E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSReflecting on the White House's tax cut proposal released last night, some liberal bloggers seemed to come around to the deal as an acceptable compromise. Conservative bloggers weren't thrilled with some of the deal's outcomes either, but overall seemed satisfied, not to mention heartened at the prospect of renewing the "raising taxes" debate again in two years.
The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen called the deal "not that bad."
The president secured a 13-month extension of aid for the long-term unemployed, reportedly his top priority. The deal also includes a reduction in the Social Security payroll tax, which will give workers a boost in their paychecks; an expanded earned-income tax credit; the continuation of a college-tuition tax credit; and new opportunities for businesses to write off the cost of some equipment purchases.
Obama was able to secure help for the middle class and the unemployed; Republicans were able to keep breaks for the wealthy. In other words, both sides got to fight for their natural constituencies.
...
All things being equal, I suspected the deal to be worse. Call that the soft bigotry of low expectations if you will, but I'm actually feeling slightly relieved.
Balloon Juice's E.D. Kain also saw the agreement as necessary, but not devoid of political benefit if the president can use it to flaunt his fiscal credentials in two years.
This was smart politics from Obama even if it does mean he’ll have to fend off attacks from within his own party. Extending the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans may be a bitter pill to swallow for many progressives, but it’s not that high of a price to pay for a serious shot of stimulus. I would actually like to see more stimulus in the form of direct payments to middle and low income Americans, followed by some long-term structural and tax reforms to shore up the long term deficit. But deficits, while important for our future, are a ways down the list during a recession. First comes economic recovery, then comes whatever necessary cuts and tax reforms necessary to get our fiscal ship in order.
Conservative blogger Francis Cianfrocca, writing at Red State, appeared largely satisfied with the proposal's outcome even if he believed the tax-cutting measures did not go far enough.
Political calculus: do not be surprised if this ends up playing as a win for Obama. He’s going to say that he’s really a moderate leader capable of making the compromises that it takes to govern. My guess is that by giving us so much of what we wanted, he strengthens his political position, not the reverse.
On the economic effects: YES. Removing the uncertainty surrounding tax rates will make a lot of businesspeople feel more confident about planning for growth and hiring. It doesn’t remove the fundamental drag on business performance in the US, which is poor final demand, but it helps.
NRO's Jim Geraghty listed all the items on which Obama has not made progress, in a post titled "The 2008 Obama Would Denounce the 2010 Obama."
The liberal outrage over the tax deal is warranted. They, too, are learning that all of Obama’s statements come with expiration dates, and that they labored, long and hard, throughout 2007 and 2008 to elect a man who will, in the end, ratify most of President Bush’s policy choices.
...
Domestically, there will be no Card Check. There will be no cap-and-trade. There will be no amnesty, no DREAM act. The man who denounced Bush’s recess appointments now uses the tool regularly. Bill language isn’t posted online for five days before signed into law. NAFTA will not be renegotiated; new trade deals with countries like South Korea are signed instead. No “windfall profit tax” will be enacted. He has frozen federal workers’ pay. His deficit commission rejected a VAT and proposed a slew of spending cuts that liberals find unacceptable.
Obamacare? The GOP is hell-bent on repealing it. If Obama loses in 2012, it’s gone.
But hey, liberals, cheer up. You got the Lilly Ledbetter Pay Act.
Hot Air's Ed Morrissey wrote that one boon for Republicans would be their ability to set up the 2012 elections "as a debate on pending across-the-board tax hikes," and that none of the Democratic proposals in the deal will improve the economy to such dramatic effect that Democrats will reap political benefits.
The extension of unemployment benefits will expire in the 2012 primaries, which will create another debate on the wisdom of continued government interventions — but also will keep unemployment higher for longer, which won’t help Obama in 2012. The estate tax only goes up to 35% after the first $5 million, rather than 55% after the first $3.5 million, as Democrats demanded (and would have gotten had they bothered to deal with it in 2009 rather than wait until now). The payroll tax holiday and the tax rate extensions may help a little in economic growth, but tax rate consistency only gets us a little further down the road and won’t be a game changer. (Increases, though, would have been disastrous.)
