The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Tax Deal Will Likely Spare GOP From Backlash on Unemployment Extension

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Tax Deal Will Likely Spare GOP From Backlash on Unemployment Extension

By Philip Klein on 12.6.10 @ 5:15PM

This year's Republican landslide was rooted in the party's ability to forge a coalition of independents and more conservative Tea Party voters, even though these groups don't always neatly overlap. The clear strategy of the White House in the coming two years is to try and force Republicans to take stances on issues that would highlight the differences between these groups and drive them apart. One potential issue for the White House to exploit is extending unemployment benefits, a measure which many conservatives (rightly, in my view) object to, but which is more popular among the broader population. Republicans were likely to eventually cave on this issue anyway, because they're wary of being portrayed as uncompassionate and extreme, a caricature that haunted Newt Gingrich and House Republicans after the 1994 GOP takeover. Under normal circumstances, Republicans' caving on unemployment benefits would probably trigger a backlash on the right, but now that Republicans seem to have agreed to an extension as part of a larger deal to extend the Bush tax cuts, that criticism is likely to be a lot more muted. Now, instead of the attention being on Republicans, all of the focus is going to be on Obama's more significant capitulation. Basically, one way or another, there was going to be an unemployment extension, but Obama has now made it a lot easier for Republicans to justify it to their base.

View all comments (27) | Leave a comment

J.C.Eaton| 12.6.10 @ 6:06PM

Nevermind the fact that the vote for more than two years of money for nothing[which naturally, we don't have] is counterproductive, bread and circus pandering, wasteful, Constitutionally likely illicit, and foolish. No, nevermind any of that. Candyass politicians!!!!!!!

Buckleigh| 12.6.10 @ 6:12PM

What do Republican'ts do when their out of a job? Do they refuse unemployment benefits?

Nick| 12.7.10 @ 3:02PM

Buckleigh,

This one has/does.
Never set foot in an unemployement office in my life. I'm allergic to welfare.

J.C.Eaton| 12.6.10 @ 6:21PM

First, learn how to spell. Second, why should anyone refuse UC when it pays more than their job, lasts for two years, and is furnished on someone else's dime?Third, don't call me a Republican!

Oldefarte| 12.6.10 @ 7:43PM

Count me as a conservative upset over R's caving on the unemployment extension. If it had to be granted, then the R's should have held firm on making same paid for [defecit neutral], by cutting an equal amount of other governmental spending [foreign/farm aid, welfare, etc]. The lying D's pass budget neutral legislation and then ignore same by classifying this as an emergency matter. Allowing the sleazy D's to term raising any taxes as granting tax cuts to the wealthy is their typical propaganda brainwashing of their constituents, the indigent class. Since when does any tax receipt money that is originally earned by the taxpayers and forcibly paid to the government become the government's money. The D's act like they are the controllers of government and that it belongs to the government. It does not--it belongs to the taxpayers who earned it, not to the government!!!!!!!!!

Johnny Beigler| 12.6.10 @ 8:23PM

The extended unemployment compensation benefits will come at the expense of every business in America, who will see their monthly Unemployment Insurance premiums skyrocket. So if this deal passes, it is, plain and simple, a tax increase on every business in America.

cheapairjordan| 12.6.10 @ 9:48PM

thanks your share

AJsDaddie| 12.6.10 @ 11:28PM

Taxes on businesses are good in the Liberal playbook. Stealth taxes are even better - free money!

And then I listened to some talking head on MSNBC demanding to know how much debt we were selling to Saudi Arabia to "finance the extension of the Bush tax cuts". My teeth actually started to hurt, probably from grinding them.

AJ got worried because I was stomping around the house muttering "you don't FINANCE tax cuts - it's not your money!" And of course there was no mention of the billions of dollars required to pay for the unemployment extension.

MSNBC: Fighting for the hearts and souls of the mathematically challenged!

yanqui704| 12.7.10 @ 6:54AM

I think Obama got what he wanted. His main goal is transforming America. Increasing the permanent underclass is one of the main steps.Three years of unemployment helps cement that. Added benefit - if the left is mad at him that just gives him pragmatic, moderate bonafides.

