Category Archives: Taxes

Shared Sacrifice in Romney’s World

25 Saturday Feb 2012

Posted by in economy, Politics, Romney, Taxes

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

The stadium may have been empty but the speech certainly wasn’t.

During Mitt Romney’s speech in Detroit yesterday, he laid out his bold, new economic policy. Massive tax cuts for the top bracket paid for by cutting spending on programs that benefit the neediest of the needy. As Ezra Klein put it:

“When Romney said he “wasn’t concerned about the very poor,” he wasn’t kidding. He’s using the policies they depend on most as a piggy bank for tax cuts.”

Most of what Romney addressed was familiar territory–raising the retirement age, privatizing Medicare, and repealing “Obamacare.” He also called for cutting things like subsidies to Amtrak and Planned Parenthood, which amount to pocket change in the federal budget, and bringing federal worker’s pay down to the same crappy level as people in the private sector.

But the bulk of the spending cuts would come from sending Medicaid back to the states:

“Romney’s real savings come in the next section. He’ll “send Medicaid back to the states and cap that program’s rate of growth,” and then “do the same for other programs, like food stamps, housing subsidies and job training.”

Sending the programs back to the states is a red herring. The key bit for deficit reduction is capping their rates of growth. Which is to say, cutting their rates of growth. Which is to say, cutting them.

What Romney is essentially proposing to do is finance a massive tax cut by cutting Medicaid, food stamps, housing subsidies and job training. In other words, the neediest Americans…will be financing a massive tax cut.”

This is Romney’s idea of shared sacrifice:

“My plan for America requires real leadership. And it calls for sacrifice. It doesn’t require a leader to promise bigger and bigger benefits, and something for nothing. Let me underscore that. It doesn’t require a leader to promise bigger and bigger benefits, and free stuff. It requires a leader … to call for sacrifice.”

Here’s who would bear the brunt of that sacrifice (BCCA is an acronym for Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention and Treatment Act that allows states to provide early access to Medicaid to women with cancer).

Here are the Medicaid dollars spent per beneficiary:

So in order for cuts in the scope of what Romney is proposing to have any substantial affect, here’s what would have to happen:

“…[T]he amount we spent per blind or disabled person, or per elderly person, is much, much more than the amount we spend per child or adult. This means that if we really want to cut Medicaid spending, and we want to do it on the backs of adults or children, we will have to drop many, many more of them to make a real impact on spending.

If we cut 1 million elderly from the Medicaid rolls, we reduce Medicaid spending by about 5%. If we cut 1 million adults, however, we reduce Medicaid spending by only 1%. We need to cut 5 times as many adults. If we want to cut Medicaid spending by 10%…we’d need to drop more than 10 million adults from Medicaid. That’s almost three-quarters of all of them. If we want to cut overall Medicaid spending by 20%, then we’d need to drop all non-elderly adults, including all pregnant women, as well as about 10 million kids, or more than a third of them.

So what will we do? Should we cut some of their benefits instead? Again, look how little we already spend on children and adults. If we cut spending on every child and every non-elderly adult by 25%, that will reduce overall Medicaid spending by less than 8%.

Or do you want to go after the money we spend on the blind and disabled? Women with breast cancer or colon cancer? The elderly?”

Right on, Mitt. Let’s take all that “free stuff” away from all those “something for nothing” freeloaders like the blind, the disabled, the elderly, and women with cancer. They’ve had it too easy for too long. It’s high damn time they sacrificed something so your buds can have another yacht to water ski behind or another vacation home.

Advertisement

“A Colossal Political Failure”

26 Tuesday Jul 2011

Posted by in budget, Deficit, economy, Politics, Taxes

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Sam Pizzigati at CAF:

“This “debt crisis” in no way had to happen. No natural disaster, no tsunami, has suddenly pounded the United States out of fiscal balance. We have simply suffered a colossal political failure. Our powers that be, by feeding the rich and their corporations one massive tax break after another, have thrown a monstrous monkey wrench into our national finances.

Some numbers — from an Institute for Policy Studies report released this past spring — can help us better visualize just how monumental this political failure has been.

