Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 12:24 AM ET, 12/17/2010

Liberal Democrats don't matter, Bush tax cuts extended

By Jennifer Rubin

Before the deal struck by the president and the Senate Republicans, House and Senate liberals insisted on votes to exclude upper income taxpayers from the Bush tax cut extensions. The Senate Democrats tried a couple of variations, including the millionaire cut-off proposed by Senator Chuck Schumer (D.-N.Y.). They lost votes on both. In essence, they announced their political impotence. The president and the Repbulicans then struck their deal.

In the House late Thursday night, the liberals again insisted on a soak-the-rich amendment -- actually a soak-the-dead-rich amendment. They put forth the Pomeroy amendment (appropriately introduced by North Dakota Democrat Earl Pomeroy, who lost his seat thanks to the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda) that would have hiked the estate tax a bit higher to 45 percent with a $3.5-million exclusion. It failed. (And this minimal tweak in the Senate bill was all that meaningful to the class warriors? I suppose so.) Once again, the message: The left is powerless.

Then came the vote on extending the Bush tax cuts. It wasn't close. The Pelosi Democrats could only round up 112 "no" votes. The Mike Pence Republicans amounted to a whopping 36 votes. And so, by a margin of 277 to 148, the House -- still under the speakership of Nancy Pelosi -- approved an extension of the Bush tax cuts, a payroll tax cut, an estate tax with a 35 percent rate and a generous $5-million exclusion, a grab bag of other tax cuts and a year of unemployment benefits. If you think elections don't matter, think again.

But what of this bizarre strategy of the liberals of taking losing votes on class warfare proposals? A senior House advisor rolled his eyes, "Insanity is defined as repeating the same act over and over and expecting a different result. Democrats are living proof that this definition is entirely accurate."

The incoming Speaker John Boehner was restrained in his written statement:

With nearly one in 10 Americans out of work, acting to ensure no American's taxes go up on January 1st was critically important. Failing to stop all the tax hikes would have destroyed more jobs and deepened the uncertainty in our economy. Stopping all the tax hikes is a good first step in our efforts to reduce the uncertainty family-owned small businesses are facing, but much more needs to be done, including cutting spending, permanently eliminating the threat of job-killing tax hikes, and repealing the job-killing health care law. These are critical priorities the new majority has pledged to act on in the next Congress, and I hope President Obama will listen to the American people and work with us to stop Washington's job-killing policies."

Most importantly, the vote shows that there is no significant support for the tax-the-rich mentality that was the basis for much of the liberal agenda for decades. And it undermines the narrative that Republicans can't make deals or govern responsibly. If someone had told me two months ago that, on the same day, the Senate would drop a $1.3-trillion, earmark-stuffed spending bill and the House would vote to extend the Bush tax cuts, I wouldn't have believed it. But that was before the Democrats suffered a "shellacking."

By Jennifer Rubin  | December 17, 2010; 12:24 AM ET
Categories:  Taxes  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Harry Reid didn't have the votes
Next: Morning Bits

Comments

Hey Jen, what kind of &%)?& do you smoke, and how can I can get my hands on some of it? You are either a water carrier for the US Chamber of Commerce, a subsidiary of Koch Brothers or you are a relative of that Rubin guy, one of the few people that set the stage for the financial crisis.

Posted by: IpiTombi | December 17, 2010 2:15 AM | Report abuse

Soaking the rich? What happened? Someone drowned in the flood of cash? Class warfare? That's what's been going on for over ten years. Where have you been? DS.

Posted by: tm13 | December 17, 2010 2:25 AM | Report abuse

The Post wants to be fair and balance and nowadays that appears to include giving a forum to Fox News style propaganda.

To more rational people, Obama split his own party into those more concerned about the economy and those more concerned about the ever-growing divide between the rich and the rest. Both are valid points of view.
That the liberals then wanted the losing vote anyway to show their base their efforts is very normal, and not something beholden to liberals or democrats.

Note though that Rubin thinks its responsible when Republicans want to create mountains of debt, especially on tax cuts that are estimated to grow the economy between an estimated 0.0 and 0.1%.

But we have to admit that the rich got their massive taxcuts and we got a years worth of food for the unemployed and a few measly bucks in taxcuts for the rest of us, with our kids holding the one trillion dollar bag, so the rich, the GOP, Rubin and Fox News certainly have the right to gloat, since they clearly won this round.

Thank god Obama is more steadfast on ending the Bush warmongering. Oh, wait a minute...

Posted by: lagging | December 17, 2010 3:10 AM | Report abuse

If Republicans are truly worried about job-busting expenses, then they should start with forcing the military adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq to come to a swift and speedy conclusion. The amount of money we continue to pour down those drains could create the biggest jolt the economy has ever seen.

And, if the Republicans ACTUALLY cared about anyone but the rich, they would stop complaining about the health care laws, about the barest minimum of taxation and they would focus on what this country needs, not what it wants.

What we need is to see not less governing, but smarter governing. We need to stop peddling the idea that the rich and the hyper-rich are somehow so smart that we can trust them to do what's right for everyone (when it is a FACT that everyone is will always take care of themselves before worrying about others).

The real job killers in the government today are the Republicans, who by their insistence on starving the government of money, refusing to raise taxes so that we must continue to borrow it from abroad (and pay it back with interest), are creating the type of uncertainty that keeps people from spending.

It's their constant rhetoric that the "sky is falling" over the deficit while doing everything they can to make it worse that is driving this car crash. Who would want to risk it all in a place where the leaders are clearly delusional, irresponsible and maybe even criminally negligent in their duties.