Mostly, though, the deal and the Democratic furor over it shows that the Republicans came to lead and get things accomplished, not just act as obstructionists for the next two years. That will add considerable credibility to the GOP from the independents who flocked to Republicans in this past midterm cycle. That’s a good, not great, deal for the Republicans in an environment where they have limited bargaining power. If Democrats end up sabotaging this deal in Congress, well, so much the better. They will become the obstructionists instead, and will have made the argument for their own oblivion in the next election.
Leave a Comment:
We need someone to post about Teleprompters or birth certificates ASAP.
Because of Obama's caving in on tax breaks?
No- because the government MADE $12 BILLION on the Citigroup bailout!
Whats your point?? we still have GM, chrysler, fanniemae, freddiemac and I believe AIG in the mix?
Besides there was rational behind bailing out GM and Chrysler and maybe AIG (as it was a reinsurer) but the rest? Not sure about the big banks with what they paid out in bonuses.
Terrific news. That moves the Obama deficit from $1.3 trillion to 1.288 trillion.
Which the Republicans are perfectly content doubling. It's not only Obama's deficit anymore. Hey McConnell & Bonehead: Where are the jobs!
American - big banks' bonuses were tiny compared to the bailout money received (save Goldman Sachs). Be mad at banks for their ability to secure government money so easily or for industry practices allowing such bonuses to be paid. Don't get angry over the fact that bonuses were paid.
I heard on bloombergtv this morning that there was also some deal with inheritance tax and that democrats were not happy about it? Anyone have details?
The Republcians wanted the inheritance tax to be 35% with the first $5 million exempt. With the expiring Bush tax cuts, it was set to go to 55% with the first $1 million exempt. So it's a better deal, but to the Democrats, for them dying is somehow a taxable event.
You betcha....gotta protect those estates that are in the multi-million/billion dollar range!.
..the little hundred thousand dollar/or less property (not estate)....not even close!
Rich folk want to leave the kidos a much as possible......DON'T TAX ME BRO!
So Chilled, you somehow think those estates are yours? Please explain what you did to earn them.
JoAnnaSmith1
The Republcians wanted the inheritance tax to be 35% with the first $5 million exempt. With the expiring Bush tax cuts, it was set to go to 55% with the first $1 million exempt. So it's a better deal, but to the Democrats, for them dying is somehow a taxable event.
Joanna while your glotting i hope you realise that if this does not lead us out of the mess created by your party of Hell NO, the president will have them by the balls, Just like he lost the congress over HCR the republicsans could loose over tax cuts that may or may not create jobs, Its Jobs, Jobs Jobs, so stop your self.
JoAnnaSmith1
Terrific news. That moves the Obama deficit from $1.3 trillion to 1.288 trillion
this is terrific news Joanna the deficts are no longer all obamas, the Trillion that this deal will add to the deficts are now egually Bohners, McConnells and the president. so from this moment foward, please call the deficets not the dems or republicans doing its the politicans doing.
Girl its going to nice to not see your dumb comments about Obama and deficets.
thank you Joanna. I suppose another way of looking at it is that the democrats are now showing us their true colors on wanting to stomp down the american workers/entrepreneurs who still believe that they can create a better future for their children.
Jeff - manpower reported this morning on bloombergtv that more companies are interested in hiring starting 1st qtr 2011. Amazing what a shift in political numbers can do for inspiring businesses to consider hiring again. Just hope those businesses have seen a demand for the products they wish to expand with.
So sorry to see that the liberal democrats painted themselves as anti-business the past 2 years.
Sorry jeff, the deficit is still the democrats, only if congress can't reduce spending can one potentially corral the republicans into it. Only i suspect that the democrats will be painted as the party of NO, HELL NO!
But Jeff - I've always have placed blame for the deficits on both Republicans and Democrats. But Jeff - I was always on the side of the 70% of the people that disgreed with Bush's handling of the economy. You need to pay better attention Jeff.
We know the old crop of Republicans in Congress didn't care about the deficit, many of them are now gone. We know that Obama and the current crop of Democrats care even less about the deficit. The Republicans, in their majority position in the House, have a real chance to change how the country works, how it pays it's bills, how it manages it's budgets. We also now know that Obama can be easily rolled, so now it's a matter of getting spending reduction bills past the Democratic Socialists in the Senate. They, like Obama, also look weak and insecure, so I don't see them causing too much trouble.
You really need to sharpen your game Jeff.
american-2051576
So sorry to see that the liberal democrats painted themselves as anti-business the past 2 years.
