The Senate approved a short-term extension of the payroll tax cut, unemployment benefits and a fix to physician’s Medicare reimbursement payments for two months. The final vote was 89-10.
These are clean extensions that punt the larger extension into next year, when this entire debate will repeat itself at the end of February. There are only two additional measures on this bill. First, there’s a pay-for, which was included in both a Democratic and Republican version of payroll tax cut legislation. That would be the increase in payments by mortgage lenders to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to guarantee mortgages. This saves roughly $35.7 billion over a 10-year period, and causes the bill to actually reduce the deficit in the 10-year budget window by $2.968 billion. Only $1.3 billion of that hits in the first year, so the bill follows the “increase the deficit now, reduce it later” format broadly consistent with the Democratic mainstream of thought on stimulus these days. And this is a pay-for where bankers pay Fannie and Freddie more of a market rate for guaranteeing mortgages. Furthermore, any increase in Fannie and Freddie’s cash flow means less money that taxpayers have to use to bail them out. I don’t think anyone should have a problem with the pay-for.
The second measure concerns the Keystone XL pipeline. There’s been a ton of misinformation around this part. I know some people have termed this a GOP victory but I don’t see why. Even the venerable 350.org rushed out a call to action last night saying that Obama caved on the pipeline and that everyone must call to get him to veto the bill. They are either playing along or don’t understand that this provision will ensure a denial of the permit in rapid fashion.
The bill stipulates that the Administration must make an up-or-down decision on the permit for the pipeline within two months of the signing of this act. The State Department has already said that doesn’t leave them enough time to explore the re-routing both they and the state of Nebraska and pipeline owner TransCanada have said they want to consider, to avoid the Ogalalla Sand Hills region, and particularly the aquifer that supplies water to the area. So if faced with a 60-day timeline, the State Department said, they would have to deny the permit. Earlier in the week the White House agreed with them, saying that The House bill simply shortens the review process in a way that virtually guarantees that the pipeline will NOT be approved. So adding this provision kills the pipeline in the short term.
And Republicans, by the way, KNOW this. They want the President to deny the permit. The tell is that Newt Gingrich spoke up about the pipeline in the debate on Thursday night. Republicans want to position Obama as someone destroying US jobs to satisfy environmentalists. They also would like to say that he is stopping the supply of domestic energy production. None of this is true with regards to Keystone XL. The pipeline won’t create jobs, all the energy production in this case comes from Canada, and the President actually has presided over a boom in domestic energy production, although that hasn’t led to a drop in oil prices because we simply don’t have that much oil domestically.
But the likely outcome on Keystone XL fits a narrative for the GOP. So they want to see the President cancel the pipeline to make it a campaign issue. The counter-argument for the Democrats is that the demand by House Republicans to give an answer within 60 days on a pipeline whose route remained in flux killed the permit. So this becomes your run-of-the-mill he-said/she-said, and the pipeline doesn’t get built. My understanding is that it would not impact the possibility of the pipeline being approved after the elections, when more time is given to the environmental impact. So that’s a fight environmentalists will still have to wage. In the short term, within 60 days they will have a President reject the pipeline, and then they can go to their lists and tell everyone how their pressure got it done. But they’ll have to extend a note of gratitude to Republicans, who made it all possible.
That is, if the House signs off on it. House Republicans would not totally commit to passing the legislation, although given the 89-10 vote in the Senate, it would appear to have broad bipartisan support. My expectation is they’ll get it passed early next week, and the whole debate will punt to February, but we’ll have to see.
The Senate also passed the omnibus spending bill, which funds the government until next September. That bill includes a mild cut to total government operations, as per the spending cap in the debt limit deal, and some pretty bad provisions. But it gets the spending issue out of the way for nine months, so it passed.




57 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Who ultimately pays for this “pay for?”
What’s to prevent mortgage lenders to add the cost of these payments to the cost of a mortgage? That is, it’s a tax on home buyers.
So the Dems and the President capitulate again and [hidden] taxes for the working class rise while millionaires get off scot-free…again.
After a while, it isn’t weakness; it’s what the Dems and President Obama want to do in the first place. It’s who they are.
David –
The only problem with your logic on the XL pipeline is that Obama may approve the pipeline and blame the Republicans for “forcing” him to do so.
