Let’s Make a Deal or not! Redux.

Posted: December 8, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: Team Obama, The Bonus Class, U.S. Economy | Tags: , , | 45 Comments

So,the top story pretty much every where is the tax deal. Oy! What a Deal!   Or ordeal.  Gallup has polled the voters on their feelings about the situation which is more than I can say for the President and the Congress.

Two major elements included in the tax agreement reached Monday between President Barack Obama and Republican leaders in Congress meet with broad public support. Two-thirds of Americans (66%) favor extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for all Americans for two years, and an identical number support extending unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed

The interesting part of the poll numbers actually is in the numbers that reflect the left and right wings and their party affiliation. Hardcore right wing Republicans don’t want extensions of unemployment benefits.

Looking more specifically at the different ideological wings of each party, only liberal Democrats oppose extending the tax breaks for everyone: 39% are in favor, while 55% are opposed. Among the other groups, support ranges from 64% of conservative/moderate Democrats to 87% of conservative Republicans.

Similarly, conservative Republicans are the only political/ideological group opposing the extension of unemployment benefits. The majority of moderate/liberal Republicans are in favor, as are most Democrats, regardless of ideology.

Gallup also polled on the DADT repeal  and other issues. If you look at the numbers on each of the issues–including supporting more government regulation for food safety–the over whelming number of people do not support traditional Republican memes.  If only we could get the President and the Congress to see that.

One of the things that really has frosted my cupcakes today is that there seems to be a consensus that an extension of jobless benefits was probably possible without the sell out negotiating methodology of the President.  Catch this headline from the Quad Cities and Senator Charles Grassley: ‘Grassley says short jobless extension would have passed without tax deal’.

Republicans had blocked a vote on extending emergency jobless benefits, saying they should be paid for with excess stimulus money. But U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said today he thinks a three-month extension would eventually have gotten a vote and been approved, albeit along partisan lines.

“I think there would have been some accommodation on unemployment anyway, even if you didn’t have this tax bill,” Grassley said on a conference call with Iowa reporters.

“I think it would have been three months … a Republican measure would have been offset with stimulus money, surplus stimulus money. And if that didn’t get 60 votes, then it probably would have been not offset, and it would have been passed on a more partisan basis.”

He defended the compromise, saying that although Republicans didn’t get the permanent extension of the tax cuts they wanted, the two-year deal was better than seeing the tax breaks on all Americans end.

“It’s something where everybody was a winner,” he said.

Is any one else noticing the pattern that only Republicans and the White House seem to think this is a good deal?

A Bloomberg national poll showed that extending tax cuts to the uber wealthy is unpopular. Is it too far to the next election for any of the Congressional Beltway Blowhards to pay attention to these numbers?

Americans don’t approve of keeping the breaks for upper-income taxpayers that are part of the deal President Barack Obama brokered with congressional Republicans, a Bloomberg National Poll shows.

The survey, conducted before, during and after the tax negotiations, shows that only a third of Americans support keeping the lower rates for the highest earners. Even among backers of the cuts for the wealthy, fewer than half say they should be made permanent.

Another third say they want only the tax cuts for the middle class to be extended, while more than a fourth say all the tax cuts should be allowed to expire Dec. 31, as scheduled.

Oddly enough, the political bedfellows du jour are Jim DeMint and Bernie Sanders who are both voting no; obviously for different reasons. Then there’s already a bunch of weirdness being tacked on to the bill itself. Harry Reid is trying to add an online poker provision. Let’s see, Senator from Nevada, Las Vegas is in Nevada, tough fight for re-election … oh, you do the math.   It’s just too painfully obvious.

Already, the online poker proposal has more info on the Nevada Democrat and exposed the charges of flip-flopping on a controversial issue, as well as using his Senate leadership position to repay big casino interests that helped him win reelection in a hard-fought campaign against Republican Sharron Angle last month.

Reid, who has previously opposed online gambling, declined to comment Monday through a spokesman.

But Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), as well as several senior congressional sources and gambling lobbyists, confirmed that Reid and his staff have reached out to other Senate offices to try to build support for adding the online poker legislation — a draft of which POLITICO has obtained — to a measure extending the Bush-era tax cuts.

These guys just do not listen to the voters.  It’s the same old back deal, big money political two-step that makes the entire country want to scream.   Steven Benen over at The Washington Monthly is looking for Plan B.  Will any Democratic congressional critterz stand up for what’s right for a change?

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ Bob Greenstein, who has as much liberal credibility on budget and tax issues as anyone, doesn’t seem to like the “disturbing negative” provisions of the tax policy deal struck by the White House and congressional Republicans. But he wants to see it pass anyway.”Congress should approve this package — its rejection will likely lead to a more problematic package that does less for middle- and low-income workers and less for the economy,” Greenstein said yesterday. He added that the agreement includes “surprisingly strong protections for low- and middle-income working families.”

Dean Baker, another very credible, highly respected liberal economist, reached a similar conclusion. Prominent lefty wonks like Lawrence Mishel and John Podesta offered the same assessments yesterday.

The New York Times editorial page said Democrats are “in revolt,” but they should “vote for this deal” anyway.

That’s always what the do. They get on TV. Talk about what a travesty a bill is and how it’s immoral and inhumane and just plain unAmerican. Then, they get a whiff of bacon and roll over like starving dogs.  This game is getting old.

Benen’s got a big list of questions at the end of his article that demands a response.

But what then? How would extended unemployment benefits pass for the millions of jobless Americans who need them? What happens to the economic stimulus? What’s the strategy for getting quick approval for an expanded earned-income tax credit and the continuation of a college-tuition tax credit? With almost no time left on the clock, after winning the fight on tax policy, is the plan to simply punt on New START ratification, DADT repeal, the DREAM Act, food safety, and health care for Ground Zero workers, hoping for the best in the next Congress?

This isn’t a democracy.  There’s no sense that any one in Washington listens to their voters or reads polls with obvious trends and consensus of opinion.   The power is all located in the folks that help these people buy their elections.   We’re getting to be just one big banana republic.  What on earth can we do about it?

Cave In Time!

Posted: December 5, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: Breaking News, Democratic Politics, Team Obama, The Bonus Class | Tags: , , | 43 Comments

From the NYT:

White House officials and Congressional Republicans said Sunday they were closing in on a deal to temporarily continue the Bush-era tax cuts at all income levels, while bitterly frustrated Democratic Congressional leaders began exploring whether they would have the votes for such a package.

The Republicans are supposed to okay the extension of the unemployment benefits for long term unemployed if the Democrats will okay the tax cuts for the uber rich for two years.

Administration officials said the negotiations were focused on the question of extending the tax rates for one or two years, with a three-year extension highly unlikely, even though that time frame would probably eliminate the tax fight as an urgent issue in the 2012 elections.

Many Republicans say they want a permanent extension of the rates, or as long an extension as possible. Democrats say they would not mind the issue coming up during Mr. Obama’s re-election bid, because they see it as politically helpful to them in painting Republicans as defenders of the rich. The debate, of course, could cut the other way, with Republicans again portraying Democrats as seeking to raise taxes.

I really don’t want to hear any more crap about unfunded mandates if this is the deal.  Unbelievable!

US Senate: Defenders of about 0.3 percent of the population

Posted: December 4, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: Elections, legislation, Team Obama, The Bonus Class, U.S. Economy | Tags: , | 31 Comments

News on the Senate vote on various Democratic Tax Plan compromises has just come through on The Hill and Memorandum. Two plans were introduced for votes.  Both failed.

United Senate Republicans joined a small handful of Democrats on Saturday to defeat a pair of proposals to extend some of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts signed into law by President George W. Bush.

Voting nearly identically, the Senate twice failed to meet a 60-vote threshold necessary to move forward on both proposals. Meeting in a rare Saturday session after agreements fell through for a Friday vote, the results were widely expected. They were also somewhat premature, as the White House is still negotiating with congressional leaders on an alternative compromise proposal.