The vote that gave the Republicans the House wasn't a mandate. I don't believe that the majority of the Middle Masses even know what that would mean. It was the tried and true swing of the "Pendulum of the Idiots" in this country, those voters who choose how and who to vote for by checking to see who hates who the most the day of the election, and then electing them.

The upcoming Congress is filled with cut-throat newcomers who would like nothing more than to privatize social security, dump medicare and the health care laws, and send your grandparents or even you into the poor house to pay for medical treatments. In their America, the rich don't have a care in the world, except where to buy their next mansion. In the meantime, everyone else has to sell a kidney to get heart surgery, or live in poverty to pay for insurance, or live in the streets because their social security 401K-9 went belly up due to reckless speculation by Wall Street.

But the rich won't be hurt since they will most certainly get a bail-out once more. After all, aren't they the smarter ones?

Posted by: bryangalt1 | December 17, 2010 3:36 AM | Report abuse

Say what you will about the T party, but they have had a positive, constructive effect on the scurrilous behavior of the left wing of both the democratic and republican parties.

Posted by: stevevan1 | December 17, 2010 4:43 AM | Report abuse

Dear Mrs. Rubin,

Let's be very clear about something. The Clinton era tax rates for the top 2% of earners did not result in a loss of jobs or some sort of unfair "soaking" of rich people that caused economic stagnation, now did it? How did your little rich buddies do in the Clinton years. Were they drowning under the weight of those "soaking" tax rates? Massive job loss during Clinton years? Hmmm? I'd really like you to answer that because you know the actual facts don't back up your rhetoric about the effect of RETURNING TO THE CLINTON ERA TAX RATES ONLY FOR THE TOP 2%. Which is exactly what this was about.

Also, I hate to burst your Chamber of Commerce provided thought process, but the Bush era tax cuts did NOT produce massive job growth- particularly not by the top 2%. Did it? Hmm? You should know the answer to this question. All the information is available publicly. Yet, these facts don't get in the way.

You are the one invoking class warfare to act as though returning to the Clinton tax rates is some sort of horrifying, unfair attack on rich people. BS. It's responsible governing and, I might add, the expiration date of Bush's tax cuts were explicitly how GWB and the REPUBLICAN controlled Congress were able to "pay" for the tax cuts over a 10 year period as required by law.

Talk about irresponsible budget balancing- Republicans "balance" the budget by setting sunset dates for their OWN legislation that when those dates are reached they then attack and oppose as "tax increases" on their rich buddies. Republicans set the expiration date and now they flip-flop on their dates because they are insincere and dishonest about honest budget balancing. You appear to be right in line with that type of dishonest accounting thinking. Very sad.

Posted by: rosenbergerin | December 17, 2010 4:59 AM | Report abuse

How about some Truth in Advertising here?

Consider the source of the Koch brother propaganda in this piece.

This is the writers bio:

Rubin's political views are widely characterized as conservative[4] and neoconservative.[5] She was also called the supporter of Tea Party movement,[6] and the "ultra-hawkish Greater Israel Zionist".[7] She opposed Barack Obama on multiple occasions, calling him “the most anti-Israel U.S. president (ever),”[8] and writing that “Obama isn’t moderate, doesn’t like the free market, and isn’t interested in waging a robust war on Islamic fundamentalists.”[9]

Posted by: dotto | December 17, 2010 5:31 AM | Report abuse

Bush wins again.

It's been a hoot watching his successor and his predecessor furiously lobbying for the Bush tax cuts.... outmaneuvering and marginalizing once again the blustering dimwits of the congressional Democratic "leadership."

Seems just like old times ....
.

Posted by: gitarre | December 17, 2010 5:32 AM | Report abuse

Someone needs to remind Nancy Pelosi that SHE LOST! She -- and her ilk -- were repudiated on November 2d! Then what does this egotistically loquacious would be diva do? She comes back and forces her way back into a leadership position using her liberal band of 'progressives'. Hope she now sees and comprehends that THEY DO NOT COUNT!

Posted by: wheeljc | December 17, 2010 5:35 AM | Report abuse

You don't matter either, Jennifer.

Posted by: donspecht | December 17, 2010 5:42 AM | Report abuse

Those dam libs, they didn't want us to fight in Iraq and A-stan either. When lib Sanders stood up and said that Obama would be borrowing Chinese yuans to pay for the Republican tax cuts, he was telling the truth.

Rubin could care less about this nation, only her neocon ideology—which is always wrong, but always backed by WallSt and the Mili-Ind Complex.

Shine perishing republic, the Rubins have taken over.

Posted by: lichtme | December 17, 2010 6:02 AM | Report abuse

bryangalt1 says: "If Republicans are truly worried about job-busting expenses, then they should start with forcing the military adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq to come to a swift and speedy conclusion. The amount of money we continue to pour down those drains could create the biggest jolt the economy has ever seen."
-------------------
But the annual cost of the Afghan war is now less than 100 billion. I agree with you that it should be ended but it is not the biggest ticket item.

Similarly the cost of the "tax break for the rich" is only 70 billion dollars a year.

So together these two items are less than 170 billion dollars a year.

By contrast, Medicare and Medicaid together amount to nearly 750 billion dollars a year.

If we want to balance the budget we have to restrain the medical costs. That will also allow us to invest more in our future.

Also, we need an unbiased examination of what happened to the 230 billion surplus in 2000. The examination should look at facts and away (as far as possible) from Bush bashing or liberal bashing.

For we are all in this together.

