From Jerry at G2A Most People Choose Ignorance
Now I do not disagree that the DEMs are being obstructionists just as the GOPs were during Obama's time in office. However this seems very natural given the graphic below. The GOP tax plan is definitely policy that is supported by the folks in the RED Box, It is a plan where even some GOP folk see it as bad policy. (ie raises deficits, gives cuts to wealthy, etc) {CBO Analysis} These are the GOP folks outside the red box.
Given this is the current reality... Why would any Democrat vote for the bill? And can Conservatives even acknowledge how Far Right this tax bill is? It is like when they seemed surprised that they did not get the votes to kill ACA...
"The problem with obstruction as a general policy principle is that it can be both UNprincipled and irrational. It isn't a question of who is "stopping things from being done," It is WHAT is being stopped. Good ideas should be approved on a non/bipartisan basis; bad ideas should be opposed. If you cannot give a reason for obstructing "progress," is it because you don't have one? "
Now I do not disagree that the DEMs are being obstructionists just as the GOPs were during Obama's time in office. However this seems very natural given the graphic below. The GOP tax plan is definitely policy that is supported by the folks in the RED Box, It is a plan where even some GOP folk see it as bad policy. (ie raises deficits, gives cuts to wealthy, etc) {CBO Analysis} These are the GOP folks outside the red box.
Given this is the current reality... Why would any Democrat vote for the bill? And can Conservatives even acknowledge how Far Right this tax bill is? It is like when they seemed surprised that they did not get the votes to kill ACA...
52 comments:
"Now I do not disagree that the DEMs are being obstructionists"
The Trump agenda isn't failing because of anything Democrats are doing. Republicans control Congress and the White House. If Republicans had their act together, they could have repealed the ACA and passed tax "reform".
Sean,
I think we are in agreement regarding your first sentence. Surprise !!! :-)
Though I am not sure if I agree with your third sentence. I think there is a lot of diversity between the far Right and far Left of GOP politicians.
And with only a 2 vote majority in the Senate, passing things is challenging. It is just so hard to get one end without losing the other.
Now if GOP leadership moved the red and green squares to the LEFT some... Would Colin Peterson and other Conservative Democrats break ranks with the Liberal Dems? Or would they lock shields and be obstructionist?
I have to believe that they would lock shields rather than vote to pass somewhat Conservative legislation.
And I am not even sure they could go Far enough Left to pass anything.
There is a big desert in the middle of our system.
Given this is the current reality... Why would any Democrat vote for the bill?
Lots of Democrats want to vote for tax cuts. And lots of Democrats don't want to be seen as obstructionist.
Trump is somewhat unusual because of his unpopularity. Many Democrats have no problem associating themselves with more normal GOP presidents.
--Hiram
I guess I am not so sure. Please remember the following:
- The GOP did have some DEM support to pass the Bush tax cuts because there were good things in there for all citizens.
- The DEMs raised taxes on businesses and the wealthy without GOP participation when they passed ACA.
- Then the DEMs pressured the GOP to continue tax cuts for less successful people in 2012 while letting the Bush tax cuts lapse for more affluent people.
So the wealthy are paying more than back before the Bush tax cuts and most of the rest of us are still paying less.
The DEMs have conveniently forgotten this as they cry that this tax cut proposal is unfair.
This an interesting piece
voting no on a bill is not obstructionism . Obstructionism is refusing to hold hearings on judicial nominees. Also, requiring a super majority in the senate to pass legislation is obstructionist, but the dems would be idiotic if they did not follow this new precedent set by the GOP when Obama was president.
"The DEMs have conveniently forgotten this as they cry that this tax cut proposal is unfair."
Forgotten what, exactly? The ACA had hundreds of Republican amendments, hundreds of hours of hearings, and an extensive outreach effort to try and earn Republican votes.
Republicans haven't even tried -- on health care or taxes -- to get Democratic votes.
Laurie,
I agree that the GOP should have held hearings and then voted Garland down if they had chosen to do so. They were spineless cowards.
Sean,
Please focus on what I was talking about...
DEMs raised taxes on the successful again and again against the wishes of the GOP. While giving ever more to the unsuccessful folks with no expectation of improvement on their part. Their policy squares were pretty much solidly left of center, no matter how hearing they held.
I think you live in a world of alternative facts. I think if you actually looked it up you will find that tax rates have not been repeatedly increased. I think you will find a mostly downward trend with some small upward blips. I believe the effective rate has been mostly flat for quite some time.
I think it has been a long time since the dems raised fed. taxes. The last time that taxes went up was because the bush tax cuts expired and rates returned to their previous level. It was the GOP that passed the Bush tax bill that resulted in taxes going up after 10 years. I believe it was the dems who extended the lower rates for the middle class.
What is your evidence to back this statement:
"DEMs raised taxes on the successful again and again"
I don't see how this is a far right or a far left thing: it is bad economics. This is not a fiscally conservative tax policy. Anything that will balloon the debt is wrong for America and it is foolhardy to believe that this will be offset by an increased economy.
As I think I have indicated, I find this obstructionism claim a little baffling. The reality is that we pursue our policy objectives, and the Republicans pursue their policy objectives, and you know what? Many of our policy objectives are mutually exclusive. One of the things that means is that what we want obstructs what they want, and of course, what they want obstructs what we want.
I remember on the health care debate, Republicans wanted us to compromise. They wanted to take away health insurance from 20 million people and presumably wanted to reduce the number to ten million or something like that. Because we didn't want to do that, we were obstructionist. Buts is fear of a label really a reason to make bad policy decisions? And in that particular case, Republicans failed to achieve change not because we were obstructing them but because they didn't have the votes, and they didn't have the support for their positions within their own constituency. The label Republicans worked so hard to present in lieu of policy, just didn't work.
--Hiram
Here is what I don't understand. The president lost the popular vote. His polling numbers are disastrous. He can't control his party in either the senate or the house. This morning he invited Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi to the White House to ask for concessions he can't get from his own party. Both Chuck and Nancy come from safe constituencies where Trump is much more unpopular than he is as a country as a whole. As a prelude to negotiation, in a tweet, he insults Chuck and Nancy who are very aware of their political strength and his political weakness. As a negotiating strategy, does this make any sense at all? Unless it the strategy of a politician who would rather have the issue than the policy?
--Hiram
Laurie,
"DEMs raised taxes on the successful again and again"
ACA introduced taxes that only hit the wealthy and companies. That is what is funding most of those subsidies and the Medicare expansion. Any argument there?
The DEMs held all of our Bush tax cuts hostage. They were apparently willing to let all us suffer to ensure taxes were increased on the successful folks. Thankfully for everyone else in America, the GOP gave in and let the DEMs have their tax increase on the successful. While we got to keep our tax cuts.
And in MN, Dayton and the DEMs raised taxes on the successful folks and businesses.
"DEMs raised taxes on the successful again and again against the wishes of the GOP. While giving ever more to the unsuccessful folks with no expectation of improvement on their part. Their policy squares were pretty much solidly left of center, no matter how hearing they held."
Let's talk about how Dems gave more to the folks you deem "unsuccessful". The ACA increased the amount of people who have health care coverage dramatically, while reducing the deficit over the previous baseline and reducing the number of people free-riding on the health care system.
On the other hand, in the Bush Administration, they expanded Medicare on the credit card, creating a new entitlement with no dedicated funding and a deficit larger than Social Security's over the next 75 years. So don't lecture me about how the two parties approach these issues.
You agree with my statement then?
DEMs raised taxes on the successful folks.
And gave that money away with no improvement expectations of the recipients.
I agree that Democrats raised taxes on the wealthiest Americans, although they are still at or near post-WW2 lows. I don't agree with the rest, but I'm not going to rehash that argument yet again.
"And gave that money away with no improvement expectations of the recipients."
It seems pretty hard to argue... Before ACA these folks were expected to learn, work, care for their children and pay their bills, including healthcare expenses... After ACA more people received money and/or direct service from the tax payers...
And since there are almost no work, training, behavior and/or time requirements. This is truly a gift that removes a personal responsibility and natural consequences from the unsuccessful citizens and transfers it squarely on to the backs of tax payers.
I am not judging these choices right now, they are just simple facts.
Here is an interesting link.
And the sad part is that the effective tax rate is this high and we are not even paying off a World War.
Actually, the ACA has significantly reduced the amount of free-riding in the health care system. Nationwide, the amount of charity and uncompensated care has plunged by up to 30%, depending on the state (Minnesota is at 17%).
the dems did not raise income taxes. It was a gop bill that returned taxes to their previous level for some. The dems chose not to extend the lower rate for the wealthy. I do not recall anything being held hostage.
Obamacare mostly covers people who are working. I do not understand why you blame people rather than employers for lack of insurance coverage.
Sean,
I do not disagree that there were benefits / savings to society by making the "successful" people pay the medical bills of the poor. This does not change the point that we are taking from Peter to pay for Paul's issues.
Do you have a source for the things you stated above? I am curious how many dollars per year you are talking about?
If we are saving $10 and paying out $100... It may be a poor trade off. Though I am sure the hospitals, credit card companies, charities, patient, government, etc appreciate the windfall. Maybe they will send all the successful people a big thank you card!!!
Probably not... They will likely just keep saying that they are not paying their fair share...
Laurie,
I think your perception of what happened is a bit naïve or biased. Obama and the DEMs had the GOP over a barrel and they stuck it too them.
Let the taxes rise on the successful folks or make them rise on everyone.
Please remember that I supported letting them rise back to Clinton rates for all of us... But neither the GOP or DEMs could stomach that. So only the successful people got skewered.
What is funny about that is I don't remember any DEMs saying that raising the taxes on the successful folks alone was unfair...
Yet now that the new plan reverses their 2012 black mail efforts + some. They sure are making noise while ignoring what happened in 2012 and with ACA.
"This does not change the point that we are taking from Peter to pay for Paul's issues."
The way our tax code works, Paul also pays for a lot of Peter's things as well.
Source: Strib: Charity care costs at MN hospitals have plunged since ACA
"What is funny about that is I don't remember any DEMs saying that raising the taxes on the successful folks alone was unfair..."
True. That's because the wealthy have disproportionately benefited from the economy of the last 40 years. Our experience over that time shows that cutting taxes for the wealthy and expecting it to trickle down doesn't work. The broadest gains in prosperity over that time -- in terms of jobs and wages for middle- and working-class families) occurred during the Clinton years.
letting the rates return to their previous level is not being skewered and I think you are the one mischaracterizing what happened. When Bush was president the GOP passed a bill for a temporary tax cut and set the lower rates to expire after a set time. When that time arrived the GOP was again in the majority and could work together to pass whatever legislation they preferred. The dems voted for a bill which extended the rates for middle income people and let the lower tax rates expire for wealthy citizens (who have been doing extremely well in our modern economy.)
I am recapping what happened totally by my memory and understanding, but I think those facts are accurate. I don't see where blackmail fits into this story.
I really don't see anything nefarious or objectionable about what transpired. If I was to object to anything in this timeline it would be that the lower rates were passed in the first place back when Bush was president. I thought the Clinton budget surplus should have been continued.
Sean,
You must be kidding... "The way our tax code works, Paul also pays for a lot of Peter's things as well."
Even at my good income and 3 kids I don't think I am much of a Peter... I am pretty much just paying my fair share of the costs. I am certainly not paying extra, though this will change as my kids leave and I use many fewer government services. Then I will graduate to being a full fledged Peter.
The reality is that most of us middle class folks are just paying our fair share. And the lower income folks are very much so net recipients, and certainly not paying nearly their fair share.
Laurie,
Please remember that Obama was the President and he threatened to veto anything that did not result in the taxes going up on the successful folks. The GOP was in no way in control in 2012, not as long as they President was demanding tax increases.