If corporations and households taking in $1 million or more in income each year were now paying taxes at the same annual rates as they did back in 1961, the IPS researchers found, the federal treasury would be collecting an additional $716 billion a year.

In other words, if the federal government started taxing the wealthy and their corporations at the same rates in effect a half-century ago, the federal debt to investors would almost totally vanish over the next decade.

Similarly stunning numbers have come, earlier this month, from MIT economist Peter Diamond and the University of California’s Emmanuel Saez, the world’s top authority on the incomes of the ultra-rich. These two scholars have shared some fascinating “what ifs” that dramatize how spectacularly the incomes of our wealthiest have soared over recent decades.

In 2007, Diamond and Saez point out, taxpayers in the nation’s top 1 percent actually paid, on average, 22.4 percent of their incomes in federal taxes. If  that actual tax burden were to about double to 43.5 percent, the top 1 percenter share of our national after-tax income would still be twice as high as the top 1 percent’s after-tax income share in 1970.

So why aren’t we taxing the rich? Why are we now suffering such fearsome “debt crisis” angst? Why are our politicos so intent on shoving the “fiscal discipline” of layoffs and cutbacks — austerity — down the throats of average Americans?

No mystery here. Our political system is failing to tax the rich because the rich have fortunes large enough to buy off the political system.”

Obama Hearts the “Gang of Six” Plan

20 Wednesday Jul 2011

Posted by in budget, Congress, economy, health care, Medicaid, Medicare, Obama, Politics, Social Security, Taxes, Unemployment

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

President Obama was quick to endorse the latest deficit reduction plan, the one from the so-called “Gang of Six” released yesterday, calling it a “very significant step” and “broadly consistent with the approach he has advocated.” This without knowing the details. But the details weren’t really important, because all the major elements are indeed consistent with what the president wants in this deficit reduction shell game.

* Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security cuts.
* Further cuts in the top marginal income tax rates. (So much for that pledge to let the Bush tax cuts expire).
* Corporate tax cuts.
* The continuation of Reaganomics and Bushonomics. That would be the supply-side, tax cuts equals increased revenue and economic growth nonsense that we all know works so well.

The broad strokes of the “Gang of Six” plan (and just as an aside I wonder why Sen. Sanders is never included in any of these gangs? Not bi-partisany enough, I assume) are as follows:

An immediate $500 billion “down payment” on deficit reduction. All spending cuts, all from unnamed programs. A brilliant idea in a recession. The other $3.2 trillion in savings would be decided by various committees at some later date, enforced by spending caps. Congress would be required to get a 2/3 vote to exceed those caps. IOW, when the next recession hits, anybody looking for any assistance is SOL. David Dayen at Firedoglake:

“Simply put, this is a recipe for depression. When the economy suffered and stimulus would be required to increase aggregate demand, the 2/3 vote needed would simply put a stop to it. The New Deal would have been out of order under this regime. Same with the Recovery Act. Any spending from the federal government would be restricted as much as it is in the states. So there could only be the status quo or contraction in fiscal policy in the event of a recession, which is a perfect way to create a depression.”

Also in the down payment would be the institution of chained CPI, aka a cut in SS benefits, and repeal of the CLASS Act, which was a part of health care reform that the insurance lobby fought tooth and nail. From the New York Times, December of 2009:

“The Class Act, which the late Sen. Ted Kennedy considered his legacy, would allow people to buy long-term care insurance through payroll deductions and to receive cash if they’re later disabled, regardless of their age or of a previous health condition. “This is the best chance the baby boomers have to protect themselves from impoverishment if they need long-term care,” Mr. [Jim] Firman [president of the National Coalition on Aging] said.”

That is Part One. Part Two calls for an additional $200 billion in “healthcare savings,” aka Medicare and Medicaid cuts, and an $80 billion cut in the defense budget. That’s $80 billion over ten years, pocket change for the Pentagon. Gotta love that shared sacrifice.

