Posts Tagged ‘bush tax cuts’

Last week I had a meeting with a pol who will remain nameless. We talked for a while on a lot of subjects and election 2012 came up.

He is an unabashed backer of Mitt Romney, called him one of the smartest guys he ever met, said he understood economics like few others, and said that during a crisis or an emergency he is at his best. Fantastic at solving problems.

I’ve talked about my meeting with Romney and how unimpressed I was, but this is a fellow whose opinion I respect so I resolved to give Mitt a second look.

My primary objection to Mitt is that he is not a leader and this simply reinforces that impression:

Thus did Mitt cover his ass ahead of the 2011 primaries, where support for the new porkier tax cuts compromise will no doubt be a litmus test for grassroots righties.

and of Course Allahpundit ever ready to hit Palin is forced to make this concession:

I know our resident Palinistas can’t wait to point out that she was leading on this issue while Mitt was holding back until the very day of the Senate vote, so go on. Gloat. You know you wanna.

It’s not a question of “wanna” its a question of fact.

As far as his actual piece it’s here and he does make some good points:

In many cases, lowering taxes can actually increase government revenues. If new businesses, new investments and new hiring are spurred by the prospects of better after-tax returns, the taxes paid by these new or growing businesses and employees can more than make up for the lower rates of taxation. But once again, because the tax deal is temporary, a large portion of this beneficent effect is missing. What some are calling a grand compromise is not grand at all, except in its price tag. The total package will cost nearly $1 trillion, resulting in substantial new borrowing at a time when we are already drowning in red ink.

Part of the tax deal is a temporary reduction in payroll taxes. The president was insistent, however, that only the employee’s payroll taxes be reduced — the portion paid by the employer is to remain the same. Again, the president is looking to get more money into the hands of the consumer to boost near-term spending. But by refusing to lower the cost of hiring a new employee, he fails to encourage what the American people want even more than lower taxes — more good jobs. Like the income tax deal, the payroll tax deal will add to the deficit.

It’s a fair point but with the new congress this can be addressed, I suggest reading it. His points are certainly legit and one can come to that conclusion without being phony but again it is very interesting that he makes his point at the moment when it involves the least risk for him, Palin and Limbaugh have come out against, and there are already senate republicans against but not enough to stop the bill.

Assuming the gentlemen I talked to is correct I suspect Mitt is being over managed. If that is the case I have this advice for the Governor. BE YOURSELF Lead! Get away from your handlers and make your case. You are a man of faith, trust your faith and your God and don’t worry about the occasional mistake, everyone makes them.

There is every possibility that Governor Romney will be the next president, (I’d prefer comer’s or treasury sec) if that is the case then learn to be the best leader you can be.

Advertisements

It’s not often that I disagree with Rush Limbaugh AND Sarah Palin but it is my opinion that the Obama Tax deal is an excellent deal for the GOP and the right, particularly on the political side.

1. The two-year tax cut deal as I’ve already said gives us the ability to constantly bring up a vote to make the tax cuts permanent and put Senate Democrats and the president on the spot again and again and again. (If it passes we get credit, if it fails it becomes a political issue for 2012)

2. Democrats, by extending unemployment save the republicans the tough issue of refusing to extend them. As for paying for it, there is nothing to stop congressional republicans from allocating tarp funds etc to pay for said benefits AFTER Jan 3rd. Also by not including or demanding additional benefits for the 99 week guys it takes it off the table (even liberal democrats didn’t want this extra spending).

3. The individual pork pieces in the bill can be attacked by individual bills during the next session, forcing the left to defending them. Each time the left defends said pork, it becomes an issue for 2012.

4. Thanks to Bernie Sanders filibuster an actual unapologetic socialist is now the iconic image of the left…

4a. …And of course it shows the intransigence of the whole bunch of them in attempting to block this, making the lie over the “compromise” issue. This firmly establishes the idea of democrats unwilling to compromise, (particularly to those who have voted for them in the past whose unemployment benefits are on the line) that we can play up over and over again in the next session. It will be an excellent counter to the media goes that will try to make GOP intransigence an issue. We will answer: “Oh it’s the democrats being just as uncompromising as there were with the president in December.” It shatters the media’s template built carefully over decades.

5. And finally I’d rather have the actual tax rate in place than to simply have a football to kick democrats with. Why give the economy a hit when we don’t have to.

Ted Kennedy was always smart enough to take a piece of what he wanted and then amend it over time. We may have disagreed with Sen Kennedy over issues but tactically we should be just as smart.

I’m very hard on Joe Scarborough mostly because I like him (I’m always harder on people I like because I expect more from them) but today he said something that is incredibly important.

He was going on about the hypocrisy of both right and left on deficits and said this:

“There are a couple of tea partiers who care about this (the deficit) Rand Paul and Jim DeMint,that’s it!”

Although Joe likely doesn’t know Porkbusters he has a point. The Tea Party crowd doesn’t actually trust the republicans. I could not find a single person in the crowd at the Washington Freedom Works rally who would say they trusted republicans.

A lot of the newly elected republicans in congress got little or no help from the national GOP. This was due to several factors, they were not professional pols, the party didn’t expect them to win, but also because they are committed controlling spending.

Trent Lott gave the game away in July:

the last thing Lott needs is a bunch of unwashed, Tea-Partying right-wingers coming to Washington on a wave of anti-establishment, free-market populism, and messing up the good thing he has going.

“We don’t need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples,” Lott told the Washington Post, referring to the conservative South Carolina senator who has been a gadfly for party leadership and a champion for upstart conservative candidates. “As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them.”

But Lott is no longer in the Republican leadership — he resigned from the Senate in December 2007, mid-term, just before a law kicked in that would have required him to wait two years before lobbying the Senate. So who is he talking about when he says “we need to co-opt them”?

“We” means the K Street wing of the Republican Party.

There are an awful lot of republicans who are more interested in chairmanships and favors than controlling spending and lowering taxes (and yes they are connected). That group needs to keep the good will of the Tea Party voters who brought them over the top for now so they will play ball, but if they get the chance they will try to turn the newly elected reps.

This is going to be the fight that will dominate Washington over the next 2 years and will determine the party and the country’s future longterm and will actually have a lot to do with both the presidential elections in 2012 and if we have a tea party 3rd party in 2014.

If Morning Joe follows this story, they will have a jump on the rest of the MSM.

When Dem reps are opening talking against Pelosi.

As I keep saying

“Ride right through them, they’re demoralized as hell”