Just before midnight on Thursday the House voted on the massive new legislation that will extend the infamous Bush Tax Cuts for another two years and extend unemployment benefits for many of the jobless across the country. The vote, among other things, forced me to re-write my weekly column. No sooner had the ink dried on my column, which took to task the many elected officials who were still supporting a ridiculous litany of earmarks, a vote was passed with much more favorable terms.
Republicans are giddy, and with some reason, although I don't think there is anything to get too euphoric over here. The bill's cost is $858 billion and it will all be borrowed and piled onto the steaming heap we all refer to fondly as our "National Debt". More accurately, it is the debt of our children and grandchildren, a transgression we will all have to reckon with on our own terms at some future date.
Still, it was a bi-partisan effort and it includes many terms favorable to finally stabilizing our economy. Changes to Capital Gains that will aid working families and small businesses. Changes to the Estate Tax, a financial resource that liberals practically drool over. It bridles the governments natural desire to come in after a death and clean out the check book. These are all good things.
Moreover, the message sent across the country at the polls in November seems to have actually, possibly, resonated in Washington. I believe we can thank the Tea Party movement for this. In my deleted column I had complained that many of the new comers, though not yet yielding votes, had been rather quiet about the incredible load of earmarks tucked into this legislation. Two hundred grand to "study" maple syrup in Vermont. Three million for a Polynesian Rowing Museum in Hawaii. No...I'm not making it up. It is exactly this kind of insipid spending that has millions of Americans foaming at the mouth. I was happy to receive an email from Kelly Ayotte's headquarters late last night that she, along with eleven other GOP Senate-elects, had sent a letter to President Obama excoriating the pork barrel spending. Good stuff. Finally. Could the line-item veto actually be a possibility in 2012?
None of it is coincidence and every American who attended a Tea Party gathering or voted for a Tea Party-supported candidate should be proud. Your voice was heard. Politicians are finally being held accountable and the November blood-bath is the sole reason. Ensconced politicians were thrown to the curb. That gets some attention on The Hill. Imperative now that we stay focused and be sure the trend continues.
Democrats are largely split on this bill and Obama is losing some supporters, but even he realized he was boxed in here. Not since Herbert Hoover have taxes been raised during a deep recession and we need look no further than the history books to see how that worked for us. Businesses across the country are looking for some sign of stability. This may give them a ray of hope.
I know I'm relieved, just a little, to know that there will not be a tax increase on January 1st. More important, at least for me, is that it is accompanied by a serious effort to reduce spending. The earmarks are a good place to start. But as incoming House Speaker "Weepy John Boehner" pointed out, there is still a long way to go if we want to pull this economy out of the hole, and that means much more significant cuts in spending. We need to go through the ledger the way a new CEO does when he comes in to turn a business around. You don't cut with a scalpel, you cut with a chainsaw.
It's a step in the right direction...a nod to the rising tide of disenchantment with bloated government, and reason enough to have hope. Don't forget, though...it's another trillion bucks on the Chinese Credit Card. Merry Christmas.
Posted in entirety with permission from the author
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 50
I am betwixt and between on this. I want the economy to stabilize and get people back to working. At the same time the deficit is frightening.
I will say "Hello" to Kelly tonight for you. (It is her Christmas Party.) I do believe she would have nixed this bill in favor of a new bill with much less spending.
I'd have been for another 4 weeks of unemployment guarantee instead an additonal 13 weeks, which now totals nearly 2 years. Maybe then they'd do something positive about finding some sort of work, even if it wasn't their dream jobs!
This country cannot afford perpetual unemployment payments. It's damning our children and grandchildren to financial enslavement to the government.
Wonder where our country would be today if our forefathers had that mindset in the past? Many came over here in steerage, crowded and dangerous trips to be met with a hostile enviornement and back breaking work to have a chance at freedoms.
Bet they'd have liked these all these "guarantees" of today. But then we would not have the freedom to succeed and rise up the ladder of prosperity. We'd be like many third world nations.
You have already bought the philosophy that cutting government spending will be done by the Republicans. There's no evidence at all for that yet you believe. So when I point out that all government spending goes to someone or other you don't believe that? Just what do you think happens to the money government spends? Does it just disappear?
I'm really hoping the government cuts 1/2 the programs the federal gov't has created. Ship most of the problems back to the states and use what's left (after cutting taxes so states can raise theirs) to pay on our debt. :):)
You're a good writer. I always think I'm going back to read more. Maybe :)
The last half of the novel has most of the explanations for how and why my solution works. The first half mostly describes life for the poor in the new system.
But about government spending, the federal and state governments spend quite a lot of money. Some of that money comes from taxes, the rest from borrowing and fees. Much of government spending goes to things like infrastructure (roads, water systems, dams and such) and public services (police and fire protection, for example). I assume that you don't want to give up on either those public services nor that infrastructure. Another big segment of the budget federally goes to defense. Is that where you want to reduce spending? Do you want to stop buying so many weapons, reduce the pay of the military, close most of the bases in the U.S. and foreign lands?
Then there's the interest on the national debt. (We could stiff our creditors since we have the big guns.) Would you have us stop paying that?
Next we have social security and medicare and such. On my pay check, those are separate from income tax and since I have been paying social security "taxes" for over 50 years it seems rather cheap of you to say that now I can no longer get what I thought I was paying for. But do you propose to cut spending on those programs?
There's really very little left. Locally you could cut back on education or go back on the contracts which promised and agreed to retirement benefits to state employees. We could violate those contracts. But then we have a history of not living up to our contracts. Just ask the native Americans.
So what percent of the government spending do you propose to save by stopping that spending and what programs will you cut. I get the impression that you will stop giving money to the poor. Will you also stop giving money to the extremely wealthy? Will you ask the rich, especially those who have gotten rich on government contracts, to pay more in taxes to reduce the debts?
If the cuts you propose are implemented, what will be the effect on the GDP? Having that many more people unemployed should cut our production considerably. Will that help?
On the TV last night, it showed that our next bailouts will have to be for state and local governments. Why are they doing so poorly? Because of the "guarantees" via contracts to government employees. Salaries and benefits are what is killing our local governments, and, again, we can blame the unions for much of that. It matters not that much of a county or state is struggling, that there is high unemployment, government employees continue getting raises and having their benefits completely paid for (instead of having to contribute like the rest of us), even if those raises and benefits put the county or state into almost bankruptcy. It matters not to the unions. Pay up, they say, and continue to increase those payments.
There is so much waste in the government. As I've mentioned before, people I've known - my mother and ex are good examples - are asked to stop doing their jobs too well and too quickly else they make everyone else look bad. They're asked to slow down. If there is money left over in a government department nearing the end of the fiscal year, they rush around finding ways to spend the money so they can have more the next year. It matters not that they don't NEED anything. They have to spend the money.
Unemployed people don't have to prove that they're looking for work any more. They don't have to look for work to get unemployment benefits. That has to change and we have to stop extending benefits and extending them. There are jobs, but the unemployed won't take a job that makes a little less than they made before. In the past, refusing jobs meant your unemployment benefits stopped.
Each and every department in the federal government could be reduced. There are entire departments whose usefulness has expired, but the departments remain. (Has anyone heard, for instance, that the thousands of the people hired to handle the "cash for clunkers program" have been laid off? Doubtful.)
The state and local governments are in bad shape. I suspect that you are talking about the segment on 60 Minutes last night. That report actually underestimated how bad the situation has become, if you ask me. North Carolina's situation, which hardly ever gets any attention because the major networks always focus on California, Illinois, and New Jersey, is very bad right now. The state is running a $3.8 billion deficit even though it can hardly be called a bastion of progressivism.
As far as "cash for clunkers," even if those thousands of people had not been laid off, an honest person would have to admit that the program was a failure. The government spent $3 billion on something that generated only $2.8 billion in revenue. Furthermore, after the program ended, used car dealers saw a huge drop in sales. They are still in slump. Also, common sense should tell people that you don't destroy vehicles that still run well. If that program really improved air quality, I could understand. But even environmentalists admit that that program had almost no affect on the global climate.
You both make plenty of good points. But you are not addressing the questions I asked.
Exactly what government spending are you going to end? If I consider only the points you have addressed in your comments just above it would appear that you want the local and federal governments to break the contracts they agreed to in previous years. I'm not sure what kind of prescedent that sets but it certainly would reward dishonesty.
Now I don't think either of you would find it acceptable for ordinary people to simply say, "I don't want to live up to the terms of the contract we signed so I'll just ignore it." So I assume that you would not accept such behavior from your elected officials either. (Please correct me if I am wrong.)
But the problems you address hardly touch the federal budget. I outlined above several sections of our national government spending and several for the states. What you are saying we should cut and how much money will each cut save? Who will no longer receive that money from the government?
Please answer these really difficult questions, not the easy ones that I hear politicians using every election of "cutting government waste" since the waste they talk about never amounts to much.
I keep remembering the guy who 60 Minutes or 20/20 interviewed years ago who had a job for 15 years that was unnecessary. Each year, he told the powers that be that his job was not necessary and each year they gave him a raise. He finally became a whistle blower and told the news people. When they asked him why he didn't quit, he said that someone else who took the position probably would not have tried to have the position eliminated. They would have just taken the money and did no work into retirement. He was trying to change that.
When my mother worked for the VA, she was told on her first day to slow down because she would make everyone else look bad. My ex was told the same thing on his first day with the government. If they were required to work at a pace like the rest of the world, again we'd save lots of money. :-)
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2010/12/17/december-16-media-mash-media-gush-over-clinton-briefing-room-appearance-me
Isnt it also common practice to waste so that the money is all used to gain money for the upcoming year?
Something that someone pointed out to me to is this, government jobs do not create manufacturing . THe factories do the manufacturing... The factories would create jobs...
Why, do we need government workers making 25.00 an hour to do 10.00 an hour jobs.?
What you describe, Glome, is the situation I saw more than two decades ago when I served in the military.
Try prevention to avoid tax hikes, program cuts
Abigail A. FullerNeil Wollman
Mentioned of course to fault "Liberals" ... but more than likely such bills were passed by the conservatives just so they could use them as examples that way ... fool the folks into blaming Libs with ever more hatreds ... just like FOX intends for you followers (sheeple) to do...
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season!
Jerry is a drive by commenter. He only sees what he wants to see and would never dream of researching first.