Bingo. Just change “may” to “will.” DDay is correct that the issue is being forced. But I am doubtful that DDay’s outcome is the one Obama has in mind. For one thing, Obama doesn’t have the guts. For another, it seems pretty clear that Obama WANTS to approve the TSP. He only delayed the decision to play politics and now McTurtle and Agent Orange have called his hand.
Obama is the most inept politician I’ve ever seen in the White House. At a very fundamental level, Obama just does not grasp what the job is or how it works. Plus, he’s the best liar I’ve ever seen, better than Bill Clinton. And he’s a neoliberal. No wonder we are where we are.
Or, he may defy congress and choose to stonewall until after the election.
What are they gonna do, impeach him? Hahahaha!
The destruction of Social Security through incremental decreases in contributions continues and it’s made to appear as a middle class tax cut. This goes to show that the average American can be bought for much less than your average congressman. Remember the $200 per person Bush tax rebate? Friends of mine thought he was absolutely fabulous for that little gimmick.
The American middle class enthusiastically votes against its own class interests because no one has a fucking clue what class is in this country.
‘Obama is the most inept politician I’ve ever seen in the White House. At a very fundamental level, Obama just does not grasp what the job is or how it works.”
You can’t have it both ways he isn’t an inept politician, it is just WE are not his constituency.
I think he has become a repulsive liar and long ago joined w in the category of ‘when he speaks it makes me sick’.
He totally grasps how the job works and he always uses fig leaves to give himself cover.
The republicans just gave him the fig leaf he needed. Now the kochs are going to be happy.
This is no different than leiberman, nelson or lincoln on Health Care.
He has conservadems appear to ‘threaten’ something and he ‘caves’.
Even major garrett told mrs greenspan yesterday that his ‘spidey sense’ told him it is what the President
‘really wanted’.
“Plus, he’s the best liar I’ve ever seen, better than Bill Clinton. And he’s a neoliberal.”
I totally agree with that…
“What are they gonna do, impeach him? ”
I wish they would. I’d be glad to be rid of Obama. Biden couldn’t get away with half of what Obama does, not with the partisan Dems at least, and they’re the ones who matter in that only they can force Obama Left (if anyone can, it may well be that Obama would rather lose than move Left).
The corporate media serves the propaganda and the average American eats it up.
Most people I know are surprised when I explain the ramifications of the payroll tax cut.
Well done, Shadow. Accurate to the core.
It took a little while, but even someone as dense as I am finally realized that this payroll tax cut was a really stupid, destructive idea. A decent amount of my salary is already excluded from withholding because of the “wage maximum”, so in a sense I’ve already been getting “tax cut” with every raise. Given the abysmal performance of my 401K over the last … decade, I would have gladly had more withheld in return for better benefits on retirement. But those who run the retirement racket monopoly from Wall Street wouldn’t ever allow that.
Congress would sooner strap on military gear and fight our covert wars in person rather than impeach Obama.
All he has to do is claim some sort executive privilege and stonewall until after the election.
Congress could hold hearings and issue subpoenas until they are blue in the but he knows that is all they will do. The troops will think that he is finally showing that mythical hidden progressive mojo until -surprise!- after the election when he suddenly approves the damn thing.
Not only do most people not understand that this payroll tax cut is slitting the throat of SS, Most I talk to are astonished that the SS tax is not paid on income above roughly 106K..
This is a juggernaut running at Warp 10
Yeah, I realize there’s some contradiction in there. But bear with me. Obama was a magnificent campaigner in 2008 and he was the perfect guy for the historical moment (suspiciously so, like central casting was involved, in retrospect). That’s the technical view. On substance, I think Obama is a neoliberal and he lied to convince the American People otherwise in order to get elected. Once elected, the Right moved with astonishing ease to portray Obama as a wild-eyed Liberal radical. Was the Obama camp’s inept response intentional? I don’t think so. In any case, by the time Obama was inaugurated, a sizable and INCREASING chunk of the nation was convinced Obama was far to the Left on the American political spectrum.
Once Obama actually became president, he agreed with Bush, Bush’s people and the rest of the entire political establishment that Wall Street had to be rescued at all costs. So he did the bail out. The Tea Party rose in opposition and, again, the Obama Team’s response was so incredibly poor that the Tea Party quickly took over the national narrative. Again, intentional or inept by Obama? I think inept.