The first proposal by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) would have extended the cuts only for individuals with incomes of up to $200,000 and families with incomes of up to $250,000. That failed by a vote of 53-36, with all GOP senators in opposition as well as Democrats Russ Feingold (Wis.), Joe Manchin (W.V.), Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Jim Webb (Va.).

The second proposal by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) would have extended the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanently for incomes of up to $1 million, among other provisions such as a one-year extension of unemployment benefits and cuts in capital gains, estate and dividend taxes. That failed, 53-37, with Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) joining the ‘no’ votes.

The Schumer Bill was referred to as the “Millionaire’s Tax” since most of his provisions applied to only about 0.3 percent of the population.  Both plans essentially extended tax cuts to 98% of the population.  Meanwhile, Mitch McConnell referred to the votes for both plans as “theatrics”.  This is because Republicans had already signaled their intent to filibuster both plans.  Patricia Murphy, writing for The Capitolist at Politics Daily, had this analysis.  I bolded the last sentence to give you an idea of how well negotiations appear to be going.

As Democrats and Republicans continue to spar over the issue, time is running out for them to find a solution. If Congress fails to come to an agreement before the end of the year, rates for all Americans will return to 2001 levels when the Bush-era policy expires on December 31st. In addition to income tax hikes, the changes would increase the estate tax, the marriage penalty tax, taxes on dividends and capital gains, and the Alternative Minimum Tax.

While Democrats pushed their floor votes this week, a bipartisan group of senators and House members met behind closed doors with the Obama administration to hammer out a compromise on the tax issue. Vice President Joe Biden, filling in Saturday for Obama in the White House weekly address, made no mention of the negotiations, but said if the tax cuts aren’t extended “millions of middle-class families will see a big bite out of their paychecks starting Jan. 1. And that’s the last thing we should let happen.” Obama, speaking later at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, said he was “very disappointed” that the Senate had not approved the tax bill. Continued Tax relief for the middle class should not be held “hostage” by those supporting an extension of the lower rates for high income Americans, he said.

Media reports indicated late last week that a deal had been reached to pass a two-year extension of all the tax cuts, along with a one-year extension of unemployment benefits, and the also new START nuclear arms treaty. But senior Senate aides familiar with the negotiations tell Politics Daily that Republicans feel little pressure to give in to Democratic priorities when they feel confident they can prevail on the tax issue without concessions.

It seems evident to me that the US Senate is willing to play political games with ordinary people’s lives.  The Republicans appear to want to hold START, unemployment extensions, and the tax cuts for the majority of Americans hostage as they represent the interests of the very few uber wealthy and seek gridlock for their own power agenda.  The Democrats have been out maneuvered once again.  A year ago, this predicament would have been thought unbelievable.  If you think it’s bad now, just wait until the jr. senators from Kentucky and Illinois enter the chamber.

Simpson Strikes Again

Posted: November 26, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: Surreality, Team Obama, The Bonus Class, WE TOLD THEM SO | Tags: , , , , , , | 37 Comments

Alan Simpson, Co-chair of President Obama’s Catfood Commission has opened his mouth again, attacking seniors:

…because they are unhappy with his ideas for reducing the deficit by cutting Social Security benefits while reducing corporate taxes.

“I’ve never had any nastier mail or [been in a] more difficult position in my life,” Simpson told Jeremy Pelzer at the Casper Star-Tribune. “Just vicious. People I’ve known, relatives [saying], ‘You son of a bitch. How could you do this?'”

[….]

“We had the greatest generation,” Simpson said. “I think this is the greediest generation.”

Maybe you all have heard about this already–I wasn’t following the news too closely yesterday–but I just had to frontpage it. The nerve of this man! And why isn’t President Obama responding to his ugly slurs of elderly people who paid into Social Security for their entire lives? Why should we take cuts in Social Security so that rich people like Simpson can take more money for themselves?

From TPM:

The problem, Simpson explained, is the “polarized” country we live in, and the media that exemplifies it. He then to reeled off the media figures ruining America for deficit commissioners like him.

