"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Needs To Go
America could be on the verge of finally getting rid of the officially-sanctioned discrimination against citizens willing to serve their country in uniform because of their sexual orientation. Then again, it could be on the verge of setting up an even bigger fight on the issue outside the halls of Congress. Either way, this historic debate is about to be put front and center in the political world this week.
The two officers charged with surveying the military's opinion on life after "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) have now issued their report. As was previously leaked, this report shows pretty plainly that the overwhelming majority of the people currently serving in the military would not have any problem with allowing gays to openly serve their country.
So far, reactions have been somewhat muted. I expect this is due to the fact that there is an intense ongoing effort behind the scenes -- by both proponents of DADT repeal and opponents -- to count votes in the Senate. In what would have been loudly denounced as treason just a few short years ago, Republicans are prepared to filibuster the Pentagon's budget in the midst of two wars, just to stop DADT repeal. Meaning, like most things these days, the threshold to get the repeal to the Senate floor is 60 votes. Whichever side prevails in this cloture vote will likely carry the day on whether legislative repeal happens or not.
Both sides have publicly stated that they've got the votes -- either to stop repeal or to pass repeal. One of these whip counts is going to be proven wrong. Before we get to that point, however, the Senate is going to hold two days of hearings. The first, on Thursday, will feature those in favor of repealing DADT. The second, on Friday, will feature those opposed to the repeal. Grandstanding by the senators involved is all but guaranteed.
But at the end of the day, when the grandstanding is done, the Senate will hold a historic vote. If DADT is repealed, it will be a monumental step towards full equality and citizenship for gay rights supporters. If DADT is upheld, Congress may have declared itself immaterial to how the policy does get repealed.
The just-released Pentagon report extensively covers how the transition should take place within the military, from the current DADT policy to ending this blatant discrimination for good. But if the Republican senators prevail, then the military may not have the luxury of performing this transition the way they would like to. Because either the courts or the president could act without Congress' involvement.
President Obama has long said that he'd much prefer Congress to act on repealing DADT. By his logic, DADT was put in place by Congress in the first place, therefore getting rid of it should take place in the same legislative framework. But if DADT fails in the lame duck Senate, he's not going to have the luxury of this fallback position any more. It will become a clear choice -- Obama can use his power as Commander in Chief to abolish the policy (he actually has a number of ways to do this), or he can just give up on the issue until after the next election cycle. Either choice is going to cause loud howls of protest from certain groups, so Obama's just going to have to choose which people he's going to enrage, no matter what he decides to do.
Of course, there is a third choice available to the president -- do nothing, and hope that the courts overturn the policy. Obama is in a tough position on this one, though, since his own Justice Department is the one defending the DADT policy in court from various lawsuits. At any time, Obama is free to say: "We agree with the recent court decision which ruled DADT is unconstitutional, and we will not appeal the ruling." This would mean the cases wouldn't even make it as far as the Supreme Court, where the whole question is likely to come down to one uncertain swing vote. The Justice Department did recently raise a few eyebrows when, in a case involving a military nurse, it did indeed appeal a ruling in the nurse's favor that her discharge was wrong -- but at the same time refused to ask the judge for a "stay" of the nurse's reinstatement to the military. This is a mixed message, at best, but it is notable because almost everyone expected the federal government to ask for this routine stay. Because the stay was not asked for, the judge hasn't issued it. Meaning that while the case is sent upwards in the legal system, the nurse will be able to rejoin the military -- even though she is openly a lesbian (if she wasn't before the public court case, she certainly is now).
In another court case, a federal judge has already issued a ruling which would overturn the DADT policy immediately. This decision was put on hold, however, as the Justice Department did ask for a stay in this case. The Obama administration also appealed this case, and it is due to be heard by the Ninth Circuit in a few months. If the judge's ruling is upheld by the appellate court, then this case may become the "test case" which reaches the Supreme Court.
If the case is not reversed by the Supreme Court, then DADT will end -- immediately. The military will have to scramble to change policy overnight, rather than the orderly transition outlined in the Pentagon's report. This could, ironically, cause more disruption in the military than if Congress repealed DADT this week.
The repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" should not be seen as inevitable, at this point. Public opinion supports the policy's repeal overwhelmingly. Even the opinion of those in uniform is pretty overwhelmingly in favor of repealing the policy. But that may not be enough, at least not for the near future. Republicans could still manage to block the repeal in the Senate. The Supreme Court could issue a Plessy v. Ferguson type of ruling that would set the movement for full equality back years -- even decades, perhaps.
