal with him on the playground when I was in grammar school.
Most fascinating is that the apoplexy among some Democrats is not of substance, but pure ideology. The left wanted tax benefits for the middle class, they got it, the left wanted another stimulus, they got it, the left wanted reinstatement of the estate tax, they got and they are getting more goodies added to the final legislation. What they do not want is current tax rates for the “wealthy” (a term thrown about as if anyone marginally successful is playing bridge with Gates and Buffet). They also do not want the estate tax to be too friendly, taxing estates over $5,000,000 at 35% is not good enough…boo hoo.
The deal concocted by the President and the Republicans is not what I would like either and I suspect not totally what anyone would like. However, most voters agree with the deal. Welcome to compromise, get over it and MoveOn (hee, hee).
But not to worry, the word is that the estate tax will go back to 45% on amounts over $3.5 million rather what is in the deal. Who says life is not fair?
Related Articles
- Tax defeat could trigger new recession, WH warns (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
- Tax Cuts Deal: Sympathy for the President (politicsdaily.com)
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
You’re looking at this from the viewpoint of a simple minded right-wing ideologue. The bill is nothing but tax cuts to appease the Republicans so they’ll agree to the extension of unemployment benefits for those who lost their jobs due to Republican policies. That hardly seems like a fair compromise. At a time when the deficits are well over a trillion dollars a year, this is no time for unnecessary tax cuts. They should extend the tax cuts for the middle class temporarily and let those for the wealthy expire.
Think about what’s best for our country. Tax cuts are not the answer.
LikeLike
There is no tax cut involved here for anyone. Isn’t it interesting that suddenly there is concern over the deficit, but dealing with it is only the responsibility of the “wealthy?”
Concern over the deficit is certainly justified, but raising taxes on anyone is not the answer and never has been.
If there is concern over the deficit why are some on the left still pushing for a COLA under Social Security when it is neither justified nor consistent with the law? Hey, I’d like my SS to go up, but not at the price of hurting my children and grandchildren more than we already have.
Actually I never thought of myself as a right wing anything, just trying to apply some common sense. Congress has never not spent the additional revenue from tax increases so it’s highly unlikely any increase would affect the deficit very much.
LikeLike
I just noticed the “simple minded” comment. I think you made my point, anyone who doesn’t agree with the ideology of the progressive left is incapable of rational thought and opinion.
LikeLike
[There is no tax cut involved here for anyone. Isn’t it interesting that suddenly there is concern over the deficit, but dealing with it is only the responsibility of the “wealthy?”]
You’ve been brainwashed into making that argument. They are temporary tax cuts that will expire if no action is taken. Taxes will go back to where they were before the tax cuts were enacted.
You’re right that right-wingers were never concerned about the deficits when it was Bush who was president, but a lot of other people were. The tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 resulted in the doubling of the national debt in just eight years.
LikeLike
Apparently the Democrats were not too concerned about the deficit either considering they had control of Congress for the last four years. There is enough blame to go all around. The bottom line is all politicians are irresponsible and set policy and create legislation with an eye toward reelection and not much else.
LikeLike
When Federal Spending has increased over 60% since Clinton left office (almost 19% last year alone) I’m sorry but giving these fools more of anyone’s money (Wealthy or Middle class) is NOT what’s best for our country.
LikeLike