Shep Smith Blows Up over Stalling of 9/11 First Responders Bill

Smith: How do they sleep at night after this vote on 9/11 First Responders?

...

We've cover this hear, and let people know they didn't pass it. Jon Stewart is absolutely right, whose going to hold these people's feet to the fire? We can give tax cuts to billionaires who don't need them, and we can't help these people? Everybody who voted against it should stand up and account for himself or herself. We spend more money giving Warren Buffet his tax return.

Yes, amazing isn't it - that someone on Fox news, including Chris Wallace who concurs fully, would actually come out this forcefully on this issue?

Shep was responding to these two awesome clips from Thursday Nights Daily Show.

Part 1


Part 2



For some time now Shep Smith has been the new Alan Colmes at Fox News, with occasional uncontrolled explosions of truth seeping out around the edges.

He has previosly Ripped Fox News over it's handling of the Shirley Sherrod Fiasco. He's ranted about the AIG Bonuses.

Slammed Fox for it's Shameless Defense of BP. He even argued in Favor of the Public Option in Health Care. The "We Don't Fucking Torture" rant. His response to Birther Hate Mail. And most famously, his empathetic response to Hurricane Katrina.

While his most recent rant is commendable, it's also tragically flawed. There's a reason that The More You Watch Fox, The Less You Know and this segment is no different.

No where in this segment does Smith utter the word "Republicans".

He rails about "They" and "Them" and he asks "Whose going to hold THEM accountable?" - But he doesn't bother to Name them, not once.

The list who voted to block this act is HERE. Every Democrat (except Reid, which allows him to bring the measure up again), voted for the measure - except for Sam Brownback who didn't vote, Every Republican Voted AGAINST This.

NAYs ---- 42
Alexander (R-TN) Barrasso (R-WY) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brown (R-MA) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Crapo (R-ID)	DeMint (R-SC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Johanns (R-NE) Kirk (R-IL) Kyl (R-AZ) LeMieux (R-FL)	Lugar (R-IN) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Murkowski (R-AK) Reid (D-NV) Risch (R-ID) Roberts (R-KS) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Snowe (R-ME) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Wicker (R-MS)
Not Voting - 1 Brownback (R-KS)

That's who THEY are. That's who should be held "Accountable". This vote was blocked by Republicans to Give Warren Buffet, Paris Hilton and the Koch Brothers a Tax Bonus, they DON'T NEED!.

But will Shepard Smith say THAT on the air?

I'll bet that he won't, and neither will anyone else at Fox. Just as they haven't held Republicans Accountable for holding the Unemployed Hostage. Just as they haven't reported that it has been Republicans who are punishing Children for the Sins of thier Parents by blocking the Dream Act. Just as they won't admit woh has been putting our National Security at Risk by stalling and delaying the START treaty. They won't admit that the party they openly and shameless cheerlead for have been the ones screwing this Counry UP for years. They won't tell people the truth, even while pretending to.

Yes, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is moments away from being repealed and that's a great thing - but we can't forget one simple fact.

FOX and REPUBLICANS can't be trusted. But at least this outburst gives us just one more chance to make that fact obvious.

Vyan

Update DADT Repeal has just passed the Senate 65 - 31, now they begin to take up the START votes.

Tax Deal Passes The House

As of late last night, the Tax Deal - is a Done Deal. The House Passed the agreement 277 to 148.

There were about 130 Yeas from Democrats and Republicans alike. Aint "Bipartisanship" grand?

The US House of Representatives has passed a compromise tax bill averting a New Year rise in income taxes for millions of Americans.

...

However, President Barack Obama had said that a compromise was needed to win Republican support.

The $858bn (£542bn) package was passed by 277 votes to 148 in the House of Representatives.

This Tax Deal is now Headed for Obama Desk, so the the real question is what now?

In many ways Obama is betting his Presidency on this deal. He's betting that this will finally get the economy moving by putting dollars in the pockets of people so they can spend and drive the economy up, not depend on it to all trickle down.