The tide has turned on the issue, though. Public opinion is not likely to fluctuate much in the future. If the recent past is any guide, public acceptance of allowing gays to openly serve is likely to grow beyond even the vast majority where it now stands. Eventually, this will mean that even Republicans may decide they're on the wrong side of a very popular issue. But it could take a long time for them to get there.
It will be interesting to see, as I wrote about yesterday, how President Obama reacts to the Pentagon's report. To his credit, he was the one who requested the study and the report in the first place. Also to his credit, he's always said he's in favor of repealing DADT. To his detriment, however, is the fact that Obama has (so far) underwhelmed gay rights supporters in living up to being the "fierce advocate" for gay rights he proclaimed himself to be during his campaign.
The upcoming Senate debate is going to be a historic one, dealing with a civil rights issue and discrimination. President Obama can either choose to emulate Harry Truman and get out in front of the issue, or he can sit on the sidelines of the debate and issue mealy-mouthed support through his press officials. No matter how many Oval Office phone calls he makes to wavering senators in the coming days, Obama needs to make a very public push on the issue as well. In short, he needs to show leadership on an issue he has always said he's supported. This is not some complex issue like healthcare reform, where some sort of centrist deal can be struck in the hopes of not annoying too many people. There is a clear choice here -- either repeal the policy, or leave it in place. And, for Obama, if the policy is kept in place, he's just going to have to face it again through either the courts or through a tough executive decision. Politically, it would be a lot better for him to throw the weight of his bully pulpit behind repealing DADT this week.
President Obama has the opportunity this week to fight hard for something he campaigned on. By doing so, he will force Republicans into defending a policy which something like three out of four Americans (and almost that many in the military itself) disagree with. Even if he loses the battle in the Senate, Obama needs to go down fighting on this one. Because, to put all political considerations aside, it is the right thing to do. "The American People" (as the Republicans are fond of saying these days) are on the side of ending institutional discrimination by our federal government. Obama needs to show he is also strongly on the people's side, and force Republicans to explain exactly why they are standing with the bigots.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
DADT, while it needs to go, is a pretty obvious issue on which almost everyone agrees as to what is right. if congress and the president can't even handle this most basic, obvious winner of an issue, what hope is there for something tricky and widely misunderstood, such as education? apologies ahead of time for the upcoming topic tangent and accompanying rant, but the steam has been building for weeks...
arne duncan and other "education politicians" with little to no teaching experience, need to go. NCLB and high-stakes standardized testing need to go. films like waiting for superman, which make you weep for cute children, scapegoat the relatively few incompetent teachers and the unions that protect them, then use this as a rationale for the complete dismantling and privatization of the public school system, need to go. for a more in-depth critique, see bush I appointee diane ravitch's commentary:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/nov/11/myth-charter-schools/?pagination=false
Liz, in an earlier post, said:
Obama/Biden have been responsible for one of the worst communication strategies and public education campaigns in the history of the world.
a more accurate statement would be that they've been responsible for one of the worst campaigns in history against public education. public school teachers all over the country are living afraid and isolated, feeling misunderstood and betrayed by all sides of the political spectrum.
since i know CW intends an education post sometime in the near future, i'll base my winter pledge on the number of responses it gets in the comment section.
[/rant]
~joshua
nypoet,
Are you sure it was me who said that and not some professional lefty? :)
You know, this pledge thing is for real - it's no joke. And, our friend, David, is going to match the first $250 donated in total. We should be close to that by now.
Anyway, I'll be looking forward to Chris's piece on education as, I think I may have told you before, I don't know enough about to comment on ... but, I've never let that stop me before ... and, besides, it's all for a good cause.
Will that be a couple of bucks or so per comment?
The two officers charged with surveying the military's opinion on life after "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) have now issued their report. As was previously leaked, this report shows pretty plainly that the overwhelming majority of the people currently serving in the military would not have any problem with allowing gays to openly serve their country.
"That is not entirely accurate."
DefSec Nimsecki, INDEPENDENCE DAY
Over 60% of Combat Units have stated that combat effectiveness would be reduced if gays were openly allowed to serve..
And the opinion of Combat Units should be given much more consideration than the opinion of 702 Units...
NY,
DADT, while it needs to go, is a pretty obvious issue on which almost everyone agrees as to what is right. if congress and the president can't even handle this most basic, obvious winner of an issue, what hope is there for something tricky and widely misunderstood, such as education?
The problem here is one of leadership.