Yes i guess the billions Obama Loan to GM, Chrysler and Wall street sure does make him thety anit-bussiness guy, sorry but based upon those loans along your comment is just plain stupid, Hey try another angle.
So Chilled, you somehow think those estates are yours? Please explain what you did to earn them.
JAS1.........No!....It' just represents more tax breaks for the ultra rich, those that you so obviously worship!
You better get back to work...or are you serving your corporate masters by pushing the insanity that they need the tax breaks to create jobs! Where are the jobs.....?
You, JAS1... It is impossible to have a meaningful dialogue....
american - Today we are seeing the true greed of the nanny-staters. They all want something for nothing. They think everyone is a victim, and every employer is evil. The true colors of the nanny-staters is they want to punish success and celebrate failure. The nanny-staters believed businesses and employers would continue to pay for their give-ways, their social programs, their new ObamaCare and would not react by not hiring employees when they saw the every increasing bill the received from the government. Turns out the nanny-staters were wrong. Even Obama figured that one out. Too bad many of the nanny-staters posting here haven't.
Jeff/JoAnna - it may seem callous to tax death, but the wealthy were using the lack of an estate tax, along with other tax rules, to keep their wealth from being taxed. They would hide their money in various low-tax investments and havens (which is perfectly legal) and make sure it was quickly passed on when they passed on, keeping substantial portions of wealth from being taxed.
There were financial articles (mostly written in the earlier portion of the year) suggesting that this would be a wonderful year for the wealthy to die for just that reason.
JoAnnaSmith1
Joanna i want some of what your smoking, i know there not cigaretts,
your first comments, makes me believe your on some good stuff,
- I was always on the side of the 70% of the people that disgreed with Bush's handling of the economy
Joanna if you said this, you never said this here, you can't change what you have been saying for 2 years all right now.
when chenny and bush grew the deficets like weed, all they said was deficts did not matter, now you telling me that the majorty of republicans care about the deficets, Girl put that joint down right now, its making your brain soft.
chilled - how do you view the american farmer or small business owner who have spent time and money in developing and consolidating their gains. Think you can afford over a hundred grand for a combine, or $9000/acre for farmland. Apparently you seem to think that their children have no right (other than perhaps higher education or a new car upon graduation) to their parents hard work??
But Jeff, it's not the governments job to pick winners and losers. It's not the job of the government to say to a business "You screwed up, so because you're politically connected (i.e, unions, i.e., big time political contributers) we're here to bail you out!", while other businesses are told by the same government "You screwed up, too bad for you."
And it's not the governments job to go to The People and say they have to pay for these selective bailouts.
Chilled, please answer my question. What did you do to earn the inheritance money taxed from the dead?
jeff to bad you didn't read post 1.1 first
BTW, anytime you rail against the wealthy and/or business owners you paint yourself as ignorant in what it takes to provide you with gainfull employment. Don't like it, to bad or go out and start your own business and hire your own help.
JAS1 & American-------that makes 2...no, that maybe makes 1!
JoAnna wrote:
That's not a fair question and you know it. Not only is the money not going directly to him, money is taxed for all services the government provides. If you wish to argue against it as a form of double taxation or for some other economic reason, fine. Don't push the bullsh*t argument that life is sacred and therefore their money shouldn't be taxed.
Well Jeff, The People disagreed with the Republicans on the economy. See election results from 2006/2008 for details. The People thought the Democrats had the answers, Obama said he did. He said the evil-rich should pay their far-share and if they did, everything would be a-okay. I guess he changed his mind since he said that. Even Obama now understands that class-warfare isn't a political winner.
The majority of Republicans and Democrats better care about deficits, because we see what happens if they don't. When you have a moment, ask the ones that didn't think deficits matter how they liked the election results of 2010.
It a very fair question Anon. It's question about economic freedom from the government. It's about the right to keep what you earn from all of your labor, and having is disposed of as you wish upon your demise.
So Anon, do you work and earn money for yourself, or do you work and earn money for the government?
Again a loaded question, because one earns money for several reasons. I earn money for myself but I understand that a certain portion of my earnings is entrusted to governments local, state and federal to provide services, some I am for and some against.
See comment 2.11 as to why the estate tax is, in my opinion, necessary.
anon - yes it was a very good year to die (2010), bet many politicians wished that they had closed that loophole.
