Elections Have Consequences!!!

Gunner

Support BGOL
Registered
Lame duck!!!!

http://online.wsj.com/home-page

By JONATHAN WEISMAN, JOHN D. MCKINNON And JANET HOOK
WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama reached agreement Monday with Republican leaders in Congress on a broad tax package that would extend the Bush-era income tax cuts for two years, reduce worker payroll taxes for one year and give more favorable treatment to business investments.




President Barack Obama announced a bipartisan deal to extend expiring tax cuts for two years and to extend unemployment benefits on Monday.

More

Payroll Tax Cut: A Short Primer
Other elements of the deal include a temporary reinstatement of the estate tax at 35%—the level favored by most Republican lawmakers—as well as an extension of jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed.

"We have arrived at a framework for a bipartisan agreement,'' Mr. Obama said on Monday night, capping weeks of negotiations with leaders in Congress.

The outcome of the negotiations is vital, because the current tax levels signed into law by President George W. Bush expire on Dec. 31. Unless Congress acts, tax rates on virtually all Americans who pay income taxes will rise on Jan. 1. That could affect economic growth and even holiday sales.

In reaching the deal, whose details still need to be worked out, Mr. Obama brushed past the demands of many in his own party to curb tax cuts for the wealthy. Some liberal lawmakers and activists were left seething, particularly over last-minute concessions to Republicans on the estate tax. Democratic leaders didn't agree to the deal during meetings on Monday with Mr. Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, according to a House aide.

"I can tell you with certainty that legislative blackmail of this kind by the Republicans will be vehemently opposed by many, if not most, Democrats," said Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.).

In the Senate, Tom Harkin (D., Iowa) called it "an understatement'' to say he was disappointed.

How the Senate Voted

See how each senator voted; compare with 2001 and 2003 votes, when the tax cuts were enacted.

Table: How the Senate Voted
White House officials will now try to persuade Democrats to back the agreement, but anger on the left suggests that Mr. Obama might need to rely heavily on Republican support to move legislation through Congress.

Republican leaders spoke highly of the agreement. In a statement, House Republican Whip Eric Cantor said, "No one gets everything they want in a deal, but our top priority is to restore certainty to the private sector so that businesses small and large can start hiring again."

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell also praised the deal and asked that Democrats in Congress now "show the same openness to preventing tax hikes the administration has already shown.''

Mr. Obama acknowledged that the agreement marked a significant reversal for him, as he has long argued that income tax cuts for couples earning more than $250,000 should expire. If the political stalemate continued and led to a broad tax increase, Mr. Obama said, "that could cost our economy well over a million jobs.''

The deal would extend a raft of business tax breaks, including credit for spending on research. It would extend current tax rates on capital gains and dividends for two years, including for higher earners. It would also maintain protection for middle-class families from the alternative minimum tax.

As part of the deal, the White House is proposing a provision to encourage more investment in plant and equipment, by letting companies claim deductions on 100% of most kinds of investment.

Under the agreement between the White House and congressional Republicans, the estate tax rate would be set at 35% for two years and would apply only to estates over $5 million. Under current law, the estate tax has lapsed for 2010 and is set to spring next year to 55%.

Journal Community

A program of extended benefits for the long-term unemployed, which lapsed last month, would be revived for 13 months, the White House said. The jobless benefits would be financed by federal borrowing rather than by spending cuts.

For Mr. Obama, reaching a deal with the GOP on taxes could help him score points with moderates and independents, an increasingly important constituency, by underscoring his ability to work with newly empowered Republicans. But the discussions have angered some liberal groups, who say Democrats should engage the GOP in a showdown, even if that risks letting the tax cuts expire for all income levels. In an email to its members, the liberal Moveon.org said, "They've given up on this critical issue without a fight."

The payroll-tax reduction under discussion now would cut the 6.2% Social Security tax levied on a worker's wages to 4.2%. A worker making $40,000 a year would save $800, and some economists say that could help stimulate demand at a time when the economy remains relatively weak.

Earlier


As the White House and Republican leaders try to reach a deal to extend cuts, one idea that could gain traction is a temporary payroll-tax holiday. Jerry Seib has details. Plus, T. Boone Pickens' wife says 'nay' to Nevada ranchers.

Tax Deal Within Reach
The employer's half of the tax—also 6.2%—wouldn't be affected under the White House proposal, and thus the cost of hiring new workers wouldn't be directly affected.

The payroll tax reduction would take the place of a $400-per-worker income-tax break that Mr. Obama included in the 2009 stimulus bill. That break, known as Making Work Pay, provides a tax credit of 6.2% on the first $6,450 of a worker's wages. It phases out for workers making more than $75,000.

Some Republicans prefer the payroll tax reduction to the Making Work Pay program because it goes to everyone who works, regardless of income. A senior administration official said that the payroll tax cut would cost $120 billion, twice that of Making Work Pay, and would give bigger benefits to some low-income workers.