Obama is the type of leader who knows he is right in whatever he does and can't even conceive that others don't see things his way..
When he is confronted with resistance, his ego is STILL at work, convincing himself that it's just his message, not his actions..
"If only I could explain it better, THEN the people would follow me."
This deficit in leadership is compounded by the fact that Obama's own personal echo chamber re-enforces this false belief. It's hard to be grounded in reality when you are surrounded by people telling you how right you are and how wrong everyone else is..
I also look forward to CW's education piece. :D
Michale.....
85
nypoet,
Perhaps the Second Lady should take over from Arne Duncan? Though, I think she is already having no small amount of impact on this administration's education policy.
Is there anything that this administration is doing on the education front that you support?
Politically, it doesn't matter what percentage of the population is in favor of repealing DADT. It only matters how many votes will be influenced by it -- directly or indirectly, in turnout or in swing from one party to the other, in primaries or in general elections.
It looks to me as though the political forces slightly favor letting the issue continue to fester.
since i know CW intends an education post sometime in the near future, i'll base my winter pledge on the number of responses it gets in the comment section.
Gracias, nypoet. I've been busy with holiday plannings and travelings but I too am more interested about the subject of education.
Unfortunately, I don't see a lot of bright spots on horizon. All the talk on the table is more privatization talk. Another cornerstone of our Democracy up for sale.
On a more positive note, Liz is right, I'll match up to the first $250 of contributions to CW.
In my ponderings about what I can do that supports what I believe in while not directly supporting parties I've become disenchanted with, I decided that helping out CW would be the first.
I think he provides a reasoned voice for progressives w/o falling into the trap of the Rep/Dem divide.
-David
No matter what this debate on DADT has gone on way too long.It is hightime that Congress repeal this law.Once again our president looks like a ditherer.
I would also hope that Congress votes on the DREAM act as well but I think that is unlikely as well.I have a feeling I will be voting for Socialist Worker candidate in 2012.
I would also hope that Congress votes on the DREAM act as well but I think that is unlikely as well.
Yes! I'd like to see that as well.
Republicans have fired the openly salvo in this fight announcing that they won't debate any issues except for tax cuts and spending cuts.
In other interesting news, there's a new party being announced to try to fill the void for moderates. Not sure what to think yet, but thought you might find this interesing. It's called the "No Label" party.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bloombergs-no-label-movement-takes-on-the-tea-party-2143119.html
Americulchie- The "No Label" party might be an option to the Socialist Worker candidates :)
liz,
no, there is not.
In the last weeek..I have had occasion to speak with four different young people about politics
All four voted for the President in 2008,...only one voted in the recent mid-term elections (in California...where pot legalization was on the ballot.)
All expressed continued qualified support for Obama mixed with deep disappointment with the (shall we say) GLACIAL pace of "change we can believe in"
More disquieting....all expressed a version of something I used to hear often in the post-Vietnam post-Watergate days of my own youth.....
I.E. That there is little point to voting in Presidential or Congressional Elections since ALL politicians at that level are to some degree dishonest and/or incompetent....and that significant reform is not possible under our political system.
Worst of all was the fact that,...unlike during the seventies.....I couldn't really marshall a coherent argument as to why they were wrong in that view.
I take no pleasure in the supreme irony that neither Ronald Reagan or even Richard Nixon were ultimately able turn me into a cynic....but somehow the President (with plenty of help from his Republican pals)has done so.
As my old friend "NYPoet22" has put it (above)....
If the President....with a sweeping mandate and substantial Demoratic majorities in both chambers is unable (unwilling, actually) to do anything about something as manifestly unjust as DADT....what hope can there be for the dozens of more complex and intractable challenges we face?
Very little, I'm afraid.
The President is, of course..delusional (no other word)
He apparently believes he was elected conciliator, or moderator-in-chief......
And that so long as he calls it bi-partisan compromise we will not NOTICE another round of pre-emptive surrender to his sworn enemies.
Such is the contempt in which he holds those of us who elected him.
Plainly, he does not consider himself as the head of the Democratic Party (or maybe even a Democrat?)
Indeed, he and his appointees speak MUCH more dispargingly of the progressive wing of the Democratic party than they ever would dare of their Republican and corporate masters.
Even now, on the tax cuts and unemployment insurance Obama is talking about "bipartisan co-operation" and the like while his sworn enemies (and ours) are OPENLY laughing in all our faces.