“You don’t want to listen to the right and the left — the extremes,” he said. “You don’t want to listen to Keith Olbermann and Rush Babe [Limbaugh] and Rachel Minnow [sic] or whatever that is, and Glenn Beck. They’re entertainers. They couldn’t govern their way out of a paper sack — from the right or the left. But they get paid a lot of money from you and advertisers — thirty, fifty million a year — to work you over and get you juiced up with emotion, fear, guilt, and racism. Emotion, fear, guilt, and racism.

Simpson refers to Rachel Maddow as “that.” Is that because she’s a lesbian or because she’s a woman or both?

At FDL, Jon Walker writes: Is Simpson an Obama-Appointed Bully or Sexist?

While I don’t know former Republican Senator Alan Simpson personally and can’t say definitively whether or not he is a sexist, his behavior says a lot about him. He’s repeatedly behaved and spoken in a manner completely consistent with sexists who have strong disdain for intelligent women. His schoolyard attempts at bullying women, the strange terms he uses, and his incredibly childish attempts at demeaning women who dare criticize with name calling are all trademarks of a sexist.

Walker ends with this:

I could care less about Simpson’s behavior if it weren’t for the fact that President Obama appointed him co-chair of the bipartisan President’s Deficit Commission. It’s disconcerting that Obama tolerates this sexist behavior. Why would he appoint Simpson and stay silent as Simpson used the perch Obama gave him to lash out in such a childish manner and pointedly against women?

The fact that President Obama has not yet countered any of the ugly words that have come out of Simpson’s mouth strongly suggests that Obama himself agrees with Simpson’s views. And Obama dares to call himself a Democrat?

But should Jon Walker or anyone else really be surprised? Obama is the same person who during the primaries in 2008 characterized Hillary Clinton’s experiences as First Lady as drinking tea with foreign ambassadors. He’s the same guy who suggested that Hillary’s “claws come out” if you “challenge the status quo,” and that when Hillary “is feeling down” she “periodically launches attacks.”

No one should be surprised at Obama supporting attacks on the elderly or gays either. Here at Skydancing, we can easily cite the many previous examples of President Obama’s disrespect for seniors and gays.

Alan Simpson is simply saying aloud in very crude language what the President of the United States apparently believes in his heart–if he has one.

Less to be thankful about …

Posted: November 24, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: Global Financial Crisis, The Bonus Class, The Great Recession, U.S. Economy | Tags: , | 15 Comments

The Fed  has lowered its economic expectations despite the news that corporate profits during the third quarter have rallied like it’s 1984. What does this say for our economy?  More importantly, what does it say about our policy makers who steadfastly refuse to see the significance in these conflicting figures?

Top Federal Reserve officials project that the unemployment rate, now 9.6 percent, will fall only to about 9 percent at the end of 2011 and about 8 percent when the next presidential election arrives, in late 2012. The central bankers had envisioned a more rapid decline in joblessness in their previous forecasts, prepared in June.

The sober economic forecast comes despite signs that the recovery is picking up slightly. The Commerce Department said Tuesday that gross domestic product rose at a 2.5 percent annual rate in the three months ending in September, not 2 percent as earlier estimated. And there have been solid readings in recent weeks on job creation, manufacturing and retail.

The apparent contradiction reflects the brutal math that faces a nation trying claw out of a deep recession: Moderate growth, which would be fine in normal times, will do little to bring down sky-high joblessness, a reality reflected in the Fed’s forecasts.

The uneven impact of recovery is amazing and well, downright unAmerican.  While corporations are now feeling the benefits of the stimulus, people are not.  Tax cuts made by stimulus nearly two years ago are not reaching the jobs markets or households.  The NYT analysis shows that corporate spending on payrolls are way down, while their write-offs of foolish investments is no longer the problem it once was.  Additionally, U.S. firms doing business over seas are doing remarkably well.  So, where are these profits going?  Certainly, they are not ‘trickling down’ via job creation or anything else that would be a boon to Main Street.