JP| 12.7.10 @ 7:27AM

The GOP in the Senate held its ground, and forced Obama and Reid to concede on taxes. Even more important politically is the branding of the Democratic party. Unemployment benefits though the end of 2011 will cost the taxpayers (future taxpayers) $70 billion. Within a $3.8 trillion budget that is chump change. If the GOP blocked the extension (now up to 3 years) right before Christmas, the Dems would be able to demogague. The GOP must chose its battles carefully. Giving the Dems the unemployment extension was the price to get a 2 year tax extension. And in the long run, this favors the GOP, as it keeps the issue alive through 2012.

Michael L. Hauschild| 12.7.10 @ 8:27AM

You are going to "chump change" us to death.

JP| 12.7.10 @ 9:10AM

The GOP currently do not have the numbers to block the extension of unemployment benefits. But they do have 5 Democratic Senators in thier court on the tax extension issue. The federal government spends more money on the USDA's corn and soybean subsidies than they do on unemployment. Ditto for Pell Grants.

If the GOP made an issue of the $70 billion of borrowed tax money and prevented the extension of the tax cuts as well as unemployment beneifts, Obama and his party would have easily bruised the GOP's eye. A compromise laid somewhere, and the GOP got what it wanted.

Jimh| 12.7.10 @ 8:20AM

Politics is the art of the possible. Politicaly you were not going to have 'tax cuts for the rich' without extending unemployment benefits. This deal is not so bad. It extends the tax cuts. And while on principle I am not for extensive unemployment coverage, in this situation the government is largely responsible for the conditions which make it difficult for would-be employers to hire. Maybe the tax cuts and other possible future action from congress can help improve the economy enough so hiring can pick up.

Curly Smith| 12.7.10 @ 8:21AM

The whole argument was a sham. The GOP should have been pushing for lower marginal rates, lower capital gains rates, and lower taxes on businesses. Instead we got the lesser of two evils again... the Dems wanted higher taxes and we happily accept no increase in income taxes but higher Unemployment Tax rates to pay the extended benefits. Yeah! The recession is locked in for another two years!!

What was the urgency behind the do nothing deal? Oh, right, fear of actually doing something right.

JP| 12.7.10 @ 9:15AM

The GOP Senate coalition is very weak as it stands now. Even after the new Senators are sworn in next year, it is not inconceivable for Lugar, Lindsay Graham, the Main Twins, and Lamar Alexander, and Saxby Chambliss to join Obama on a while host of issues. That's 6 critical votes. The GOP loses those votes and it loses the filibuster. Besides, there isn't nearly enough time for the GOP to get a vote on capital gains and corporate taxes. And even if they did, Pelosi would surely shelve it until the recess.

Curly Smith| 12.7.10 @ 10:33AM

We got absolutely nothing in this deal. Your argument boils down to "if we didn't take a bad deal then we might get a worse deal later". I'm sorry, but we're never going to move in the right direction if we're afraid to put one foot in front of the other.

This deal made the status quo worse. The tax rates may remain unchanged for two years but those two years are now filled with more uncertainty. The sad truth is that the Senate rushed to do a deal before the newly elected Conservatives in the House could structure future tax policy. The GOP was desperate to avoid a real ideological discussion about the future of the country. But, congrats on another RINO win because it provides more fuel for the Tea Parties.

Another GOP compromise, another loss for Conservatism.

JP| 12.7.10 @ 11:37AM

Curly,
You are under the impression that the GOP controls the agenda. The Lame Duck Session barely lasts 4 weeks. The Bush tax cuts expire if nothing is done. And there is no guarentee that the future GOP controlled House and the 5 extra GOP Senators could force the issue. There is no time for "discussions" during the Lame Duck Session as Reid is forcing votes on the DREAM ACT, START, DADT, and unemployment extensions. If the GOP does nothing, Reid would have accomplished something that no one a month ago thought possible. And the GOP would have taken it in the chin if they allowed the tax cuts to expire.