In Part Two, the Finance Committee…

“…would be required to reduce tax rates to three tax brackets of rates: of 8-12 percent, 14-22 percent and 23-29 percent. The current top marginal rate is 35 percent. The corporate tax rate would be between 23 percent and 29 percent…”

And this little goodie for corporations as well:

“…tax reform would cease taxation of overseas profits.”

The corporate behemoths had been lobbying to get the tax on overseas profits reduced, allegedly under the guise of returning these profits for use in job creation, but that’s not how it worked before:

“Congress and the Bush administration gave companies a similar tax incentive, in 2005, in hopes of spurring domestic hiring and investment.

While the tax break lured 800 companies into bringing $312 billion back to the United States, 92 percent of that was used for dividends and stock buybacks, according to the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research. The study concluded the program “did not increase domestic investment, employment or research and development.”

Indeed, 60 percent of the benefits went to 15 of the largest U.S. multinational companies — many of which laid off domestic workers, closed plants and shifted even more profits and resources abroad in hopes of cashing in on the next repatriation holiday.”

So let’s just eliminate the tax entirely. Nice.

More on the tax “reform” aspects of this plan:

“Coburn said the plan would reduce the deficit by $3.7 trillion over the next 10 years and increase tax revenues by $1 trillion by closing a variety of special tax breaks and havens. He also noted, however, that the Congressional Budget Office would score the plan as a $1.5 trillion tax cut because it would eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax.”

I’m not sure how that works. How is $1 trillion in revenue increases scored as a $1.5 trillion tax cut? But I know for sure how this works, it doesn’t:

“It would generate a significant amount of revenue out of tax reform and reduction of tax rates, which authors believe would spur economic growth.”

And I believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.

The More Things Change…

17 Sunday Jul 2011

Posted by in economy, Taxes

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

…the more they stay the same. FDR, 1936:

“In 1776 the fight was for Democracy in Taxation. In 1936 there is still the fight. Mister Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said ‘taxes are the prices we pay for civilized society’. One sure way to determine the social conscience of a government is to examine the way taxes are collected and how they are spent.

And one sure way to determine the social conscience of an individual is to get his tax reaction. Taxes, after all are the dues we pay for the privilege of membership in an organized society. And as society becomes more civilized government, national and state and local, is called on to assume more obligations to its citizens. The privileges of membership in a civilized society are vastly increased in modern times. But I am afraid we still have many who still do not recognize their advantages and want to avoid paying their dues.”

To divide fairly among the people the obligation to pay for these benefits has been a major part of our struggle to maintain Democracy in America. Ever since 1776, that struggle has been between two forces; on the one hand there has been a vast majority of citizens who believe the benefits of democracy should be extended and who are willing to pay their fair share to extend them. And on the other hand, there has been a small but powerful group which has fought the extension of these benefits because they did not want to pay a fair share of their cost.

That was the lineup in seventeen hundred and seventy-six and it’s the lineup today. And I am confident that once more, in nineteen thirty-six democracy in taxation will win. Here is my principle, and I think it’s yours too; Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.”

Why Is This So Damn Difficult?

09 Saturday Jul 2011

Posted by in Afghanistan, budget, economy, Iraq, Medicare, Obama, Politics, Social Security, Taxes, Unemployment, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This is so simple it’s ridiculous. The three major causes of the dramatic increases in debt and deficit are:

1) The Bush, now Obama, tax cuts.

2) The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

3) The financial collapse caused by Wall Street greed.

Ending the tax cuts just for those making over $250,000 will bring in $700 billion over 10 years. The wars cost about $140 billion a year. End both and we save $1.4 trillion over the same 10-year period. A financial transaction tax of just one quarter of one percent will result in $150 billion a year, $1.5 trillion over 10. There’s $3.6 trillion over 10 years, which is just about the same amount the debt ceiling dealers are talking about cutting spending. And we haven’t touched Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, etc. Yet none of these three are even on the debt ceiling/spending cut/revenue increases negotiating table. Why?

The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates the cost of repairing our crumbling infrastructure to be $2.2 trillion over 5 years. Do you see where I’m going here? Take the money we’ve saved, not from cutting the safety net out from under our most vulnerable who had nothing to do with the debt explosion and who did not benefit from it, but from the root causes and from those who did.

The result is millions of Americans have jobs. They’re paying income taxes, Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes. They no longer need unemployment, food stamps, or other forms of government assistance. They’re buying stuff, which creates demand for stuff, which creates more jobs, which creates more demand for stuff. And so on, and so on, and so on. Why is this so damn difficult?

But what do we get from our “leaders?” Gobbledegook and gibberish. Like President Obama’s remarks yesterday after the release of the horrible job numbers. Things like streamlining the patent process, advancing more so-called free trade agreements (which costs jobs rather that create them) and this:

“[T]o put our economy on a stronger and sounder footing for the future, we’ve got to rein in our deficits and get the government to live within its means, while still making the investments that help put people to work right now and make us more competitive in the future.

The sooner we get this done, the sooner that the markets know that the debt limit ceiling will have been raised and that we have a serious plan to deal with our debt and deficit, the sooner that we give our businesses the certainty that they will need in order to make additional investments to grow and hire and will provide more confidence to the rest of the world as well..”

Beside the fact that this is straight of the Republican playbook for economic growth, it’s nonsense (but I’m being redundant). Live within our means while making investments? What the hell is that? Give businesses the certainty they need? Businesses don’t need certainty, they need customers. Customers create jobs, not the ever-elusive confidence unicorn. Why is this so damn difficult?

The president’s mouthpiece at the Council of Economic Advisers, Austan Goolsbe offered more of the same:

“Today’s report underscores the need for bipartisan action to help the private sector and the economy grow – such as measures to extend the payroll tax cut, pass the pending free trade agreements, and create an infrastructure bank to help put Americans back to work.  It also underscores the need for a balanced approach to deficit reduction that instills confidence and allows us to live within our means without shortchanging future growth.”

*Sigh* Can’t anybody here play this game?

The Deficit Reduction Dog and Pony Show, Cont’d

05 Tuesday Jul 2011

Posted by in Deficit, economy, Obama, Politics, Taxes

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Further proof that the deficit reduction talk in DC is just a dog and pony show:

“In a Wednesday news conference, the president especially pounded a depreciation provision for corporate jets, mentioning it six times.

“I think it’s only fair to ask an oil company or a corporate jet owner that has done so well to give up that tax break that no other business enjoys,” Obama said. “I don’t think that’s real radical. I think the majority of Americans agree with that.”

But as it turns out, ending the jet tax break would only save around $3 billion over a decade, while rolling back tax expenditures for oil-and-gas would bring in roughly $21 billion and a proposal aimed at hedge fund managers would collect some $15 billion over that same time span.

According to estimates from last year, ending the Bush tax cuts for income over $250,000 for couples would have brought an extra $700 billion into the Treasury.”

If they were serous about reducing the deficit they would, as Willie Sutton once said, go where the money is. But where the money is is also where the large campaign contributions is, so that ends that.

Obama Takes Tax Rate Increases Off the Table

28 Tuesday Jun 2011

Posted by in budget, Congress, economy, Obama, Politics, special interests, Taxes, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

From The Hill yesterday:

“The White House, seeking an agreement to raise the nation’s $14.3 trillion debt ceiling by Aug. 2, on Monday said it would not insist that any deal include an end to former President George W. Bush’s controversial tax rates on the wealthy…The White House said the president is pushing the GOP to agree to eliminate some tax breaks for businesses and loopholes for wealthier taxpayers, but is not seeking to eliminate the across-the-board rates introduced by President Bush. That means taxpayers who earn more than $250,000 annually have gotten a reprieve.

Obama still wants to scrap the Bush-era rates, but with time running out on the debt-ceiling talks, he made clear Monday that he has a new range of targets.“

Translation: He’s being “forced” into it—again. Do you get it yet, Democrats? Is it starting to sink in? President Obama doesn’t want to end the Bush Obama tax rates. This makes two–count ‘em two–opportunities he’s had to make good on the smoke he blew during the 2008 campaign about ending the tax cuts. Both times he’s passed. In short, he’s just not that into you. On the other hand, he’s very much into these guys. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Oh sure, there will be some “revenue increases” included in what Dylan Ratigan appropriately calls the “pro wrestling” debt limit negotiations. Appropriate because the outcome is pre-determined, what we see now is just the preliminary theatrics. But like with so many other things the president says—like his creative interpretation of what constitutes “hostilities” for example— you have to carefully parse his words.

There will be “revenue increases” in the form of a few tax breaks ended, a few loopholes closed, and a few fees raised, but nothing that amounts to much in the big picture. Piddling amounts like this:

“Obama’s budget wants $85 billion in new user fees over 10 years, including raising the airline passenger security fee from a maximum of $5 per one-way trip to $11. Other proposals range from Food and Drug Administration food inspection fees to duck hunting fees. The $85 billion also includes federal auction of parts of the broadcast spectrum and the sale of surplus federal property.”

This is also being floated:

“The administration also would tax private equity or hedge fund managers at higher income tax rates instead of lower capital gains rates..”

Yeah, right. President Obama is going to raise taxes on the same guys he sucks up to at $35,000 a plate fundraisers. The same guys he plays kissy-face with to get contributions for his re-election campaign. That’ll be the day.

If you need further evidence of how seriously this whole song and dance is being taken by the powers that be, despite the screams about the alleged financial catastrophe that will happen if an agreement isn’t reached by August 2:

“Complicating matters is the congressional schedule. While the Senate is in session, the House is off this week ahead of the July 4 holiday. The House is scheduled to return next week when the Senate will be away.”

Pro wrestling indeed. The Hulkster would be proud.

Forecast for the Obama “Compromise”: “Weak Growth, Little Decline in Unemployment”

22 Wednesday Dec 2010

Posted by in budget, economy, Obama, Obama administration, Taxes, Unemployment

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Dean Baker writes at The Guardian:

“The enthusiasm of the US business press for the compromise tax package worked out by President Obama and Republicans in Congress led to a mini-euphoria of upbeat economic projections for 2011. While the economy will do better with this tax package than if no deal were forthcoming, much of the discussion has exaggerated the potential stimulus to the economy.

First, it is important to remember that although the total package is scored as costing almost $900bn over two years, almost everything in this package simply leaves in place current tax rates and spending. The biggest portion of the tax cut continues the tax rates put in place by President Bush in 2001. The continuation of these tax cuts, including a lower estate tax rate, accounts for almost $400bn of the $900bn.

Adding in the cost of a technical fix to the Alternative Minimum Tax, which is done every year, and the continuation of a series of smaller tax breaks, brings the total to $670bn. This portion of the package buys exactly zero stimulus, since it simply amounts to continuing tax policies already in place. Had these tax breaks not continued, it would have been a drag on growth, but their continuation does not provide any additional momentum to the economy. The $60bn cost of extending unemployment insurance for another year can also be put in this category.

The only net stimulus in this package comes from replacing the $60bn Making Work Pay tax credit in 2011 with a $110bn reduction in the payroll tax and the allowance full expensing of new investment. The latter is projected to cost $55bn a year for the next two years. The full expensing in this deal replaces a provision of the 2009 stimulus package that provided for 50% expensing, which means that the net boost to the economy is half this size.

In sum, the net stimulus for the economy from this package in 2011 will be in the range of $70bn, or about 0.5% of GDP. This is not likely to provide a substantial boost to growth.

While the tax deal will be a net positive to growth for 2011, there are many other factors that are pushing in the opposite direction. First, much of the spending in the original stimulus package will be coming to an end in the first two quarters of 2011. This includes both infrastructure spending for projects that will be nearing completion, and also assistance to state governments that allowed them to better weather difficult fiscal times.

State and local governments continue to face large budget shortfalls. They are finding it increasingly difficult to paper over their budgetary gaps (most state and local governments are required to run balanced budgets), and will have to resort to further cutbacks and tax increases in the year ahead.

House prices are once again falling, with the most recent data showing an 8.5% annual rate of decline. This pace is likely to accelerate in the months ahead. The housing market had been supported through the first half of 2010 by a first-time buyers’ tax credit. This had the effect of pulling many purchases forward from the second half of the year or 2011. As a result, sales have fallen by almost one third. As inventories build up again, many homeowners will be forced to make substantial price cuts to sell their houses.

Declining house prices will be another blow to consumption as homeowners recognise that they have lost even more wealth than their had previously believed. The current pace of decline implies a loss of more than $1tn in wealth over the course of a year. The actual loss of wealth could easily be twice as large if the rate of price decline accelerates.

Another factor depressing consumption is the recent bump in interest rates. While interest rates are still extremely low in both real and nominal terms, the current 10-year Treasury rate is close to a full percentage point above the lows hit in the late summer. This rise in interest rates will bring to an end the wave of mortgage refinancing that had helped to free up tens of billions of dollars for consumption. Relatively few homeowners will see much gain in refinancing at current mortgage rates.

It is also important to recognise just how slow the underlying rate of growth in the economy actually is. Most analysts have highlighted the overall GDP growth figure. But this number has been inflated over the last year by a rapid build-up of inventories. Over the last four quarters, GDP growth averaged 3.2%. However, final demand growth averaged just 1.3% over this period. In the most recent quarter, inventories were accumulating at almost the fastest rate on record. It is unlikely that the rate of inventory accumulation will accelerate further. Rather, the rate is likely to slow – meaning that inventories will be a net drag on growth in coming quarters.

In sum, there is every reason to expect that 2011 will be another year of weak growth, with little, if any, decline in the unemployment rate. The economy will be somewhat stronger as a result of this tax package being put in place, compared to a scenario in which nothing was done, but this is very far from the fabled “second stimulus” that some are acclaiming.”

Deficit Peacocks, Debt Ceilings, and Indefinite Detention

22 Wednesday Dec 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, Constitution, economy, financial regulation, health care, Obama, Obama administration, Politics, Taxes, Unemployment, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In a January 20 article at the Center for American Progress, Michael Linden differentiated between those who are serious about addressing our fiscal problems–the deficit hawks–from those who posture and preen about it—the deficit peacocks. Here’s how he defines a peacock:

“Deficit peacocks like to preen and call attention to themselves, but are not sincerely interested in taking the difficult but necessary steps toward a balanced budget. Peacocks prefer scoring political points to solving problems.”

This is one of Linden’s ways to spot a peacock:

“…people who now claim to be concerned about our fiscal future even though they recently supported massive budget-busting legislation…When someone supports a deficit commission one day and votes to use another $100 billion of red ink on tax cuts for the rich the next, it is perhaps an indication that his or her commitment to real deficit reduction leaves something to be desired.”

Cases in point:

“Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) on Monday said they will introduce a bill early next year based on the report from President Obama’s deficit commission.

Warner and Chambliss have been meeting with a group of 18 senators on finding a way to balance the budget, and said they have concluded the debt commission’s proposal is the best basis for bipartisan talks.”

The rest of the “Gang of Eighteen”:

“Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), Jean Shaheen (D-N.H.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Mark Begich (D-Alaska).”

Fifteen of the eighteen, including both Chambliss and Warner voted for the tax cut extension last week. Only Wyden, Hagan, and Mark Udall have any credibility here. The rest are peacocks.

The vehicle Chambliss and others plan to use to get their desired spending cuts are negotiations over raising the debt ceiling limit (aka the next hostage situation), another can kicked down the road yesterday with passage of a Continuing Resolution to fund the government through March 4.

“Chambliss said on the call that an impending vote in Congress to raise the government’s debt ceiling…will be an important turning point. “It gives us a deadline to look to from the standpoint of getting some meaningful decisions mad …If we can use that as leverage that’s an ideal scenario,” Chambliss said.”

Ezra Klein has more on what this could mean for the future of health care reform and financial regulation reform:

“The good news is that law will keep the government’s lights on until early March. The bad news is that the law does it by extending 2010’s funding resolution — and that resolution didn’t include provisions for implementing the bills that were passed as the year went on.

