Slew of Legislation Clears Congress

[Pangloss]

The "lame duck" Congress passed a lot of legislation right at the end, and all the media outlets were talking about it last week. The extending of the Bush tax cuts lead directly to agreement on the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell", ratification of the latest START treaty with Russia, and funding for 9/11 first responders. (Some background here.)

 

I think this is a very positive sign of what we can hope to see in 2011. I believe there will likely be more hurdles, but both sides came out ahead here and important legislation was passed.

 

What do you all think?

[Marat]

Did you ever think that national politics might just be a show to distract the common people from the real horse-trading which goes on behind the scenes, so that what we see and take seriously as 'politics' might in fact just be an illusion? For example, the Republicans had been stalling, rejecting, and nit-picking everything Obama was doing for years, and then suddenly a deal was reached which allowed the Republicans to get what they were essentially interested in -- tax cuts for the rich -- and after that came a flurry of approvals without resistance of other Democratic proposals. I suspect that since the real reason why the Republican Party exists is to represent the interests of wealth in national politics, a back-room deal was reached which allowed all of the recent Democratic legislation -- which did not harm the interests of the rich -- to pass in exchange for the Democrats giving the Republicans their cherished tax cuts for billionaires.

[jackson33]

I think this is a very positive sign of what we can hope to see in 2011. I believe there will likely be more hurdles, but both sides came out ahead here and important legislation was passed. [/Quote]

 

Pangloss; The Congress that passed these bills, was near or the same as before the elections or put another way NOT the Congress that will be in 2011. I'd also suggest ALL these bills could/would have passed before the elections, with an end result of an additional 10-20 House Republicans and a Republican Controlled Senate and I might add would not have set up the same scenario for the 2012 Elections. Passing the First Responders Bill was a compromise, reduced by half, attorney fees limited to 10%. However and in my opinion was not warranted on the idea every Fire/Police/Public in any community would have done no less, most to a lesser degree do so in every State and most every town over a years period alone.

 

Extending the Bush Tax Cuts of 2001-3, primarily for ALL tax brackets, would have easily passed in the new Congress, without the Unemployment Extension or Payroll deduction over the next year, probably setting up a 1.7T$ deficit for FY 2011. The START Treaty, with the guarantee that Defensive Missile work would continue would have as well passed and with Republican support. DADT is a little more complicated, however I'll bet phasing this in will take some time.

 

 

For example, the Republicans had been stalling, rejecting, and nit-picking everything Obama was doing for years, and then suddenly a deal was reached which allowed the Republicans to get what they were essentially interested in -- tax cuts for the rich -- and after that came a flurry of approvals without resistance of other Democratic proposals. [/Quote]

 

Here we go again Marat, the Republican Caucus had no means to stop any bills until after Scot Brown was elected and then highly limited. A large majority in the House, a filibuster proof Senate and a Liberal Democratic Executive. It has been the Democrats, not the Republicans.

 

Why not suggest the Democrats prefer servicing the Middle or Lower income people, the various welfare, on the hundreds of welfare or benefit programs or any radical segment of society that can't get it's foot into the Republican Party and suggest it might just be to get elected.

 

-- to pass in exchange for the Democrats giving the Republicans their cherished tax cuts for billionaires. [/Quote]

 

Taxing is not based on the persons wealth, rather money earned verses expenses and being a Millionaire or Billionaire would not determine this. Any person that invest for any reason, putting that money at RISK, has total control over when, how and where it's invested or in fact when any loss/gain is taken. To my knowledge there is no property tax assessed on them, other than the massive local taxes (property/school/city/county) or is the value of their estate, unless they happen to die. I'm still waiting for some one with this attitude to explain to me, where jobs and investment money will come from without this apparently greedy class of people, that this Country was instrumental in producing.

[Pangloss]

Did you ever think that national politics might just be a show to distract the common people from the real horse-trading which goes on behind the scenes, so that what we see and take seriously as 'politics' might in fact just be an illusion?