Posted by: rjpal | December 17, 2010 6:03 AM | Report abuse

Those dam libs, they didn't want us to fight in Iraq and A-stan either. When lib Sanders stood up and said that Obama would be borrowing Chinese yuans to pay for the Republican tax cuts, he was telling the truth.

Rubin could care less about this nation, only her neocon ideology—which is always wrong, but always backed by WallSt and the Mili-Ind Complex.

Shine perishing republic, the Rubins have taken over.

Posted by: lichtme | December 17, 2010 6:03 AM | Report abuse

Pelosi's soak the rich liberals cldnt get it done? It was Pelosi that got it done. Without her support for the bill it wldnt have passed bcz she didnt have to bring it to the floor for a vote. Your skewing of the events is offensive.

Posted by: rbprtman23 | December 17, 2010 6:17 AM | Report abuse

Liberal Democrats are gradually becoming insignificant. Liberals in general have self-destructed. they care more about illegal aliens than they care about their fellow Americans who are out of work. Even liberals are calling homeless Americans lazy bums, something you'd never hear a liberal say in the past.

Posted by: beatle-maniac1 | December 17, 2010 6:52 AM | Report abuse

Freedom is on the march!

Posted by: thebump | December 17, 2010 6:56 AM | Report abuse

Fine. The RRR (Rich, Republican, Right-wing) crowd is getting everything it wants. In return, they'd better go on the biggest hiring binge in history.

Otherwise, you will see a *serious* class war. I'm not talking about the kind RRR morons blather about, but the kind that's fought with real guns and explosives.

Posted by: roblimo | December 17, 2010 7:12 AM | Report abuse

Just because you don't win doesn't mean you don't "matter," but that view exemplifies and encapsulates everything that is wrong with Washington, The Post and our public thinking. It is worthwhile, admirable and indeed necessary for liberals to stand up for what is right, and against what is wrong, even if they are drowned in a flood of Republican sleaze, cheered on the the clueless (the kindest explanation) likes of Ms. Rubin. Giving more money to the obscenely rich, among whom a Post columnist may number herself, is problematic anytime and wrong in a time when austerity is being imposed on the poor. Shame on you, and cheers for those who stood up for the right thing.

Posted by: kstack | December 17, 2010 7:13 AM | Report abuse

Also, we need an unbiased examination of what happened to the 230 billion surplus in 2000. The examination should look at facts and away (as far as possible) from Bush bashing or liberal bashing.

----------------------------------------
The trailing bursting of the tech bubble (started in 2000)?
An attack on the United States in 2001 which required a response (September 2001)??
Or, nothing happened to it, it did not take into account future realities which had to be dealt with..

Posted by: PALADIN7E | December 17, 2010 7:15 AM | Report abuse

It also shows right wing nuts don't matter.

Posted by: mrastute1958 | December 17, 2010 7:19 AM | Report abuse

This column belongs in the Drudge Report, not a legitimate newspaper - whoops!

Posted by: Jihm | December 17, 2010 7:20 AM | Report abuse

Just because you don't win doesn't mean you don't "matter," but that view exemplifies and encapsulates everything that is wrong with Washington, The Post and our public thinking. It is worthwhile, admirable and indeed necessary for liberals to stand up for what is right, and against what is wrong, even if they are drowned in a flood of Republican sleaze, cheered on the the clueless (the kindest explanation) likes of Ms. Rubin. Giving more money to the obscenely rich, among whom a Post columnist may number herself, is problematic anytime and wrong in a time when austerity is being imposed on the poor. Shame on you, and cheers for those who stood up for the right thing.

Posted by: kstack | December 17, 2010 7:13 AM | Report abuse

-------------------------------------
So, the person who said "We won, you lost", and "Elections have consequences", and "You Republicans can get on with us, but you'll have to ride in the back of the bus", does not reflect the cluelessness of Washington politics.

Aside question, what is obscenely rich in Washington? 200,000 per year, 300K?? What should be the maximum that a person should earn without the government taking the rest of the money back as obscene earnings (I am assuming you have some idea, because you made reference to obscenely rich). Gross figures are OK, but remember you have to take into account federal, state, and local taxes in your calculations.

Posted by: PALADIN7E | December 17, 2010 7:20 AM | Report abuse

The Liberal Democrats DO count and so do the Tea Party Right. The fact is that we are a country right down the middle. We are NOT Center Right as Republicans claim and we are NOT Center Left as Democrats claim. It is just about 50/50. What happened with the tax deal is that there was a thing called compromise. Republicans in their vote showed themselves as a party for the rich and the hell with everyone else. Many of the same voters who are now laid off are Republicans. Many of the same voters losing their homes are Republicans. Many of the same voters that are going to lose Social Security benefits, healthcare benefits, and other support that they need to live are Republicans. When they see their benefits go away they will still be Republicans and they will not turn Democrat. They will just stop voting!

Posted by: AZdave | December 17, 2010 7:36 AM | Report abuse

I think Republicans should treat the Democrat's the same way they were treated in the new 112th congress. Pretty scary thought isn't it libs? No input, no amendments, just sit there and like it. Pretty harsh I know. Turnaround is fair play, but lib's never care about what's fair or not. Only advancing their agenda as this weeks votes clearly show. Can you hear us now?

Posted by: elcigaro1 | December 17, 2010 7:46 AM | Report abuse

Is this true? Or is this simply a tool by which to feed you what you want to hear?

Does this truly define the American position?

lol...It's that easy...

Posted by: thegreatpotatospamof2003 | December 17, 2010 7:58 AM | Report abuse

We just borrowed 850 billion dollars to give ourselves tax breaks. what a brilliant idea? So Americans are against class warfare, they believe in borrwoing and partying?