But something else has happened. Most of these tax cuts are essentially maintaining the current status quo of not only cuts put into place by George W. Bush, but also Stimulative Tax breaks from the Recovery Act as well as a 13 Month extension of Unemployment Benefits at least for those who haven't completely run out of them.

This is now the new normal.

But it's a normal that everyone realizes is going to cost of over $800 Billion over the next two years. EVERYONE KNOWS this is unsustainable. Before this bill passed the deficit was projected to drop by 50% by the end of 2014, what it's going to become with these revenue cuts depending on if, when and how much the economy recovers is almost anyone's guess.



But now we know that Republicans and Tea Partiers are going to do a ton of posturing over Spending Cuts, especially the pointless Effort of Banning Earmarks as we've seen from the Phony Budget Twins, Senators Cornyn and Thune.

Yesterday, Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX) and John Thune (R-SD) denounced earmarks and the omnibus bill during a press conference, despite requesting hundreds of millions of dollars of earmarks between them. “I support those projects, but I don’t support this bill,” reasoned Thune. Cornyn defended himself in a “heated exchange” with ABC News’ Jonathan Karl.

Here's a little secret that these Deficit Peacocks don't want you to know besides the fact that Earmarks only account for 1% of the budget.

Removing Earmarks doesn't remove Spending.

If members of Congress don't specify what they'd want the money to be spent on the Obama Administration gets to make that decision for them.

It's just like the Alaskan "Bridge to Nowhere", in the end Sarah Palin didn't say "No Thanks", Congress did - but Alaska still got the money, they simply spent it on something different.

Be that as it may Senator Reid has pulled the Omnibus Bill until next year and begun to focus on DADT, as well as other critical outstanding issues such as START and The Dream Act.

The only way to do any Real spending cuts is to dig into Medicaid and Medicare ($898 Billion/Year), Social Security ($787 Billion/Year) or the Military Budget ($928 Billion/Year). Now, some of this is actually already in the works because this upcoming year the last of our troops are coming out Iraq, and in June our withdrawal of combat troops from Afghanistan begins. I for one would like to see a drastic. reduction in the use of Contractors from Halliburton, KBR to Wackenhut and Blackwater/Xe. These guys should all be first on the chopping block, or else we're not serious about this.

If this is going to be a war of Quien is Mas Cutter, then we should plan to WIN that War and getting rid of some real Fat that deserves to be ripped off the flesh of the nation and squished like a TICK. Blackwater/Xe should be at the top of that list.

We also need to start doing a serious reduction of international bases, especially in countries that are completely without any current serious threat like Western Europe.

Another effort already in the pipe is the $500 Billion worth of savings and Medicare efficiencies that are to be implemented as a result of Health Reform. I seriously doubt the Repubs will find a savings as large as that anywhere. Despite all the Tea Party Blather, this needs to be protected and looking at the currnet "Plan" coming from Freedom Works on trying to "Repeal" Healthcare - they don't even have these savings on their radar.

A memo from the Tea Party group FreedomWorks outlines the group's strategy to repeal health care reform and replace it with "a set of patient-centered" bills.

"The group identifies four reform provisions that it believes have bipartisan support: the individual mandate, 1099 reporting requirements, a bill allowing Americans to keep the private health insurance the way it is, and a bill that lets states opt of out Medicaid eligibility expansion. FreedomWorks also thinks it has time on its side, writing that 70 percent of the law's spending doesn't begin until 2014."

This really just shows that they really don't even understand the bill. People who already have private insurance, already get to KEEP IT. The individual mandate, besides being a Republican Idea that used to be touted by the Heritage Foundation, and like the 1099 requirement is not critical to the bill. States opt-ing out of the Medicaid Expansion will mean their losing hundreds of $Millions in Federal funds and lead to more situations like the Jan Brewer Transplant Death Panels.

What we have to do is show Republicans for the Heartless Hypocrits they are - Mercilessly. Relentlessly. Viciously. We have to do what Jon Stewart did this week when he sat down with 4 9-11 First Responders who are all dying of Cancer, yet have had Emergency Funds to provide for their Health Care Block Again By Republicans while they whine about not being able to go home to Celebrate Christmas!

