As a result of all the various pieces of “desperately hurried” legislation being both passed and rejected in the lame duck session, a large proportion of the populace seem to be in a state of total ideological confusion. In fact, even members of the Liberal Media have stated how peculiar things have become . Obama was turned upon so quickly and so rabidly by his own, that virtually no one could see it coming. Many of those even in the Conservative Media simply cannot seem to get a handle on why Obama caved into (compromised or flip-flopped) with the Republicans. Even after the President’s constantly maintaining, to his base, that the top-end taxcuts would be removed for nearly three whole years now. But the ultimate answer to some, while it may seem a bit meandering, seems the most practical so far– despite being not so very simple.
The “Get The Most You Can While You Can” Theory
The new Congress is due to be seated in January, and has begun to take on the look of a defacto Republican majority in not just the House, but in the Senate, as well. It is a fact that, due to the Democratic massacre in November, a number of moderate Democrats in the Senate will be voting as Conservatives on a great many issues, not the least of which are the fiscally directed ones. If Obama were to have put off the taxation question until the new Congress is seated and then begin talks, he would have been placed in a far worse position than before, even while being the Chief Executive responsible for every single American to be walloped by a tax increase in the deepest and darkest recession in this Country’s history. After the healthcare debacle and the ongoing economic situation, his political capital would be worth less than a wooden nickle.
The Question Of Obama Moderating Versus Obama Pragmaticizing
Many have indicated this particular compromise by Obama to be his lurch to the center. However, when we take the last bit of reasoning into account, we can begin to see something else at play. Obama, in fact, probably made the best liberal decision that he could under the circumstances. He certainly does not want his systemic voting base to be hit with a tax increase of 50% (from 10% to 15%) nor does he want a large sub-sector of the population to undergo the ravages of his repeatedly failed non-economic efforts by losing their unemployment. Obama has also had a terrible desire for an easy foreign policy victory that, so far, has evaded him–which he could win with the START treaty. Obama does want to tax those who are of the wealthiest, but not enough to also tax the lowest of income earners, which would, at least in part, explain his decision-making process. To those who say, well they have a majority now, why not push it through, the answer to that is quite simple. The Senate has already been dynamically changed. even before the January seating, and no piece of legislation will make it through, if meaningfully stood against, by January 1st.
The Top Down, Bottom Up, Inside-Out Reason For Liberal Angst At Obama
The reason for the Democratic angst is a bit harder to get a grip on, but when looked at from a certain point of view, makes a good deal of sense. First, remember that a large number of moderate Democrats were voted out. The most strident voices against Obama regarding the extensions, at this point, have been from the extreme left. Nancy Pelosi even indicated initially that she would not bring Obama’s tax agreement to a vote. “Quirog” from the planet “Greazidom” (Harry Reid) “looked as if someone had shot his dog.” One of the possible reasons for the Liberal’s confused anger could be rooted within the hardcore Progressive’s bible, Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals,” and essentially speaks to why the liberal mindset is one of de-evolution at best. Class warfare, if anyone has noticed, has rapidy become the bellwether issue for Liberals and Progressives. As anyone who watches or reads Glenn Beck and others knows, the incessant theme of a Marxist-style revolution is one of constantly pushing for the top down, bottom up, inside out theory which actually plays quite beautifully into the reason for the current anger of the liberals at Obama in their desire to take it to the wealthy and to do so very hard, even against the strategery of their anointed one.
Pick The Target, Freeze It, Personalize It, Polarize It, Cut Off Support, Isolate It From Sympathy; Attack The Wealthy
When ostracizing a particular group for vilification, the first thing that one must do is skew public opinion against that group by both freezing and polarizing public opinion against it. This is the bottom-up effect of Beck’s theory which Marxist Van Jones has constantly put forth among other Progressive Groups. Socialists and their closest cousins, the Liberals, have always hated the ultra-successful at the top, even while many are actually a part of them. By hitting the wealthy with heavy taxation, the redistributive goals, which are at least a part of their plan, can more easily be met, while identifying a specific group in what is ultimately a severe form of economic discrimination.
Many have recently made note of an increasing number of wealthy Capitalists actually moving away from the US, some temporarily, due to the anti-business and anti-wealth furor which is developing within America. We have also seen a number of these most wealthy actually giving up large amounts of their holdings to charity and otherwise. So, why is this? It’s simply the beginning of the class warfare that virtually any hardcore Progressive, who wishes to defeat, free-market Capitalism, is moving towards. Remember, one of the singular reasons that the Founders did not, in any way, desire a true Democracy is simply because a rule by majority will lead to ultimate tyranny each and every single time. What we may be seeing at present is this, the Socialist wing of the Democratic Party, using actual tyrannical concepts to go after those who are among the most wealthy. As with any Authoritarian leaning regime, however, once the most wealthy have gotten their due in the form of confiscatory taxation, which group is next and where does it end? Which arbitrary line will be drawn and who might it be drawn against the next time?
The thing to remember within all of this is that when the original premise was begun concerning extending the tax-cuts which, once again, would mean that the taxation rates remain unchanged, the agreement was considered to be…just barely Ok by many Conservatives. However, now we have seen that both the Senate and the House have made severe alterations to the the bill by way of earmarks. Bouncing back to Charles Krauthammer’s heretofore brilliant emanations discussed in a prior column, Krauthammer states that the bill is a swindle, but that the Republicans had no way to walk the bill back. To this we would say pish-posh! The Republicans could have easily rejected the bill and certainly should have on the basis of the huge amounts of pork that have been added to it. In fact, the Republicans should have simply rejected it–as the bill has been loaded down with spending measures that have inflated it grossly and will actually have increased our overall spending as a result.
The Laffer Editorial Revisited
One of the main points of not increasing taxes is to get the economy moving in a sustained way. But, in keeping the existing taxation rate, while adding more spending for various earmarks, was certainly not the way to go about the business of deferring to the people who spoke very loudly this past election on both spending and taxes.
The other thing to remember is simply this: When economist Arthur Laffer, one of the architects of the Reagan economic revolution, wrote what is now referred to as the Laffer Editorial back in June of this year, Conservatives went wild with excitement. The editorial spoke to exactly what America needs in order for her to bulldoze her way back into economic prosperity. Flash forward to the present and we actually have heard Obama essentially reading from certain parts of Laffer’s editorial, especially the part about a double-dip recession if we fail to extend the cuts. The ironic part of all of this is simply that Laffer’s Reagan Economics seems to be in complete and total opposition to the Obamanomics we have been suffering thought for the past two years.
If the Republicans and perhaps even the clueless Democrats waited until Congress is reseated in January to extend the current tax rates, the Republicans wiould have been able to renegotiate the tax bill, cutting out all of the pork and a number of the extras, and maybe even make some additions which will serve to actually stimulate the private sector, for a change, instead of just the disproportionate public sector.
Would that be Change that We Can Believe In… For A Change?