 

Sure. And that's often true on the small scale, but IMO, as a big picture view, the notion isn't very compatible with Occam's Razor. In short, in order to rule from behind closed doors they would have to always resist the constant onslaught of natural frustration in order to put up the planned, assigned front that was agreed upon. A more reasonable explanation is that sometimes it happens that way, but usually what we see is what we get.

 

By the way, back room deals aren't always a bad thing, in my opinion. For one thing, it's one of the ways a minority can check-and-balance the majority. And it's the activist's best friend. If you want social justice, prayer in public schools, wealth redistribution, marriage defined as man-and-woman, open borders, closed borders, whatever, you need back room deals, because the majority is rarely your ally.

 

 

I suspect that since the real reason why the Republican Party exists is to represent the interests of wealth in national politics, a back-room deal was reached which allowed all of the recent Democratic legislation -- which did not harm the interests of the rich -- to pass in exchange for the Democrats giving the Republicans their cherished tax cuts for billionaires.

 

People with money don't lose their rights as citizens the moment they get a little ahead. You may be right about the current bent of the Republican party, we'll have to wait and see. But in my opinion it's not wealth conservatives fight to maintain in general. It's opportunity.

[Marat]

The first thing corporations do when they grow large enough is to buy out the competition, thus transforming other capitalists into workers, so in this way the ultimate goal of wealth is to stifle opportunity by reducing the size of the capitalist class who have the surplus capital to invest and make more money.

[jackson33]

People with money don't lose their rights as citizens the moment they get a little ahead. You may be right about the current bent of the Republican party, we'll have to wait and see. But in my opinion it's not wealth conservatives fight to maintain in general. It's opportunity. [/Quote]

 

Brilliant observation Pangloss and correct, IMO; I'll go out classified middle or lower class, however defined, but at least twice would have been middle/upper class, at least estate wise. I've called it a game from a certain point on, where risk get higher as do potential rewards or the cost of failure. It's that "opportunity", the freedom to try, this country has afforded so many that I fear is being lost and struggle to fight for, for others...

 

By the way, back room deals aren't always a bad thing, in my opinion. For one thing, it's one of the ways a minority can check-and-balance the majority. And it's the activist's best friend. If you want social justice, prayer in public schools, wealth redistribution, marriage defined as man-and-woman, open borders, closed borders, whatever, you need back room deals, because the majority is rarely your ally. [/Quote]

 

If legislation or the process is for all the people, why should the people NOT know the process and the deals made to achieve that legislation. We choose (elections) our leaders and representatives based on what they say (honestly or not) and then should be allowed full knowledge of any wheeling and dealing to achieve, compared to what they had said.

 

 

The first thing corporations do when they grow large enough is to buy out the competition, thus transforming other capitalists into workers, so in this way the ultimate goal of wealth is to stifle opportunity by reducing the size of the capitalist class who have the surplus capital to invest and make more money. [/Quote]

 

Marat; Factually, most mergers and/or acquisitions are money losers, for the buyer and more importantly to the investors, stock holders. Capitalist, as in employees, otherwise known as management are as much workers as those doing the menial work. Each according to their financial circumstance can buy interest in their Employer or another's. I have no idea how many Truck Drivers, Company Management or employees of Wal Mart, have retired millionaires, or in similar manner people associated with hundreds of Capitalist firms, but millionaires and billionaires have increased dramatically over the past 40-60 years, not decreased.

 

What your inversely describing is the increasing number of people, who have chose NOT to invest/save, preferring that annual vacation, a larger home/car than needed, having to many children and so on, eventually becoming dependent on assistance from Government, for more and more of their needs.

[Mr Skeptic]

My thoughts are, if they were willing to do this why not have done it 1-2 years ago when it would have made more difference, and so we voters could express our approval of it?

[Pangloss]

If legislation or the process is for all the people, why should the people NOT know the process and the deals made to achieve that legislation. We choose (elections) our leaders and representatives based on what they say (honestly or not) and then should be allowed full knowledge of any wheeling and dealing to achieve, compared to what they had said.