And once the GOP realized just how weak and incompetent Obama was, that was effectively the end of his presidency right there. Then came the health care monstrosity and EVERYBODY knew that Obama was clueless. Even assuming (as I do) that Obama betrayed the public option and intentionally lied about it — what one might consider a “clever” move — the fact is that by the time health care finished Obama’s presidency was over. There has been a steady procession of like glaring failures at the political level ever since. Just look at his poll numbers, if nothing else.
Now it does get complicated because, yes, Obama is a neoliberal who pretends otherwise. So he certainly has use for the Joe Liebermans of the caucus, beards to hide behind as Obama does his neoliberal thing. And Obama is a consummate liar besides, so it is difficult to know exactly where he is coming from on anything. But, at bottom, I think Obama is a totally incompetent American president at the most basic transactional level.
The gutting of SS is occurring without a shot being fired. I would rather have a right-wing conservative in the white house — at least we would have a known, identifiable enemy. But to have a democrat in power tearing asunder our safety net makes me very ill. Damn him, and damn him again.
Wait till next year, it will be “oh, mercy me, we cannot let the Bush tax cuts expire or the Republicans won’t allow us to continue defunding Social Security.”
I think Obama is just a plain old Republican. He was able to con the entire country, including me. He’s also a coward.
Obama and the Democrats Cave Again!!!!!!!!!!!
The millionaires win no matter who is president.
At least the Republicans admit they only care about the rich,
the Democrats pretend to care about the middle class but when
it really counts … they always cave and pander to the wealthy.
I am sick of all of them.
PS: The most wealthy will get the maximum payroll tax cut.
Just to stick the knife in further.
We really need to get back to a two party system. I must remind myself to stop telling people to vote 3rd party. Vote 2nd Party!
Obama has had entitlement cuts on the chopping block at least twice — the catfood commission and the super committee. The fact that they weren’t rammed through is no credit to him, but to others. If entitlement funding is in such dire straits that it needs chopping of senior benefits to balance the budget, then why does he push through an ss tax cut?
I don’t know why you are calling him a neoliberal. There is nothing liberal about him. His health care was to take the country away from the popular idea of universal health care as supported by Hilary Clinton. he is not liberal.
I think David also misunderstands the intention.
The Keystone provision is a win-win for the GOP. Win#1, if he approves it, a win. Win#2, if he denies it, it gets spun as “Obama turns down job creating project,” in the election year, a win. No matter what way he goes, they win.
THAT is why he wanted to put it off until 2013.
Barak “El Foldo” Obama.
Folded on Keystone AND the surtax.
But, on the larger issue; you can’t keep giving extensions on this tax or you undermine SS both from a funding and a “basis” angle. IF SS becomes something just supported by the general budget, it becomes a senior welfare program and more easy to change. It isn’t, “I paid for it, and now I’m collecting,” any longer. that makes it an easier target.
So, you either keep the cut and force the program to be supported by general funds or you cut the funding to it. Neither very good.
They should kill this cut next time. In fact, maybe at the end of the two months, and come up with something else.
Did you miss that he has only been running a campaign the past 7 years? When he got in the Senate, he began running for Pres. As soon as he got to be Pres, he continued running.
He is in over his head. He only knows how to campaign. And, getting worse at that.
It’s been one continual campaign for the greater glory of Obama.
Don’t you recognize his greatness?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
To me, neoliberalism connotes Democrats and Liberals who have moved from traditional Democratic platform issues into business: global corporatism and world finance especially. I think part of the term’s genesis is that traditionally “liberal” notions like freedom were applied to the capitalist marketplace. But “neoliberal” is just a term and I agree it seems to cause more trouble than it solves. Maybe “Corporatist” is better. You could call these Democrats “Republicans” but that’s even more confusing I’d say. I’m open to suggestions.
There are any number of high-minded reasons to vote against the guy, but simple expediency is enough for me. I’d be eligible for Social Security and Medicare before the end of his second term and I don’t trust him in office. He’s told me he wants to cut them and that’s at least one promise I believe he’ll try to keep.
Is there a word for corporatist police-state warmongers? :O
I would imagine more than 85% of the people who post here knew as it was happening that 0 was throwing the public option under the bus.
Now, we look at him like a double timed spouse. What are we going to believe, our judgement or out lyin’ eyes
…I don’t think it is belief any more.
It is keeping as much corrupt republican dogma out of government as possible.
