Republicans who took over the House swore they would not extend unemployment benefits unless the funding could be accounted for. Early reports on the concurrent issue of the Bush-era tax cuts is that they are most likely going to be passed for all income levels. The New York Times reported that “[m]any Democrats are enraged that Republicans have so far blocked the effort to extend jobless aid, and are insisting on offsetting the cost even as they refuse to offset the lost revenue from the tax cuts.â€Â
Although Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) gave lip service in “reiterate[ing] the Republican contention that the cost [of long-term unemployment benefits] should be offset with reductions in spending elsewhere,†this has become very secondary as his prime motive of guaranteeing an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% is well within reach.
The tangible hypocrisy of the Republicans is disgusting. They are willing to hold hostage unemployment benefits which primarily help citizens in times of dire economic stress on the dubious concern of funding, all the while pushing for an extension of tax cuts for the wealthy of which the estimated 10-year cost is $4 trillion! If the cuts are extended even for two years the tax cuts given to the wealthy would be $800 billion, nearly equal the stimulus package.
For all of these conservatives and Tea Party supporters who duplicitously voted for and supported strongly the Bush stimulus package in 2008 (and are now claiming it to be a monster of the Democrats!) are egotistically pushing for another “stimulus package†for the wealthy—a package that will not insure the appropriate levels of spending nor investment touted. Moreover, apparently unbeknown to these GOP supporters, or more likely, just crass carelessness of other citizens, this “stimulus package†will wreak devastating damage on those people who need help most as either cuts will be made or debt will be intensified.
But alas, moral justification will be pandered as the victims will ineluctably be blamed by their laziness, out-datedness, lack of vigor, feelings of superiority, sexual illicitness, illiterateness, lack of education, and so on ad infinitum and ad nauseam as the real cause of their current (or long-term) state of economic incertitude. The Republican agenda sinisterly plays on important values of local autonomy and the family and rugged individualism that deludes many people into thinking the Republicans actually fight for these values. Is it not blatantly obvious with their double-speak for whom and for what they really fight?
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 24
But the reason I support the extension, is that I think taxes are too high, across the board. High taxes not only enables, it creates the Government hog at the trough problem.
We will be better off moving away from the tax-and-fritter model.
I thought the various rationales were this: Republican demogoguery 1) I will not let small businesses lose their livelihood (yeah, right!), 2) Tax cuts to the wealthy provide jobs (I'm imagining Monty Python's Search for the Holy Grail in the beginning where the two serfs are talking about repression inherent in the system and how they've constructed an anarcho-syndicate. Here, they are talking about lowering the taxes on their master so that they can have more jobs in the mire!
Populist 1) They worked hard for their money, 2) I don't like that the government is spending money on a, b, or c. Therefore, they should get as few taxes as possible. I'm going to be drinking my healthy water and calling you on my universal service phone line and drive on public roads to the commercially-zoned center to purchase goods and then drop by the publicly funded library, etc. etc.
Taxes don't create the problem. People do. People in government, people in corporations, people in a society. Government is our chosen way to influence the actions and is one of the few ways that has a democratic supervision of what goes on. We need to publicly fund our elections and create new legislation outlawing corporate funding and marketing in politics; we need to press on Congress to quit eschewing their responsibilities of oversight when they create a special committee that then gains the final say on public matters, and so forth.
You believe that corporations will limit themselves, will look out for the well-being of posterity, will regulate themselves, will be proactive in doing ethical actions, environmentally sound actions. We know this is not what happens. We can cull out our Frederick Douglas corporations that do these things, but that doesn't make the premise of free market self-regulation any more persuasive or accurate, just as Frederick Douglas's story didn't show the marvelousness and opportunities presented within slavery.
And speaking about frittering, what did the financial, banking, credit, and mortgage industries do with trillions of our dollars? Oh, they "frittered" it away on "derivatives—hybrid investment instruments that add nothing of long-term value but merely facilitate new forms of speculation,” (p. 163, Kuttner, Everything For Sale).