Part 1


Part 2


These Republicans are SCUM. They have voted REPEATED against 9-11 First Responders, and Repeatedly against the TROOPS - not because they disagreed with our War Fighting Strategy, but simply because they can't ABIDE THE OPENLY GAY.

Their rank xenophobia, hypocrisy and opportunism is naked for all to see.

Democrats have to make sure they take advantage of all this. The Unemployed and those Business Trying to Grow have been taking out of the firing line and removed from the fray. We have to hold our ground to prevent dangerous cuts to essential services like Education, Medicaid and Medicare - but there's nothing wrong with pushing for better accountability and better efficiency. We should all expect more bang for our buck, however the fact is that none of this cut frenzy will probably make that much of a difference in the end.

Despite all the claims about "Run Away Spending" the fact is that the biggest jump in the Deficit at the end of Bush's last year - over 30% - actually came from the Crashing Economy, not TARP, and not the Stimulus. If the economy finally does begin to recover over the next 13 months - and historically speaking it's grown as well if not better than the Reagan recovery - then we have the leverage to turn our fire back onto Bush's wasteful Paris Hilton Bonus Tax.

I don't think we should simply let them expire again, I think we should push to have them increased to 42% in order to keep the Obama Cuts Permanent.

That of course will require recapturing the Congress is 2012 as well as retaining the Presidency, but it's not impossible. Just difficult and we've done difficult plenty of times already. Republicans beat us this year because they spent every waking moment, every second, on doing exactly that and nothing else. Now, that's what we have to do. In 2006 we took back the Congress when almost noone thought we would - we can do it again.

We have to.

I for one refuse to cry about it, we lost a Battle - not the War.

Vyan

Virginia Judge Finds Individual Mandage Unconstitutional

From the Hill

A federal judge in Virginia ruled the healthcare reform law’s provision requiring Americans to buy insurance is unconstitutional, marking the Obama administration’s first major defeat in defense of the new law.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson only struck down the individual mandate and “directly dependent provisions” while upholding the rest of the reform law. The decision marks the first major step in a lawsuit destined for the Supreme Court.

\What's interesting about this ruling is that it's not the first one despite what many may say, it's actually the third ruling on the Individual Mandate - only this is the first of the three to go against the bill. 14 other challenges to the law have been dismissed outright.

The First Federal Ruling found the Individual Mandate Constitutional in opposition to this ruling.

In Detroit today, U.S. District Court Judge George Steeh refused to issue a preliminary injunction to delay implementing the law in the state. He also dismissed the key contention of the bill's conservative opponents: that a mandate requiring individuals to buy health insurance is unconstitutional.

Another Judge in Virginia ruled that same way last month.

But this new judge, who happens to be a Bush appointee, has ruled that the personal responsibility section of the Health Care Law is Unconstitutional not because of what's written in the law, but because of how it was discussed prior to completion.

Hudson said the law’s final language deceptively labels the penalty a tax, after it had been called a penalty in draft language just hours before the final bill was passed on Christmas Eve last year. The distinction between penalty and tax became a sticking point because the Constitution grants the federal government wide latitude to impose taxes, but a penalty would amount to regulation of commerce across state lines in violation of the Constitution.

Throughout the debates, Democrats in Congress and Obama said it wasn’t a tax in part because that would have violated his pledge not to raise taxes against middle-class Americans. The administration changed its tune to back its legal arguments for the individual mandate, but the judge didn’t buy it.

“This Court’s analysis begins with the unequivocal denials [during the debate] by the Executive and legislative branches that the [law] was a tax,” Hudson wrote.

A lot of things were discussed prior to passing the bill, such as the Public Option, or a Triggered Medicare Buy-in, but they aren't in the legislation either. Neither is what he's ruling on.

The actual bill has the "penalty" handled as a tax by the I.R.S. only if a person is unable to find an affordable even with subsidies. People in this position are exempt from this tax. If you already have Employer based Care, Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare or the VA - you are exempt from this mandate and this tax. Only those people who have the funds and ability to pay, and have available affordable plans in their area would be required to pay the tax penalty, and even if they don't pay it they are exempt from any further penalty.