His lack of competency lays in the briar patch of jobs. I was always totally incredulous at the fact he NEVER worked/fought for a jobs program. Anything.
The fact is, he is basically a trojan horse, he isn’t as inept as he is collusive.
Another reason holder wouldn’t bust banksters, because the ring of accessories permeates government and the Fed.
The lot of them would have been tainted by this scandal, it is pathetic to think I believed in the fact he was actually honestly someone who would bust them.
By the July of his first year I knew we were sold out.
He couldn’t use the presidency to club recalcitrant pols because he THINKS like them.
I do understand that most of the republicans are repulsive malignancies like eric cantor, and who the fuck would give them the time’o'day. Though I would love to exact some executive karmic retribution on his, or alan west’s, or joe walsh, louie gomert, virgina foxx, paul ryan, any young fucking gun…..
A President could do stuff that would ruin a lot of their days.
And he’s methodically laying the foundation with the payroll tax-cut.
The word “fascist” sounds pretty close. And that’s true, too. Apart from Obama’s GOP-like approach to business and wealth, Obama’s disdain for civl liberties and his warmongering are truly alarming. Yes, fascism seems pretty accurate.
Not that it matters much but I’ve concluded that Obama is the worst president we’ve ever had once you consider the opportunity, the urgency, the historical moment, etc.
I agree completely. This is a very dangerous match they are playing with. Besides, why teach the other party new tricks. They won’t need Paul Ryan’s drastic plan in the future, they simply will not fund SS.
Thanks. I would prefer to call them “Assholes”.
He is looking more and more pathetic and he doesn’t even realize it. I think he is in a bubble and no one in his circle tells him anything that isn’t, “You’re the greatest President ever.”
Ha! I was gonna go with “assholes” but then I got to thinking too much.
Um, that’s precisely the intention I laid out! That is indeed how the GOP will spin it, in the case of #2. That’s what I said! I just don’t think it’ll be particularly successful. I don’t live in fear of Mitch McConnell’s fiendish traps. Remember when forcing the President to veto a resolution of disapproval on the debt limit was supposed to be a real political risk? Does anyone even remember that it already happened?
I do think it’s worth ending the payroll tax holiday after 2012, regardless of the political situation. I do not think it’s worth ending today, under the circumstances. And I argued at the time never to get mixed up with the payroll tax to begin with, that a Making Work Pay refundable tax credit was more progressive and didn’t carry any risk to SS.
Yeah, that’s what I’m trying to get at. I mean, does Obama think he’s doing great? is he that delusional?
Fascist works.
I agree with your conclusion. Obysmal had a mandate to do great things and he chose to throw it all away. He is trashing the country and for what? Money? Ego? Who knows.
I miss George.
DDay:
I agree that there will not in fact be a political cost to Obama if he nixes the TSP. Does Obama think so? I’m not sure. But that isn’t really the point. The point is that Obama doesn’t WANT to say no. He wants to say yes. That’s why he’s in the bind in the first place.
Can you imagine? I remember the story of that billboard somewhere in Minnesota I believe very early in Obama’s presidency, the one with W smiling and the caption read “Miss Me Yet?” At the time I thought it was the most idiotic thing I’d ever heard. Now? Not so much.
Right now home buying is the cheapest it has been in decades. This increase, even if it were passed on, would not change that. Interest rates are at an all-time low. To the extent that this is a tax, it’s on wealthy homebuyers (the “working class” doesn’t purchase a lot of homes). Point here is that Fannie and Freddie are giving away a very lucrative guarantee for next to nothing, and now at least they’ll begin to get a market rate for it. And if Fannie and Freddie are giving away something for nothing it means all us taxpayers are. Even the ones without homes.
Just got an email from Bill McKibben’s group:
“As you might know, the Keystone tar sands pipeline is back in play.
This morning, the Senate passed a bill that requires a 60-day, expedited approval process for the pipeline in return for a payroll tax cut, and the President has said he will sign it.
The news has been swirling around Washington the last few days, with one report after another of deals and deadlines. (It’s a little weird to think that six months ago, when we started the campaign to stop this pipeline, almost no one had even heard of this thing and now it’s the center of frantic bargaining — that’s a real tribute to your efforts).
Here’s what we do know:
1) The dirty energy industry wants the pipeline fast-tracked, and is demanding that the President grant or deny a permit within two months. They’re going to do all they can to make that happen.
2) The administration knows that Americans don’t want that permit granted. They know because many of you encircled the White House in November, and submitted more public comments than on any energy project in history, and because yesterday the climate movement flooded the White House switchboard with so many phone calls that the busy signal was the sound of the day. For all that work, thank you.
Here’s what we don’t know: what happens next.
Our hope — and what you should ask the President for when you write him — is that when he signs the bill he will say the obvious thing:
“Two months is not long enough to review the pipeline. The Canadians themselves have just delayed review of their tar sands pipelines over safety concerns, and we’ve just come through a year that set a record for billion-dollar climate-related disasters; I’m not going to do a rush job just to please the oil industry lobbyists. So this pipeline is dead.”
Since the State Department has already, in essence, said two months is not enough time, this should be pretty straightforward.
We should know how it’s going to play out within 48 hours or so. We’re of course ready to fight like heck.
But for this weekend? Well, the switchboard is now closed, so to contact the White House you’ll need to send them a message here. And click here to spread the word on Facebook, and click here to share the news on on Twitter. Once you’ve done that, I recommend eggnog, football, caroling, Hannukah-shopping — and checking the email every once in a while? We’re hanging fire on this, and we’ll let you know when we find out what’s going down and if rapid reaction of some kind is required. “
I had not kept up with the Keystone issue but just assumed O was going to sign up for it to get the tax cut. It is nice to hear it is really all politics. I think it will not affect the election for those who follow those things, but I don’t care. Ultimately, it will get approved.
The SS tax cut is needed, or alternately, some other more direct spending. The work credit is better.
I an not as pessimistic about the effects of the cut on funding. Someone may have noticed that they can change SS with a vote. The only way to keep it is at the polls. Do other countries call it welfare ????
Obama does the moon-walk.
Book Salon up with William Cohan’s Money and Power: How Goldman Sachs Came to Rule the World hosted by Jeff Madrick
Well, the fact is that the cost of purchasing a home is “the lowest in decades” has nothing to do with who pays the tax. Do you want to try and find data supporting your assertion that only the rich buy homes? Clearly working class people buy homes. To the extent they do, they’re going to pay it. This is as opposed to a sure millionaires surtax on which the Dems caved. Therefore, with additional, deeper analysis, people could have problems with the pay for.
How much do you figure the pass along will be? I think it is about time the banksters paid for it. Also the tax could be borne by the seller depending on the negotiation. It is time we started doing this right anyway. For too long Greenspan kept interest rates artficially low. How did that work out for homebuyers? People just tried to get rich over flipping houses. Time to get real.
The median household income of home buyers is 50% above the median household income overall. http://economistsoutlook.blogs.realtor.org/2011/03/21/median-household-income-of-home-buyers/
Without proper market pricing the guarantee from Fannie and Freddie, we all pay when Fannie and Freddie can’t generate their income. So the choice is between having lenders pay the proper fee for that guarantee, or all taxpayers pay for the bailout. Even if the increased fees are passed on (and I don’t think you can say with certainty they will be outside of just saying “all corporate taxes are passed on,” which is the default Republican position), a higher relative average income will be paying the fees. Unless you want to personally keep bailing out F&F every year because they give away their implicit guarantee for free.
And let’s be clear here on the costs. This would be a 1/4 of 1% increase. This is negligible; on a $200,000 home you’re talking about $500, OVER 30 YEARS on a fixed mortgage. What’s more, the Mortgage Bankers Association and the National Association of Realtors hate it, which is reason enough to like it.
Nah, (with respect), wbgonne. The answer is: intentional not inept. The list is long, and it begins with campaign financing. Or, it begins with crafty career moves. Or, it begins with …who knows how far back? You simply can’t ignore consistency, and Obama is nothing if not consistent. That’s intention.
Indeed, my friend, and all the pundits going along on the ‘tax increase’ stupidity. It’s as if they all have had lobotomies. I think Robert Scheer had the right take on it today, and Bernie Sanders has as well. And several commenters on here – thank you!
It is not an incidental issue to lump in Social Security with the rest of the mess we’ve been facing and bit by precious bit they are doing it, because the duopoly doesn’t want to keep our retirement base funds in a locked box. This truly points to the identity between arguments of both parties – they are one and the same!
Obama has intended to privatize health care, and Social Security, from the getgo.
Intent, not ineptness.
That’s it, greenbell. That’s it.
OK. Do you think the entire dance was choreographed between the Right Wing and Obama? Did they collude to marginalize Obama as a dangerous Liberal in order to give Obama space to enact Conservative policies? That has crossed my mind but it seems too farfetched. Would I be shocked if it were true? No but my guess is that Obama’s failed presidency results from a mixture of faults, including political incompetence and a general lack of aptitude for the job. I mean, Obama is not succeeding on any political level, not the Right, the Left or Independents. He is the opposite of a savvy politician: Obama’s positions are unpopular with everyone. That’s pretty bad. In a way, it doesn’t matter, of course, but sometimes I can’t help but wonder what exactly has really happened to us.
The data you cite on median income for home ownership supports my point that in fact working class people buy homes, not just the rich. Home buyer median income above the overall median income does nothing to invalidate that. Median home buyer income doesn’t capture the fact that those with below median home buyer income buy homes too, which is my point. Most likely they’ll be paying the tax, not just millionaires.
The tax/fee incidence depends on housing price elasticity. A price elasticity of demand of less than one means housing demand is price inelastic and the incidence of the fee/tax will fall mainly on home buyers whatever their income.
Could you please explain why mortgage companies and banks wouldn’t pass along this fee to home buyers?
You have an excellent point. I do think it will be a number of people spinning it, though. McConnell is a weak spinner, but others will have an impact.
But, really, the big thing is the back off and turn around on the surtax and pipeline.
People gave Obama a second chance after all the “finding his voice” baloney this fall. Now, no one, Dems, progressives or GOP will believe any line he draws in any kind of quicksand. And, I’m not saying that many believed to begin.
But you failed to deliver a Democratic House and Senate majority to pass Making Work Pay, but instead attacked Obama helping elect Republicans totally opposed to giving working people a break, especially at the risk of forcing the rich to pay taxes at the same rate as middle class workers.
What amazes me is the constant attacks on Obama for getting anything done with a Congress determined to see him fail totally so he can be painted as a Carter or Nixon holed up in his bunker.
While conservatives hate major parts of the US Constitution and want to repeal them, eg the first and second enumerated powers (taxes to pay debt) of Congress and the stated purpose of the union (general welfare), they have understood the Constitution much better than progresses. While progressives seek to elect the President, the conservatives focus on electing the Congress which allows them to force a progressive President to be conservative. It is as if progressives believe the President is a dictator like Saddam or Hitler.
The person in a person age 30 buying a $225,000 house would typically be making about $65,000, putting down $25000 and taking a loan of $200,000.
The 500 extra cost per year is both an overstatement because later years would have a smaller prinical as the loan is paid down, and an understatement if we assume the person must maintain the current life style and therefor must borrow the extra payment from their credit card.
A 5.25% loan payment on the 200,000 example is a payment of 1104.41, compared to the new Obama payment of 1116.83 – an increase of 12.42 a month (obviously the pundits use a larger average loan to get their 17 dollars a month increase). But using 200,000 as the loan that credit card balance to maintain the life style at the usual 16% we pay these days is an extra $111,414 at the end of 30 years owed.
Obviously I used the credit card example to make a point – in real life you just decrease your life style. But there are ways of putting the mortgage interest increase that make it seem quite bad, and ways to show it that make it seem minor.
Obama chose not to lead a majority Dem – a veto proof Dem majority – Congress in any direction other than a GOP direction. Now he uses the GOP control of the House to get excuses for the 2012 election.
“which allows them to force a progressive President to be conservative” – that is a good laugh – unless you really believe it, in which case I suggest you post the progressive ideas that Obama has grabbed the bully pulpit and done the behind the scenes Congressional member persuasion to effect a progressive change – and please do not refer to the GOP/American Enterprise Health care system that we are now saddled with. You might also explain why Obama choses to describe himself as a blue dog Democrat.
An unfair criticism of David. Mostly gibberish.
The House Republicans now want even more to vote yes on this compromise.
CALL YOUR HOUSE MEMBERS tell them to grow a spine and demand the payroll tax cut be paid for with taxes on the wealthy that they have been harping on for over a month!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Let see who actually is willing to vote down this package and demand the millionaire tax and who was just lying to the American voters.
The Bush tax cut deal that traded Making Work Pay for the payroll tax cut occurred in December 2010, when Democrats had 240+ House members and 58 Senators.
Don’t waste my time.