The moderate growth of GDP will not be enough to curb unemployment which is why it is vital the government do something.  The news today impacted the stock market so even Wall Street is aware that this is bad news.

The Fed’s top policymakers project that gross domestic product will rise 3 to 3.6 percent next year – which would represent a solid acceleration from the past two quarters but still would only be enough to bring the unemployment rate to the 8.9 to 9.1 percent range in the final months of 2011 and 7.7 to 8.2 percent at the end of 2012.

The officials also increased their estimate of how low the nation’s unemployment rate could ultimately go without stoking inflation. Several estimated that level is 6 percent or higher, not the 5 to 5.3 percent earlier thought.

Businesses cannot expand and grow without customers.  The current improvement is mostly due to bookkeeping past errors.  This is not the solid underpinning of a strong recovery.  It is easy to see why Bernanke is considering the QE2 given these GDP forecasts and the ongoing reality revision of Okun’s rule of thumb on the relationship between GDP growth and the unemployment rate.  The Fed’s statement shows that the BOG is doing QE2 because it’s necessary.  There is a tone of reluctance in their accompanying statements.  There is also the underlying feeling that policy at the zero-bound is not all that effective.

But most Fed officials expected the results of bond purchases “to help promote a somewhat stronger recovery in output and employment while also helping return inflation, over time, to levels consistent with the Committee’s mandate.” Some also thought the action would offer insurance against a further drop in inflation or against the “small probability” of persistent deflation.

But the document also leaves little doubt that several Fed officials remain uneasy with the action. Some anticipated that they would have only a “limited” effect on the pace of recovery, arguing the action should only be taken if the odds of deflation “increased materially.”

And several “noted concern” that the action “could put unwanted downward pressure on the dollar’s value in foreign exchange markets” or “an undesirably large increase inflation.”

I’ve said this before, but I continue to be baffled by the reluctance to aggressively pursue the fiscal policy means to buoy up the economy for the every day American.  Certainly, the last two elections were the result of frustration by the voter about the continual emphasis within the Beltway of the interests of the power that be.  War machines and paper profits get subsidies.  Suffering people are left to their devices.  Even, if they’ve been productive and paid for themselves up until now.

It is undoubtedly beyond time to move policy attention away from banks, auto manufacturers, and rich people seeking continued tax breaks.  It is not time to listen to the groups that don’t read data that reflect the danger of deflation.  If only Milton Friedman were alive to cut them off at the knees!  I can’t imagine these self-styled ‘conservatives’ could stand up to him.

I picked this item up at Economist’s View. It’s just discouraging that no policy maker seems to read these things and feel like they’ve been making huge mistakes. I have to get on the University library website to get the paper free, but so far, just what Thoma has quoted is horrifying.  It includes this.

According to our measures almost 40% of households have been affected either by unemployment, negative home equity, arrears on their mortgage payments, or foreclosure. Additionally economic preparation for retirement, which is hard to measure, has undoubtedly been affected. Many people approaching retirement suffered substantial losses in their retirement accounts: indeed in the November 2008 survey, 25% of respondents aged 50-59 reported they had lost more than 35% of their retirement savings, and some of them locked in their losses prior to the partial recovery in the stock market by selling out. Some persons retired unexpectedly early because of unemployment, leading to a reduction of economic resources in retirement which will be felt throughout their retirement years. Some younger workers who have suffered unemployment will not reach their expected level of lifetime earnings and will have reduced resources in retirement as well as during their working years.

Prudent fiscal policy requires running deficits when the economy is faltering.  Not only that, there are laws–like the Humphrey Hawkins Act of 1978–that demand it!!!  Long term fiscal restraint should be examined when the U.S. economy is on a secure footing.  Now isn’t the time for austerity.  Now is the time to conquer the real problems of people and not those imagined in the minds of Washington DC bloviates who just want more power and more money. Most Americans are worried about keeping their homes, feeding themselves, and holding on to jobs if they have one right now.  How is that less important than the tax cuts of the very few or the other special interest bills that they are working on the current lame duck session?

Where is the real leadership of the Democratic Party?

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →