There seems to now be a growing chorus of conservative criticism that may now be prompting some House members, at least, to rethink the $850 billion package of tax cuts and extended jobless benefits that Barry negotiated with top Republicans in Congress. However even with that growing volume of criticism, it remains highly unlikely that the attacks will succeed in derailing the costly measure, as reflected by the vote today in the Senate which chose to pass the legislation 81-19. What follows now will be what many perceive as being a more than likely very contentious debate followed by vote in the House I guess sometime tomorrow. While most see it as successfully navigating its way through the House, I still think it worth the effort to underscore the potential difficulty in building centrist coalitions after an election in which tea party conservatives ousted many Democrats and some veteran Republicans who were seen as being far too willing to compromise with the uncompromising Democrats. If Republicans are seen as simply rolling over or as maybe being just a little too eager to play ball with Barry, it may end up coming back to bite them in the butt. But we'll see.
I must say though, that I find myself in complete agreement with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, GOP Mitt Romney and the many Tea Party Patriots who have come out and denounced the tax plan as it currently exists. A tax plan which previously was criticized mainly by any number of liberals who see it only as nothing more than a giveaway to the wealthy. This new reproach coming from a growing number of conservatives stems from the fact that the package would swell the federal debt while failing to make permanent the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 by then-President Bush. Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote a widely discussed article last week saying Barry's plan would be a political coup for his 2012 re-election hopes, because the expensive package would stimulate the economy enough to bring down unemployment. The group Tea Party Patriots also urges the rejection of the tax package's in its entirety. The legislation was crafted in secret, the group's petition says, and it fails to kill the death tax, a goal of many hard-right groups. So have Republicans who favor this thing once again been duped?
With all that being said, congressional insiders remain confident in predicting that the tax plan will pass in some form or another and with it now having passed in the Senate, I would venture to say that that's a pretty safe bet. However, House passage this week does seem to be a bit less certain than before, by how much we'll have to wait and see, as Barry's supporters will now be anxiously watching to see just how many opponents on the right may join with those on the left in what could be described as being a true act of bipartisanship in the effort to bring this whole package down. "The longer we wait, the harder it's going to be," said Rep. Jack Kingston, a Georgia Republican who is leaning against the package. He said House leaders probably are close to assembling enough support to pass it, but many GOP lawmakers are hearing from constituents who follow commentators such as Limbaugh. The radio talk show host says the package should cut taxes, not simply leave them at the Bush-era levels.
But there are those tea party groups, including Freedomworks, who have actively come out in support of the tax compromise. Freedomworks, headed by former House Republican Dick Armey, says conservatives should be pleased to see the Bush tax cuts extended for another two years at a time when Democrats still control Congress and the White House. But I remain convinced that it is that opinion that badly misses the point. I just feel that to take this action that virtually guarantees that this issue reemerge during the next election year does nothing but to allow Barry to make the claim that he was willing to try tax cuts and when they don't work as advertised he will have a ready made excuse to raise them as high as he sees fit. Everyone must be made to realize that there are no tax cuts being proposed in this package. Which is one reason that there are several conservative groups opposing the whole deal. The list of such groups includes, the Club for Growth. Other influential critics include Republican Reps. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, a tea party favorite; Jeff Flake of Arizona, a prominent critic of pork barrel spending; and John Campbell of California, a certified public accountant.
The tax cut debate continues to split Republicans at several levels. As mentioned earlier Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has criticized the plan, making his point in a recent column for USA Today. "Given the unambiguous message that the American people sent to Washington in November," Romney wrote, "it is difficult to understand how our political leaders could have reached such a disappointing agreement." It will add nearly $1 trillion to the national debt, he said, "when we are already drowning in red ink." On the other end of the spectrum we find another possible presidential contender, Senator John Thune, R-S.D., who has come out and defended the tax measure in a Senate speech Tuesday and I assume voted for it today. To oppose it, he said, "is to advocate for a tax increase," because a congressional impasse would allow all the Bush-era tax cuts to expire as scheduled on January 1. I find this as being but one more reason to not be to eager to jump on the Thune bandwagon and support him in his presidential quest. Not yet anyway. I'm just not sure yet if he is more of a McCain type of conservative. I just don't see this guy as being someone I can trust. He didn't vote for a tax cut, he voted for the status quo. That's different.
Some say a new, more Republican Congress would most likely restore the tax cut next year retroactive to January 1, but workers might still see smaller paychecks for weeks or months because of higher withholdings reflecting the higher pre-Bush tax rates and smaller credits and deductions for children, college tuition and other expenses. The Barry "Almighty"-backed plan would extend all those tax cuts, for rich and poor alike, for two years. It would also trim Social Security payroll taxes and extend unemployment benefits for a year as well as continue a number of tax breaks for business investments. But the plan also restores the death tax, albeit at a lower level, 35 percent and exempting the first $5 million, than many Democrats still want. House Democratic leaders are weighing efforts to increase the rate to 45 percent and exempt only the first $3.5 million when the measure reaches their chamber. However, Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell, who negotiated the tax package with the White House, warned Tuesday that it is "not subject to being reopened." House staffers in both parties say no firm count of likely votes for the tax measure has been taken. One top Democratic aide guessed that perhaps 100 Democrats would support the measure. That would require Republicans to provide more than half the votes to reach the 218 needed for passage.
Prominent conservative supporters of the tax package include House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and Americans for Tax Reform. It has been said that Boehner, who will become House speaker when the new Congress convenes next month, would suffer a big setback if the tax package fails. I'm not so sure about the reasoning behind that opinion. But the criticism from the right does clearly make him and his allies a little nervous. Boehner told CBS' "60 Minutes" that he refuses to say he compromised with the White House, preferring to say they found "common ground." On tax and spending questions, House Republicans "are on a pretty short leash," Boehner said. "If we don't deliver what the American people are demanding, they'll throw us out of here in a heartbeat." Boehner can call it anything he likes, be it compromise of the find of common ground. If that's what he truly thinks, then why be so quick to compromise with someone who demonstrated absolutely no willingness to compromise with Republicans on any number of occasions. It makes no sense. And if he thinks he can rationalize his effort to find "common ground" to an ever suspicious public, his tenure as Speaker could be very short in duration.
No comments:
Post a Comment