Two prominent Democrats contract foot-in-mouth disease

Yesterday was a bad day for Democrat oratory. Perhaps driven to mushmouthedness by the recent 24-hour talkathon in advance of yesterday’s confirmation vote on Betsy DeVos, two prominent Democratic congresswomen put their feet in their respective mouths on different subjects.

First, Nancy Pelosi apparently flashed back almost two decades to the year 2001. Rep. Pelosi (D-Cal.), speaking in a press conference covered by Fox News, said, “While it's only been a couple of weeks since the inauguration, we've seen nothing that I can work with President Bush on.”

While Ms. Pelosi may be confused about who the president is, she isn’t confused about her opposition to all things Republican. While some Democrats have hinted that they might be open to deals with Mr. Trump on infrastructure spending programs, for Ms. Pelosi, apparently the fact that President Trump has an (R) after his name is sufficient to merit total opposition, just as it was for President Bush.

In yesterday’s second example of a Democratic gaffe, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Cal.) erroneously accused Vladimir Putin of making moves in Korea. “The fact that he [Trump] is wrapping his arms around Putin, while Putin is continuing to advance into [pause] Korea,” Waters said on CSPAN, “I think that he is leading himself into that kind of position where folks will begin to ask: 'What are we going to do?' and the answer is going to be, eventually, we've got to do something about him.”

Waters may have been thinking about Crimea or Ukraine, which are half a world away from Korea, but phonetically similar. Putin’s Russia has annexed Crimea and is sponsoring an insurgency in Ukraine. Of course, given Mr. Putin’s penchant for expansionism and the fact that North Korea considers Russia one of its best friends, maybe Waters knows something we don’t.

Pelosi and Waters continue in the grand tradition of congressional Democratic oratory that includes Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) who once expressed concern in a committee hearing that the large number of military personnel on Guam might cause the island to “tip over and capsize.” Johnson’s statement stands as the most amusing clips of a congressional hearing that I have ever seen.

Even with their misstatements, in deep blue California Pelosi and Waters probably don’t have to fear that their seats might be in jeopardy. Rep. Johnson made his statement, undoubtedly one of the dumbest things ever said in Congress, in 2010. He is still serving his district today.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Georgia Dems split over tax compromise

Sanford Bishop

A political firestorm has erupted among Democrats since President Obama announced a deal with Republicans to extend the low Bush-era tax rates.  It seems possible that President Obama negotiated without the input of Democratic congressional leaders, expecting them to follow his lead.

Lame duck House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is unhappy with several provisions and has not committed to pushing the bill through the House.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the compromise was “something that's not done yet. We're going to have to do some more work.”  This indicates that left-wing Democrats may hold the compromise hostage (to use President Obama’s metaphor) to extract more concessions from the Republicans.

For some the rhetoric was even more heated.  Senator Mary Landrieu called the extension of tax cuts for the wealthy “morally corrupt” and “nonsensical.”  Senator Claire McCaskill said, “If they think it's okay to raise taxes for the embattled middle class because they're gonna pout if we don't give more money to millionaires, it really is time for the people of America to take up pitchforks.”  Apparently Senator McCaskill doesn’t realize that, after last month’s election, if the American people take up pitchforks, it will more than likely be to come after the Democrats.

Much of the Democratic opposition seems to stem from the perception that the deal is a new tax break for the rich or that taxes for the poor are subsidizing the wealthy.  Nothing could be further from the truth. 

In the real world, the current income tax rates, enacted during the Bush-era, are set to expire at the end of this year.  If that happens, taxes will increase for all US taxpayers.  On your first paycheck for 2011, you will take home less money than you did in 2010 because of increased withholding.  If the compromise passes, the rates will remain effective for another two years.  No one will pay a lower rate than they are already paying.

The estate (death) tax provision in the compromise is also giving many liberals heartburn.  The estate tax is set to jump to 55% from nothing this year.  The compromise would restore the estate tax at 35% for estates worth more than $5 million.  Apparently, this is not enough for many liberals.

As I pointed out yesterday, Democratic concerns about the cost of extending Bush’s tax rates are a hypocritical considering the spending spree that they have been on for the past 2-4 years.  Democratic calculations fail to incorporate Hauser’s Law, which points out that government revenue remain stable at 19% of GDP regardless of tax rates.  This is because the wealthy put their money into tax shelters when tax rates rise.  With more money removed from the economy (a higher percentage going to government and more real dollars sitting in shelters), the economy shrinks.  The higher tax rates actually bring in fewer real dollars than projected.  This means that the tax increases would bring in less revenue than projected and, conversely, that keeping rates low would cost less than projected.

Of Georgia’s six congressional Democrats, only Sanford Bishop has made a statement supporting the compromise.  A spokesman in John Lewis’ office states that Rep. Lewis is opposed to the deal, even though the favors the extension of unemployment compensation.

Two of the representatives (Hank Johnson and John Barrow) have not yet decided on an official position.  A spokesperson for Jim Marshall said that the congressman had not addressed the compromise, but supported extending the Bush tax rates.  A spokesman for David Scott refused to reveal Rep. Scott’s position on the issue.

Of the four uncommitted congressional Democrats, three (David Scott, John Barrow, and Jim Marshall) are members of the moderate Blue Dog Coalition.  John Barrow and Jim Marshall (as well as Sanford Bishop) joined forty-seven Democrats in signing a letter to Nancy Pelosi last September supporting an extension of the current tax rates.

It is likely that John Barrow and Jim Marshall will join Sanford Bishop in supporting the compromise.  It is equally likely that Hank Johnson (who gained fame for his belief that Guam might “tip over”) will join John Lewis in opposing it.  David Scott, who is a Blue Dog and represents several conservative counties, could go either way.  My prediction is that he will oppose the deal.

On the Republican side, only Senators Jim DeMint and George Voinovich have said that they will vote against the measure.  That may change in days to come as such notables as Sarah Palin and Rand Paul question the deficit spending in the deal.  Members of Georgia’s Republican delegation have not voiced opposition.

If the deal fails to pass, it is likely that the newly strengthened Republicans can engineer an extension to the current tax rates next year.  However, that would mean that people will be taking home less money in the first weeks of the new year.  It would also leave Democrats to explain to the American people why allowing taxpayers to keep their own money is considered a giveaway.

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/ga-dems-split-on-tax-cut-deal">