"The passage of the bill came after days of negotiations between Senate leaders and the Obama administration, with the final agreement being attributed to talks between Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.[12][13] Some Democrats criticized the bill for not raising taxes on the wealthy more, while Republicans criticized it for raising tax rates while not providing explicit spending cuts.[2][4] The final actions on the bill came during Congressional sessions on New Year's Eve and New Year's Day.
At around 2 a.m. EST on January 1, 2013, the Senate passed the bill, by a margin of 89–8.[4] 49 Democrats (and Democratic-caucusing Independents) and 40 Republicans voted in favor while 3 Democrats and 5 Republicans voted against.[12]
The prospect was raised that the House would pass an amended bill that included $300 billion in spending cuts.[12] But it was determined to be unlikely that the Senate would vote on any amended legislation before the end of the 112th Congress at noon on January 3, 2013 (all legislation under consideration expires at the end of each Congress), and failure to pass a bill and thus prolong the time over the cliff was seen as politically disadvantageous by the Republican leadership, and so the House moved towards a vote the same day.[14]
The House passed the bill without amendments by a margin of 257–167 at about 11 p. m. EST on January 1, 2013.[15] 85 Republicans and 172 Democrats voted in favor while 151 Republicans and 16 Democrats were opposed.[16][17]
Speaker of the House John Boehner voted for the bill, a break from the usual custom of the speaker not voting at all. The action by the House in bringing the bill up was itself a break from the normal "Hastert rule" as well, in that a majority of the majority Republican caucus did not support it.[13]
The House's passage brought to a close what the Associated Press called "Congress' excruciating, extraordinary New Year's Day approval of a compromise averting a prolonged tumble off the fiscal cliff." Minutes later, the president flew back to Hawaii to rejoin his family for their holiday vacation.[13] Obama signed the official copy of the bill by autopen from there late on January 2, 2013.[18]"
I don't see any point in continuing to go around about whether the dems raised taxes in 2012 or not. If the GOP did not want the lower rates to expire they should have written a different bill back when Bush was president. That they got an outcome they didn't like in 2012 is their own doing.
A president vetoing a bill he disagrees with is extremely normal and didn't prevent the GOP from passing legislation repealing Obamacare 50 times. I think what Obama and the dems did in 2012 re taxes was normal good governing and the GOP went along with it because it was the best option for them under the circumstances.
I think it was infuriating for some people as dems so rarely have the upper hand.
Laurie,
I agree that the DEMs played their advantage well, I have no heart burn with it. My question is why did this statement cause so many comments?
"DEMs raised taxes on the successful again and again against the wishes of the GOP. While giving ever more to the unsuccessful folks with no expectation of improvement on their part. Their policy squares were pretty much solidly left of center, no matter how hearing they held."
Shouldn't Sean and yourself be proudly accepting this as a compliment to the power of Liberals during the Obama term?
Or does the statement of their success rob you of your belief that the "DEMs are powerless victims being over powered by those terrible GOPers?
I mean the DEMs under Obama pulled our country significantly to the Left. (ie LGBT rights, Tax Increases, Entitlement increases, etc) So of course it makes sense that the right wants to try and pull us a little back towards the center. That pendulum just keeps swinging... :-)
Though with every swing the pivot point shifts a little to the Left. My same old question... How far left is far enough?
"I mean the DEMs under Obama pulled our country significantly to the Left. (ie LGBT rights, Tax Increases, Entitlement increases, etc)"
Significantly? Hardly. 37 states had already approved gay marriage before the Supreme Court ruling. The tax increases weren't significant. The ACA tax increases and the compromise on the Bush tax cuts (which left 5/6 of them in place) in total are about 1/5 of the magnitude of the GOP's tax cut proposal. And, as I noted above, I'll sure take Obama's approach on the ACA over Bush's on Medicare Part D any day of the week. (I noted you just glided by that point without addressing it the first time around.)
As I said above... How far left is far enough?