 

I agree, but just because they're making deals behind the scenes doesn't mean there is corruption. The problem is a lack of honest and intelligent leadership, and not having a plan. Banning back room deals (for example) would be treating the symptom rather than the disease, IMO. We do a lot of this, and we're always surprised when They seem to find a way around the rules. Go figure, right?

[jackson33]

My thoughts are, if they were willing to do this why not have done it 1-2 years ago when it would have made more difference, and so we voters could express our approval of it? [/Quote]

 

Good question Skeptic, but I don't think your going to like my answer. First, virtually anything could have been passed through Congress and signed by the President 1/21/2009 forward, as earlier explained. Knowing this scenario could change with one death (examples, Kennedy/Byrd) all efforts were directed at agenda driven policy change that could not have otherwise been passed. Second, the entire Democratic Party including Obama had been blaming The BUSH tax cuts for the problems, even back when there were no problems, think Bush holds record for 54 straight months of job increases in the US. Third; There was and remains a good many Keynesian Economist in this Administration, believing it was essential Government spend their way out of any recession, much less the proclaimed "worst economy since the Great Depression", apparently ignoring the Carter 'Misery Scale" years. Forth, the democrat base and a good share of their loyal opposition, AGREED in principle, that whatever Bush had been doing could not have been correct. Simple said it was the perfect storm (Emanuel "crisis"), to force as much on the American Public as possible.

 

I agree, but just because they're making deals behind the scenes doesn't mean there is corruption. [/Quote]

 

Pangloss; If nothing is going on that the general public would not accept, what's the purpose of behind doors in the first place. Congress over the years and by both parties, seems to never have problems publicly displaying investigations of public figures or business practice (Drugs in Baseball, the recent BP hearings, etc.). It remains my opinion, for the most part nothing other than a brief outline is being formed in these meetings, where staffers and lawyers are then charged to form a bill fitting that list. I'm not sure that general public, would accept that process.

 

The problem is a lack of honest and intelligent leadership, and not having a plan.[/Quote]

 

Sorry, but I feel it's the electorate, in voting those people into office and the methods used. Maybe a little system change would be in order, but then that is also primarily the States responsibility. Since we have discussed this before; Murkowski (Alaska SR), not only managed to void the nomination process, but campaigned/debated against all those bills passed in the Lame Duck Session, but voted for all of them.

 

 

Banning back room deals (for example) would be treating the symptom rather than the disease, IMO. We do a lot of this, and we're always surprised when They seem to find a way around the rules. Go figure, right?[/Quote]

 

Personally, I don't see any reason why minutes of every committee hearing aren't made and become part of the Congressional Records, no less than every Judicial Court Hearing is and short of being classified "Top Secret" being available to the public. If the 2011 Republican House, continues to "find a way around the rules" or worse public opinion, I don't have a viable solution. If they CAN accomplish getting back the publics trust, it's going to be hard for Reid and Obama to ignore them, getting into the 2012 National Elections....

[swansont]

Second, the entire Democratic Party including Obama had been blaming The BUSH tax cuts for the problems, even back when there were no problems, think Bush holds record for 54 straight months of job increases in the US.

 

~ 54 months of exceedingly modest growth — lower than average growth in the 6 preceding decades, and it was all lost in the recent downturn.

 

There has been zero net job creation since December 1999. No previous decade going back to the 1940s had job growth of less than 20 percent. Economic output rose at its slowest rate of any decade since the 1930s as well.

 

If you take away the first year (2000, under Clinton), which had positive growth, then the Bush II era as a whole had negative growth.

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/01/AR2010010101196.html?hpid=topnews

[Pangloss]

If nothing is going on that the general public would not accept, what's the purpose of behind doors in the first place.

 

Consensus-building and finding of common ground, sharing of concerns, determination of facts, communication of facts, and so on. Ever wonder how a politician arrives at his or her position? We ask them The Question at the first possible opportunity (and in fairness they contribute to that problem by running TOWARDS the cameras), but they have to form their opinion somehow, through some process.