Posted by: ak1967 | December 17, 2010 7:59 AM | Report abuse

"Liberal Democrats don't matter, Bush tax cuts extended" - the liberal POST

POST .....liberals only make up 20% of the US population so let's put their needs in line with that FACT.

Yeah they make up more than 90% in our liberal/progressive MSM wolfpack press

And over 99% of elite rich Hollywood.

But only 20% in the US as a whole.....


Posted by: allenridge | December 17, 2010 7:59 AM | Report abuse

We just borrowed 850 billion dollars to give ourselves tax breaks. what a brilliant idea? So Americans are against class warfare, they believe in borrwoing and partying?

Posted by: ak1967 | December 17, 2010 8:00 AM | Report abuse

Oh, Lt. Right-Wing/Tea Party (RWTP) Dangle...

ROTFLMAO...

Truly, over.your.head.

And you, the "best" in your field...

Posted by: thegreatpotatospamof2003 | December 17, 2010 8:02 AM | Report abuse

America has been taken over by an anti-Government brigade. The slogan 'starve the beast' has legs and will walk for a while. The infrastructure will decay and the middle income group will suffer until the whole country resembles 'Pottersville' in Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life". Then, I expect some sense will (eventually) prevail.

Unfortunately, lefties like me will have to suffer through the stupidity of decades of 'public poverty and private prosperity' as JK Gailbraith called it. By the time the nation comes around to recognizing that it is a nation, China and India will so predominate innovation and world trade, that most of us would as soon live in Mexico, the Caribbean or South America, as in the US. Canada will show us the way forward: A kind of dependent first world country that can't afford to be more than a bystander in world events, with socialized medicine and a rational economic structure. America will have no such foundation.

So, if you are an America firster, this is a sad day. But, you are probably too stupid to understand the (economic) disaster you have unleashed.

Rich Americans will invest in China; China will invest in little meaningful here; and we will decay as our power to consume diminshes while our factories rot.

Good luck to all of us!

Posted by: bert8 | December 17, 2010 8:05 AM | Report abuse

Oh, brother: World game -- we have weak-minded ko0k Congressional and political actors bought and controlled by businesses owned by foreign companies, in part controlled by foreign governments...so, tell me, who is being gamed here and how?

You don't have a clue. You are the DUMBEST, ever, and I'm truly sorry it bothers you enough that you're not even important enough for the boss to show up, but you're a joke.

Really, I mean it. You're a joke.

React much? let's provoke the tomkooke...

heh.

Posted by: thegreatpotatospamof2003 | December 17, 2010 8:06 AM | Report abuse

Ouch. You are UGLY. How do you look at yourself in the mirror? Trying to be balanced is one thing WaPo, but bringing in an ignorant liar?

Posted by: DPoniatowski | December 17, 2010 8:10 AM | Report abuse

The Left had control of all levers of power for 2 years.

And once the public got a taste of real Liberalism they were thrown out the door on Nov. 4.

The Obama stimulus failed.

Now, Obama is a supply sider.

He's George Bush II.

Same wars in Afganistan, Iraq and now Yemen.

Obama has a surge of his own now.

Gitmo will never close.

Renditions and Patriot Act are still in full force.

No domestic trials for terrorists.

Bush tax cuts extended.

Liberals couldn't affect the estate tax.

Liberals couldn't steal the silverware on the way out with the Omnibus bill.

And the majority of Americans are against health care bill, besides it having a good chance of being struck down by the Supreme Court.

Liberal trolls will return to their internet caves to stew and rant.

Planning their comeback when gay illegal alien robots can vote in 40 years.

Posted by: drjcarlucci | December 17, 2010 8:17 AM | Report abuse

According to the comment policy, comments that contain personal attacks or fake signatures will be removed. It would be nice if this were enforced. It would apply to most of the comments on this thread.

Peter Shalen

Posted by: shalen | December 17, 2010 8:19 AM | Report abuse

I can't wait for the Dems to do the same thing the Rethuglicans did to the Dems. They can obstruct everything that the Rethuglicans want to do and if they do get their agenda items passed then the President can veto it. Maybe they will think again about obstructing the will of the people you remember that one...the one where President Obama was legitimately elected based on his platform of healthcare, climate change protection, energy, no tax cuts for rich people, and making the banks pay for the mess they caused with the Rethugicans in this country. It always amazes me that people thing the rich are going to help them or anyone else. Remember the Rethuglicans will let you and your family die in the streets after they send your job overseas and then blame it all on your lazy rear end because you can't make it on a McDonald's salary, if you can even get that job. It always amazes me that people in this country are so mean spirited and stupid at the same time slapping themselves on the back for their Christian values. Please spare us your hypocracy.

Posted by: jacquie1 | December 17, 2010 8:25 AM | Report abuse

I can't wait for the Dems to do the same thing the Rethuglicans did to the Dems. They can obstruct everything that the Rethuglicans want to do and if they do get their agenda items passed then the President can veto it. Maybe they will think again about obstructing the will of the people you remember that one...the one where President Obama was legitimately elected based on his platform of healthcare, climate change protection, energy, no tax cuts for rich people, and making the banks pay for the mess they caused with the Rethugicans in this country. It always amazes me that people thing the rich are going to help them or anyone else. Remember the Rethuglicans will let you and your family die in the streets after they send your job overseas and then blame it all on your lazy rear end because you can't make it on a McDonald's salary, if you can even get that job. It always amazes me that people in this country are so mean spirited and stupid at the same time slapping themselves on the back for their Christian values. Please spare us your hypocracy.

Posted by: jacquie1 | December 17, 2010 8:26 AM | Report abuse

Hey look, it's another conservative purposely misinterpreting the polls. More than 3/4 of the country supports a tax hike on the top 2%. But there's support for this bill (which of course includes tax cuts for the top 2%), because rates will effectively go up for all if it doesn't get passed.

John Boehner doesn't give a damn about anyone making less than 7 figures. Why would he when his mentality is that jobs are primarily stimulated by millionaires? He and every other Republican took the unemployment benefits hostage to ensure that tax cuts were extended for the wealthy elite. Republican make plenty of deals -- too many of which are not directed towards the interest of their constituents and a majority of Americans. They could really care less about whether wealthy tax cuts will magically stimulate the economy and send unemployment numbers plummeting, because if and when they don't, there's a weak and compromising Democrat president to blame. And they know without a doubt that it will raise the debt enough for government programs such as social security to be set up for cuts or outright termination. It's a wonderful strategy -- assuming you have the high income or inherited money to afford the cuts in social programs.

Which brings us to the estate tax. I really don't understand those dismissing the estate tax as robbery, especially when it will not even apply to them. Based on the logic used to make such a convoluted argument, you might as well call sales tax robbery -- and at least then it's being made on someone living who can complain about it. Lowering the estate tax will further enable the most wealthy to remain isolated from the main street economy (i.e. working hard and contributing innovative skills to make a salary.) And all while millions of laid-off workers (whom some conservatives compassionately refer to as lazy bums) can only hope their benefits separating them from eviction or bankruptcy don't run out.

My prediction is Obama will suffer the consequences of throwing the queen to Republicans before a compromise is even discussed. The debt will spike, and he will be forced to raise taxes on at least some Americans, or more likely he will bow to Republicans and ask which social programs they wish to be cut. He has a chance at a second term, mainly because any current potential Republican is too out of touch with the middle class and how an economy outside of Wall Street operates.

Posted by: DAK4Blizzard | December 17, 2010 8:28 AM | Report abuse

Mitch McConnel for President. The much maligned Dr. No of the GOP outmanoevres Reid on the Ominbus Bill and Obama on extending the tax cuts. It was refreshing watching a grumpy and exhausted Reid pull his Ominbus Bill last night. The biggest poisen pill in the bill was a one billion dollar appropriation bill for implementing Obamacare. By killing the ominbus bill the GOP will have a free hand in defunding Obamacare next year. Undoing much of the Obama agenda will be a significant accomplishment and will help heal the economy going forward.

Posted by: jkk1943 | December 17, 2010 8:31 AM | Report abuse

The venom in the name calling of the majority of these negative comments is a reminder that, when you have no rational argument, resort to insults.

The people voted, the liberals lost. Are you going to attack the voters?

Posted by: Labrador1 | December 17, 2010 8:32 AM | Report abuse

Liberals have to matter or else we are all lost. Liberals are the heart and soul of this country. If it were not for liberals this right wing hack of a woman would never be writing this column today, because the woman's equality movement was and is a liberal movement. Liberals also gave us social security, civil rights, head start, the list is endless and it is everything that is good about this country. So, Jennifer, do not gloat over the liberal loss on this bill. The fact is that liberals took the bullet because they CARE. They did not want to delay the unemployed the benefits they needed to survive in this jobless economy (and do not give me any garbage about the idle unemployed. Paris Hilton has never worked a day in her life. How about the idle rich?) Why? Because liberals are human beings and they CARE.

As for class warfare it is long overdue. Why does the single mother working at MacDonalds make 25,000 a year while the CEO makes a hundred million a year WHEN THEY ARE WORKING THE SAME AMOUNT OF HOURS? Simple logic says that this is wrong.

So, Jennifer, how about a column about all the American taxpayer got for spending almost a trillion dollars invading Iraq? I have asked for this several times and yet you are silent, content only to stoke the fires of inequality and unfairness that is part and parcel of the Republican party.

Maybe the Republicans won last night and the liberals lost. BUT IT WAS NOT RIGHT.

Posted by: nyrunner101 | December 17, 2010 8:39 AM | Report abuse

As a Republicans, we would like to see less government spending. Get the government off the backs or the people! We would like to see more cuts in government employees. Particularly at the Securities and Exchange Commission. We need a lot less government employees with oversight on Wall Street and the banking sector. We need a lot less government employees looking at Mine Safety, and Food Safety. A lot less government employees at FDIC, poking their noses into bank business.

The market has shown it can solve all problems without government watchdogs looking over our shoulders. And the shoulders of those corporations who, through their generous spending, have helped us back into office.

Posted by: rash67 | December 17, 2010 8:45 AM | Report abuse

Someone needs to remind Nancy Pelosi that SHE LOST! She -- and her ilk -- were repudiated on November 2d! Then what does this egotistically loquacious would be diva do? She comes back and forces her way back into a leadership position using her liberal band of 'progressives'. Hope she now sees and comprehends that THEY DO NOT COUNT!

Posted by: wheeljc

======================================

Pelosi will be a nobody in a couple of weeks. What's also clear that all the lefties who are attacking and insulting Ms. Rubin don't seem to grasp that they lost both the midterm election and the argument.

Posted by: bbface21 | December 17, 2010 8:46 AM | Report abuse

I only hope Rubin is joking here. I'm still waiting for the jobs that the Bush tax cuts were supposed to create 10 years ago. Just because the tax cuts were extended doesn't mean that they were, are, or will ever be effective. The cuts were passed precisely because Repubs are intransigent, not fiscally responsible to anyone except the very wealthy, and because the cuts are politically popular.