If this ruling stands then, you'll have the Freedom to be a freeloader and let everyone else pay for your healthcare when you get sick or get into an accident. (Like, for example, the Car Accident my wife and I were in yesterday, with a resulting 5 Hour Emergency Room stay - which frankly was Record Time, down from 16 Hours last time)

Technically this portion of the bill was a Republican Idea that used to be championed by the Heritage Foundation, and was established as a gift to the insurance industry in order to get them to go along with the bill and isn't central to what the bill provides in banning pre-existing conditions, setting up the Exchanges for purchasing affordable care or accessing the Non Profit Option to avoid being gouged by Private Insurers. Even with this gift, the Industry still fought against the bill, so if this version of the lawsuit were to go forward, despite the contrary rulings in other cases, then only this provision would be struck taking away the number one gift to the Insurers and leaving the rest of the law in tact.


The Judge didn't issue an injunction blocking enforcement of this provision, but then it doesn't go into effect until 2014 anyway.

(There is also the fact that this Judge has partial ownership of a Right-Wing Lobbying Shop that campaigned against Health Care and was paid by the Plaintiff Ag Cuchinelli to argue against the law. That's more than a BIT of a comflict of interest and a hint of political motivation for his ruling.)

Frankly, I'm fine with it either way, but I have my doubts that this clearly ideologically based ruling is going to outstrip other legal opinions.

Vyan

Obama and the Enemy of Perfection

Yeah, I heard Keith and I heard Rachel on how much a bad deal this tax deal is. I think they both amazingly impassioned and energized and dead wrong.

Keith position seems to be that Obama should have barnstormed around the country campaigning against the Republicans. a) He spent all summer doing that already and b) there's not enough time to put the screws to them before the rise of Speaker Boehner and all bets are off the table.

Rachel proclaimed repeatedly that this deal wasn't as good for Dems and the middle class as Obama said ti was, but these are the number via thinkprogress.



What Obama GOT in this deal helps 30 TIMES as many Americans and provides them with $80 Billion more than Republicans got from it.

Here's a newsflash. Obama is not a Progressive. He never said he was a Progressive. He came to Washington to get things done, and if that means cutting a deal - then that's what it means. The principles people seem to think he's betrayed aren't His principles. He's a pragmatist and a problem solver, not an ideological crusader.

What he's done here might not be good for Democrats, it might not be good for his Presidency, but it's good - or at least far better - for the nation than the various alternatives.

This nation wasn't founded in perfection. It doesn't exist in perfection now. The original Constitution as it was ratified as a Deal made between the North and the Southern States. It included a clause that specifically prohibited Congress for makling one law.

Congress was NOT ALLOWED to ban the importation of African Slaves until 1808.

It also included the 3/5th apportionment clause for taxation and representation of African Slaves, as well as the Fugitive Slave Clause which required Northern States to act as the police and recovery squads for slaves who escaped from the south.

It was because of clauses such as these that the Dred Scot decision was made where it was said that the Constitution Does not Recognize Africans as Citizens protected by the Laws of the State whether they be Slaves or Free.

Quite literally they didn't count. They had no rights.

That was because of the deal, but would standing up for the principle of true equal rights at that time have prevented the nation from forming as a single unit? The Articles of Confederation with it's incredibly weak central government had alraady failed. Would the Southern split that led to the Civil War have simply occured 70 years earlier if Northerners and anti-Slavery proponents have dug in their heel against the cold hard stump of principled perfection.

Admittedly it's hard to say in hindsight, but I dare say this wouldn't be the nation we have now if they had.

When Obama says that compromise is what this nation was founded on, he's absolutely correct. And sometimes, many times, it's not pretty.

This is a point that only Lawrence O'Donnell made last night.





Among all these Liberal Pundits, from Jane Hamsher to Ezra Klein, not one of them could name a single time where a Democratic President successful strong armed a pack of wild Republicans in the way they insist the Obama has to do now. The one possible case was to go all the back to Woodrow Wilson.