There is a question, about the balance between the Public and the Private sector, and there is a matter of States' Rights.
There is a balance to be found, between Federal power & authority, and that of the State & Local jurisdictions, and citizens. Power without resources, is without force or meaning ... so resources - money - must be available, commensurate with the roles of the different levels of authority.
The use of debt to fund large undertakings by Central Government, has the effect semi-permanently reducing the effective Powers of all lower levels of Authority below them ... which means Everybody. In popular contemporary rhetoric, Federal debt acts to "suck the oxygen out of the room".
As the Federal role grows, it tends to absorb more & more or everything that is to be had .... and then they start reaching into the Future, and using up everything that is to be found there, as well.
At this point, some remember that this country is set up to give the Highest, Central, Federal authorities, ONLY those powers which are required to perform those roles which can ONLY be served by the Central, Federal authority. The national military is the quintessential example of this, and there are several others.
As our system of Law was set up, all roles (and the resources to perform them) that do not require at Centralized authority to execute them, "devolve" to lower levels of authority. In the USA, the States are first in line for Powers and Resources, to fill roles which need not be done by the Central government.
After the States do the things that are appropriate to their purview, remaining Powers and Resources and Authority devolve to the next lower levels of social organization - which will be Counties and Municipalities.
And all other forms of authority that do not belong - for good reason - to higher levels of government, devolve to & belong to - under the Law - the Citizen.
Excessive growth of the Federal government has substantially unbalanced the system under which the United States is supposed to work, already. They tax too heavily ... depriving States & local jurisdictions of opportunities for revenue.
The Federal government borrows money to do things, and that money must be paid back with interest, making the cost of the things they do greater than it should be, because the Banks are getting a "cut" on all the taxes that citizens pay to do things ... a "cut" which takes but does not repay or reward the country, at all.
Bottom line is, by the time all this stuff becomes the object of public notice & ire, it is assuredly too late for the Federal government itself to correct its own excesses. The people no longer trust them, and have already decided to do something about it, themselves.
That's where we stand now. You get one vote, and I get one vote.
After that you say: Excessive growth of the Federal government has substantially unbalanced the system under which the United States is supposed to work, already. They tax too heavily ... depriving States & local jurisdictions of opportunities for revenue.
This is where I disagree with you. I believe the infiltration of our democracy by corporations is the largest reason for a disconnect between what people need and want vs what they are getting. You and I are people--one person = one vote; corporations on the other hand somehow got to be people too (1880s "activist" :) judges ruling on about 320 of 340 cases brought up to the Supreme Court under 14th Amendment that argued corporations were protected as persons, while the other 20 were about what the 14th amendment actually protected, people!)--1 dollar = 1 vote. Do you know how much these people, i.e., corporations gain in corporate entitlement? Easily ten times more than social welfare programs. We need to eradicate the corporation from our politics entirely and immediately.
It's a Catch 22, isn't Dave? ;)
It can go the other way. The Fed could become weak, and marginalized, while States threaten to "suck all the oxygen out of the room". Like back in Pres. Lincoln's day.
Cities can become so large & powerful, they overshadow the states (and countries) that host them.
Municipalities have the authority & power to control their growth. When they willfully & deliberate encourage growth that they cannot pay for, they turn to the states & Fed ... "OMG, you have to help us!" - another trick for gobbling up other people's oxygen.
I assume that we have allowed this to happen, for their utility in international competition. They are our Delta Forces, in the 21st C Economic Wars.
Yes, they have been granted person-powers far beyond legitimate business rationalizations ... while also shielding them from commensurate responsibility.
The whole "too big to fail" thing boils down to "they now own you" (sucker).
Why weren't Democrats worried about the debt the last two years?
Why did they wait so long?
And who knows why Congress waited until it expired. Maybe Congress is just too last minute about too much stuff! Nancy needs more coffee!
It's called testicular fortitude and this Congress lacks it.
