Skip to comments.Not an Awful Deal (if you like Marxism)
Posted on 01/01/2013 1:21:26 PM PST by indianrightwinger
Not an Awful Deal By QUIN HILLYER on 1.1.13 @ 10:16AM
After about an hour of studying last nights budget deal, I find it right on the borderline between (A) awful-tasting medicine we still need to take for our health and (B) a cure that is worse than the disease. But careful, careful attention pushes the calculation every-so-slightly toward the former. This isnt even a 51-49 proposition, but only a 50.1-49.9 proposition. Still, heres why the option of a yes vote for House Republicans notwithstanding my warnings yesterday that no deal is better than a bad deal is not an unacceptable decision. First, obviously, we already have gone over the cliff, technically speaking. The tax rates now in effect under law are those of the Clinton era, not the Bush era. As Grover Norquist argues, any vote for the Senate deal now is a vote to cut a lot of taxes, not a vote to raise any. And this bill does cut a whole lot of taxes (even including some special-interest breaks demanded by liberals that dont actually make economic sense). By locking in tax cuts for couples making up to $450,000 a year, by locking in a full $5 million threshold before the death tax kicks in, and by re-cutting the top cap-gains rate and dividend rate down to 20% (worse than the former 15%, but far better than the possible 39.6% that would apply now that the Bush cuts have expired), conservatives provide a ton of room for small businesses to grow and hire more workers, etcetera, before higher rates kick in and also have saved pensioners who rely on dividends a whole lot of money. Permanently. This is a very good thing.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Even MORE RINO/GOP-e ASS Sucking, indianrightwinger?
It was an unnecessary deal. And worse than that, we had an opportunity to “do the right thing”... but our rep leaders failed us.
Never going to happen!
What both political parties are doing is a crime against America and American taxpayers!
1. It is bipartisan
2. How possibly can Obama go back to saying the rich need to pay their fair share when he agreed that this is now the fair share.
3. This tiny bit of revenue does nothing to stop the trillion dollar deficits.
Now is the time for Republicans to gather their forces and go on the attack for serious spending reductions. Force the rats to address the debt and call them lockstep Marxists that are destroying the economy for everyone because they cannot work across the aisle to end the massive spending and entitlement mentality that is destroying America...
I really used to like The American Spectator, but they have supped of the GOP-e Kool-Aid of late, and are no longer on my preferred reading list.
It's a better deal than I expected McConnell to get on the Senate side so I half expected House Pubbies to go for it. I'm encouraged, they're standing up sooner than expected. There was always the worry they'd act tough, but fold when it came to debt limit battles.
The House may well have enough Dems + R's to pass however, and this may just be a TP saving vote, knowing it'll pass the house without Pubbie support.
Marxism is never a good deal (for anyone).
Cut the frickin’ spending already!!
Correct....this is politics. As Hillyer notes, it does very little to cut spending, so the real battle will likely be the CR and debt limit. Entitlement spending.
giving in to the enemy that is trying to destroy you is always awful.
The (if you like Marxism) is tremendously more descriptive than (Amen).
You would have fit right in at Jonestown, filling cups of koolaid and encouraging the gullible to drink it.
Boehner and Repubs balk at Senate’s Fiscal Fiasco Bill!
The cheese has slipped off of the American Spectator’s plate.
Or as the president has already said, until next year.
Kiss your party goodbye. Because they left you without a kiss, a reach-around, or even any lubrication.
Here is the IL vote, on the fiscal cliff bill:
Democrats Costello, Y; Davis, Y; Gutierrez, Y; Lipinski, Y; Quigley, Y; Rush, Y; Schakowsky, Y.
Republicans Biggert, Y; Dold, Y; Hultgren, N; Johnson, Y; Kinzinger, Y; Manzullo, Y; Roskam, N; Schilling, N; Schock, Y; Shimkus, Y; Walsh, N.
Will any of those congressmen get fewer votes, in the 2014 primary, because of that vote?
Aaron?? I’m schocked.
Kinzinger, Manzullo, Schock, and Shimkus disappointed me. Kinzinger and Schock could probably use a primary challenge, they're too establishment friendly. I think the powers that be in Illinois are planning to run Schock for some statewide office in 2014 (probably as the fall guy against Durbin), so they can anoint Ray LaHood's son for his daddy's old seat. (meanwhile, Darin LaHood is playing the part of a good conservative state Senator UNTIL he gets a safe cushy Congressional seat for life)
Interesting that NONE of the Illinois RATs voted NO on the "compromise". That tells me all I need to know about the supposedly "good" concessions that the GOP got. If there anything remotely good for the GOP in this bill, at least some of the Marxists would have opposed it.
Schock isn’t stupid enough to waste his time running for the Senate.
He may run for Governor.
All I've seen from you is gripe gripe gripe.
With the rats running the Senate AND the White House, what would have been your ideal, realistic outcome from these negotiations? What could have been the final outcome if YOU were the Speaker? It's one thing to gripe gripe gripe and it's another thing to opine exactly what you think COULD have been a better, realstic outcome. Let's hear it. And don't forget the "realistic" caveat.
This is about the only part of the column I disagree with. Plan B would have been passed before the Bush tax cuts expired and therefore would have given the rats legitimate claim to smugly say the Republicans agreed with them to raise taxes on "the rich".
The fact that the final deal happened AFTER the expiration of the Bush tax cuts - - the rates returned to Clinton-era rates on New Years day - - means that there were actually nothing but tax CUTS in the legislation. And rather than the rats being able to claim that the Republicans agreed with them to raise taxes on "the rich", now the Republicans can legitinately claim that the rats are the ones who engage in class warfare and want only to "soak the rich", etc.
It may seem like a matter of petty semantics, but in the blood war known as politics there is no such thing as petty semantics. Now, any future TV ad that claims the Republicans raised taxes will be easily discredited as a lie. Had Plan B passed, such an ad would be legitimate - - slimy, perhaps, but technically accurate.