Here's the lead in Monday's NY Times: "
Bush Tax-Cut Deal With Jobless Aid Said to Be Near." We're told
"...the broad contours of a compromise are in focus."
# # #
UPDATE:
#1.) See THIS diary by Kossack Frisbeetarian for more detail on the woefully inadequate unemployment insurance extension "deal."
#2.) Also, checkout this slightly O.T. update concerning obfuscated bailout funds. It appears the "TARP - was - profitable" meme is now, officially, a sick joke. And, frankly, in light of the fact that two million Americans have been stripped of their unemployment benefits this holiday season,
THIS is nothing less than another major travesty. You see, as
ProPublica has just pointed out, banks, investment companies and mortgage servicing firms
still owe taxpayers more than $333,000,000,000 in direct bailout disbursements. On top of that, blogger George Washington has just gone into yet
even greater detail on how another couple hundred billion--easily--in taxpayer funds have been quietly funnelled to Wall Street, as well.
Apparently, these pathetic bailouts are more important to our elected officials than the lives of two million Americans.
End of update(s).
# # #
Bush Tax-Cut Deal With Jobless Aid Said to Be Near
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN and CARL HULSE
New York Times (Page A1)
December 6, 2010
WASHINGTON -- White House officials and Congressional Republicans said Sunday they were closing in on a deal to temporarily continue the Bush-era tax cuts at all income levels, while bitterly frustrated Democratic Congressional leaders began exploring whether they would have the votes for such a package.
--SNIP--
Rather than extending the tax rates only on income described by Democrats as middle class -- up to $250,000 a year for couples and $200,000 for individuals -- the deal would also keep the rates for higher earners, probably for two years. In return, Republicans said they would probably agree to extend jobless aid for the long-term unemployed.
Senior Democrats on Sunday said that they were resigned to defeat in the highly charged tax debate, and they voiced dismay...
According to this report, it looks like it'll be a one- or two-year extension.
...top Democratic Congressional leaders met at the White House with Mr. Obama, who told them he would not agree to any deal unless it included the extension of jobless aid, which has begun to run out, and also the extension of a number of tax breaks for middle- and lower-income Americans that were included in last year's economic stimulus plan.
Meanwhile, Krugman's putting forth a very plausible argument in his NYT Op Ed, in Monday's edition, that Democrats should tell the GOP'ers to shove it: "Let's Not Make a Deal."
Let's Not Make a Deal
By PAUL KRUGMAN
NY Times Op-Ed
December 6, 2010
...Democrats have tried to push a compromise: let tax cuts for the wealthy expire, but extend tax cuts for the middle class. Republicans, however, are having none of it. They have been filibustering Democratic attempts to separate tax cuts that mainly benefit a tiny group of wealthy Americans from those that mainly help the middle class. It's all or nothing, they say: all the Bush tax cuts must be extended. What should Democrats do?
The answer is that they should just say no. If G.O.P. intransigence means that taxes rise at the end of this month, so be it.
Think about the logic of the situation. Right now, the Republicans see themselves as successful blackmailers, holding a clear upper hand. President Obama, they believe, wouldn't dare preside over a broad tax increase while the economy is depressed. And they therefore believe that he will give in to their demands.
He tells us increasing taxes during a period of high joblessness is a bad thing; but there are worse things than this such as: "...giving in to the G.O.P. now suggests that saying no, and letting the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule, is the lesser of two evils."
Krugman points out that the GOP'ers want these cuts to be permanent, and the only reason they're agreeing to an extension is because they think they'll have even more of a say in the matter down the road. "...And they may well be right: if tax-cut blackmail works now, why shouldn't it work again later?"
The Nobel laureate reminds us that if these tax cuts are made permanent we're talking about just over $4 trillion in lost revenue in just the next 10 years.
He concludes...
...So Mr. Obama should draw a line in the sand, right here, right now. If Republicans hold out, and taxes go up, he should tell the nation the truth, and denounce the blackmail attempt for what it is.
Yes, letting taxes go up would be politically risky. But giving in would be risky, too -- especially for a president whom voters are starting to write off as a man too timid to take a stand. Now is the time for him to prove them wrong.
Krugman's right. Once again, capitulation really doesn't seem to be a winning strategy. Then again, I'm not missing an unemployment check this month, unlike two million of my fellow Americans. But, on the other hand, maybe a compromise is finally approaching because all of those Wall Street execs are fretting about the tax consequences they're about to face on the scores of billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded bonuses they're about to receive? Yeah, forget about record-breaking food stamp usage and income disparity between the classes, we can't let those vampire squids pay a penny more than necessary on their bonuses, now can we? "Boo-freakin'-hoo!"
What say you?