So basically, we're asking Obama to do the near impossible - and everyone's getting pissy because he knows it's functionally imposible in the time left in this session.

Obama is absolutely correct about Social Securiy and Medicare both begining as very limited, flawed and imperfect programs. Obama is correct that "We can't stand entirely on principle" and essentially hoist the American people high on the petard of our perfection. He's also correct that this is the Public Option debate once again. In all honesty, that debate didn't end and the heartburn from it is still clearly compounded by this latest deal.

I know I've pointed out repeatedly that the Final Health Care Bill actually DOES HAVE A PUBLIC OPTION it's simply managed by the Office of Personnel Management instead of HHS and subcontracted out, rather than administered directly by federal employees, but in all other aspects, premium controls, medical loss ration, economy of scale and cost containtment - It's the Same.

Contrary to Rachel's claims all the Repubs are not in love with every aspect of this deal.

“We cannot add on something like a year of unemployment benefits.” Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN).

“If we’re going to extend the unemployment insurance beyond its normal level, let’s at least pay for it and get this nation off its ruinous spending path.” Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) — the de facto leader of the Senate GOP and a past opponent of jobless aid — told National Review shortly before the deal was struck that the inclusion of unemployment benefits could influence his position. “The question [for Republicans] is: At what price are you buying?” he said.

“I would definitely look at how they were going to cover the expense of extending the unemployment [insurance].... I firmly believe we need to live within our means.” Rep. Tom Reed (R-N.Y.)

Arkansas GOP Rep.-elect Steve Womack said “There’s a limit to just how much this country can afford,” and went on to say that enough was enough when it comes to jobless benefits

Club for Growth? Against It, because they wanted MORE.

(The Plan) didn’t make both the Bush tax cuts and the estate tax repeal permanent. Their plan: “Instead, Congress should pass a permanent extension of current rates, including a permanent repeal of the death tax, and drop all new spending.” The only “new spending” included in the plan, of course, is a desperately needed extension of lapsed unemployment benefits that will ultimately help at least 7 million jobless Americans and prevent the loss of another 600,000 jobs next year

Heritage Foundation? Against it because it Wasn't Enough for them.

“By allowing for only a two-year extension of current tax rates, the President’s agreement provides no long-term certainty that is essential for economic recovery. Heritage, too, denounced the inclusion of jobless benefits, calling them a “permanent entitlement” while repeating the canard that they will discourage the unemployed from seeking work at a time when unemployment is at 9.8% and there are five job seekers for every one available job.

And the worst part is the Obama's own base, is REALLY against it.

A new Survey USA poll finds that 74 percent of those who contributed to Obama’s presidential campaign are against his tax cut deal. The poll also finds that 57 percent of contributors are less likely to donate to Democrats who support the deal, and 51 percent are less likely to donate to Obama in 2012 because of the deal.

Ouch!

Yes, this deal is essentially a can kick down the road - it's a stalling tactic for 2012 when (with luck) we can win back the House and set this ship back on course by Raising the top marginal rate to 42%. These rates can't continue forever, and if someones going to take a hit - it ought to be the ones who can afford it.

But we're not going to do any of that without an energized and fired up base. That won't happen unless we look at this as just one battle in a long war, one where we gained for more than the other side did, and certainly prevented them from taking for more than we could have ever afforded by making ALL the Bush tax cuts permenent as they would have certainly attempted next session.

This deal ain't perfect, it potentially continues to blow a hole in the deficit and it's stimilative are questionable (although it does include all of the most stimulative tax policies available as documented by the CBO)



But I can guarantee that loss of the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit, the Making Work Pay Credit, the Payroll Tax Holiday that essentially gives everyone a 2% raise and cutting off Unemployment Benefits for the Next year while making the Bush Cadillac Paris Hilton Tax Bonuses Permanent would have been much, much worse.

I know that defending Obama from the Center can be a dangerous thing to do around these parts, and I've had my head chewed off more than once for agreeing with him and his positions - but this is how I see it.