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act for Women Jan 29, 2009
Govt. sponsored health insurance for children: January 30, 2009
Economic Recovery Act (Stimulus Bill), largest tax cut, education funding increase, clean energy: February 17, 2009
CC rate hikes: May 22, 2009
FDA regulate tobacco: June 22, 2009
Hate Crimes a federal offense: October 11, 2009
Health Care Reform: March 22, 2010
Got rid of subsidies to banks offering govt. backed school loans to be solely by DoEd.: March 30, 2010
Serve America Act tripling size of AmeriCorps: April 21, 2010
Cash for Clunkers: August 26, 2010
Financial Reform Bill: July 21, 2010
Veterans’ Health Care Budget Reform & Transparency Act of 2009
Consolidated Appropriations of 2010
Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010
25 separate tax cuts
Consumer advocate agency
and so on and so forth
And they are misguided about their Tea Party/taxes rationale, as well, as the real Tea Party was not against taxes -- just taxes without representation.
I am outraged by both political parties for ignoring the bi-partisan debt commissions recommendations to reduce our obscene national debt. Days after the commission voted on some tangible and realistic ideas to reduce debt, the pigs (as in Animal Farm) want to spend another $700 billions in this "Third Stimulus" package to "help the poor starving wealthy tax payers." Those politicians on the Hill are behaving badly again . Where are the Tea Party folks now?
I'm not concerned with the debt right now. How can you pay debt down when you aren't making money from your economy? Cutting social programs and programs that the most needy rely on compounds the problem. Cuts of that nature can't be made until other things can replace the social insurance, like well-paying jobs and the release of banking finance to people which neither are happening. On the other hand, this presumption that denying extension of the top 2% is like "raising taxes during a recession" and so forth is ludicrous. 1) It won't hurt the individuals' ability to provide for their families, and 2) Their tax breaks won't stimulate the economy any better than it has since 2003 while the receiving of their taxes will help with our budget at this precise moment when we need it.
(I think I'm going to give an answer to your first point in another post soon.)
If I had $300,000 in consumer debts (mortgage + credit cards + student loans + auto loans + home equity loans + medical bills), and I have $50,000 coming in each year, what would I do? I would start lowering my expenses (stop dining out, no vacations, and cut up credit cards). Every bit of my surplus would go to paying down my debt (because it's huge), and stop adding to my huge debt.
These are the steps most Americans are taking today. Why should we add another $30,000 in debts? That's sheer craziness. You must address the elephant in the room. This government is blind to the elephant.
You may certainly spend less. That is one alternative, and I think a superficial response. My alternative would be to change the system: jobs that pay more than $50k, universal health insurance, obligatory lower cc interest rates, more truth-in-lending and a stronger regulatory commission overseeing finance/credit/bank/mortgage, publicly financed campaigns, a reduction in our military spending (700+ military bases world wide) and the closure of two overseas wars, and so on. My alternatives, I think, address the fundamental systemic problems, yours addresses the superficial and impecunious issues.
With all that being said, I do agree with you that the individual has some responsibility. BTW, how did you know my finances!
I have managed to follow my own financial advice. In the last eight years, I elminated all family debts (including mortgage), saved up a tidy sum for retirement, and retired 5 years ahead of schedule. So I have grounds for what I am discussing.
Let me cite some examples of ungrounded beliefs:
1. You should get a mortgage for tax deduction
2. It's advantageous and sophisticated to borrow money for education expenses
3. Buying new car can increase one's status
4. Some debts are OK - Have you heard that one?
5. I can use other peoples' money to prosper
6. I use my credit card for emergency expenses
I've hear many more unjustifyable excuses to fritter money away.
I teach a method to eliminate debts and build wealth slowly.
Read my other posts like "Stop Wasting Your Hard Earned Money - Topic #8 - You Can Save a LOT from These Savings!" I post many personal finance articles to help ordinary consumers to reduce debt and become wealthy. I rarely get into politics as I did in this one.