Just Say “No”

Associated Press: GOP, Dems Nearing Deal on Taxes, Jobless Benefits

An outline of a bipartisan economic package is emerging that would temporarily extend the Bush-era tax rates for all taxpayers, while extending jobless benefits for millions of Americans.

Differences remained over details, including White House demands for middle- and low-income tax credits. But Republicans and Democrats appeared to come together Sunday, raising the possibility of a deal in Congress by the end of the week.

Either the Republican Party is for turning around the economy, or it is not.  As an attorney–albeit an unlicensed one–I find it difficult to reconcile the argument that an across-the-board extension of the Bush tax cuts is essential to the facilitation of economic and job growth, but allowing the unemployed to sit back and collect taxpayer money for two years or so, regardless of effort on their part, is somehow not detrimental to the same.  Either you’re for fostering economic growth, or you’re not.

When it comes to this “deal” being set out by the president and the Democrats, the Republicans need to hold fast, and make their counterparts from across the aisle own any adverse consequences.

Both sides whine incessantly about bipartisanship.  Well, in a rare Saturday session, the United States Senate came together to reject the president’s plan to increase taxes on the job creators in America.  Currently, Republicans hold 42 seats in the U.S. Senate, and yet 53 senators voted against the tax increase.

Inside the Beltway, the Republicans have the political support to take a stand and say that, for the good of the country, the Bush era tax cuts should be extended in their entirety and that unemployment benefits should not be available in perpetuity.  Outside the Beltway, where the Resurgent Right sent a loud-and-clear message to all lawmakers that fiscal common sense must rule the day, the Republicans certainly have the popular support as well.  Better yet, extending the Bush tax cuts and capping unemployment benefits is simply the right thing to do.

Take a stand.  And if certain Democrats continue to stonewall, make them own the tax increase.  And, come January, when the new Republican majority can push through the right legislation, should the president continue his veiled veto threats, make him be the president whose veto raised taxes on America.

Share

Comments

  1. Actuaries R Us says:

    Just use the average life expectancy as the jobless benefits extension.

  2. Gail B. says:

    AMEN to everything you said, Jeff!

    There are people who REFUSE to get a job because unemployment benefits enable them to sit on their rosteriums and still have an income to pay their bills. Necessity is the mother of invention.

    Our actions are consistent with our values; we get what we want in the end. If it were necessary to land a job, there would be fewer on the unemployed list. Why get a job when the unemployment check is more than they can make with a paycheck?

    If this government would back off on “spreading the wealth,” stop robbing the American people for unnecessary and behemoth government spending, people would begin hiring. The problem is that the Progressives know this, but it’s not what their goal is. The Democratic Party even has it on their website (or it did at one time) that free enterprise is what fuels the economy. So, WHY are Progressives trying to kill free enterprise?! Again, your actions are consistent with your values; you get what you want in the end. The Progressives want COMPLETE CONTROL over Americans, and no one can convince me otherwise!

  3. Randy Wills says:

    I totally agree with you, Jeff. We are where we are as a result of contravening all forms of natural law by politicians seeking to buy votes with taxpayer dollars. It all sounds so compasionate and caring, but ignores the moral hazzards inherent in such actions.

    I’m reminded of the Proverb which says “There is a way that seems right unto man, but the end thereof is destruction.” Necessity is a great motivator, and in the absence of semi-lifetime unemployment benefits, perhaps there will be fewer jobs “that Americans are unwilling to do”, and hence solve, at least in part, the illegal immigration problem.

    What a concept.

    Randy

  4. Thomas says:

    Jeff,

    I think you, and many others, misunderstand what an unemployment extension is and is not. Right or wrong there is a 99 week maximum term for someone to receive unemployment benefits. This will not change. People who have received 99 weeks will receive no more irrespective of Congress passing an extension.

    Those folks who have received something less than 99 weeks, as of now, do not receive any more federal funding of unemployment unsurance since funding ran out a couple of weeks ago. An extension will allow these people to continue receiving payments until they reach 99 weeks.

  5. Gail B. says:

    @Thomas

    Look again, “founding father!” They’re adding an additional 13 months to the 99 already in place.

    How’s Obama going to explain that 3/4 of his term of sitting at the Resolute Desk was a waste of time? America would have been MUCH better off if the Stimulus bill had not passed, if unemployment had not been extended, if Obamacare had not passed, and if there had been no bailouts.

  6. John Buyon says:

    I can’t wait for one of you self -righteous hypocrites to lose your jobs because of outsourcing or this recession and then come back to me and tell me that you should take responsibility, and how it is the fault of the individual worker that he can’t find a job in a 9.8% unemployment economy.

    the greatest stimulus is unemployment insurance and the worst stimulus is allowing billionaires to pay millions less in capital gains taxes.

  7. Yawn says:

    The Canadian professor sure has a billionaire complex.
    Can he outsource his redundant commenting to a hack in India?

  8. whats_up says:

    @ Gail,

    You have no idea how much worse it would be if those things had not come to pass. Is that what Conservatives are after now, the complete and utter failure of American Capatalism, that is what would have happened had the bailouts not occured, YES, thats how bad it was. You can continue to live in your fantasy world or you can join the rest of us in the real world, your choice.

  9. Anonymous says:

    That’s the best part of capitalism, failing….. and doing it right the next time. In the long run, it’s cheaper.

  10. Jordan Bell says:

    “the greatest stimulus is unemployment insurance and the worst stimulus is allowing billionaires to pay millions less in capital gains taxes.”

    Funny. That sounds like a comment from someone who has never had to work, always receiving a handout to do nothing.

    The capital that the billionaires and corporations get to keep is generally used to expand their business or for investment, thereby actually creating more employment opportunities for others.

    You should do a little research in your history. When the tax rates are reduced, there is economic growth and a low unemployment rate.

    The money that people make belong to themselves and it is their decision on how they want to spend it. It is not the government’s right to take from some people to give to others.

  11. Jeff Schreiber says:

    “the greatest stimulus is unemployment insurance and the worst stimulus is allowing billionaires to pay millions less in capital gains taxes.”

    That’s also, almost verbatim, the exact response by the soon-to-be-ex-Speaker of the House. Scaaaaary!

  12. John Buyon says:

    If you guys haven’t noticed yet, we have had extraordinarily, historic low taxes starting with Reagen right through Clinton Bush’s and up to Obama, who is making taxes even lower, yet where is this widespread prosperity/ job growth you speak of?

    how do you explain the unprecedented and unmatched level of economic expansion that occurred in the super high tax period of the 1940′s-1970′s ?

  13. Anonymous says:

    11:26 well if taxes are the sure fire solution, lets just go ahead and tax at 100%.

  14. Lame duck, hold and maintain 3000 says:
  15. Anonymous says:

    10:01 you know for a fact if they took ALL we had, they’d still want and need more.

  16. Say what????? blow it up? says:
  17. Sticks and Stones says:

    Thu Dec 9….. London is rioting. That, ladies and gentlemen, is our future.

  18. Jordan Bell says:

    “how do you explain the unprecedented and unmatched level of economic expansion that occurred in the super high tax period of the 1940′s-1970′s?”

    Yes the tax rates were high during that time, but you need to look at the tax rates for the different income levels. Lets do married filing jointly:

    1954: 91% on $200,000+
    1954: Changed to 91% on $400,000+
    1964: 77% on $400,000
    1965: 70% on $200,000
    1977: 70% on $203,200
    1979: 70% on $215,400

    Here is the source if you want to look at the rates for other brackets: http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/federalindividualratehistory-20080107.pdf

    Looks the like the top rates decreased during that period, allowing more people to keep more of their earned money, allowing them to spend as they see fit. Go into the 80s and 90s when it drops to 28% at its lowest and you see then just how fast our economy grows.

    If you think the high tax rates are so good, looks like it did pretty well for us during the 1930s and 1940s when it went up to 91%. The roaring 1920s saw a top rate of 25% on $100,000, and you see the economic boom we had then. You live in a fantasy land if you think high tax levels are good for the citizens.

  19. Anonymous says:

    12:12 I wonder how those who rebelled over mere whiskey taxes would feel on a 91% tax rate? This country has lost its way, and its mind. And I thought 39% was ludicrous.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

  20. John Buyon says:

    High taxes on certain big earners is stimulative to the economy because it makes it expensive for the capitalists to withdraw money from their business’s and consume it.

    for example I had a thriving 5 million dollar business and I earned 500,000 from it per year. if i am hit with a 70% rate I would be unlikely to withdraw capital from the enterprise to finance a luxurious vacation and would be more likely to reinvest earnings in expanding the business and creating more jobs.

    however suppose I get slapped with a 25% rate, I will withdraw earnings and use it on consumption or the purchase of worthless macroeconomic assets like paintings or homes that don’t produce jobs and don’t create wealth.

    and as you conservatives surely know, investment is a better predictor of future and current economic health than consumption.

  21. beep beep says:

    Just say ‘NO’, to driving, a ‘Tata’ ha ha ha
    size does matter, and Obama wants us ALL in cars like this.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Tatas-Nano-the-Car-That-Few-nytimes-587189526.html?x=0

    Those are some mighty small tatas.

  22. Buried alive says:

    The roof: this national debt and unfunded liabilities
    The gridiron: your grandchildren

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAyLX2hY7E0

    Three questions to ask yourself:
    When you die what is the national debt going to be?
    Will you care at that point?
    Should you care at that point?

  23. Anonymous says:

    1:31 is forgetting, it is THEIR money

  24. 50% mooch says:
  25. Anonymous says:

    I guess the sentiment “It sucks to be you” now rests in peace. The new sentiment “Uncle Sam will take care of you for as long as it takes” reigns supreme.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] Jeff Schreiber America’s Right [...]

  2. [...] Interesting.  You know how I feel about it. [...]

  3. [...] Interesting.  You know how I feel about it. [...]

Speak Your Mind

*