FLAIT

I was against the temporary payroll tax cut a year ago because the funding source for Social Security (and Medicare) should not be messed with. Ever. So I oppose extending it for a number of reasons.

I know the deal was that general revenues - or this time around, a tax increase on millionaires - would be used to replace whatever the trust fund lost to the tax cut. But that's a horrible precedent to set. And even more important, since Republicans and some Democrats would like nothing more then to cut Social Security, I feared that there was a good chance this "promise" of putting every penny back into the Social Security trust fund would not happen. If politicians would steal from the trust fund as they have over the decades, surely they would go back on promise like this.

So if/when the money wasn't replaced, and the trust fund began to run out of money faster then once thought, "we'll have no choice but to cut Social Security." How convenient.

But since Republicans never met a tax cut they didn't like, and their goal is to starve Social Security of funds so they can force cuts to it, why are they opposed to extending this one? That's easy: to 1) hold it hostage, threaten a government shut down and gain concessions from Democrats as they capitulate, and 2) force Obama to give away so much that the GOP can claim victory as well.

So once again, Republicans get everything they want, including a tax cut that takes from Social Security. Meanwhile, Democrats get hosed, again.

That said, when did the Democrats and the left become so passionate about tax cuts? Actually, this happened last year too when Republicans got Obama to extend the Bush tax cuts - the same tax cuts that Democrats blasted for 10 years as unfair because the wealthy got the bulk of them while the poor and middle class had to settle for the crumbs. But after the tax cuts were extended, Obama and the Democrats celebrated it as an extension of "tax cuts for the middle class!" What tax cuts for the middle class?

So why is there this knee-jerk support from the left for the payroll tax cut? Because "If it benefits working folks, and 'the rich' are paying for it, well, that's enough for me!" First, that's extremely selfish. And second, that is class warfare. Hey, if it's wrong when Republicans engage in it, then it's wrong when Democrats engage in it too.

Once the Democrats capitulate to the GOP's monthly hostage-taking-or-else-we'll-shut-the-government-down threat, I'm sure there will be a celebration on the left because the GOP "caved". But that will show two very important things: 1) how lost the Democrats are because of what they had to give up to get the extension, and 2) how low the bar is set.

The country is in desperate need of initiative, investment and massive rebuilding. And this pip-squeak of a tax cut - a tax cut! - is the best they can come up with? That's what they're fighting over? How sad. And we wonder why the country's in the shape it's in.

Another reason why I'm against the payroll tax cut is because it was unheard of before last year. It was never even floated as an idea. So it's not as if Democrats would be clamoring for it if wasn't implemented a year ago. So for Democrats and the tag-alongs on the left to make such a big deal about it doesn't make sense because for all intents and purposes there never should have been a payroll tax holiday to begin with.

And the GOP has a point in that you shouldn't raise taxes on the wealthy just to give tax cuts to the middle class. It isn't fair; just like the Bush tax cuts weren't fair, and why gouging smokers with exorbitant taxes on cigarettes aren't fair (yes, cigarette taxes should be high because of their health consequences and costs, and to discourage people from smoking. But the tax can become excessive, and when it does, that's gouging. Politicians get away with it because no one opposes higher and higher cigarette taxes; except smokers, of course. But is there not a point in which even a cigarette tax can be considered gouging? If not, then either raise the tax to $25, $50 or even $100 a pack, or ban them altogether because of how lethal they are. But that won't happen because all that tax revenue would be lost. Oh, by the way, no, I'm not a smoker.)

"Sticking it" to the rich, or smokers, isn't fair just like it's isn't fair to "stick it" to the poor, middle class, unions and seniors in the form of budget cuts and cuts to pensions, Social Security and Medicare.

Yes, the rich should pay their fair share in taxes; yes, the Bush tax cuts should have been allowed to expire a year ago; yes, hedge fund managers should be paying more then 15% tax on their millions; yes, corporations should pay their fair share, especially when they pay more for their Washington lobbyists then they do in taxes or no taxes at all a negative tax rate; and yes, since the 1% have had economics tilt very much in their favor for the last three decades at the expense of the 99%, you can argue the 1% should get "stuck" now. And I don't have a problem with that. But gouging or "sticking it" to the rich, or anyone, by raising their taxes "because they can afford it," to pay for a tax cut is unfair. Yes, just like the poor and middle class can be treated unfairly, it is possible to treat "the rich" unfairly too.

In the Preamble to the Constitution it says, promote the general Welfare. How does "sticking it to the rich" or gouging smokers "promote the general Welfare"? (How does running TV commercials for the lottery "promote the general Welfare"?)