JOBS... JOBS... JOBS... get on with the real reason we put you in there. We don't give a damn about tax rates for the rich. If you don't have a job you aren't paying taxes either. At least Obama was smart enough to make sure that u/e benefits were extended. How bad would it look to have those end in the middle of winter, right before Christmas. Want a real revolution, end all government assistance. It would be amazing the number of people who would find ways to finance their 2nd amendment rights if they are starving. But hey, go ahead, follow the Tea Party's recommendation to end Social Security, welfare, Food Stamps. Maybe a little revolution every now and then would be a good thing.
Duh101
JOBS... JOBS... JOBS... get on with the real reason we put you in there. We don't give a damn about tax rates for the rich. If you don't have a job you aren't paying taxes either. At least Obama was smart enough to make sure that u/e benefits were extended. How bad would it look to have those end in the middle of winter, right before Christmas.
It would look like a Winter Wonderland for the life styles of the rich and disreputable Snowbirds who only want to exploit and may or may no travel this holiday
Lawsuits Surge As More Wal-Mart Workers Seek Pay For Overtime
http://wal-martlitigation.com/currentd.htm
Wal-Mart has no sense of fairness and decency; just greedy intentions. All the Beckerheads and fervent illiterate FOX BOTS who endorse this type of inequity should stop and think before you accuse liberals of taking other people’s money. Corpations take your money when they don’t pay you for your work/time. likewise when insurance companies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4TsaHmtgfA&annotation_id=annotation_881627&feature=iv
Life styles of the rich and disreputable
@ 1:32-2: 07 you’ll see how a 17 yr old died despite her premiums being paid. Or you can watch the whole video to see insurance companies deny care in lieu of maximum profits.
Sarah Palin can tweet Obama Wants To Kill My Baby.
Don't Get too cold outside or sick you might die.
Beverly: What has Wallmart to do with the deal cut by Congress and the WH ? Put down the pipe.
Duh101 - glad you recognize bev for what she is.
as far as jobs, jobs, jobs go some points need to be made...
Untill January 2011 the democrats still have absolute control of the legislative and executive branches of government.
The democrats created a lot of uncertainty regarding what business would be required to pay in taxes and fees to cover the costs of what the democrats legislated the past two years and wanted to but were not passed. Part of this uncertainty has gone away since the election of Nov 2. but not all. I don't like spending money on uncertainty in costs, do you??
Today on bloombergtv, manpower stated that in interviews with business leaders that many business leaders hope to start more hiring in the 1st quarter 2011
Hope this helps.
LOL, yeah it's Wal-marts fault!!!! Wait, it's the White mans fault!!!!! What was the tread again?????
Duh,
Pretty bold statement there................How about cut back with the handouts and get educated so people don't have to depend on the Government.
"Want a real revolution, end all government assistance. It would be amazing the number of people who would find ways to finance their 2nd amendment rights if they are starving"
Thanks Paul--- just thinking about Lennon and "You say you want a revolution....."
@American, Yeah, Beverly just lost it today. Kind of like the Dems lost their way when they had the majorities they needed. A little discipline and they could have done whatever they wanted. They could have just ignored the Republicans. I guess you really need an 80/20 majority in the Senate, just due to the Blue Dogs (aka DINO's.)
Analysis: President Obama's Components of Tax Deal Help 150 Million More People Than GOP's Components
Think Progress:
"Yesterday, the White House agreed with Congressional Republicans on a “framework” for extending the soon-to-expire Bush tax cuts. In exchange for a two-year extension of all the tax cuts — including those for households making more than $250,000 per year — the deal includes a 13 month extension of unemployment benefits, a two percent cut in the employee side of the payroll tax for one year, and a retention of the some expanded tax credits included in the 2009 Recovery Act. To get Republicans on board, Obama also agreed to a two-year cut in the estate tax.
For comparison’s sake, The Wonk Room has a chart detailing both the number of people (in millions) who benefit from each side’s priorities, as well as the total cost (in billions). Obama’s components of the tax deal (extended unemployment benefits, the payroll tax cut, and the extended credits) will cost $214 billion to aid 156 million people. The Republicans priorities (extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich and cutting the estate tax), meanwhile, will cost $133 billion, but only benefit roughly 4.8 million people.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/07/tax-priorities/
So, in order to get desperately needed help for the long-term unemployed and to provide the middle-class with tax relief in a weak economy, Obama agreed to tax cuts for a small, wealthy portion of the population that the Republicans were willing to go to the mat for, even if it meant that everyone’s taxes went up if the Bush tax cuts expired. Excluded from this analysis is extension of the broad-based Bush tax cuts, on which everyone agreed. The total package will cost about $900 billion over the next two years, entirely financed through deficit spending."