Versions of a payroll tax cut have been considered before, and they enjoy a measure of support in Congress. But some Democrats are wary of any change to the payroll tax, which funds the Social Security program.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
In the meantime

<font size="5"><center>

Liberal Dems to Obama: Fight harder</font size?></center>



101206_mcdermott_obama_weiner_ap_328.jpg



P o l i t i c o
By JONATHAN ALLEN
& JOSH GERSTEIN
December 7, 2010


<font size="3">Resentments</font size> between President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats that began simmering even before their mid-term disaster are nearing a boil on Capitol Hill, as liberals make clear that Obama’s efforts to strike a lame-duck deal with Republicans will come at a cost: Open and on-the-record taunting about whether the president is a patsy.

<font size="3">"This is the president's Gettysburg,"</font size> Rep. Jim McDermott, a leading progressive and a subcommittee chairman on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, told POLITICO Monday. Referring to Obama’s choice about whether to compromise or stand firm against Republicans on the question of higher taxes for the wealthy, the Washington Democrat said: "He's going to have to decide whether he's going to withstand Pickett's charge ... I worry."


McDermott’s crabbiness—widespread among many of his fellow Democratic lawmakers—reflects a fear that Obama is being bullied by Republicans and is prepared to sacrifice large principles in exchange for paltry concessions as the two sides search for an end-of-year bargain on taxes, extension of unemployment benefits, and a nuclear arms treaty.


<font size="4">A Party Divided</font size>

The larger reality illuminated by the unhappiness, however, is that the party that Obama two years ago proved particularly adept at unifying now has divided in two.

<font size="3">There is a presidential wing</font size>, led by Obama, who sees it in his and the party’s interests to strike a posture of reasonable accommodation—on the theory that it is both good policy and good politics to be seen as trying to get public business done even in a season of divided government.

<font size="3">And there is a congressional wing,</font size> led by liberal lawmakers and cheered on by several prominent commentators who believe in confrontation—on the theory that Republicans will never bargain in good faith and that demoralized Democratic activists and the general public will both rally around leaders who draw clear lines and are willing to fight to defend them.


FULL ARTICLE

`
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
I'm with the Presidential Wing, for now. I know too well that to settle a case often requires compromise and nobody gets all of what they want or may be entitled to. Two parties or adversaries both standing fast on their principles rarely compromise and rarely settle their issues. Their issues normally get decided by a judge or jury where the result is winner take all, even if its the wrong party and the absolute wrong result (depending on where you're standing).

As I see it, sometimes its not so much that you concede what you've staked out as an important principle; its whether in doing so you're able to either set the table for later or you lay the foundation for setting the table later. That is, resetting so that in the future (hopefully the near future because voters and people in general have rather short memories and even less understanding of subtleties) matters shift more in your favor, or more towards your point of view, or your issues are viewed in a more favorable light, etc. But that means, most of all, that the compromiser has a Plan with a well thought-out end game. Compromise willy nilly is just silly billy.

Suffice to say, when you do compromise, it damn well better be for a well thought-out reason. That reason may not be readily apparent to on-lookers, but the compromiser had better get on with the re-posturing and/or re-positioning and the wisdom of the move had better become apparent in the not too distant future.

BUT, its not over yet. The so-called Congressional Side may yet play a very important role in this compromise. Many, many times I've engaged in compromise only to have to report that my client just won't swallow; I've got to have "X" or "Y" to get this done. That is, if this thing is going to settle, the other side has got to concede something -- or we just end up letting judge/jury decide who may be winner take all -- which is typically not the best option FOR ONE OF THE PARTIES.


QueEx
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
I'm with the Presidential Wing, for now.

QueEx


I would call the republicans bluff. Let them hold up all legislation. Using the Presidents sports analogy, they're in the game now, not just jeering from the stands!
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
I would call the republicans bluff. Let them hold up all legislation. Using the Presidents sports analogy, they're in the game now, not just jeering from the stands!
Hey, its a strategy; could work.

But what is the desired outcome? What, ultimately, would you expect that strategy to yield? Something more than stalemate? What? Who suffers?

I know that everybody and their brother has an opinion as to what the 2010 midterm elections meant, and I don't buy half the self-serving reasons given, but was the message argue, bicker and do nothing -- or, somebody get smarter and do something ???

QueEx
 

Gunner

Support BGOL
Registered
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/12/08/liberals-try-prevent-pelosi-bringing-tax-bill-floor



Fox has learned that Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Jim McDermott (D-WA) and Jay Inslee (D-WA) are crafting a letter to share with the House Democratic Caucus that would try to prevent the Speaker from bringing the tax bill to the floor.

They hope to get 60 signatures on their letter (which is still being drafted) and then force a vote in the caucus. DeFazio says he thinks that if a majority of House Democrats are against this compromise, they shouldn't bring it to the floor.

In other words, they are seeking a majority of the majority to move this and a senior House democratic source indicates they don't know if they have a majority of democrats, saying they haven't whipped this yet.

In an interview with Fox, DeFazio criticizes the president and says a majority of the House Democratic Caucus does not support the tax rate compromise. "There does not seem to be a majority of the Democrats who support the deal negotiated by Vice President Biden," DeFazio said. "So we want to have a record vote in the caucus on a resolution that says this resolution should not go to the floor without a majority of Democratic votes."
 
Top