It ain't pretty, but it's a victory.

Vyan

Has Obama Lost us for Good? I Certainly Hope Not.

I for one certainly hope not, because the alternative is far too horrible to contemplate.

President Palin? President Romney? President Huckabee?

Shiver!

I'm not crazy about extending the Bush Tax Cut Bonus for the Paris Hilton crowd. Not one bit. I see it as a deficit buster, than the Right will use a bludgeon to force through harsh cuts on the middle class and working people just when they need them most.

But let's keep in mind one thing.

About 2 Million Americans have just avoided joining the ranks of the Cat Food Nation, and that's a good thing.



Without this relief, could we have seen a double-dip recession? I wonder.

Let's realize the times we live in, people are Desperate. Obama didn't simply "cave" - he got something, several things, in this deal that are desperately needed. From my perspective he put the American People First, maybe even ahead of his own prospects for reelection with an hyper-energized Right and a Demoralized and Pissed-Off Left.

I've already read this morning that some economists argue that the extension of Unemployment and the stim-styled payroll tax holiday won't create that many jobs. It'll only create about 700,000 they say.

I guess we'll have to see, but what about this...



We may agree that Paris Hilton cuts won't do much to push the economy forward since that forth bottle of Cristhal and Bedazeled Lexus Logos aren't really an emerging world-wide market. But look, the top four most stimulative items as rated by the CBO, starting first and foremost with a 13 month extension of Unemployment, as well as several forms of PAYROLL TAX HOLIDAY to the tunes of over $260 Billion are what we got in this deal in exchange for $90 Billion (over two years) of leaving the tax rates exactly where they already are.

It's not the deal I would have liked (Filibuster Moratorium Anyone?), but it's really, seriously, not that bad.

Nobody wanted to raise taxes on the middle class (except Republicans, who only care about that as a talking point, not actual policy).

Historically speaking Obama is taking a big gamble here, one that doesn't shy that far away from what occurred with Ronald Reagan at about this same point. Despite being known as the "Great Tax Cutter", by this point in his Presidency Reagan was actually Raising Taxes including SSI and Payroll taxes. At the time it was called the Greatest Tax Hike in History.

Reagan came into office proposing to cut personal income and business taxes. The Economic Recovery Act was supposed to reduce revenues by $749 billion over five years. But this was quickly reversed with the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. TEFRA—the largest tax increase in American history—was designed to raise $214.1 billion over five years, and took back many of the business tax savings enacted the year before. It also imposed withholding on interest and dividends, a provision later repealed over the president's objection.

But this was just the beginning. In 1982 Reagan supported a five-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax and higher taxes on the trucking industry. Total increase: $5.5 billion a year. In 1983, on the recommendation of his Special Security Commission— chaired by the man he later made Fed chairman, Alan Green-span—Reagan called for, and received, Social Security tax increases of $165 billion over seven years. A year later came Reagan's Deficit Reduction Act to raise $50 billion.

By 1984 the Economy had finally begun to recover, despite his tax increases, and Reagan won a near landslide re-election. THIS is what Obama is gambling on, that by rolling the bones and Saving the Nation's Economy he will be ultimately rewarded for his sacrifice. This is what he's done so far, 9 Straight Months of private sector job growth and continuing...



And if the the gamble pays off, he bloody well SHOULD BE rewarded.

Just 750,000 jobs is about 80% of the growth we've seen this year, and if the economy truly begins to recover we could easily see twice that - or more.

We're talking about people's livelihood's here. About their ability to eat, survive, maintain shelter and safe environs. This deal has real life consequences that will be felt almost immediately and reverberate for months, if not years.

We're inches away from having DADT repealed, a policy that was previously implemented by Democratic President Bill Clinton, who also signed into law the ridiculously titled "Defense of Marriage Act". Clinton had many failures and disappointments too. He permanently modified welfare and turned it into a temporary (and far more cruel) system. When he came into office he promised to implement a BTU tax to help curb OIL and Carbon consumption, as well as a middle-class tax cut.