 

At any rate, they don't do it in a vacuum, and they certainly don't do it on live television. They talk to people, and when they do that they ask questions that, if asked in a public forum, would make them look ignorant, biased, rude, wrong-headed, etc. This is where that old axiom comes from about legislation and sausage-making. It's disgusting, but it doesn't really matter.

 

But yes, the fact that THAT has to take place also opens the door for corruption and hidden agendas. But there's nothing we can do about that -- full transparency doesn't solve this problem because the process still needs to take place. So that leaves us with voting for integrity, supporting freedom of the press, and the occassional legislative tweak here and there. Best we can do.

 

 

I feel it's the electorate, in voting those people into office and the methods used.

 

I'd agree with that. And the method that's harmful is partisanship. And if you've only ever voted for one party, you're part of the problem.

 

 

Murkowski (Alaska SR), not only managed to void the nomination process, but campaigned/debated against all those bills passed in the Lame Duck Session, but voted for all of them.

 

Well that's your opinion. Apparently Alaskans apparently have a different take on it. But it's not as if she actually usurped power in some sort of illegal, or even quasi-legal manner. She ran for office. The people elected her. Way it goes.

 

And frankly, those votes might actually reflect what they wanted her to do. They may have wanted her, for example, to not vote in favor of DADT unless the military leadership supported it, and the panel report came back saying it would be okay.

 

BTW, John McCain actually took that exact position (both of them), saying he would support it if those things happened, and when they did he changed his mind, even calling it a "sad day in America" when it passed. That would have cost him my vote. But telling me you're going to support gay marriage if and only if X, Y and Z happen, and then supporting it when X, Y and Z happen, I'd be fine with that. That's how politics SHOULD work, IMO.

[Marat]

The most serious problem with the political system is that even what goes on before the public's view in effect occurs 'behind closed doors,' given that the analytical capacity of the general public is insufficient to comprehend what is really happening. Thus people who are net beneficiaries of the government wealth transfer programs which are mainly funded by progressive taxation of the wealthy cheer hysterically for the pathetically small amounts of money they get from general anti-taxation campaigns, without being able to comprehend that their $100 of tax cuts have cost them $1000 in the government program cuts on which they rely which had to be slashed to pay for the whole tax cutting campaign.

 

There is also the 'lottery problem' in voter logic, which causes people who statistically stand no chance whatsoever of ever being wealthy nonetheless voting for cuts in programs they need in order to buy tax cuts for the wealthy because they irrationally hope they too will someday be wealthy and benefit from these tax reductions. The same way that a lottery makes money by selling chances for one dollar each which are in fact worth only ten cents each to make a million dollars, so too the rich get richer by getting the poor to surrender the government programs they need on the foolish hope that they too will be rich one day to enjoy tax cuts for the wealthy.

 

There is also the 'grasping, selfish lower middle class person' problem. In 1957, the head of the Danish Socialist Party met Premier Khrushev and complained that as soon as Danish wokers got rich enough to afford even the meanest, most squalid house, they joined the wealthy in opposing taxes, since they couldn't bear the thought that anyone would take even the least of their pathetic holdings away for anyone else's benefit. Of course, if these lower middle class folk could have seen the overall economic picture, they would have realized that their $100 in extra taxes brought them $1000 in better government health care, better public roads, lower university fees for their children, better free child care, etc., but it is just so much simpler for the simple-minded to see the immediate cash impact of a lower tax that they lose all capacity rationally to calculate its significance.

[Pangloss]

The most serious problem with the political system is that even what goes on before the public's view in effect occurs 'behind closed doors,' given that the analytical capacity of the general public is insufficient to comprehend what is really happening. Thus people who are net beneficiaries of the government wealth transfer programs which are mainly funded by progressive taxation of the wealthy cheer hysterically for the pathetically small amounts of money they get ...

 

We don't have wealth transfer in the United States. That's not the purpose of the progressive tax system, nor the purpose of our spending programs. Perhaps they do in your country, I don't know.

 

At any rate, that sounds to me like a great rationale for a flat tax system.