If the President was tempermentally incapable of the unseemly political rough and tumble required by his job....he might have let us know that before we chose him over candidates who were interested in ADVANCING a Democratic agenda.
I've begun to joke that the President is such a private man that he keeps the core principles he is willing to fight for a secret even from himself.
As our "Charlie Brown" prepares to give "Lucy another chance to pull the football away sending him (and working men and women) sprawling in the mud.......millions of us not only wish he would not "fall for it" again.....
We wish just ONCE....he would give Lucy a swift kick on our behalf.
My own Political cynicism notwithstanding.......
Continuing congratulations to Chris for his fine and important work here and at The Huffington Post.
As always....
Hoping you are well
TM
We wish just ONCE....he would give Lucy a swift kick on our behalf.
Fantastic analogy tommymccarthy. I couldn't have said it better myself. In one sentence you summed up my feelings towards this administration.
If you've followed CW over the past year, you know this is a theme which has emerged over and over.
Me personally, I wouldn't mind the compromise if he would take a stand or fight first. It's the compromising w/o the opposition having to do anything or w/o getting anything in return that kills me.
Personally, I just wrote Governor Kaine of the DNC a personal letter explaining that this is the very reason I will not donate to his organization.
So good to hear from you here!
-David
p.s. In a quick plug for CW, I've decided to take some of these funds which I might have formerly given to Democrats and donate them to CW instead. In the spirit of NPR, I've offered to match the first $250 donated to CW. If you're looking for a similar outlet other than either political party, I hope you'll consider donating and becoming a Weigantian!
Tommy,
"Welcome to the party, pal!!!"
-John McClane, DIE HARD
:D
And that so long as he calls it bi-partisan compromise we will not NOTICE another round of pre-emptive surrender to his sworn enemies.
You, of course, mean the North Korean or Iranian governments or terrorists, right?? :D
But here's the thing..
How many out there from the Left will vote for this President again in 2012, even if the GOP candidate is better qualified???
Welcome to CW :D
Michale.....
86
David,
Republicans have fired the openly salvo in this fight announcing that they won't debate any issues except for tax cuts and spending cuts.
Once again, that is not entirely accurate...
Republicans have stated that they will filibuster any bill unless taxes and budget issues are addressed.
And, since the GOP was overwhelmingly voted into power on the economy, is this such an illogical position for the GOP to take??
Michale.....
87
And, since the GOP was overwhelmingly voted into power on the economy,
that's not entirely accurate either. they were elected mainly based on job losses incurred under the democratic congress with both bush and obama. the seeds of said losses (banking and trade deregulation) were planted under clinton and the republicans, but that's far, far beyond the attention span of the general public. the issue is not "the economy," it's people's jobs.
since spending cuts tend to cost public sector jobs and bush's billionaire tax cuts have proven ineffective in creating any jobs whatsoever, i find it highly illogical to refuse to discuss anything else, such as the ongoing threat to jobs of service members who happen to be LGBT.
NY,
that's not entirely accurate either. they were elected mainly based on job losses incurred under the democratic congress with both bush and obama.
I was simply echoing David's claim that the economy was the number 1 reason why Democrats received a shellacking..
And, now that I understand exactly what he meant, I agree with that..
since spending cuts tend to cost public sector jobs
Public sector jobs are not an endangered species here..
Since the Obama Administration has grown public sector jobs to unheard of levels, they could use a little cutback..
Private sector jobs are the jobs that stimulate an economy.
Private sector jobs are the jobs that are needed here.
and bush's billionaire tax cuts have proven ineffective in creating any jobs whatsoever,
The ineffectiveness of the tax cuts is caused solely and completely by the uncertainty that the Obama administration has inserted and continues to insert into the economy.
It's Obama's "Let's try this. What?? That didn't work?? Let's try that.. What??" so-called plan that is the fault of the tax cuts not working, not the tax cuts themselves.
, such as the ongoing threat to jobs of service members who happen to be LGBT.
You really can't blame the DADT issue on Republicans... Obama and the Democrats had 2 years of a DREAM-majority and a near total lock on all facets of government. They could have forced it thru anytime they wanted to..
Now all of the sudden, it's the GOP's fault??
Com'on.. Blame where blame is due...
The American people voted the GOP into power by such large margins not because the people wanted the GOP to HELP with the Democrats agenda.
The American people voted the GOP into power so the GOP could STOP the Democrats agenda.
At least, that's how the GOP sees it..
And there is a certain logic to the thought process..
But it's really simple. If Democrats really WANT to repeal DADT, then all they have to do is address the budget and debt issues first...