He never accomplished any of those goals, yet he was still re-elected for a second term and is thought as probably our best Democratic President since Kennedy.

No, Obama is far from perfect but if you still have heart-burn over the lost Public Option, here's some Pepto - as I've stated repeatedly it wasn't just removed with was Replaced with another Option that Scored just as cost effective as the P.O. according to the CBO. The P.O. was never the be-all-end-all, there are other ways to accomplish the exact same thing, and that may - ultimately - be true in this case.

Yes, it does kick the can down the road, and in the next round I think we shouldn't just go back to Clinton Rate but actually raise the Top Marginal Tax Rate to 42% in order to pay for extending Middle-Class Cuts - but the Senate this time around was completely cock-blocked. In a year or two we'll be dealing with a different economic situation, and with luck a different filibuster scenario in the Senate.

Yesterday was frustrating, but it's just a battle - it's not the last fight in the war.

Vyan

Letting ALL the Cuts Expire would be Best Thing, 2nd Best - Force Up or Down Vote on Everything!

It appears that Mitch McConnell is feeling a bit Cocky today after successfully blocking Democratic attempts to implement tax cuts for All Americans on their first $250,000 of income.

Signaling confidence that Democrats will stop blustering and cave on tax cuts, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell predicted today that all of the Bush era tax rates will be extended temporarily.

"I think it's pretty clear now taxes are not going up on anybody in the middle of this recession," McConnell said on Meet the Press. "It isn't going to happen."

Well, gee, since he asked so Nicely I think the only charitable thing we can do is NOT GIVE THEM SQUAT!

Unless of course, they drop to bended knee - and BEG.



Now we all know that White House is negotiating some kind of deal, and it's looking like it might be a 2-fer. Extend current tax rates for a year or two, while also extending unemployment benefits for a year (or maybe two). I'm thinking if Paris Hilton is going to get her Bonus Tax Cut for Tchotke's and a new Bedazzled Droid then the Unemployed should be able to keep paying their mortgage and utility bills.
 

And that does seem to be the plan right now, and if anything the ones who seem to be pre-caving are the GOP.

President Obama himself all but signaled that the Democrats lost this fight during a statement about a recently-announced Korea free trade agreement yesterday. "We need to redouble our efforts to resolve this impasse -- in the next few days -- to give the American people the peace of mind that their taxes will not go up on January 1st," Obama said. "It will require some compromise, but I'm confident that we can get it done."

The White House is pressing the GOP to allow an extension of unemployment benefits and the tax breaks in the stimulus bill in exchange for an extension of income tax rates. According to the Huffington Post, Obama will allow the cuts to expire if the GOP refuses. On that score, McConnell claimed there's no impasse.

"I think we will extend unemployment benefits," he said.

Rep. Steve King and his S-U-P-E-(R) Racist Reparations Dog Whistles!

There are times when calling a Right Winger "Racist" for their words or their actions back fires. Because many actual Racists like to hide their true motivations - because it would have legal ramifications - looking for them can become like searching for the needle in the haystack, and discovering what you think is one can turn you into "Chicken Little" with the Sky Failing.

Soon the accuser because the accused in a game of "I know you are but - What am I?" - which brings us to Steve King, where I highly doubt this will be one of those times.

First he called the President "Very Very Urban" for no apparent reason, while calling the Pigford II Discrimination Claims "Slave Reparations".

GOP Holds America Hostage for Paris Hilton's Tax Cut

Wanna see what Monday's failure to extend Unemployment Benefits Means for over 2 Million Americans?

This:

Katie: I got my check today and it's my last one. I don't know what we're going to do... I don't know what we're going to do.

The Non-Partisan Congressional Budget Office has clearly stated the the most stimulative thing that the government can do, is put cash in the hands of those who will immediately go out and spend that cash on gas, food, rent and their mortgage payment.

They even made a handy dandy graph of the comparative effects of eleven different policy options. See?



Add some chalk and it's something even Glenn Beck could understand. As you can see the least stimulative - I repeat the Least Stimulative - option on the list is reducing income taxes.