As for Repubs being able to govern responsibly, well, the 8 yrs of Bush II tell that story far better than I can. And Boner is still unable to accept that HCR is needed, popular, & here to stay.

I also find it interesting that Rubin completely ignores the right wing social agenda which, unfortunately, will rise to the surface after Jan 1.

To beatle-maniac1: you should change your handle. John Lennon would be ashamed of you.

Posted by: nyskinsdiehard | December 17, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse

Jennifer - you are exactly right. Which, of course, is the reason for the snarky and juvenile comments insulting you personally in lieu of debating your points.

When unable to debate on facts, it appears that some resort to "killing the messenger" - an unfortunate truth at the Washington Post.

Posted by: JackESpratt | December 17, 2010 8:49 AM | Report abuse

STOP THE PRESSES: Barbra Streisand has announced that she no longer has faith in Obama!!! Oh, my God! Oh, my God! The world as we know it is coming to an end!!! Barbra has spoken from ON HIGH! Why, this is like the Ten Commandments! Or something like that!!!!

Posted by: georges2 | December 17, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

Let's just split this country in two and get on with it. Sick of the anti-intellectuals theocrats effecting this country. The biggest anti-Americans in the country!

Beware of those carrying flags and spouting generalities about patriotism. Beware of those "Constitutionalists" whose idea of governing by the Constitution is to gut it.

Posted by: skinswitabullet | December 17, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

Reading the comments here reminds me of a few days ago when a bunch of Liberals postured prominently about being concerned about the decline of civility in public discourse. “No Labels” they declared, with much less force than a New Year’s resolution to lose thirty pounds starting in a few months.

Posted by: nvjma | December 17, 2010 9:04 AM | Report abuse

You know, it is an ugly and incendiary headline to lead with "Liberals Don't Matter . . ." and not worthy of a world class newspaper. Don't throw mud if you don't want to invite snarky, personal comments in your blog, you haven't opened the door to intelligent discourse and have identified yourself as biased beyond the point of reason out the gate.

The truth to this story, and truth always has its way, one day, is that poor people don't matter. We have a two party system that represents the Haves and the Have Mores and the Have Nots are left without advocacy. In a country that calls itself Christian. By the party that can't get enough of the Have Mores, like the author of this article. And anything they can do to take from the poor to give to the rich, they are out to do it. They will dress it up with other words, Harvard educated words, silly women from Alaska words, they will get people with tea bags stapled to their hats to be their spokespersons, but they will do it and so far, they will win. We all hate taxes. But we like roads. And educated doctors. And feudal England with its lords who inherited the manors and the serfs, that never sounded so hot when I read about it in the history books. And yes, the American dream. How quaint.

Posted by: SarahBB | December 17, 2010 9:15 AM | Report abuse

Good points NYRunner101, but forget reason. It doesn't resonate with the right. They only know "Me" and Force. Somehow these dimwits identify themselves with the rich, and those with less resources or access can go to hell. Weed out the so called burdens of society, let 'em all die for all they care. They should know that the rich couldn't exist without the poor and working class.

It's always someone else who is the problem. A bunch of Joe Millers. Take advantage of social programs, unemployment, etc and then decry those "others" sucking off society. Hypocrites all!

Posted by: skinswitabullet | December 17, 2010 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Well Sarah, considering some of the vile bilge that comes out of the left regarding anyone not of the progressive mindset, I don't think Jen's headline is THAT awful.

#2 - How much exactly of other people's money do you want handed to the bottom 50-60% of American workers? they already pay little to no federal and state income tax. Their health insurance is going to be subsidized with Obamacare. What more do you want? I don't mind and I understand the need for a safety net for the truly needy. But some of you seem to want a 'safety net' for more than half the US population. This isn't financially sustainable.

The top 10% of taxpayers already pay 70% of the federal income tax obligation. The top 1% pay 30%. They don't pay enough? Seriously?

The bottom line is I think that you and people like you want a giant welfare state for 60-70% of the US population paid for by a few million people. It's not going to work.

Do you realize you are all for increasing tax rates in a bad economy on the people who hire people and create jobs? Are you aware of this?

Posted by: jmpickett | December 17, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

I really don't see a good future for this country. I see continued gridlock on the hill! And giving a tax break to the wealthy when we are borrowing trillions of dollars abroad is just plain crazy! I'm pretty much feed up with the current two party system. What is good for corporate America is not good for AMERICA! But corporate America owns the political system! So we are doomed!

Posted by: noneckmd | December 17, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Hats off, you are on the same page as Congress; I'm sure 16% of readers approve of your columns too.

Posted by: Godfather_of_Goals | December 17, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Well said SarahBB!!

Posted by: skinswitabullet | December 17, 2010 9:23 AM | Report abuse

A victory for freedom and liberty! The far-left agenda of the Democrat party has been thwarted. Taxes are still way too high, but I don't care as long as they're being used to kill our enemies overseas or put criminals behind bars where they belong. For those of you who are unemployed, get off your duffs and get a job, or start your own business in the American tradition. Stop expecting big Daddy Government to bail you out for your own personal failings.

Now we can continue with out pro-American agenda and kill off the Dream Act (Nightmare Act), keep DADT on the books, and dismantle the rest of the radical, Marxist Obamanation agenda! The Tea Party will show us the way. Up from freedom, Jesus, personal responsibility, the Bible, guns, and economic liberty and down with the liberal, secular humanist statists and the Kenyan Keynesian!

