Senate GOP vows to obstruct until demands are met!

[Akhlut]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/01/ ... tml?hpt=T1

Senate GOP pledges to block all bills until tax dispute resolved
Washington (CNN) -- Senate Republicans promised Wednesday to block legislative action on every issue being considered by the lame-duck Congress until the dispute over extending the Bush-era tax cuts is resolved and an extension of current government funding is approved.

All 42 Senate Republicans signed a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, vowing to prevent a vote on "any legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all American taxpayers."

"With little time left in this congressional session, legislative scheduling should be focused on these critical priorities. While there are other items that might ultimately be worthy of the Senate's attention, we cannot agree to prioritize any matters above the critical issues of funding the government and preventing a job-killing tax hike," the letter said.

The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts enacted by former President George W. Bush will expire after December 31 if Congress fails to reach an agreement on their extension. Top Democrats and Republicans disagree sharply over whether the current tax rates should be extended just for families earning $250,000 or under per year, or should be extended for everyone regardless of income.

Republicans contend that a failure to extend all of the tax cuts would hamper an already-sluggish economy. President Barack Obama and Democratic congressional leaders argue that the roughly $700 billion price tag attached to an extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans would be fiscally irresponsible.

White House and congressional tax negotiators are scheduled to begin deliberations Wednesday morning.

On the spending side, a continuing resolution responsible for funding the government is scheduled to expire on Friday.

Democrats are trying to pass several pieces of legislation before a more Republican Congress is sworn in next January, including the START nuclear arms treaty with Russia, a repeal of the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, and the so-called DREAM Act, which would create a path to citizenship for young illegal immigrants.

Reid blasted the GOP letter on the Senate floor Wednesday morning, calling it part of a "cynical" and transparent" Republican strategy to "obstruct" and "delay" legislative progress while blaming the Democrats for failing to effectively govern.

"Last month, the American people issued their verdict on the Democrat's priorities," replied Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky. "We need to show the American people that we care more about them and their ability to pay their bills than we do about the special interests' legislative Christmas-list."

I really like how they say they want to fund the government without, somehow, increasing taxes on someone, somewhere. I'm just hoping that the remaining majority of Senate Dems grow a backbone and say "okay, we're increasing millionaires' taxes to 90% while keeping the under $240k tax cuts," but I know that's a longshot impossible.

[Ryan Thunder]

"Last month, the American people issued their verdict on the Democrat's priorities," replied Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky. "We need to show the American people that we care more about them and their ability to pay their bills than we do about the special interests' legislative Christmas-list."

The sheer intensity of their hypocrisy and the irony of this statement have destroyed my laptop monitor. I apologize for any typos I may make.

[General Zod]

I wonder if Mitch McConnell considers whiskey and tobacco special interests?

[Phantasee]

I find it absurd that they think the top tax bracket is full of people living hand to mouth who can't afford their bills due to high taxes.

[SCRawl]

I've heard a few on the (libertarian) Right suggest that it isn't really the government's money, it belongs to the people who earned it, so who does the government think it is taking that money as tax, etc. This is actually a better argument than McConnell's "we shouldn't raise taxes during a recession" bullshit, though only just barely, since cutting taxes past $250k won't do anything at all to help the economy along. The libertarian argument speaks to some people, and while I understand that the idea of paying taxes just stabs some people right in their freedom-loving hearts, the idea of not having a functional government with even a modicum of a social safety net seems much worse to, well, any thinking person. And of course it shouldn't matter that the money to pay for the tax cuts will have to be borrowed from China, because tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans are just too important to worry about little details like whether or not they're paid for.

What I really wish is that every American could be made to sit down and watch a video of the President give a short lecture with the following content:

- here are the top ten annual expenditures of the Federal Government (in a pie chart)
- here is the amount of money taken in from all revenue sources (in a pie of the same size, but with a roughly 40% bite taken out of it)
- you want those tax cuts? show us where to cut the spending, and by the way we're already $13+ trillion in debt.

Is this not something that can get through the thick heads of those who don't have a political stake in this argument?

[Highlord Laan]

I wish I could decide to not do my fucking job until I get what I want without getting fired for my stupidity.

Really too bad there's no way for a vote of no confidence from the people at large to tell the entire congress to GTFO.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I really like how they say they want to fund the government without, somehow, increasing taxes on someone, somewhere. I'm just hoping that the remaining majority of Senate Dems grow a backbone and say "okay, we're increasing millionaires' taxes to 90% while keeping the under $240k tax cuts," but I know that's a longshot impossible.

Of course they say they want to fund the government. They have to. In spite of all the crowing Rush "I'm a rock and roll clown, and I do cocaine oxycontin" Limbaugh did during the Gingrich-era government shutdown, the fact that Congress let the government shut down was one of the big things on peoples' minds when they later voted all the Gingrich Republicans out of Congress.

Of course, they'd really rather not fund any government organ having to do with social welfare, or regulating the activities of their most important constituencies (rich white guys and multinational corporations,) preferring to fund the government organs responsible for blowing up brown people.

And the Republicans are painting this as a "The GOP wants to keep government going, and keep money in your pockets; and the Democrats want to let sexual deviants, pedophiles, and other perverts threaten the integrity of the armed services, let illegal immigrants steal your taxpayer dollars, and appease foreign powers by making America weak" conflict. All of this as part of their overall political strategy, whose top goal is to see Barry Obama go down in flames in 2012.

Naturally, the right-wing echo chamber mainstream media is eager to help out. Note that they specifically mention the repeal of DADT, the SMART act, and the START treaty.

And no, if the Senate Democrats really had a backbone, they'd let the Bush tax cuts expire for everybody.

[FireNexus]

Then the Republicans would cut that backbone out of them in 2012 and stab them right in the brain with it. I agree that it is the most responsible course from a budget standpoint, but the Repubicans would own every branch of government unless (and this is unlikely) the Dems could effectively spin it that it was the Republicans' fault.

For this purpose, the fact that it will be the Republicans' fault for stonewalling if it happens is totally irrelevant.

[SCRawl]

Is a retroactive tax cut not possible? I mean, let's just say that this game of chicken ends in both parties crashing into each other at the end of this session. Can they not dust themselves off and, in late January, pass a tax cut retroactive to Jan. 1?

[Jaevric]

Is a retroactive tax cut not possible? I mean, let's just say that this game of chicken ends in both parties crashing into each other at the end of this session. Can they not dust themselves off and, in late January, pass a tax cut retroactive to Jan. 1?

Yeah, the problem is as I understand it that businesses will have difficulties adjusting their withholdings if the governments waits too long to decide on the taxes; the taxes may go down but people will just get a bigger tax refund at the end of the year. I could be wrong about that, however; I don't have the article where I saw that handy to confirm. In the short run, a retroactive tax cut won't "be as beneficial" because people won't have the "extra" funds available.

Personally, I'd like our government to be brutally realistic for once and let the tax cuts expire, but I'm a single guy with no kids living well within his means so that's a lot easier for me to say.

[Ghost Rider]

Is a retroactive tax cut not possible? I mean, let's just say that this game of chicken ends in both parties crashing into each other at the end of this session. Can they not dust themselves off and, in late January, pass a tax cut retroactive to Jan. 1?

Sure, and fuck over everyone. The sickening part is they are delaying shit they should've finished before the elections, but instead waited until November 2nd and now anything and everything that gets done will come into play around...April/May? Thus affecting more of 2011 taxes then anything 2010.

[SirNitram]

Let's see. By this measure:

Military appropriations fail. At best they get a continuing resolution to allow the military to continue at current funding. HUD Appropriations. Military and Veteran appropriations act. Quite a few acts in support of vets, in fact.

So um... WHO supports the troops?

START treaty. No more oversight of Russian nukes. Ethanol subsidies. Not really aware of the economical/ecological outcome of that, I'll let the learned talk on it.

At least Congress need take no action on the fiscal comission's nonsense, as Simpson has specifically decreed he's going beyond and outside the executive order forming it. So it's just some asshats voting for their idiot ideas.

[Chardok]

Doesn't this essentially hold the american people hostage? That is nothing can pass until they darn well feel like passing something? Is there a precedent for forcing votes on other legislation to stop this?

[SirNitram]

Doesn't this essentially hold the american people hostage? That is nothing can pass until they darn well feel like passing something? Is there a precedent for forcing votes on other legislation to stop this?

No, there isn't. They don't fuck around when they say 'unprecedented obstructionism'. The system was built with no conceptualizing this level of opposition to even normal business. The court system is going to start failing from lack of judges. Military might not get funded. Treaties will go unsigned.

[Chardok]

Doesn't this essentially hold the american people hostage? That is nothing can pass until they darn well feel like passing something? Is there a precedent for forcing votes on other legislation to stop this?

No, there isn't. They don't fuck around when they say 'unprecedented obstructionism'. The system was built with no conceptualizing this level of opposition to even normal business. The court system is going to start failing from lack of judges. Military might not get funded. Treaties will go unsigned.

This is terrifying. That such a small group of fat, old, rich white dudes can hold a country of 300 million plus essentially at gunpoint just because they don't agree with another set of fat, old, rich white dudes is abhorrent. A system which allows obstructionism of this magnitude needs overhauled - quick.

Just terrifying - and we the people can not only do nothing about it, we are even implicit in it's execution.

[B5B7]

Time to invoke the Patriot Act. Homeland Security - you have 42 people to arrest.

[Highlord Laan]

Time to invoke the Patriot Act. Homeland Security - you have 42 people to arrest.

Oh, if only. Not only would I be cheering, I'd be laughing my ass off. Sadly, nothing of the sort will occur.

[Thanas]

Dumblord Laan, kindly shut up with your idiocy. Coups are not a fun thing, though I find it quite funny how you take an obvious joke for a serious statement.

[SCRawl]

This is terrifying. That such a small group of fat, old, rich white dudes can hold a country of 300 million plus essentially at gunpoint just because they don't agree with another set of fat, old, rich white dudes is abhorrent. A system which allows obstructionism of this magnitude needs overhauled - quick.

Just terrifying - and we the people can not only do nothing about it, we are even implicit in it's execution.

It would be especially terrifying if the Republicans weren't threatening to do what they've been doing for almost four years now. The fact is that they're just being (slightly) more open about it with the letter.

Yes, ideally the system wouldn't allow one party to systematically prevent the business of government from being done. Is the solution to do away with the filibuster? The Senate could do it, if they got their acts together, in January, but what happens down the road if (when) a party with a completely unreasonable platform gets into power, and starts passing batshit crazy legislation? The only alternative then is armed insurrection. We can't count on Americans to not vote in crazy people -- they've been doing it for a long time, and the candidates are getting crazier.

Seriously: how do you amend the rules of the filibuster to prevent abuse of it without getting rid of it altogether?

[D.Turtle]

If a party with a "completely unreasonable platform" (who defines that anyway?) gets into power, they do their thing, get voted out sometime later and the new party in power passes laws that they like, maybe undoing some of the stuff done by that "unreasonable" power.

The UK manages quite well with a system where the majority can pass pretty much everything they want to.

Its this bizarre fascination with making it possible to blockade legislation deemed "unreasonable" by whatever party that creates a lot of the problems that exist. Hell, you even have two chambers that have to pass a law AND the president can veto it. You already have a lot (too many) of ways to block "unreasonable" legislation - no need to have yet another way to do so.

Also @ Chardok: These people where elected. It was well known what they wanted to do if they get elected, and people still voted for them. They announced beforehand that they would do this, so it isn't a surprise at all. Let them shut down government - look at what happened the last time they did so (hint: they lost a lot of seats in the next election).

[Bakustra]

This is terrifying. That such a small group of fat, old, rich white dudes can hold a country of 300 million plus essentially at gunpoint just because they don't agree with another set of fat, old, rich white dudes is abhorrent. A system which allows obstructionism of this magnitude needs overhauled - quick.

Just terrifying - and we the people can not only do nothing about it, we are even implicit in it's execution.

It would be especially terrifying if the Republicans weren't threatening to do what they've been doing for almost four years now. The fact is that they're just being (slightly) more open about it with the letter.

Yes, ideally the system wouldn't allow one party to systematically prevent the business of government from being done. Is the solution to do away with the filibuster? The Senate could do it, if they got their acts together, in January, but what happens down the road if (when) a party with a completely unreasonable platform gets into power, and starts passing batshit crazy legislation? The only alternative then is armed insurrection. We can't count on Americans to not vote in crazy people -- they've been doing it for a long time, and the candidates are getting crazier.

Seriously: how do you amend the rules of the filibuster to prevent abuse of it without getting rid of it altogether?

Cloture in the UK only requires a simple majority of MPs or Lords, and they haven't fallen apart yet. If you wanted to amend it, though, what you could do is combine the old rules with the new rules and make it so that 3/5ths of Senators present, rather than the current 3/5ths of all Senators in office, are necessary for cloture. This would allow Senators to essentially abstain without having to formally cross the aisle and break parties. Overall, of course, it requires a healthier political climate to make it workable, but if wishes were fishes.

[SirNitram]

Filibuster reform is being considered; if taken up at the beginning, it could even pass. But this doesn't mean anything good will get done, since the GOP will control the House. And, voters, fed up with the GOP winning and stalemating, lose their enthusiasm and stay home next election, while you KNOW Palin will be a player in the politics, same as Beck. Their cults of personality will be raring to go.

Lose-Lose it seems. At least the House passed the Middle Class Tax Cuts and Reid is going to force a concuring vote on Saturday.

[JME2]

This is terrifying. That such a small group of fat, old, rich white dudes can hold a country of 300 million plus essentially at gunpoint just because they don't agree with another set of fat, old, rich white dudes is abhorrent. A system which allows obstructionism of this magnitude needs overhauled - quick.

Just terrifying - and we the people can not only do nothing about it, we are even implicit in it's execution.

Don't look at me. I voted for Kodos.

Seriously, this is a reflection of my increasing cynicism and pessimism towards the American political system. Nothing is ever going to change and this bullshit will continue while this country continues going down the economic storm drain.

[Vympel]

Here's some more idiocy:-

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/us/03 ... ml?_r=2&hp

Senior Senate Republican aides said that an extension of all the income tax cuts was a foregone conclusion, but that a deal on jobless aid was possible if Democrats agreed to cover the cost. Democrats expressed indignation that Republicans were insisting on finding spending cuts to offset the unemployment benefits while being perfectly willing to add to the national debt the $700 billion cost of continuing the tax cuts on the highest incomes for the next decade.

Seriously? Are the Democrats so fucking useless that they fail to make political hay out of the Republicans insisting jobless benefits need to be paid for, but tax cuts for the rich don't?!

[Simon_Jester]

Vympel, I'm not sure I'm entirely clear on the situation. On this specific point, what should they have done that they have not done?