With unemployment benefits for those who have been collecting for 99 weeks expiring this month, and the unemployment rate jumping to 9.8%, the need to reassure businesses and economic stability in an extension of the Bush tax cuts, took shape in the Senate this weekend when Senate Democrats joined with Republicans in blocking a “middle class tax-cut” only bill, that the Congress and Obama administration had hoped for. Several key Democrats joined with Republicans to advance a “simple majority vote” to overcome a filibuster. Durbin (D-IL), Harkin (D-IA) and Rockefeller (D-WV) also voted against the so-called “millionaires tax”. (New York Times)
On Sunday’s talk show circuit, it appeared that a deal would be reached between Senate Republicans and the Obama administration that involved a trade-off for a 2-year extension of the tax cuts for another extension of unemployment assistance for those whose benefits expired. . This signaled, for the first time, a move to the middle by the Obama administration, who has been taking hits from the hard left over several issues including the extension of tax cuts at any level.
Although it may be argued that with a new GOP controlled House and increased clout in the Senate set to take the reins in January will push Obama to concede points on the tax cuts, it is also possible that the President could stand firm in Progressive ideology and refuse to budge. It is most possible that a chess game is being played out with America’s fortunes and basis needs of millions of jobless American’s in a compromise between the political think of both parties in order to avoid what would be a more than a mere public relations disaster.
That said, with the increased clout of the fiscal conservative Tea Party and a growing interest and acceptance of the Constitutionally based, fiscal conservative group by American’s, both major political parties would be best served to pay attention and work towards putting the U.S. Financial House in order above all else. With the 2012 elections on the horizon, and the White House at stake, Obama, who appears, at this point, unelectable for a second term, and a majority of Democrat Senators up for reelection, a move to compromise would, at the very least, possibly save proverbial political hides that otherwise would be ousted. The Republican’s, however, are not out of the woods, as those such as Susan Collins (D-ME), voted against a ban on earmarks, with 6 other Republican’s breaking ranks with the Party. (Alternately 7 Democrats, including Claire McCaskill (D-MO) who sponsored the bill to ban earmarks broke ranks with the Democrats.) It appears to be a case of “those who get it” and “those who don’t – the “it” being the millions of American’s who have had it with government spending, the sheer size of the federal government and the political futures of each Senator and Congressional Representative.
A ban on earmarks, many of which are frivolous at best, would go a long way towards paying for the unemployment extension which is badly needed for those who are about to lose their benefits in states that signed on for Federal aid in extending Unemployment benefits to 99 weeks, including Massachusetts. Interestingly, those States that did not accept the Federal Aid in extensions, have lower unemployment rates (see U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics as of October 2010). A map from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, shown below outlines the benefits offered by all states. However, those States that did accept the aid, such as California and Massachusetts, have higher percentages of individuals on the “public dole” than those that did not, some might argue by sheer volume of population coupled with the state’s high dollar “give-away” programs, as well as impending bankruptcy, makes it imperative to continue to fund those programs. That said, it is also true, that those states also have higher corporate tax rates (8% plus) (Tax foundation tables here), literally sending job creators running for the border appear to be on the list, for the most part, of those states seeking Federal assistance. One would think, at some point, those that are elected to run both the State and Federal governments, would get the bigger picture - Lower corporate tax rates, equal less unemployment. The Progressives who would have tax increases across the board (mainly academics, students, certain elected officials and the professional press), apparently do not grasp the premise that tax cuts offer incentives for corporations (which these same people feel are the root of all evil), to hire people (who in turn pay taxes, in order to prop-up the entitlement programs favored by the same ivory tower idealists.).
Map of States Taking Fedederal Aid for Unemployment Benefits - image Center for Budget and Policy Priorities
Although the aforementioned may hold sway with the President and even share his ideology, surely at some point, the light bulb must turn on, and understanding of how a simple economic principle which has been successful since the nation was founded (few to no taxes and a limited Federal Government), would continue to work as long as the Federal Government and those same progressives, keep their nose out of economics and stick to their chosen fields; union bosses, professional anarchists and teachers.
For a rousing take on State Government versus the Unions see Video Below where NJ Govenor, Chris Christie (R), takes on the Teachers unions (Unions = Progressive Doctrine) who cost taxpayers millions.
No comments:
Post a Comment