Posted by: Dan78 | December 17, 2010 9:24 AM | Report abuse

Here is my reason, skins: I don't think we should be jacking tax rates on the very people we want to hire people. That's what 'the rich' you love to denigrate so much do, you know. There are millions of small businesses, whose taxes you are advocating to be raised right now. THAT is who I am defending. And yes, I'm one of them. I am not shilling for the idle rich.

Posted by: jmpickett | December 17, 2010 9:24 AM | Report abuse

@jmpickett: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/03/half-of-the-wealthy-own-small-businesses/

Many small businesses do not fall in the top 2%. The GOP loves to have us fantasize otherwise.

Posted by: DAK4Blizzard | December 17, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Thanks Pickett! Those small businesses you're talking about are sub-divided multi-national corporations and law firms with 8 people working in them. They, with their battery of lawyers rally know how to get around the tax laws and to pull the wool over the eyes of "real Americans."

The proof will be in the pudding. The tax laws have been in effect since Bush, when you guys plundered first this country. How are you going to vote when your trickle down BS doesn't work? Gonna blame that on the Dems too?

Posted by: skinswitabullet | December 17, 2010 9:40 AM | Report abuse

"Soaking the Rich" and "Confiscation", are terms, that when I hear them, tell me that the writer is too blinded by ideology, greed, ignorance, or any combination of the three, to have any credibility.

As has been pointed out by many, the top marginal tax rates of the Clinton years, like the higher rates of the 1950's & 1960's did not discourage job creation.

In fact, if you look at the data for the past 100 years, lowering the top marginal rates has, in almost every case, resulted in an economic contraction within 2 years. Likewise, raising the rates has almost always resulted in economic expansion within two years.

This may not be a cause and effect situation, but several economists have suggested that aside from the Keynesian argument that government spending stimulates growth, the other factor that comes into play is that when rates are higher, the rich decide that they have to actually EARN their wealth by creating real capital (factories, etc.) and jobs.

When the rates are too low, we see the kind of speculative bubbles that preceded 1929 and 2008, because the wealthy are more inclined to gamble when the feel that they have 'free' money to play with. In other words, greed is bad for the economy.

Based on the historical data, a "rational" top rate, i.e. one that encourages the rich to invest their money in activities that actually help the overall economy, is somewhere between 40 and 45%. More than that and the rich do have cause to complain about rates being too high. Less than that and they cannot be trusted to behave, to the detriment of the entire economy.

Posted by: kg1957 | December 17, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

I appreciate many of my readers' frustration with the tenor and language of the comments from our friends on the left, which violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the Post's commenting policy. But let's take a deep breath. These folks lost the omnibus pork-a-thon and saw the Bush tax cuts extended. They recently suffered an electoral shellacking and witnessed multiple temper tantrums from their presidential idol. So let's cut 'em some slack. And let's tip our hats to those making substantive arguments, namely : 1) this is all borrowed money and 2) if the Republicans had it their way entirely they would have made the politically toxic decision to cut off unemployment benefits.

Posted by: Jennifer Rubin | December 17, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Once one understands Ms Rubin's job is to appear to annoy liberals, she instantly becomes uninteresting.

Of course, it's a living.

Posted by: zukermand | December 17, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Dak4Blizzard is 100% correct. The WaPo/ABC poll was deliberately slanted by not even asking if people supported ONLY tax cut extensions for the majority and letting them expire for the very rich. They did the same thing over health care reform, refusing to even ask if people supported single payer or a public option. When a major newspaper is slanted almost as far right as Fox Misinfotainment, I truly fear for my country's survival as a democracy which requires an informed populace, not a brainwashed one.

Posted by: fingersfly | December 17, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Stuff a bill to fund the entire government full of earmarks, then vote it down because it has too many earmarks.*

That's not good governance. It's AWESOME governance.


__________________________

*for the record, I care not one cr@p about earmarks. They are a microscopic fraction of the budget, and just another right-wing distraction from their relentless crippling and dismantling the federal government.

Posted by: Godfather_of_Goals | December 17, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

The author is right in a sense. The Dems have the messaging all wrong. What they need to be saying is that the money we are giving away to the rich fat piggies today, the middle class will be paying for tomororow through reduced social security benefits, higher health care bills to individuals, lower assistance for college loans, higher state and local taxes, and beleive me, the Republicans will find a way to still sock it to the middle class thru higher fees and hidden taxes.

The message: the free ride for the rich is being paid for by the middle class. And the ultra rich use their savings to buy off the Republican congressmen and Blue Dogs that pass bills that protect the rich and punish the middle class. Now what is wrong with this picture?

Posted by: Poleman | December 17, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

The author is right in a sense. The Dems have the messaging all wrong. What they need to be saying is that the money we are giving away to the rich fat piggies today, the middle class will be paying for tomororow through reduced social security benefits, higher health care bills to individuals, lower assistance for college loans, higher state and local taxes, and beleive me, the Republicans will find a way to still sock it to the middle class thru higher fees and hidden taxes.

The message: the free ride for the rich is being paid for by the middle class. And the ultra rich use their savings to buy off the Republican congressmen and Blue Dogs that pass bills that protect the rich and punish the middle class. Now what is wrong with this picture?

Posted by: Poleman | December 17, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

We'll see what matters in 2012. Count on a primary challenge to Obama. Count on significant write-in's or no-votes in lieu of Obama in the general. Obama's unwillingness to fight on ANY issue at ANY time has so turned off his base that the money and volunteer time will take significant hits. He could win again -- but only if the the GOP nominates the likes of Carribou Barbie.

