Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 7:45 AM ET, 12/ 8/2010

Morning Bits

By Jennifer Rubin

You don't say? House Minority Whip Eric Cantor says he doesn't think Obama's reference to the Republicans as hostage takers is "helpful." Actually, nothing Obama said at the presser was helpful to sealing a deal -- or improving Obama's image.

You don't say? "President Obama and his negotiators cut this tax deal, and it might be up to them to sell it to their fellow partisans in Congress. Since Monday night, it's become clear that congressional Democrats aren't exactly itching to pass this deal, and neither the House nor the Senate has seen Democratic leaders jump at the opportunity to press their caucuses to accept the president's plan." He probably should have left out that line about liberals being sanctimonious.

You don't say? Charlie Cooks says the Democrats are in denial: "Many Democrats seem to take solace in the idea that stubbornly high unemployment and the terrible economy are to blame for their midterm election losses. They are unwilling to acknowledge that there were some more fundamental factors at work, ones that may be too unpleasant for them to face."

You don't say? Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) didn't care for Obama's press conference either. "My thought was that the president was acknowledging the reality of the election and making some compromise.... But, obviously, he is not committed to bipartisanship." Or he is just really, really bad at it.

You don't say? Referring to the break-off of Middle East peace talks: "Officials said the administration decided to pull the plug because it concluded that even if Mr. Netanyahu persuaded his cabinet to accept an extension -- which he had not yet been able to do -- the 90-day negotiating period would not have produced the progress on core issues that the administration originally had hoped for." They only now figured this out?

You don't say? The Hill headline isn't going to make Obama any less grumpy: "Left sees tax surrender, says Obama reelection bid now crippled."

You don't say? Howard Fineman points out that Obama did a very bad job of negotiating: "The White House and the party spin doctors it controls are putting out press releases touting all that Obama 'got' in his 'negotiations' with the GOP. But most of what he 'got' were more unpaid-for tax cuts to go along with the $100 billion or so he waved ahead in two year's worth of tax cuts for every family making more than $250,000 a year. Even the estate-tax deals had levels and limits far lower than what accountants and tax advisors to the rich had been bracing for, I'm told by industry types." Well, when Huffington Post and Right Turn agree, it's safe to say the president is in a heap of trouble.

By Jennifer Rubin  | December 8, 2010; 7:45 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Bits  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama's Middle East policy collapses
Next: Obama's weak hand


The major thing the country can take from the episode this week is this: When the nation voted for Compromise, no one envisioned Obama kicking and screaming, blaming everyone - and actually using "terrorism" and "hostage-taking" to describe negotiations.

Instead, Obama sold the nation on the idea that he was some big character who could bring everyone together.

That has turned out to be the biggest joke of the 2008 election - AND THIS WEEK WAS THE PUNCH LINE. The liberals apparently have no idea how much damage they are doing to their party this week.

Obama has brought blame to a new art form - one which makes nonsense look practical.

What is even worse, we have witnessed the COMPLETE IMPLOSION of any credibility that the democrats have left. Something happened to the democrats. The democrats lost their agenda during Reagan. They put together the new liberal agenda, which is really just a piecing-together of special interest agendas, and it turned out to be deeply flawed. But something happened to the democrats during the Bush years that they convinced themselves that if they lied enough, they could control the country and press their agendas through. Politics in a democracy just doesn't work that way.


Posted by: RainForestRising | December 8, 2010 8:21 AM | Report abuse

Interesting number I've seen this week - only 3% of small businesses are in the highest tax bracket.

BUT, that 3% is responsible for 45% or so of the revenue from small businesses in America.

That right there is the main reason I support extending all tax rates, at least for 2 years if not longer.

I don't deny that some rich schmuck will get a big tax break he probably doesn't 'need.' But I think the greater good is being served here. Besides, I am not comfortable with judging what others 'need' as some people are.

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

"Many Democrats … are unwilling to acknowledge that there were some more fundamental factors at work in [their midterm election losses], ones that may be too unpleasant for them to face.”

One of the big reasons for Democrats and Liberals being determinedly blind to their problems is that Modern [mis-named] Liberalism – New and Improved Socialism (NIS) would certainly be more accurate—has been given place of preference for almost all of living memory in almost all of the media.
Is it surprising the affect this has had on nanny Liberals who cooked up the concept of participation trophies for Little League players and the like? Among other things contemplate not just the arrogance but the narcissism and it long term self-coddling affects when Liberals thirty years ago coined the expression for themselves “being concerned,” e.g., “Hubert Humphery was concerned,” invalidating, by implication, those who are not Liberal because they are not concerned.

Seen in this light one can easily understand Liberals’ irrational intolerance to FOX news, Rush Limbaugh, and so many other Conservative commentators and new outlets of similar views that are now mushrooming.

Overall this will be a good thing if it leads to a greater appreciation of character and how it is developed.

Posted by: nvjma | December 8, 2010 9:03 AM | Report abuse

jmpickett | December 8, 2010 8:26 AM

I seriously doubt those numbers - or rather I seriously doubt the definitions of the terms behind the numbers.

A good number of "small businesses" are actually S corporations - which may or may not be counted in your numbers.

Also, many small businessmen own serveral S corps or a combinations of S corps and C corps.

To complicate matters, in recent years, LLCs and LLPs have been in the mix. So, I don't know what the numbers are. AND I suppose that the statistics do not lend themselves easily to the present debate either.

So, I doubt the numbers.

What is clear is this: the concept is correct. If you have lower tax rates, that extra money will be invested and will be utilized for additional hiring. If you don't have the money, you AREN'T hiring people, that much is clear.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 8, 2010 9:12 AM | Report abuse

3% of small businesses - well I have seen definitions of "small businesses" which include thousands of employees.

Some of those have to be public corporations, which would fall under corporate rates - and fall OUTSIDE of that 3% which is being used for the calculation.


The democrats say they are "offended" by the estate tax - but most rich people use trusts to shelter their income.

So, the estate tax has become a ridiculous tax which falls only to those who have been caught WITHOUT estate planning.

Is is possible that the "estate tax outrage" is really the accounting industry complaining ?

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 8, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

how about this? According to IRS data, fully 48% of the net income of sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations reported on tax returns went to households with incomes above $200,000 in 2007.//

That is according to a Christian Science Monitor article.

So I do think an increase in the highest tax rates, over 250k, would have an unfortunate impact on small businesses. That is MY concern, not that my rich pals get a tax break to buy a yacht.

Posted by: jmpickett | December 8, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Perhaps duelling filibusters by Bernie Sanders (Socialist) and Jim DeMint (TEA Party) SHOULD be America's favorite reality show, with Evan Bayh and George Voinovich cast as the fiscal chorus.

Posted by: K2K2 | December 8, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company