Tax and spend
December 15, 2010 09:03 PM | 675 views | 7 7 comments | 5 5 recommendations | email to a friend | print
The tax package spending bill that passed the U.S. Senate yesterday provides new evidence of why Congress has sunk to the lowest rating ever since Gallup began tracking it more than 30 years ago.

Republican leaders, fresh from winning a House majority in last month's elections, pushed for extension of the Bush tax cuts before they expired Dec. 31, but the price was a compromise with President Obama for extending unemployment benefits for another 13 months, which many conservatives opposed as another whopper of a deficit driver.

On the other side of the fence, many liberal Democrats had virtual apoplectic fits over continuing low tax rates for the wealthy and their heirs. Antipathy toward the death tax, a.k.a. the estate tax, in particular, has reached almost epic proportions among some of the left-wingers in Congress.

Clearly, extension of the Bush tax cuts was nothing less than imperative in this economy. Likewise, an argument can be made for extending jobless benefits in this tough economy despite the deficit-swelling effects. And the agreement to cut Social Security taxes, or payroll taxes, by two percent for one year will provide a little help for working Americans and should be stimulus-positive.

But once the compromise was reached on the major issues, the same old congressional habits added a variety of projects or special interest breaks. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the former Navy pilot, scored a direct hit a couple of days ago when he bemoaned all the tax credits tacked onto the bill as "unneeded, unnecessary, unwanted sweeteners." They ranged from extending ethanol tax credits to hiking the excise tax rebate for rum from Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands at an estimated cost of $235 million. In Congress, that would be considered a drop in the bucket in the $858 billion bill.

"These credits are a form of special interest spending in the tax code, which is precisely the sort of business-as-usual behavior that Republicans told tea party voters they would not engage in," McCain said - but added, "I'll vote for it, but it's not what the people said they wanted on Nov. 2."

No doubt, political reality and the need to get the deal done before year's end dictated the "yes" votes by Republicans, including Georgia's Republican senators Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss. It came down to the choice that Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) described: "Opposing this bill is tantamount to supporting massive tax increases that threatens our economic future. Allowing middle-class families, small businesses and investors to keep more of what they earn, while denying Washington hundreds of billions in new tax revenue to spend, is the right thing to do."

Now it's up to the House to decide if middle-class families, small businesses and investors will get to keep more of what they earn.
Comments
(7)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
GoodScout
|
December 18, 2010
Agree with majority of commenters. Giving tax breaks to billionaires who will pocket the money and continue to ship more of our jobs offshore is an insane policy. Taking money out of social security is nothing short of theft of our future. What a disgraceful decision. Shame on both the GOP and President Obama for this deal made in hell.
jane Balfour
|
December 18, 2010
The social security so-called tax break is the first step in the right wing agenda to under mine the program that has nothing to do with the deficits the right keeps increasing while making hyperbolic statements about the need to cut the deficit. The estate tax affects so few, yet the right wingers have the ignorant masses thinking it will take they "money from their children."

I am amazed at the stupidity of the public who get their news in sound bites in between Dancing with the Stars and some stupid sporting event.
cowboy joe
|
December 17, 2010
Indian Joe, what do you mean "pretty soon" it's that way NOW. In 1980 American manufacturing was the envy of the world. Now if it weren't for production for the military manufacturing in this country wouldn't exist. Long live corporate greed.
Indian Joe
|
December 16, 2010
And let's not forget the nice "thank you" from GM who built their new factory in China. Pretty soon there will be no jobs in this country except the service industry - restaurant workers - but no one will have the money to eat in a restaurant. When will this insanity end???
Kaach
|
December 16, 2010
Let's hope that our congressmen will "just say no" to this tax increase. This would then allow a straight up and down vote on a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts without the added pork in the new 2011 session. I believe the incoming newly elected representatives will come closer to getting it right.

Do not be surprised to see the SPLOST bite the dust because of this attitude either.

rjsnh
|
December 16, 2010
And our own county commissioners and mayors and councils are no better as they, too, like to tax and spend. SPLOST is a perfect example of a good idea gone bad. What was intended to be, as you have pointed out, a "special purpose" tax has devolved into an all purpose, ongoing tax that like the ever ready bunny just keeps on going and going and going.
wonderin
|
December 16, 2010
Let's see, in order to create jobs, we borrow money from the China, to give money to millionaires and billionaires who have outsourced our jobs to China. So we can create jobs? In Washington World this makes perfect sense!!
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, spam, and links to outside websites will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides