The Tax Cut Endgame

[Chris OFarrell]

I would say that a Politicans job is to KEEP their job, to do things that show that they are 'teh awesome' and worth supporting over the other guys.

In the current US political and economic situation, you simply can't afford to sit back and move some markers around to make it look like you're doing some cool things, there are very REAL problems that have to be addressed, or at least LOOK like you're addressing them.

Obama...isn't. And doesn't.

He has ensured he is a one termer, and the democratic party took a big 'whack' at the hands of the Republicans so they are no better off...

Why is he making all the wrong calls on the big issues?

[Lonestar]

Why is he making all the wrong calls on the big issues?

Because he thinks that by taking conservative actions he will convince conservatives(many of whom think he's a Kenyan borne arab socialist islamic atheist) to vote for him.


Although who does he think he's kidding about pushing the tax cut end two years down the line? Does anyone think he is going to become braver during a election year about it?

[Sea Skimmer]

I think he has no real policy commitment to anything, and never did, except maybe his campaign against nuclear weapons and ABM. That’s about the only subject I can see him as being remotely consistent on. He seems to have spent more focus recently on START ratification and Republican calls for a new nuclear cruise missile then on the tax cut extension.

[Fire Fly]

Why is he making all the wrong calls on the big issues?

A part of the problem is that his party has moved rightward during the Bush years and the Republicans have gone even further to the right; the entire political debate has in fact shifted rightwards. To further compound the problem, the party is very fractured and the Democratic leadership (from Reid to Pelosi to Obama) is weak and aren't willing to call the GOP's bluffs. Since 2000, the Democratic leadership seems to have suffered some sort of psychological blow that they have yet to recover from. Moreover, during Bush's latter term most of the more liberal and moderate Republican members lost/were kicked out and many of those who ran as Democrats during 2006 and 2008 were more or less Republicans themselves. This was bound to create a lot of intra-party tensions.

The other part of the problem probably stems from his inexperience with Congressional negotiations. He's never really had to work with a steadfast opposition that is united in using every means possible to achieve their goal. He's displayed what seems to be a consistent lack of leadership when it comes to major legislation in that he lets matters be handled by the Senate and House leadership instead of getting involved himself (the House and Senate in turn look to him for leadership but he refuses to handle the hot potato). During the healthcare debate, he completely allowed Senator Max Baucus, the chairman of the committee for senate finances, determine the course of the debate for several months (see here). Not only did this lose a lot of time but it allowed his opposition to regroup and strategize and poke holes in the Democrat's arguments (it doesn't help that the mainstream media is in bed with the Republicans); moreover, it was during this period when the Tea Party was gather steam. Some commentators opined at the time that Obama did this because getting involved would completely destroy the process as it had with Clinton. I think this article provides a short but succinct explanation for Obama's leadership style and why it's not working at all. His biggest problem simply seems to be that he lacks the kind of leadership necessary to maneuver around a cut throat Congress. He makes major concessions to his opposition just to get them to allow a vote and then they all vote against it; this only fuels the Republicans in becoming even more steadfast in opposing everything he does because they know they will be able to squeeze more out of him.

[Lord MJ]

Many conservatives spouting on this topic that I've come across are saying things like. "Not taking more of people's money in the form of taxes is not increasing the deficit, spending is increasing the deficit. It is ethically dishonest to say that this tax cut will increase the deficit, it won't, the liberal spending programs are what's the problem."

"Why should the wealthy be punished because they are successful?"

"Tax breaks for the wealthy will stimulate the economy more than any stimulus program since the more money they have the more that will go into the economy, create more jobs, and get us out of debt"

"The American People voted for this, the democrats lost the election, to not obstruct the republicans from extending the tax cuts for all Americans would be standing against of the American people. The American people have rejected socialist polices and have elected conservatives to clean house."

[Thanas]

Turns out Obama is happy to be distanced from liberals:

Obama’s advisers insist he didn’t go out of his way to pick a fight with fellow Democrats when he cut his highly controversial deal with Republicans to temporarily extend all Bush-era tax cuts earlier this week. But if the deal served to distance Obama not only from them, but the entire partisan culture of Washington, all the better, they say.

Differentiating Obama from congressional Democrats “was a positive byproduct” of the tax cut deal, a person close to Obama told POLITICO.

“Compared to these guys, the president looks mature and pragmatic,” added the official.

An angry Obama – in one of his most emotional public statements since taking office nearly two years ago – rebuked fellow Democrats during a White House press conference Tuesday, going so far as to suggest that some in his party put politics ahead of the American people by calling on him to block any extension of Bush-era tax cuts that includes the wealthy.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46114.html

[Thanas]

Is Barack Obama Stupid?

New CBS News poll out confirms every other poll we've seen on the topic - the American people are solidly against tax cuts for the rich.

53% of respondents said there should only be tax cuts for the middle class and no tax cuts for people making over $250,000. That's the number most people in the media are using, but that's not quite accurate. Another 14% said they don't want tax cuts for anybody, including the top bracket. So, the reality is that an overwhelming 67% of the country don't want tax cuts for the rich (including 52% of Republican voters!). Only 26% said that everyone should get a tax cut, including the rich.

So, let's do the math for people who are a little slow. That's 67% to 26%. That's a crushing 41% lead. If it was an election, that margin would be so large they would think it was rigged. The group that doesn't want tax cuts for the rich is more than two and half times the group that does.

If that weren't enough, there is an internal memo being sent around to Democrats on the Hill by Anzalone Liszt Research that shows that 77% of Americans would let the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire if the extra money went toward helping small businesses and balancing the budget. 77%!!!

Now, as a politician, how stupid do you have to be on the other side of this issue?

But that's not entirely fair because the Republicans have built their entire party on being on the other side of this issue and they're doing well. Why? Because they get handsomely compensated by those same millionaires and billionaires who benefit from the tax cuts. They use the money they collect from those guys into deceiving the American people into voting for them during the elections. That sucks for the rest of us, but at least that makes sense. There is a logical reason for them to take the more unpopular side of this equation.

Democrats on the other hand just got their ass kicked by that money spent to make sure they lose. Now, they would like to do a favor for the people who just killed them in the election and in the meanwhile take a position that 67% to 77% of the American people are against. How stupid do you have to be to do that?

That is the position of the Obama administration right now as they argue for a "compromise" where they extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich for another two years. Even Pat Buchanan laughed on-air and said that's no compromise at all. That's complete victory for the GOP. Remember, in two years there will be a new president - and if it's a Republican, the tax cuts will be extended forever. Complete and utter victory for one side. Complete and utter capitulation for the other side. Pathetic.

Of course, there are two other explanations for the actions of Obama White House. The first one is that they're not dumb, they are embarrassingly weak. They know they should side with 67% of the American people, they know they shouldn't help the people who crushed them in the last election, they know they are showing no leadership by constantly cratering to the other side, but they can't help themselves. It is in Obama's nature to always compromise, no matter what the situation is. He hates to fight. He is No Drama Obama. He will do anything to avoid a confrontation, including giving the other side exactly what they want in the guise of a sage and tempered compromise.

The last possible explanation is the worst of all. He is complicit. He is among the top 2%. So is nearly everyone he knows. Everyone in his bubble is rich, fabulously rich. So, all of the people he knows thinks it's a brilliant idea to give more tax cuts to the rich, namely them. Plus, most of the Democrats also get campaign donations from the millionaires and billionaires. Though it's self-destructive in the long run because those guys will always give more to the Republicans, they can't wean themselves off of that money. So, they go along with whatever their rich funders want.

All three options are sickening. But there is no fourth option. No one in their right mind can possibly think that opposing at least 67% of the American people to help the political opposition is a good political idea.

And one last note, when President Obama agrees to this and they add another $140 billion dollars to the deficit over the next two years because of these tax cuts for the rich, who do you think the Republicans will blame for that deficit? You guessed it, the man who just gave them everything they wanted -- Barack Obama.

Come on, how stupid do you have to be? Or at least, I hope they're just stupid and not the other options.

[Stravo]

Differentiating Obama from congressional Democrats “was a positive byproduct” of the tax cut deal, a person close to Obama told POLITICO.

“Compared to these guys, the president looks mature and pragmatic,” added the official

This quote right here makes me wonder if Obama is somehow living in a bubble. I remember in the Bad Old Days of the Bush presidency one of the most galling things about him was his apparent utter disconnection from the anger that was out there. Every decision he made was done in some sort of vacuum that did not include public opinion. An echo chamber I believe became the term for this phenemenon.

Now this makes me wonder if Obama and his advisors believe that this decision makes him look mature and pragmatic then are they living in their own echo chamber? Is Obama sitting there thinking people are going to throw rose petals at his feet as he rides into Congress on a Donkey?

All you need to do is read a few polls, go online for a while or fuck it speak to a few people randomly on the street and you would get a drastically different opinion than the one these jackasses are spinning in the White House.

The Congressional Democrats are trying to decide whether to oppose this deal right now, one independent has vowed to fillibuster. Now there is mature and pragmatic leadership. Do I think the spineless fucktards of the Party will pull it off? Of course not.

[Thanas]

The problem is that they do not have the numbers to block it due to the GOP majority, which means that you just need to have two or three people that can be bought by the White House and voila.

[HarrionGreyjoy]

The problem is that they do not have the numbers to block it due to the GOP majority, which means that you just need to have two or three people that can be bought by the White House and voila.

Piffle. A Senator can block just about anything. They probably *won't* since the Democrats have lost control of the narrative, again, but the filibuster rules (among other things) haven't magically changed since October.

[Thanas]

The problem is that they do not have the numbers to block it due to the GOP majority, which means that you just need to have two or three people that can be bought by the White House and voila.

Piffle. A Senator can block just about anything. They probably *won't* since the Democrats have lost control of the narrative, again, but the filibuster rules (among other things) haven't magically changed since October.

I meant the house, as evidenced by my context of "GOP majority".

[Cecelia5578]

Okay, then here is a new question.

How the hell did Obama fool all of us like this? I mean none of us are perfect, but we all took Obama rather clearly for someone he clearly isn't.

He ran a campaign that was built entirely on the idea of bringing in change, on taking on special interests and entrenched politics with the full force and vigger he showed on the campaign trail, of being willing to work with Republicans, BUT pointing to Bush and his Administration as the epitome of all that was wrong with the United States Government.

He got into office on a huge wave of popular support, with a clear mandate to GET THINGS DONE...

And now we see him saying 'Yes Sir, may I have another?' to rich Republicans who tell him to give them more money, or they'll cut off the poor. I mean, WTF, it SHOULD be political death to say that unless you let the Rich keep more of their money, the poor people can go screw themselves...

But instead he just bends over and says 'May I have another Sir?'

And he has done the same on just about every major piece of policy he has tried to push through, he (and the democrats) have let the Republicans GOVERN the country, even though they are in opposition.

Was it all just smoke and mirrors? That he had a brilliant campaign planned out well in advance for the election and he just had to follow it, but when it came to living in a dynamic world, he can't hack it? I could see him trying honestly to reach out and work with the other side if thats the kind of person he is, at least for 4-6 months, but after that, saying "Okay, you don't want to work with me? Fine. Prepare to die" and going on the offensive.

I think one of the things that really slowed down the prospects for any meaningful congressional action over the past two years was the HCR debate in Congress. I think it was meaningful to pass an HCR bill, but it was a long, drawn out process that (IMHO) really sapped the energy out of any real progressive change coming from the legislative side. It dominated the agenda (it seemed) for such a long time that, well, nothing else could get done.

It sucks that the big three legislative goals for LGBT people, for example (ENDA, DADT, and maybe repealing DOMA) are no closer to getting solved than they were two years ago. First, we were told to STFU cause we had to pass the (small, ineffectual) stimulus, then we (as in LGBT activists and allies) were again told to STFU cause HCR was too important to sacrifice to other causes. Then, after it was over with, there wasn't enough time to accomplish anything before midterms geared up, and no politician wants to touch those controversial issues in an election year.

And when it comes to defense issues? I think the writing was on the wall early on, in keeping Gates on as Sec Def. Too little change wrt Afghanistan and Iraq to appease the anti-war crowd, and doubling down on traditional Democratic issues like BMD and the F-22 certainly isn't going to attract the Shep voting bloc.

[HarrionGreyjoy]

I meant the house, as evidenced by my context of "GOP majority".

Whoops, shows you how closely I was reading that.

[Vympel]

Olbermann's special comment on this was just devastating:-

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/hea ... bullies-99

Excerpt:-

Yesterday I had an exchange with a very Senior member of this Administration who wanted to sell me on this deal. I pointed out that that was fine, except that — as I phrased it to him — "frankly the base has just vanished." "Well," he replied, "then they must not have read the details." There, in a nutshell, is this Administration. They didn't make a bad deal — we just don't understand it.

Just as it was our fault, Mr President, for not understanding your refusal of even the most perfunctory of investigations of rendition or domestic spying or the other crimes of the Bush Administration, or why you have now established for those future Administrations who want to repeat those crimes, that the punishment for them will be nothing.

Just as it was our fault, Mr. President, for not understanding Afghanistan. Just as we didn't correctly perceive, Sir, the necessity for the continuation of Gitmo. Or how we failed to intuit, President Obama, your preemptive abandonment of Single Payer and the Public Option. Or how we couldn't have foreseen your foot-dragging on "Don't ask, don't tell." Just as we shouldn't have gotten you angry at your news conference today and made all the moderate Democrats wonder why in the hell you get publicly angry so often at the liberals who campaigned for you and whether you might save just a touch of that sarcasm and that self-martyrdom for the Republicans.

And of course, Mr. President how we totally betrayed your Administration by not concluding our prayers every night by saying "Thank you for preventing another Great Depression, you are entitled to skate along on your own wonderfulness indefinitely and if you get less than you could have on Health Care Reform or taxes, well, that'll be okay, we're happy to pay $10,000 for a $300 car because hey, it could've been $20,000, right? And because we only expect you to do one thing correctly during a presidency and you had pretty much cleared that obligation when it proved that you were, indeed, not John McCain."

We are very very sorry. In some sense, the Senior Member's remark about how we "did not read the details" is not utterly absurd. We have enabled this President, and his compromises-spinning-within-compromises. And now there are, finally, those within his own party who have said "enough."

[Stravo]

Wow. I am really surprised by Oberman's awesome rant. I've seen him and Madow do LOTS of twisting, dancing, skirting around directly attacking Obama until now. He summed up my feelings on this very well and glad to see he has not lost his touch when it comes to these barb filled speeches. He can be an overbearing ass at times but here he is right on.

I have a feeling that the gloves are going to start coming off when it comes to attacks from the Left on Obama. They have been holding back I think for a variety of reasons - not wanting to attack the first black president, not wanting to seem fractured and disjointed, not wanting to believe that they were so wrong about someone as they were with him.

Obama is not black Jesus people. He is a horrible leader and I think he's going to start getting it from all sides at this point.

[open_sketchbook]

You were never going to get somebody who could fix your problems. The Republicans will always win because the Republican base is so far right, theocrats and facists, that the Republican party can win any arguement by going further to the right and allowing the golden mean fallacy to make everything look reasonable to the average idiot, knowing they can never, ever alienate their base and they always have the advantage of looking more patriotic by doing so. If the democrats go their own way, take a real stand, they'll lose all the independents, most of whom are conservatives that just don't want to associate themselves with the far right republicans. If they fail to take a stand, they will lose their base. They can never please more than a third of the population at a time unless they, essentially, lie; they simply can't be effective. Whenever it looks like the democrats have any sort of momentum, the republicans can just pick up and run right and drag the whole political spectrum with them, which makes the democrats look like communists but somehow never makes the republicans look like facists. They have home court advantage.

The democratic party is now where the Republicans were ten years ago, and everything just keeps drifting rightward. The republican party in the United States already won and would have one no matter what; they have the power of insane fanatics on their side, an infinitely deep ideological base to draw from.

[Knife]

Actually, durring the past ten years, both parties have been pretty close to fracture. You could say that the GOP did fracture with the Tea Baggers, while the Democrats avoided it by expanding into territory they could not hold with blue dogs that wouldn't vote with them on solid Democrat ideas.

[Mr Bean]

Actually, durring the past ten years, both parties have been pretty close to fracture. You could say that the GOP did fracture with the Tea Baggers, while the Democrats avoided it by expanding into territory they could not hold with blue dogs that wouldn't vote with them on solid Democrat ideas.

Blue dogs are just Republicans except they are 1980's instead of the modern times. They could not run as 1980s Republicans and hope to survive the primary in modern time so they become democrats. This is not the first time this is not the last time, anyone recall our good friends the Dixiecrats? They may have one or two Democratic issues in which they vote democratic but for the most part being a blue dog means you like power and you joined the party that would be happy to run you to win a seat not because your a fan of the party platform.