As for the Bush Medicare Part D issue, I don't know much about it. Though from what you have described, I probably would have been against it. (ie more spending, especially if it did not have a funding source)
Personally I think Laurie's comment explains the situation pretty well...
"I think it was infuriating for some people as dems so rarely have the upper hand."
People in general and Liberals in specific seem to live their lives seeing themselves as "victims" who deserve more. They have a very hard time seeing their successes. And they like to find someone else to blame for their failures.
Someone close to me has a very hard time taking a compliment or seeing their work as great. When I compliment them they always reply back that their quality of work is mediocre at best and that I should see "how well someone else" does it...
It seems to me to be very unfortunate way to think. Robbed of self confidence and the celebrations of good things.
"And they like to find someone else to blame for their failures."
Um, read your own posts, pal. You blame Democrats for "obstructionism" when they haven't been given a seat at the table. Yesterday's budget committee "hearing" on the tax plan wasn't a hearing. No amendments were allowed. It was a vote on a proposal that isn't even fully written yet. It's a joke, and one you would be ripping Democrats for if they tried to pull such a stunt. I guess most people do choose ignorance.
"As for the Bush Medicare Part D issue, I don't know much about it. "
This is how it works, isn't it? John opines about the ACA, then when he gets pushed about how it actually works, "I don't know much about it." John then chooses not to learn about it, but instead keeps spewing talking points.
John opines about what he sees as wasteful Democratic welfare state spending, then when he gets pushed about Republican management of the welfare state, "I don't know much about it". But it didn't stop you from spewing your talking points.
The only thing you're sure of, seemingly, is how right you are -- despite all the stuff you don't know.
Since I see good and bad in both camps, I do tend to either praise or chastise each group depending on the topic...
It tends to be folks further to the LEFT and/or RIGHT who see their team as near perfect and the other team as self serving / incompetent / obstinate.
I personally do not like the tax cut bill... And if they are going to pass it I would expect them to start cutting the Federal budget big time.
I think it is important to be self serving, or at least to serve one's constituents. It is very strange to me when politicians are not, when they act contrary to the interests of one's constituents. Now that's not something I rule out necessarily, there are times when it's the right thing to do. But it isn't the right thing to do that often. The fundamental political reality is doing the right thing is something that has no support from lobbyists. Nobody contributes to campaigns because they want the right thing to be done. In the same way people prefer and work for lower taxes in ways they never prefer or work for tax "reform", people don't become active in politics in order to hurt themselves.
It is possible to cut the federal budget. But is it possible to cut what the federal budget pays for? Or do the dollars just come out of a different set of pockets? The big area of discretionary spending is health care. But bills not paid by the federal government don't go unpaid. They don't magically disappear into thin air. They are shifted to someone else, to the doctors, to the nurses, to shareholders of various corporations. They step up and assume the burden, and they charge extra for it. That's why under the inexorable laws of capitalism, a box of tissues costs a couple of hundred dollars in the hospital. Choice isn't cheap, and it's so often the case that people who are choosing aren't the people who are paying for the right to choose.
--Hiram
Personally I think you are very wrong about this... "Nobody contributes to campaigns because they want the right thing to be done." But may be I am just happily naïve.
And in this statement I think you forgot someone pretty important... "They are shifted to someone else, to the doctors, to the nurses, to shareholders of various corporations." But maybe it just your socialistic side showing. :-)
How about the costs are shifted to the person who gained the benefit of the care / procedure? The actual patient...
"I do tend to either praise or chastise each group depending on the topic."
Perhaps you need to examine your own perception of the issues, instead of constantly demanding it of everyone else.
How about the costs are shifted to the person who gained the benefit of the care / procedure?
Or the group that benefits? Isn't that even better?
Sean,
I am perfectly okay with the idea that these topics are incredibly complicated and that it is unlikely that there is a great answer that is good for everyone... This is all about trade offs.
I am happy to flip/flop positions and look at topics from different perspectives. The only thing that I am pretty rigid on is my belief that America wins when it's citizens are educated, responsible, hard working and self reliant.
