Not an Awful Deal (if you like Marxism)

American Spectator ^ | Quin Hillyer

[indianrightwinger]

Not an Awful Deal By QUIN HILLYER on 1.1.13 @ 10:16AM

After about an hour of studying last night’s 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 isn’t even a 51-49 proposition, but only a 50.1-49.9 proposition. Still, here’s 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 don’t 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.

[Vince Ferrer]

Permanently

Or as the president has already said, until next year.

[RedMDer]

Happy New Year!!

[JRandomFreeper]

Looks like your liberals just caved.

Kiss your party goodbye. Because they left you without a kiss, a reach-around, or even any lubrication.

/johnny

[PhilCollins]

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?

[TheRightGuy]

Aaron?? I’m schocked.

[BillyBoy]

Good riddance to RINOs Biggert, Dold, and Tim Johnson. On the plus side, I don't think any of them will make a political "comeback".

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.

[Impy]

Schock isn’t stupid enough to waste his time running for the Senate.

He may run for Governor.

[Lancey Howard]

There is a group of GOP shills running around FR, trying to justify caving to the socialists.

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.

Thanks.

[Lancey Howard]

And in retrospect, his “Plan B” would have been a better solution than we are faced with today.

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.