If there was a left wing tea party equivalent with serious legs we might see the emergence of a three party system. But don't jump for joy just yet, the parties would be the Progressives, the Conservatives and of course The NASCAR party. And by that I mean they would be holy corporate owned members of congress. In order to get reform we need two things. One public financing of campaigns. And by public financing I mean 100% public money not the half an half system which is currently being pushed. Our congressmen at present spend a massive amount of time raising money. We don't want that. Second we need a serious news reporting agency. The first we might get, the second we won't get unless I manage to get Rupert murdoch to name me his sole heir to the News Corp Empire.

[Bakustra]

You were never going to get somebody who could fix your problems. The Republicans will always win because the Republican base is so far right, theocrats and facists, that the Republican party can win any arguement by going further to the right and allowing the golden mean fallacy to make everything look reasonable to the average idiot, knowing they can never, ever alienate their base and they always have the advantage of looking more patriotic by doing so. If the democrats go their own way, take a real stand, they'll lose all the independents, most of whom are conservatives that just don't want to associate themselves with the far right republicans. If they fail to take a stand, they will lose their base. They can never please more than a third of the population at a time unless they, essentially, lie; they simply can't be effective. Whenever it looks like the democrats have any sort of momentum, the republicans can just pick up and run right and drag the whole political spectrum with them, which makes the democrats look like communists but somehow never makes the republicans look like facists. They have home court advantage.

The democratic party is now where the Republicans were ten years ago, and everything just keeps drifting rightward. The republican party in the United States already won and would have one no matter what; they have the power of insane fanatics on their side, an infinitely deep ideological base to draw from.

Wrong. The average person in the US supports all the components of the social democratic welfare state, as long as you don't use welfare as a term, since it's become loaded. In the case of the public option, the average person wants that too. If we really had governance according to the public opinion, things would look very different in the US. The rightward shift has only occurred on a handful of issues, mainly national security. Abortion, gay rights... all those are still clear delineations that existed ten, twenty years ago. If anything, what is happening is a natural consequence of ongoing value change, but with the US system, it's merely fracturing the existing parties and creating confusion rather than leading to the rise of new parties or revitalization of minor parties. You can look at this as a materialist-postmaterialist split and things make much, much more sense. But that is not a shift "right" or "left", but along a different axis altogether.

*snip*
If there was a left wing tea party equivalent with serious legs we might see the emergence of a three party system. But don't jump for joy just yet, the parties would be the Progressives, the Conservatives and of course The NASCAR party. *snip*

There is unlikely to be a multiparty system without a major shift in the way elections work in this country. Even a 2.5-party system is almost certainly out of reach.

[Siege]

I'm not convinced by this "Republicans can always win by running right" argument. You've got a President now who's proven, during his campaign, to be able to deliver some of the most inspiring speeches that I've seen in American politics -- and it worked for him, too: the guy got elected over McCain after all, and I haven't really seen a single Republican politician capable of matching Obama's rhetoric since.

No: if Obama can't convince the American public that his agenda is what's good for America it's because he's not doing a good enough job of it. One can only blame the Republicans and the mainstream media for so much: at some point one has to face the fact that the Democrats are constantly losing terrain because they are craven, spineless and untrustworthy, because despite round after round of abuse poured over them by Republicans they keep coming back to sacrifice more of their principles on the altar of bipartisanship, because they are institutionally incapable of making a stand, because their political dialogue is pathetic, because they can't communicate their ideals worth a damn, and because their leaders are gutless cowards.

That's why people don't vote for them. Hell, I'm not American, but if I were I wouldn't vote for the Democrats any longer, and I'm a card-carrying Eurocommie.

[dragon]

Well the Democrats are against it for sure. Wonder how this will affect things.

Defying President Obama, House Democrats voted Thursday not to bring up the tax package that he negotiated with Republicans in its current form.

"This message today is very simple: That in the form that it was negotiated, it is not acceptable to the House Democratic caucus. It's as simple as that," said Democratic Congressman Chris Van Hollen.

"We will continue to try and work with the White House and our Republican colleagues to try and make sure we do something right for the economy and right for jobs, and a balanced package as we go forward," he said.

