Blog

By Shelli Dawdy

This is a continuation from yesterday’s article about the Tax Cut Compromise.

If Democrats’ want to play class warfare, perhaps the debate should include such vivid examples of where this kind of rhetoric can ultimately lead if it is allowed to stand unchallenged. In Soviet Russia, upper-middle class peasants known as kulaks were targeted in a class warfare campaign. Webster’s dictionary definition of kulak: “a farmer characterized by Communists as having excessive wealth”. Excessive in this particular case is a relative term; the average value of goods confiscated from kulaks was $90 – $210. Kulaks were the only class of peasant who actually owned property and the Soviet goal was to entirely collectivize farming. Kulaks served as easy scape goats for the famine and poverty deliberately caused by Soviet policies. Ultimately they were fully demonized, their land confiscated outright, and the elimination of the entire class undertaken through deportation to labor camps and outright execution.

While this example may seem extreme, how extreme is it really in contrast to a President who played victim such as in the following remark:

“I’ve said before — I felt the middle-class tax cuts were being held hostage,” Obama said. “I think it’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage-takers — unless the hostage gets harmed.”

Besides playing the President’s extremes, Nancy Pelosi called the death tax aspect of the compromise, “a bridge too far” and Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu says the deal, “for me, borders on moral recklessness.” ¹ What on earth are these people talking about? How difficult is it to refute such nonsense? It should be like shooting ducks in a barrel.²

In addition to taking the myriad opportunities to blast Democrats on their class warfare rhetoric, few Republicans are even putting up a fight over the 13 month unemployment benefits extension, including purported Presidential GOP front runner Mitt Romney:

“The deal has several key features. It reduces payroll taxes, extends unemployment benefits and keeps current tax rates intact. So far, so good.”

Considering the mountain of evidence that unemployment benefits extensions only increase the length of unemployment, a supportive position from Romney and others, including Nebraska Senator Mike Johanns, is totally inexplicable.

I wish I could say that the reason Republican politicians are not good at making arguments effectively is because limited government people in general really just want to be left alone; they are busy being personally responsible by working, taking care of and paying attention to their families, and since they don’t want anything from government, they don’t pay much attention to it. It takes a serious problem to motivate the majority of these folks to action. The tendency then, is to be in a reactionary mode, one that only wishes to stop something perceived as harmful from happening.

Having observed politics throughout my adulthood and additionally having spent some time studying history, I find it hard to conclude that the typical limited government mentality noted above is the reason Republican politicians are by and large terrible negotiators and rhetoricians. Politicians want to keep their jobs and are typically attracted to accumulating power. Since limited government by its very nature means limited power to politicians, it’s less likely to be the first choice. At election time, to the extent needed, campaign rhetoric is tailored for the audience, but when it comes time to wrangle deals and to vote, it is for a government solution in some form or voting for spending so political favors can be handed out. Apparently, the tendencies of limited government people helps to keep this circle going; once an election is over, the limited government prone citizens, not wanting anything particularly from government, go back to their business, and don’t follow the particular activities of their elected officials.

Of course, the paradigm of the limited government prone American no longer applies across the board. Many more Americans are paying attention to the actions of their elected officials than has been the case for some time. That is a great thing, but there are clearly still not enough who are paying attention and the results of the November 2 election make clear that too many voters continued to believe that the incumbents that were the problem were not their incumbents, or at least not their Republican incumbents.

When will the realization set in that far too many in the GOP have as of yet not gotten the message?

Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, now oft-admired for his articulations of fundamental Constitutional principles, and considered an advocate for limiting government, is a prime example of lip service versus action. While I have been skeptical about Ryan… formerly http://stubbornfacts1776.com/?p=2236 time, I hope I’ll ultimately be proven wrong and the morass that this tax comprise has become will cause Rep. Ryan to reverse his current position. How much bigger does the monster need to get for Ryan to hold himself to his own stated principles?

HotAir.com said it best:

“Ryan comes out hard against this afternoon’s leviathan omnibus spending bill. As expected, GOP supporters of the tax cuts deal are going to use their opposition to that as cover with the base for voting for this. Exit question: Ryan voted for TARP, for the tax on the AIG bonuses, and now he’s voting for this. Are you guys sure you want him as Palin’s running mate in 2012?”

Ryan is clearly capable of making good arguments; a read of his website shows he is a supporter of a flat tax, or at least he was during his campaign.

I know I’ve put a number of questions forward in this article, but I will ask one more:

WHY DON’T WE JUST WAIT UNTIL THE NEW SESSION OF CONGRESS TO DEAL WITH TAX CUTS?

In giving this idea some consideration, add the following assessment of what President Obama accomplished through the “compromise”:

“He just actually got the Republicans to agree to a huge second stimulus. If he had asked for a stimulus, he would have been laughed out of town…If you add up all the debt added on – none of it will be paid for – essentially, we’re going to now have $900 billion less of revenues over the next two years.. which is a huge fiscal stimulus infused into the economy in the year 2011 and [2012], which are exactly two years in the run-up to the presidential election.”

And this brings us to the final, but perhaps most important point of all, which is, quite strangely not making much news:

Moody’s issued a warning on Monday formerly http://www.cnbc.com/id/40641123 regarding the “tax compromise” and the United States’ credit rating. “If the bill becomes law, it will ‘adversely affect the federal government budget deficit and debt level,’ Moody’s said.”

Keep in mind, if the U.S. credit rating is downgraded from AAA to AA, the cost of paying interest on the country’s mounting debt would multiply immediately. November 2010′s monthly interest cost was a staggering $19 billion.

As a taxpayer with skin in the game, which means I am part of a household that would see an immediate increase in tax withholdings, and therefore an immediate reduction of income if the tax cuts are not reinstated by January 1, I am willing to wait rather than see this bill passed as it is. President Obama needs to do something about those middle class tax cuts he promised. One strategy for him to save face might be to call Bill Clinton back to the White House Brief Room so Mr. Bill can explain how the whole got out of control, and now that the troublesome batch of Democrats is gone from the House, the President is now ready to really do business.

The contact information for Nebraska Congressmen can be found HERE.