The GOP calls the tunes now. It's up to the Democrats to dance to it...
Turnaround's a bitch, eh?? :D
Michale.....
88
NY,
Further, I am constrained to point out that your so-called "billionaire's tax cut" is also a tax cut for the majority of small businesses..
To let the tax cuts expire would result in a tax increase on the majority of small businesses.
Ironically enough, it's those small businesses that will drive ANY and ALL economic recovery..
In other words, Democrats are proposing a tax INCREASE at the worst possible moment..
Michale.....
89
You really can't blame the DADT issue on Republicans... Obama and the Democrats had 2 years of a DREAM-majority and a near total lock on all facets of government. They could have forced it thru anytime they wanted to.
I think you make a good point here, Michale. Though I don't think anyone's trying to blame this on the GOP.
Oddly enough, I think everyone here is pretty much saying the same thing. Even you. Our major disappointment w/ the administration is that they are not leading or taking a stand.
It should be the President who sets the agenda. He had the huge majorities and the opportunity in 2008. Yet with only one arm of government under their control, the GOP is dictating.
The GOP gets it right in terms of how to set the agenda with the American people. Unfortunately for the American people, all of the policies that they are pushing are geared towards the top. Back to trickle down theory and deregulation. Back to borrowing for tax breaks for those who need it least.
*sigh*
Ok, I've got to stop and think about Christmas and supporting people who are willing to kick the ball before I get too cynical. Plus, get to work :)
-David
David,
I think you make a good point here, Michale. Though I don't think anyone's trying to blame this on the GOP.
Perhaps not here on CW amongst the enlightened.. :D But, take gander of the more low-brow LEFT blogs and you can see there is much blame to be had.. :D
Oddly enough, I think everyone here is pretty much saying the same thing. Even you. Our major disappointment w/ the administration is that they are not leading or taking a stand.
I can conditionally agree with this. I think the only point of difference is that the administration should take a stand on. :D
Another difference is I DO agree (much to my surprise) with Obama on his CT policies... They have, thus far, proven to be quite effective..
It should be the President who sets the agenda. He had the huge majorities and the opportunity in 2008. Yet with only one arm of government under their control, the GOP is dictating.
As I have always said, that is because the GOP has the one thing that the DP lacks..
Discipline.
The GOP gets it right in terms of how to set the agenda with the American people. Unfortunately for the American people, all of the policies that they are pushing are geared towards the top.
If this is the case, then we as Americans will only have ourselves to blame.
Personally, I don't think it will be as bad as ya'all think it will.. I think the GOP has learned a valuable lesson in this lurch to the Left that the country went thru the last 4 years.
Michale.....
90
just a note. When I hit 100, I am going to send my payment into CW.COM. Just an FYI for anyone who wants to follow suit.....
I can conditionally agree with this. I think the only point of difference is that the administration should take a stand on. :D
Understood. That was what I was going for :) So here's a bit of a riddle for you ...
You've already admitted that you won't vote for Obama again.
So what does Obama gain by trying to please voters like yourself? Nothing.
Yet again and again, you're the type of voter he seems like he's trying to please. While getting nothing in return.
Nothing but beat up and called leftist and socialist. (Apologies, I don't mean 'you' personally here, Michale, but am rather referring to how he's been treated by some conservatives.)
This looks like 0-dimensional chess to me. I'm not even sure he needs Negotiation 101. I think he needs remedial Negotiation.
Am I wrong? It looks like the lack of leadership that you've mentioned.
Discipline
In principle, I disagree w/ you. But when it comes to this administration, you may have a point. It's certainly something.
Cheers and thanks for the note about the 100th comment and for supporting CW! We disagree about a lot of things but I'm always thankful we can do it respectfully here on CW.com :)
-David
David,
You've already admitted that you won't vote for Obama again.
Yes I have. However, I readily concede that I might change my mind.
Obama might turn out to be the leader I voted for.
I don't see how and I doubt the possibility. But I DO recognize that the possibility DOES exist...
So what does Obama gain by trying to please voters like yourself? Nothing.
Yet again and again, you're the type of voter he seems like he's trying to please. While getting nothing in return.
Nothing but beat up and called leftist and socialist. (Apologies, I don't mean 'you' personally here, Michale, but am rather referring to how he's been treated by some conservatives.)
You raise a good point..
Which is why I have said that Obama is in a perfect LOSE-LOSE situation..
He can't win without the Independents and NPAs and he can't win if his base stays home..