The vote comes a day after Vice President Biden made clear to House Democrats behind closed doors that the deal would unravel if any changes were made.

"Wow did the [White House] mishandle this," a senior House Democratic Source told CNN. "Breathtaking. Members have major substantive concerns and they should have gently guided people to the finish line."

Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon said: "They said take it or leave it. We left it."

Had added the caucus resolution is technically not binding, but believes House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "will follow the wishes of her caucus."

The vote came less than an hour after Obama himself urged Congress to pass the compromise he struck with GOP leaders earlier this week and warned that failing to do it could cost jobs.

"There is an important debate on Capitol Hill that will determine in part whether our economy moves backward or forward," Obama said at an Export Council meeting. "The bipartisan framework we have forged on taxes will not only protect working Americans from seeing a major tax increase on January 1, it will provide businesses with incentives to invest, grow, and hire."

"Every economist I have talked to or read over the last couple of days acknowledges that this agreement would boost economic growth in the coming years and has the potential to create millions of jobs," Obama continued. "The average American family will start 2011 knowing that there will be more money to pay the bills each month, more money to pay for tuition, more money to raise their children," he said. "But if this framework fails, the reverse is true. Americans will see it in smaller paychecks that will have the effect of fewer jobs."

link

[Knife]

That was my point Bean. The Dems avoided a fracture like the GOPers got, via diversifying with Blue dogs. I bit them in the ass in 2010, as a lot of those blue dogs lost their reelections to actual GOPers.

[Bakustra]

I'm not convinced by this "Republicans can always win by running right" argument. You've got a President now who's proven, during his campaign, to be able to deliver some of the most inspiring speeches that I've seen in American politics -- and it worked for him, too: the guy got elected over McCain after all, and I haven't really seen a single Republican politician capable of matching Obama's rhetoric since.

No: if Obama can't convince the American public that his agenda is what's good for America it's because he's not doing a good enough job of it. One can only blame the Republicans and the mainstream media for so much: at some point one has to face the fact that the Democrats are constantly losing terrain because they are craven, spineless and untrustworthy, because despite round after round of abuse poured over them by Republicans they keep coming back to sacrifice more of their principles on the altar of bipartisanship, because they are institutionally incapable of making a stand, because their political dialogue is pathetic, because they can't communicate their ideals worth a damn, and because their leaders are gutless cowards.

That's why people don't vote for them. Hell, I'm not American, but if I were I wouldn't vote for the Democrats any longer, and I'm a card-carrying Eurocommie.

I think it makes more sense that they don't have a clear leadership to set the agenda for the party. The Republican party leadership is centrist on social grounds and conservative on economic grounds (or right-unaligned on the values axis) while the Democratic leadership is a mix of leftist and centrist on social grounds and all over the place economically. If there were a clear leadership that could manipulate the other component groups in voting for them (like the Republicans do with religious conservatives, libertarians, and so on), then they would become more effective for a while until splinter groups started popping up. Alternately, establishing a multiparty system would allow tighter, more effective groups to form, but you know. Wishes, fishes, all casting nets.

[Chirios]

*Sigh*

Look, compromise is necessary. You can't do politics without compromise; you give and take, you remain flexible on some things, but you also have to remain hard on others. I get that bipartisanship is good and everything but sometimes the other side is just wrong; and compromising on issues where you are right will do nothing except make you wrong as well, or ineffective. Health care should have had a single payer option; the stimulus bill should've included provisions that regulated the actions of banks; not to mention the fact that the stimulus should've been a lot larger than it actually was. I'm not American, but it isn't an exaggeration to say that what happens in America affects what happens in the rest of the world; and I hate to see a president with so much potential waste it, in the name of ineffective compromise.

Yes, the two parties do need to work together to help America, but frankly, the Republicans aren't going to work with the Democrats, unless "working with" means getting exactly what they want; and if the Democrats keep bending, or ignoring, their position on major issues, it's just going to tell the GOP that they have no need to compromise at all.

As for the House Democrats refusing to pass the bill, I think that's evidence that Democrats are seeing this as another cave by the President.

[Thanas]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46531.html

The thing has passed, the GOP and Obama won. I find the last paragraph on the third page especially telling.

Look forward to next year when the GOP force social security cuts by simply refusing to raise the debt ceiling.