To me, those four wonderful words mean that government should not rip off any of its citizens (or tell them to buy lottery tickets). All taxes and government fees should be fair and above board; not unfair, excessive, hidden and used as a cash cow. I know that's not the way it is, but it should be (and good luck finding a politician who even realizes that the Preamble to the Constitution is their job description.)

So yes, a liberal can believe a tax cut for the poor and middle class that's paid for by taxing the rich is wrong. Oh, by the way, I'm not rich. Not even close. Not even close to close. But just because you're not rich doesn't mean you can't admit that a tax cut for those who need it most, that's paid for by the rich, is wrong. It's called being honest and wanting "good responsible government" instead of the selfishness we see from, well, everyone (and we wonder why the country's in the shape its in). It would be like a wealthy person admitting the Bush tax cuts should have been allowed to expire, or a hedge fund manager admitting he should be paying a higher tax rate.

A justification from Democrats for the extension is that it's "popular" and "helps the poor and middle class." First, so would cutting gas taxes so why isn't the left demanding that they be cut too (actually, gas taxes should have been a lot higher a long time ago)? And second, just because it's "popular" and "helps the poor and middle class" doesn't mean it's right. Politics and governance isn't a popularity contest; well, at least it shouldn't be. It's supposed to be about responsibility and being the adults in the room (if only we had one or two).

Another justification is that it will stimulate the economy and create jobs. But since when did Democrats and the left believe that? In fact, every time Republicans call for tax cuts for those reasons, Democrats scoff at it. And Democrats are right. Tax cuts don't stimulate the economy much at all; and they don't create that many jobs, if any. Hell, Bush cut taxes, and Obama cut taxes, twice - so where's the booming economy and all the jobs?

The only thing we get from tax cuts are higher deficits.

And it's not only at the Federal level that "Democrats" are reciting GOP talking points and implementing the Republican agenda. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo:

...we need to reform the code in a way that creates jobs and grows our economy. To do that, we need to put more money in New Yorkers' pockets and inject it back in to the economy. There are also tax credits that can incentivize private-sector job growth.

Along with Obama's Republican record, this is more proof that Democrats have moved so far to the right, that they've become Republicans. But that's another story.

And remember, the economy was booming after President Clinton raised taxes so much that Republicans said it would cause the economic sky to fall in (turns out they couldn't have been more wrong, as usual).

It's funny. Last year when Republicans wanted to extend the Bush tax cuts, they accused Democrats of wanting to "raise taxes" because they didn't want to extend them. Democrats scoffed at that accusation too. "No, it's not a tax increase," they said, "because the tax cuts were set to expire." But now, Democrats and the left are accusing Republicans of "raising taxes" because they oppose extending the expiring payroll tax cut!

This was a temporary tax cut. So unless it's made permanent, whoever allows it to expire, whenever that is, will be "raising taxes". So Democrats will be "raising taxes" when, and if, they let it expire.

Of course, Republicans are being hypocrites with the payroll tax cut too. They insist on it "being paid for." But I thought when you cut taxes, it increases revenue? So why does the payroll tax cut have to be paid for? And how come the Bush tax cuts didn't have to be paid for? See how Republican propaganda and talking points ties them up in knots?

Ezra Klein via Paul Krugman:

There are two very different tax-policy conversations playing out in the Republican Party right now. In Washington, House Republicans are arguing with each other over how small of a temporary tax cut to give the middle class. Out on the primary trail, the Republican presidential candidates are arguing over how huge of a permanent tax cut to give the wealthy...

All of which leaves the Republican Party in an odd place: skeptical of a temporary tax cut for the middle class that carries a price tag in the low hundreds of billions of dollars and is fully paid for but apparently enthused over permanent tax cuts for the rich that cost trillions of dollars and aren’t paid for at all.

But it’s not odd at all, once you realize that the GOP is not now, and never has been (at least not since the 1970s) concerned about the deficit. All the fiscal posturing of the last couple of years has been about using the deficit as a club to smash the welfare state, with the secondary goal of frustrating any efforts on the part of the Obama administration to help the struggling economy.

The entire debate has been fake. If you don’t understand that, or can’t bring yourself to admit it, you’re missing the whole story.

And since Republicans wouldn't raise taxes after a terrorist attack, in times of war, after a city was lost to a hurricane, when the economy is booming and the government is running surpluses, or when the economy is in a recession and deficits are exploding - all occasions/reasons/justifications for tax cuts - I'd like to know the circumstances under which Republicans would support a tax increase. But that too is another story.