…this is bad news for the health-care bill and the financial-regulation bill. There’s been a tendency to assume that the universe of options for passed legislation was binary: Either they went forward, or they get repealed. But with an angrily divided government, we may find ourselves in that little-known middle category: The Republicans can’t repeal them and the Democrats can’t fully fund them, and so rather than simply going forward, they limp forward.”

Klein doesn’t address it, but another question would be what does this does to unemployment benefits? Could the 13 month extension become 3? I guess we’ll find out in March.

Finally, this is what’s so confounding and confusing about the Obama administration. They take one step forward, with the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and then take two steps backward with this:

“The White House is preparing an Executive Order on indefinite detention that will provide periodic reviews of evidence against dozens of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, according to several administration officials.

The draft order, a version of which was first considered nearly 18 months ago, is expected to be signed by President Obama early in the New Year. The order allows for the possibility that detainees from countries like Yemen might be released if circumstances there change.

But the order establishes indefinite detention as a long-term Obama administration policy and makes clear that the White House alone will manage a review process for those it chooses to hold without charge or trial.

Nearly two years after Obama’s pledge to close the prison at Guantanamo, more inmates there are formally facing the prospect of lifelong detention and fewer are facing charges than the day Obama was elected.”

*Sigh*

A “Good Deal” For Who?

18 Saturday Dec 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, economy, Obama, Politics, Taxes, Unemployment

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Now that President Obama’s “good deal” has been signed, sealed, and delivered thanks to the warm and fuzzy “spirit of compromise” floating around D.C. this holiday season, let’s take a look at who got goodies in their Christmas stocking and who got a lump of coal.

Republicans went into the lame-duck session with a letter to Majority Leader Reid, signed by all 42 Republican senators, stating that “any bill brought up before votes to extend the Bush-era tax cuts and a stop-gap funding bill to keep the government operating will be filibustered.” Those were their two main objectives—tax cut extension and stop-gap funding. They went two for two. As a bonus they also got a lower than expected estate tax.

The president gave them the first, after being, ahem, “forced” into it. Just as an aside, does anyone else find it strange that the tax cut extension got more votes in a Democratic-controlled House that the original Bush tax cuts did in a Republican-controlled one in 2001, 277–-240? But I digress.

Reid gave them the second on Thursday after another episode of Lucy and the football in which Republicans (surprise, surprise) reneged on their support for the omnibus spending bill. The result will likely be a short-term continuing resolution lasting a couple of months. At which time Republicans will control the House and demand ransom for their next “hostage”—the debt ceiling limit. Dave Dayen at Firedoglake:

“Republicans will have a chance in February of next year to set spending levels…And if anyone thinks that the result will not be a slashing of vital social safety net spending, take a look at how Reid folded last night, trading other priorities. The “stimulus” from the tax cut deal is GONE. It’ll be gone by February, at least. Republicans are fulfilling the Norquistian promise of lowering taxes massively, and then using that lack of revenue as a pretext to cut social spending. That’s what’ll happen in February. And the debt limit vote provides just another opportunity.”

But, as Laura Bassett at the Huffington Post points out, the cuts to safety net spending won’t have to wait until Republicans take over the House. Along with the working poor and the 99ers, there were others stiffed by the grand compromise:

“…federal funds for the Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF) program have entirely dried up for the first time since 1996, leaving states with an average of 15 percent less federal funding for the coming year to help an ever-increasing number of needy families.

TANF, the federal program that replaced welfare under the Clinton Administration, provides a lifeline for families and workers who have exhausted all of their unemployment benefits. According to a new report by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, “more homeless families will go without shelter, fewer low-wage workers will receive help with child care expenses, and fewer families involved with the child welfare system will receive preventive services” now that Congress has passed legislation that will end funding for the TANF Contingency Fund in 2011.”

Other parts of this “deal” are that the GOP will supposedly allow the passage of DADT repeal and START. Don’t be surprised if Lucy makes another appearance before that gets done. Republicans also promised to allow the confirmation of four of President Obama’s nominees to the federal bench. Four out of 38.

What shrewd traders.