And that policies that arbitrarily transfer negative consequences from uneducated, irresponsible, non-motivated and/or dependent healthy citizens to others encourage the wrong behaviors.
Anon,
Who would be the group who benefits when a persons gall bladder is removed?
There are lots of folks who benefit when a person's gallbladder gets removed, and it's not just the individual.
Well I see a benefit for the person, the family and their employer... All of whom pay for the operation in the pre-ACA typical health insurance model...
Are you thinking of some one else?
Insurance pools risk. When someone makes a claim which is paid, who benefits? Did the other members of the pool benefit? If not, why did they buy insurance? Did they receive a benefit from their purchase?
--Hiram
- Recipient benefits
- No
- Peace of mind
- Yes
Voluntary insurance programs are wonderful constructs. They allow to pay less with the potential to receive more.
I carried 2 term life insurance policies for ~20 years while the kids were growing up and we were building our next egg. Thankfully neither me nor my wife got to collect our "big payout" and the money just went away.
One could say we got nothing for all that money. I would say that we got peace of mind.
The challenge with Medicaid and ACA subsidies is that they are forced welfare / insurance programs.
The recipient pays none or only a portion of the insurance premium, while a person far disconnected from the situation has to pay the premiums for many people that have nothing to do with themselves.
The first party receives the potential payout and peace of mind benefits.
While the second party receives nothing except the bill.
The challenge with Medicaid and ACA subsidies is that they are forced welfare / insurance programs.
Is that a challenge or a criticism? What's the problem? That they are forced? Or that they are welfare? Everything a legislature does is forced. All laws are binding. I don't know how this law is different. As for welfare, ACA is a way of rationalizing payment. Welfare is when payment is rationalized and people without the ability to pay are provided with health care anyway. I suppose.
--Hiram
Hiram,
Most laws and government expenditures are there to help and protect all of us citizens, and/or to care for the old/ truly disabled.
The big exceptions are the laws that literally
- take money from healthy capable citizens so that it can be
- given to other healthy capable citizens with no few strings attached
You know my view of the problem. Arbitrarily taking money from a group of citizens who have learned, worked, saved and invested to attain wealth. So that it can be given to others is not necessarily a good practice. That is the problem from my perspective.
And probably why it is such a hot topic of discussion so often.
"While the second party receives nothing except the bill."
The second party also gets the piece of mind of being part of a social contract that says if something unlucky should happen to them, that they will still be able to get health care, too.
It's about being part of a society instead just being a bunch of individuals who live in the same geographic area.
Somehow our society prospered for 150+ years just fine without all of the large unthinking / uncaring wealth transfer devices.
I simply disagree with Federal level programs. They are just to disconnected, indiscriminate and impersonal for me to consider them "care for the unlucky".
True care for the unlucky occurs most effectively at the local / interpersonal level.
"Somehow our society prospered for 150+ years just fine without all of the large unthinking / uncaring wealth transfer devices."
That's where you're wrong. Social Security and Medicare arose out of the need to deal with epidemic elderly poverty.
And we can't pretend that the world is the same today as it was 100 years ago. 100 years ago, health insurance didn't really exist. X-rays were just starting to be somewhat commonplace. Penicillin wasn't widely used as medicine until the 1940a. If you got cancer 100 years ago, you died. To suggest that we should deal with health care (or dozens of other issues) the same way we did back then is folly.
Social security, SS Disability and Medicare are insurance programs that all workers fund. The funding is limited by person as are the benefits. For the most part each citizen earns these benefits.
Where as welfare, medicaid, ACA subsidies, etc are just straight forward wealth transfer. The taking of money from the successful so that it can be given to the unsuccessful.
I always find it odd that Liberals think our Federal government needs to be involved in taking care of our friends and neighbors who are down on their luck. The idea that our charities, cities and States do not care for these people or know how best to address their needs.
Instead we need some one size fits all bureaucratic Federal solution...
Post a Comment