TProgress Update: As CAP's Michael Linden and Michael Ettlinger noted, the various components of the tax deal (outside of the broad Bush tax cuts) will save or create about 2.2 million jobs. If, however, the GOP's priorities were discarded in favor of further cuts in the payroll tax, that number would increase to 2.7 million, an addition of 500,000 jobs.
Think progress? Isn't that an offshoot of Fox news?
Republican priorities vs democrat priorities?? Seems more like a win-win situation for the american worker, Especially considering that for every $ the wealthy spends it has a trickle effect of stimulating the economy by $1.64, at least that is what US navy says!
American, what's important is that the rich got their tax cuts extended. That's all the GOP gave a damn about. As well as some Democrats. But at least we say so. At least we speak up.
Republicans. Nothing but sell outs. Awful awful legislators. Awful.
And no, TProgress is not an off shoot of Fox. Not even close. They do actual journalism. Fox does hateful rhetoric. Nonstop.
"They do actual journalism"
Air America?
LOL, who finance them??? american is correct it's an offshoot of Fox.
pat - you mean rather much like FR posts?
I, myself find charlie rose and bloombergtv more balanced and informative than what I have read on thinkprogressive or fox news or even posts on FR. I also find other newsvine blogs to offer a more balanced commentary on the articles being commented on, but perhaps that is because those who moderate won't tolerate blatent abuse of grapevines posting codes of honor and conduct.
Why will the goverment not suport a flat tax. When it has been proven the numbers run would elemate our debt and move the ecomeny foward.
There is nothing equal about a a 13-month extension of aid for the long-term unemployed and 2 years for the disreputable rich and famous.
The 'half a loaf' crowd doesn't understand the expression--compr0mise doesn't mean the other side gets 3/4's while we get 1/8.
Also, deferring the tax fight two years is crazy since the same botched bargaining will take place all over again. Until someone says no to tax cuts for wealthy people--and now is the time to go to the mat over this issue--they'll keep paying less than their fair share.
fancy that - be that as it may, the deferral of the tax cuts leaves open the question in 2012 of what party did the most to regain voter confidence (and their vote) in 2012. Still politics as usual for both parties with obama becoming more reasonable to deal with.
My prediction is that regardless of party, income tax increases will be made after 2012 with our "hidden" taxes rising after jan 2011 along with spending cuts.
Obama really knows how to bend over and take it, don't he...?
I could go along with this "compromise" if the tax cuts for 250K/1M were made permanent with the upper income taxes given a 2 yr temporary reprieve. These tax cuts for lower income and the rich need to be severed.
Also, equating the 'liberal blogosphere' with the 'conservative blogosphere' is the equivalent of saying 'a pox on bothe their houses', which fails to judge the tax issue on its merits, that is, on some basis other than a media-marketing tool.
Did we forget that the Clinton Administration left this country with 22.5 million jobs by raising taxes on the wealthy and a balanced budget with a surplus of 250 billion dollars? In 8 years under Bush and 6 years under the RepubliCorp leadership, we have lost that 22.5 million jobs and another 10 million jobs, left with 2 wars unpaid for, gave trillions of tax cuts to Americans that created no jobs and left with 10 trillion dollars in the nation debt. This President under his leadership let GM, Chrysler, and the Finical Industry borrow money that a lot of that money has been paid back with interest. We have made 8.2% payback so far and in the last week GM put back into employee’s retirement fund 400 million dollars. But we need to say no the RepubliCorp as they have said no to 220+ bills that are hung up in the senate because of the obstruction. Funny, bet oxicontin Limbaugh or Professor Beck who still can’t add, never mention that!
What about the 4.5 MILLION 99ERS STILL WITH NO INCOME !!!! THIS PACKAGE IS BULL$HIT !!! This is a Sad Realization for soo many people starving. This is NOT how it was handled during The Great Depression. 15 Million Unemployed and only 5 million jobs available... I Guess 15 Million people including myself are just being Lazy and we want a Handout. OPEN YOUR EYES, THIS IS A DEPRESSION!!!