But cutting taxes isn't enough for the GOP. Because as already stated, Bush cut taxes and Obama has cut taxes, twice. And then Republicans call for more tax cuts. And when they get them - like the payroll tax cut extension - they'll call for another one. Then another. Then another. So why bother? Republicans will never be satisfied until there are no taxes...at least on corporations and the wealthy.

I'd say that Obama and the Democrats are wasting too much time and political capital on a tax cut the country can not afford, will do little to spur the economy, and possibly imperil the long term solvency of Social Security. But going into an election year, this is really about Obama bribing independent middle class voters and making them forget that he not only turned his back on them, the lousy economy and those forced out of their homes, but joined the GOP's obsession with tax cuts and spending cuts...in a recession. So once again it comes down to politicians doing the wrong thing for the wrong "popularity contest" reason. And we wonder why the country's in the shape it's in.

Bottom line is that you can't cut taxes for some Americans and raise it on others at the same time. It's not right and it is class warfare, which divides the country. If you're going to raise taxes it should hit everyone (well, almost everyone). And it should be done fairly. And the money should be used to really stimulate the economy by rebuilding America; not handed out as pandering tax cuts to "those who need it" voters.

Just because I'm liberal doesn't mean I'm going to break out the pom-poms and cheer Democrats when they call for something that's unfair, won't stimulate the economy, further divides the country and could jeopardize Social Security's long term solvency. With so much selfishness, hypocrisy, ignorance, corruption and incompetence in our governance and political system, I call 'em as I see them, regardless of which side I'm on. If it's wrong when Republicans do it, then it's wrong when we do it too. And if it's wrong when the rich do it to us, it's wrong when we do it to them.

If only we had honesty and selflessness like that in our country and our politics.

Note: The capitulation has begun! Democrats have given up on the millionaire tax increase that was (supposedly) going to cover the Social Security trust fund payroll tax cut. So, as always, the GOP wins, in a number of ways: 1) if they don't agree to another funding source to replenish the trust fund's lost revenue, eventually "we'll have no choice but to cut social Security", which means 1B) the Democrats will have to give up even more to secure that alternative funding source, and 2) millionaires don't get their taxes raised!

To all the liberals who supported this "stick it to the rich" payroll tax cut extension: other then getting hosed, again, what do Obama and the Democrats have to show for all the time, effort, pandering and capitulating they've put into it, and will put into it?

Note II: Told ya. House Speaker John Boehner:

I appreciate the fact that they gave up on their millionaires' surtax, but they didn't give anything up because they never had it.

Meaning that the Democrats are going to have to come up with more ransom if they want the payroll tax cut extended.

December 18 insert:

In exchange for forcing Obama to commit one way or another to the XL pipeline, the Senate has agreed to to extend the tax cut for two months. So we'll have to go through this crap again in February. And that benefits Republicans because partisan confrontation with Obama and Democrats is what keeps their moronic base in perpetual state of rage at Obama and Democrats. So Republicans win again.

Assuming it passes the House, instead of sticking millionaires with a tax increase to pay for the tax cut, they're going to stick anyone who takes out a new mortgage or refinances by making them pay about $17 more a month.

So even if this tax cut stimulates the economy, it'll be lessened by the fact that families will have $17 a month less to spend.

Yup, all this bickering, partisanship and horse-trading for all that. And they're not done yet. See what happens when politicians do the wrong things for the wrong reasons?

And we wonder why the country's in the shape it's in.

December 24 insert:

As expected, John Boehner caved and the Democrats celebrated for extending the tax cut...for two whole months!

You know, maybe if Washington spent half as much time on infrastructure, mass transit, green technology and lowering the cost of a college education - you know, things that are kinda important - the country wouldn't be in the shape it's in. But they just had to give Americans their (selfish) payroll tax cut. And if took weeks to get it done extended for two months, so be it. Tax cuts take priority over, well, everything. And it'll be the priority again in February when Congress spends the entire month arguing about it, again, only to agree at the last possible moment, again, to extend it through the end of 2012.

Meanwhile, those sounds you hear are bridges creaking all over the country.

Yup, this is what governance is these days. This is where I'd say America should be embarrassed but we passed that a long time ago.

I'd like to add another point.

I don't want to hear that if the payroll tax cut was allowed to expire, it would have effected economic growth in the first quarter of 2012 by 1.5% and cost up to 1 million jobs. First, I refer you to Bill Clinton's tax increases and what they did for the economy. And second, if that's true, why not double or triple the payroll tax cut? Heck, cut it by 99%, permanently, and get even more growth and create even more jobs!

It's the same logical argument I used to explain that the Republican dogma that "cutting taxes brings in more revenue" is absurd. I never thought I'd have use that to prove the left wrong. Goes to show how far right the "Democratic Party" and the left has gone.