What planet are you on? McConnell has/had only one goal -to ensure that the tax cuts go on to see another day. His coaltition is also preventing the DREAM ACT from reaching the floor (no mean feat if you consider RINOS like Brown, Lugar, the Maine Twins, and Lindsay Graham). And there is a good shot that START will also not see a vote.

In return, the GOP gave the Dems (and the unemployed) a $70 billion Christmas gift. It's called politics.

skedaddle| 12.7.10 @ 9:12AM

How about we all stop the unproductive arguments about unemployment compensation and temporary tax brackets? The real problem is lack of jobs. Why are there foreigners being brought in to work IT, call center and other jobs when there are more than enough unemployed to take those jobs? Why were businesses allowed to unload mostly their older, better paid workers these past several years? Aren't there EEOC laws against that sort of thing? Why are there any illegals in this country working what few menial and construction jobs there are? And why didn't the idiot Republicans permanent lower federal taxes when they had the chance? The ruling political class is the enemy, not some poor schmuck that lost their job of 30 years and can't get hired because there are no jobs, or no one will hire them because they "wouldn't be happy working for less" or any of the other excuses businesses use to not hire older workers.

JP| 12.7.10 @ 9:17AM

Skedaddle,
Where have you been? Most firms do not import foreign workers; they go to where the workers live. The EEOC has no authority to go to foreign lands and enforce work standards. And it isn't illegal to outsource and farm out work to India or China.

skedaddle| 12.7.10 @ 9:36AM

I've been inside a medium-sized privately owned company. Workers are brought in on H1-B visas. I've also been in unemployment offices and it's striking and noticed that the vast majority of unemployed in my city are 40 yrs. and up. Where have you been that you're so blind you haven't seen the imported Indian IT workers? Of course it isn't illegal to send jobs overseas but it sure does put alot of people in the unemployment line.

JP| 12.7.10 @ 11:45AM

With the exception of government projects, Fortune 1000 firms outsource directly to India and China. It's much cheaper. There are exceptions for highly specialized software developers; but, all-in-all the H1-B visa issue is a strawman. The loss of IT jobs can be chiefly attributed to outsourcing. Big firms like Oracle, Microsoft, Apple, and Motorola use outsourcing for about 60% of thier R&D, development, and design work. In my neck of the woods, I know of 4 software developers who are no longer in thier fields due to both the loss of oppurtunities as well as a huge drop in pay.

skedaddle| 12.7.10 @ 12:22PM

Believe me, the Indian software people I met were NOT highly specialized. They were barely able to do the job they were hired for, and then, only with American workers help. They were hired because computer illiterate managers did what is fashionable - hire foreigners and fire Americans. Why limit the conversation to Fortune 1000 firms; there's lots of other companies. I have a friend working for a large investment firm in NYC and she is managing Indian H1-B call-center workers in the US. Do you really think call-center workers are "highly specialized"? H1-B isn't a "strawman" argument, it's just another part of the problem and it could be solved with the stroke of a pen.

RWT| 12.7.10 @ 10:01AM

JP - Get your numbers straight. Corn & soybean subsidies total for 2009 was less than $6 billion. Total subsidies for the last 15 years would be a better comparison.
http://farm.ewg.org/region.php.....mp;yr=2009

JP| 12.7.10 @ 11:41AM

Check out the Dept of Ag, the subsidies for corn alone are over $30 billion. Subsidies are not just outright cash pay-outs either. Tax cuts for capital investments in equipment, accelerated depreciation schedules, tarrifs on imports (which are another form of subsidies that consumers pay out) are all subsidies, much in the same way the mortgage tax deduction is a subsidy. All-in-all Big Ag enjoys over $100 billion in subsidies every year. Even Charles Grassley admits something must be done to remove some of these.

Insurance Broker San Jose| 12.7.10 @ 3:41PM

Increasing the unemployment compensation will just cause more stress on the taxpayer; Obama should focus on lowering in the unemployment rate first.

insurance broker san jose

RWT| 12.7.10 @ 5:29PM

JP - Please show us the link where you get your numbers. I did. Tax cuts apply to all equipment investments across all industries, not just Ag. Likewise for depreciation expense. What don't you like about the less than 1% of our total population that is able to feed the world?