Details emerge on The Republican Pledge to Further Screw America

Ezra Klein

Take the deficit. Perhaps the two most consequential policies in the proposal are the full extension of the Bush tax cuts and the full repeal of the health-care law. The first would increase the deficit by more than $4 trillion over the next 10 years, and many trillions of dollars more after that. The second would increase the deficit by more than $100 billion over the next 10 years, and many trillions of dollars more after that. Nothing in the document comes close to paying for these two proposals, and the authors know it: The document never says that the policy proposals it offers will ultimately reduce the deficit.

...At the end of the day, America may be an idea -- but it is also a country. And it needs to be governed. This proposal avoids the hard choices of governance. It says what it thinks will be popular and then proposes what it thinks will be popular -- even when the two conflict. That's an idea that may help you win elections, but not one that'll help you govern a country.

Senate Republicans hate the middle class

Mitch McConnell said that Senate Republicans will unanimously oppose extending the middle class tax cuts unless the tax cuts for millionaires are also extended. This despite those pesky F-A-C-T-S that say that they provide only $.32 on the dollar in return.

Won't ANYONE please THINK about the MILLIONAIRES!?!?

Yahoo! News

Senate GOP leaders declared on Monday that Republicans are, to a person, opposed to legislation that would extend only middle-class tax relief — which Obama has repeatedly promised to deliver — if Democrats follow through on plans to let tax rates rise for the wealthiest Americans. The GOP senators forcefully made their case one day after House Republican leader John Boehner suggested he might vote for Obama's plan if that ends up the only option.

Seriously? I hope the DNC is producing ads with this in it and that they ram them down the GOP's throat. You know, since they're so obsessed with getting things rammed down their throat by a black president.

Newt Gingrich doesn't give a shit about your fact-based reality

Pay attention to the details: Chris Wallace (of FOX!) points out that continuing the Bush tax cuts for millionaires has the lowest "bang for the buck" of 11 different kinds of stimulus studied.

Newt's response to these facts? "BUREAUCRATS!!!!" He treats facts like a $10 whore (or his first two wives). They're less than meaningless.

Whenever confronted with reality -- with mathematical, objective reality, they simply blow it off and replace it with baseless ideology. Here's Newt Gingrich shrugging off the CBO's stimulus vs. tax cut numbers.

- Bob Cesca

By the by - Moody's Analytics has provided a chart showing the return benefits of various tax cuts versus spending increases. Of course, the facts are just liberal playtoys.

The Bush tax plan v. the Obama tax plan... now with pictures

...worth a thousand words and all that:


via Ezra, h/t Hammerito

So if you favor the Bush tax plan, that's fine. Just be aware that you're borrowing billions from the Chinese to reward the richest among us, with no means to pay for it and very limited payback - pennies on the dollar.

Dear progressives, why do we fight on their terms?

Here's my question for liberals/progressives.... why do we play into Republican Tea Party games by discussing issues on their terms? We're "debating" a group that has no qualms about playing fast and loose with the facts, and will sink to childish levels to insult the targets of their derision. Don't forget, we're "the Democrat Party", because they don't like our association with Democracy when clearly we're all Marxist/Leninist socialists.

More to my point, why do we discuss the Bush tax cuts, when we should be discussing the Bush Tax Cuts For The Wealthiest 2%?

It's subtle, sure, but as a group we do a horrible, horrible job of framing arguments.

Picture this, a middle-class family who doesn't really pay attention to the news. They hold no real opinion on Obama. Maybe they voted for him, but don't have any particular allegiance to him. they're flipping through the news and hear the following: "President Obama is trying to repeal the Bush tax cuts"?

How are they likely to react?

You know how they're going to react.

Now, the same family is watching the same news and hears the debate where the progressive frames it as: "The President is trying to repeal the the Bush Tax Cuts For The Wealthiest 2%"?

Do you think the reaction would be different?

I know it would.

We don't have a Frank Luntz on our side to frame these arguments. However, my fear is that if we did, we don't have the unity or discipline within the party to toe the line on these distinctions. However, the core issue remains: we do not frame our arguments well.

"the bailout"

"health care"

"the stimulus"

You know damn well that if those were GOP ideas, they'd be branded differently. "the Saving America's Economy Act", "A Healthy Future for American Families", "The Getting America Back To Work Plan". In the age of filibusters, it's not enough to have the GOP and the ConservaDems oppose those ideas, you have to be able to hold their feet to the fire come election time. Ask Ben Nelson to oppose putting Americans Back to Work. Ask Blanche Lincoln why she opposes healthy American families. Ask john Boehner why he doesn't want to save America's economy.

And for Zeus' sake, ask the Republicans why they want to give money away to the wealthiest 2% while there is such rampant joblessness.

But at least in the blogging community, we need to start framing our arguments better, and that begins with not discussing them in the terms that Republicans have branded them as, but as what they really are.

And that starts with the Bush Tax Cuts For The Wealthy.