http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/06/AR2010120605923.html?hpid=topnews Obama, Republicans reach deal to extend tax cuts, unemployment benefits President Obama and congressional Republicans have agreed to a tentative deal that would extend for two years all the tax breaks set to expire on Dec. 31, continue unemployment benefits for an additional 13 months and cut payroll taxes for workers to encourage employers to start hiring. The deal has been in the works for more than a week and represents a concession by Obama to political reality: Democrats don't have the votes in Congress to extend only the expiring tax breaks that benefit the middle class. The White House estimates that the proposed agreement would prevent typical families from facing annual tax increases of about $3,000, starting Jan. 1. Obama was able to extract an agreement from GOP leaders to support an additional 13 months of jobless benefits, a 2 percent employee payroll tax cut and extensions of several tax credits aimed at working families that were included in the stimulus bill. The deal also would revive the estate tax, but it would exempt inheritances of up to $5 million for individuals and $10 million for couples. Democrats on Capitol Hill are strongly opposed to setting the cap at that high a level and to the 35 percent rate discussed by Obama and Republicans that would apply to the taxable portion of estates. The White House is preparing for significant opposition from Democrats and will send Vice President Biden to meet with Senate Democrats on Tuesday. Later on Tuesday, House Democrats are schedule to discuss the proposed deal.
Now this is interesting if accurate. If all the cuts are only extended two years, then all of them are on the table again in two years and we repeat this mess. The Dems really should be getting the middle class cuts extended longer; that's what I had been reading, so I'm not sure if this is just badly worded or a significant change. TPM has more: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...and-gop-come-to-terms-on-tax-cuts.php?ref=fpa Interesting that there will be a partial payroll tax holiday included there. I know that's something that's come up a lot in discussions before, though I'm not sure how much it will drive hiring.
Exactly Republicans will get to pound tax cuts again right in the middle of a presidential election. excellent.... Why are democrats using unemployment extension as a bargaining chip? its ridiculous! This is something that every congress have bipartisan passed for the last 40 years. It shouldn't even be a question in the environment we're in. So I guess this is the trade off and DADT and the START treaty are just going to not be part of the compromise. Weak
So not only will Democrats have to re-litigate this thing in 2 years, but they now own the deficit increase accompanying giving the GOP what it wants.
Obama has completely failed in this instance. Huge disappointment. I'm calling him out on this one. He needs to grow a pair and tell the GOP to F*** OFF. So we go from increasing revenues and keeping costs steady to decreasing revenues and increasing costs. EPIC MATH FAIL. I have no f'ing clue as to why anyone would support a party that just held their tax break hostage for tax break for rich. "We won't allow the middle class tax break extension to go through unless you let rich get richer"....I mean WTF, come on....
As I said in another thread this was a bad move by Obama. This is one issue I that I think Obama could've stuck to his guns and won.
It's all good to blame this on Obama - but the real problem is that the bootlickers of the wealthy (who invariably vote GOP) and ****ing idiots.
Democrats can turn it into a winning issue by pushing again for the middle class cuts, but it certainly makes it more complicated. It makes it a re-run of the Obama vs. McCain debate on taxes, which I think Obama did win. But it certainly would have made more sense to just extend the middle class ones longer. I don't think this is quite accurate - the unemployment benefits are now in uncharted terrority, from my understanding. We've never had benefits go on this long, I don't think. Not sure on DADT, but I think START will be able to go forward. With guys like Lugar on board, I think it has enough votes to break any filibuster once the tax issue is out of the way. DADT is a little more interesting. It has the votes to break a filibuster, but I'm not sure if it has enough time - I don't know enough about the Senate Rules or how long this lame duck session goes. These articles seem to be focused on what's in this specific bill, so I'm assuming that's why none of that is mentioned. I assume we'll find out more over the next few days.
But how does Obama credibly make the same arguments when he was afraid to push the issue pre-November with a 60 seat senate, and unable to do so post November without?
I have yet to see a viable alternative to Barack Obama in 2012. He has no potential opponent with the political organization to seriously challenge him in the primaries. Hillary Clinton has been cleverly co opted from running again, and has repeatedly said that she will not. Said it again within the last day or so. Any progressive/moderate/liberal who wants a President who's not a Republican in 2012 will have to vote for Mr. Obama, like it or not. Anything else will "waste" your vote. It would be like voting for Kinky for Governor of Texas. Perry got 39% of the vote and won. My fear is that a lot of very pissed off Democrats and progressive/liberal independent voters, feeling betrayed, will simply stay home, which would be a disaster. They very well might, in numbers significant enough to tip a close election.
One post from you, lil'texxx, that I completely understand. Don't blame you a bit for feeling that way.
13 months of unemployment checks versus two years of largess for the rich. $18 billion for the unemployed versus $160 billion for the richest Americans. Quite a trade off. Thank you, Mr. President.