Posted by: dolph924 | December 17, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

And the ultra rich use their savings to buy off the Republican congressmen and Blue Dogs that pass bills that protect the rich and punish the middle class. Now what is wrong with this picture? ..My boyfriend thinks the same as I do. He is eight years older than me, lol. We met online at agegaplove``.com a nice and free place for younger women and older men, or older women and younger men, to interact with each other. Maybe you wanna check out or tell your friends.

Posted by: sasago | December 17, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Republicans have basically been snookered into another massive stimulus bailout. This will be even bigger than the one started by their own former leader, George W. Bush. For a party which claims that it's a mistake to try to spend your way out of debt, you have to wonder if they believe their own bull.

Posted by: DaveHarris | December 17, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Looks like you really touched a nerve. So many attacks from the liberal intelligentsia. They are simply in denial. But thats okay, because the more they keep whining, the less of them there will be around after 2012. Too bad the entire senate was not up for election last November.

Posted by: red4ever2 | December 17, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

It's a bad bill, like most necessary bills, crammed with fat for special interests and dodging any heavy lifting. But it does provide some relief for the less-than-rich, and it does provide an economic stimulus, and it can be revisited after the next election turns out the incoming nitwits. We have to endure a couple of years of sloganeering from the wingnuts. The stay-at-homes of this last election can meditate on their mistake. A small turnout enabled a lot of turkeys to gain access to the Congressional till. They will try to gobble up every benefit they can.

Posted by: frodot | December 17, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

"And it undermines the narrative that Republicans can't make deals or govern responsibly."

Who says this is responsible governing? We're lowering taxes and increasing spending. How does the deficit go down with those policies?

Posted by: wwc4g | December 17, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Is Michelle Malkin ghost writing this stuff under the name Jennifer Rubin?

Whoever it is, lighten up and be happy...K?

Posted by: danw1 | December 17, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Liberals had 2 years to make their argument.

Even with complete control of Congress, the White House and the MSM they could not convince voters - and were shown the door en masse.

They could have overridden the Republicans at every turn because they out numbered them.

So the Party of No excuse is just whining after their own incompetence and bungling.

Democrats couldn't even convince all Democrats to go along with their program, which shows how bad it actually was.

Now Obama turns supply-sider to survive politically.

Like anyone actually believes this.

But it's just one more sign of how stone dead Liberalism actually is.

Posted by: drjcarlucci | December 17, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

What a bunch of Babble,and it appears many others agree.

Posted by: patmariegeraghty | December 17, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Actually, most Democrats did not vote to "extend the Bush tax cuts" which, after all, have done so much to drive America into the poorhouse. They voted for the bill to 1. ensure the continuation of benefits to the unemployed; 2. provide stimulus to the economy; 3. maintain middle class tax cuts. These are all liberal positions. The fact that they had to compromise with the Republicans, who serve the exclusive interests of the plutocratic elite, was simply the price of getting a second stimulus bill through.

Posted by: Ladyrantsalot | December 17, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

@donspecht | December 17, 2010 5:42 AM
"You don't matter either, Jennifer."
@lichtme | December 17, 2010 6:02 AM
"... the Rubins have taken over."
____________________

At least one of you leftists must be wrong.

Posted by: HenriLeGrand | December 17, 2010 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Jennifer, what planet do you come from? This is America. Everyone matters. Maybe, even you.

Posted by: jckdoors | December 17, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Can this moron read a poll? Every one I've seen has said the vast majority of Americans had absolutely NO PROBLEM letting the rich pay their PRE-BUSH FAIR SHARE!Of course , Congress rarely votes to reflect the will of the people.I have already told Democratic fund raisers that I will contribute nothing to them as long as this President thinks he's a freaking REPUBLICAN!!!

Posted by: hughsie48 | December 17, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Looks like Fred Hiatt has taken enough time away from eating puppies raw to hire a right-wing lunatic who thinks just like he does.

Way to write those hack and slash pieces that have no basis in reality. The Washington Post will eventually fire you too.

Posted by: exPostie | December 17, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Looks like Fred Hiatt has taken enough time away from eating puppies raw to hire a right-wing lunatic who thinks just like he does.

Way to write those hack and slash pieces that have no basis in reality. The Washington Post will eventually fire you too.

Posted by: exPostie | December 17, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Obama, Reid and Pelosi had all the power the past two years and enacted much of the long-frustrated liberal agenda. Now the voters have repudiated them, but they still cling to their dishonest and unpopular class-warfare rhetoric. Obama, despite his whining, realized the importance to the economy of extending the Bush tax rates. And more than half of the Dems voted for the Bush tax rates last night.

Hey, libs -- you lost. Bush tax rates, the Patriot Act, Gitmo, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- the things you railed most against -- all survive. Obama's legacy -- ObamaCare, civilian trials for foreign terrorists, engagement with terrorist states, onerous regulation, and reckless spending -- is under strong attack. The tea party you derided is winning. Progressive ideology is seen by most Americans for what it is -- an outdated, impractical, destructive ideology.

Posted by: eoniii | December 17, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Like the tortoise and the hare, the Democrats have a good possibility of winning the class war race come 2012. It was necessary for the Republican party to win this year in order that what just happened between Obama and Congress could occur and is the beginning of the stark highlight of the differences between the parties. On the grand stage open to public display, the Republicans will now be forced to show their true fractured colors to the voters and in having to do so will increase the likelihood that their victory in 2010 will be short-lived.

Posted by: TabLUnoLCSWfromUtah | December 17, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

to cswfromutah

I sicerely hope that your rermarks are correct . for in my opinion obama needs to clean out that nest of left over political vipers from the former bush chenney years an for him to quit listening to anything that they have to say than k you

Posted by: pbjbeach@yahoo.com | December 17, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company