But if he wins the Indies and NPAs, his base will surely stay home. If he motivates his base and get's them out to vote, he will surely lose the Indies and NPAs in the process..
Obama is going to be a One-Termer whether he likes it or not.
This being the case, it makes sense for Obama to announce that now..
Think of how such an announcement could totally decimate the opposition..
With such an announcement, Obama would show the country that he is above politics.. It will take all the hot air out of the opposition...
I don't what Obama's thought processes are in this case.
The ONLY chance Obama and the Democrats have is to convince the Indies and NPAs that THEIR way is the best way for the country..
Given the intensity of the current opposition against Obama and the Democrats, I don't see how they can do this..
This looks like 0-dimensional chess to me. I'm not even sure he needs Negotiation 101. I think he needs remedial Negotiation.
Am I wrong? It looks like the lack of leadership that you've mentioned.
You are not wrong and that is exactly what the issue is..
It's not so much Leadership 101, it's OJT Leadership...
Cheers and thanks for the note about the 100th comment and for supporting CW! We disagree about a lot of things but I'm always thankful we can do it respectfully here on CW.com :)
Which is the only reason I stick around.. :D
Michale.....
91
I have somewhat modified my position on the DREAM ACT...
I wasn't aware that those who opt the College path would receive tax-payer subsidies for their education. To the tune of 6.2 Billion per year...
foxnews.com/opinion/2010/12/02/high-costs-dream-act/
Given this and the very poignant story of Lance Corporal Jose Antonio Gutierrez....
foxnews.com/opinion/2010/12/02/geraldo-rivera-read-voting-dream-act/
.... I have to say that the DREAM ACT should only allow military service as a qualification for citizenship and not college..
Michale.....
92
In other words, Democrats are proposing a tax INCREASE at the worst possible moment...
that's both factually inaccurate and intellectually dishonest. the tax changes proposed would keep the cuts intact for any individual making under 250k, and would have no bearing whatsoever on business growth, a bit of confusion stemming from a sketchy definition of "small business."
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_40/b4197030541676.htm
dave paulson has another article that explains what the bush tax cuts do, and why they need to be amended in spite of the WHOPPERr of a fallacy that income taxes on rich people stifle economic growth.
http://technorati.com/politics/article/why-dont-the-facts-seem-to/
that's both factually inaccurate and intellectually dishonest. the tax changes proposed would keep the cuts intact for any individual making under 250k, and would have no bearing whatsoever on business growth, a bit of confusion stemming from a sketchy definition of "small business."
From your article..
that half of about $1 trillion of business income in 2011 will be reported on some 750,000 personal tax returns filed by people who pay the top marginal rates. He calls those small businesses. Yet the report says the data "do not imply that all of the income is from entities that might be considered 'small.' " Almost 20,000 of those businesses, for example, had receipts of more than $50 million, it says
So, 2.7% of the businesses are not really "small"... So??? The other 97.3% of small businesses will have to see their taxes raised just so Democrats can "stick it" to that 2.7%???
Further....
Obama doesn't address the effect of his plan on small business income. Instead, he says his plan would hit only about 3 percent of all small businesses, also a joint tax committee number. Republicans counter that those 3 percent generate most of the real small business activity. "The last thing you would want to do is raise taxes in the middle of a recession on our most productive small businesses," McConnell said in a Sept. 15 Fox News (NWS) interview.
That 3% figure is equally bogus.
It's derived from ANYONE who every put "small business" on their tax forms or had "pass through" income that had ANY connection to a business..
Even if that "small business" was an EBAY seller who sold a couple things a year...
If you actually take into account "real" businesses, the impact is closer to 48% of small businesses will see a tax increase if Bush-era tax cuts expire.
I know, I know.. Democrats are saying different.
But these are the same Democrats who said that we just had a "Recovery Summer"... :^/
Do we REALLY want to follow their advice???
Clearly the White House also sees this, which is why the common theme around the Beltway is that all tax cuts WILL be extended.
The only debate is on how long they will be extended..
Michale....
93
Where do you think the number should be at Michale to protect small businesses?
$1 million ... $2 million ...
I'm curious because this might be an area for compromise. And keep in my this is per year income. Not assets.
Here's a bet for you though. I don't think Republicans will compromise on this because it jeopardizes their true goal - tax cuts for the extremely wealthy.
-David
Where do you think the number should be at Michale to protect small businesses?
Why not across the board tax exemptions for businesses that have x number of employees??
The more people you employ, the more in tax exemptions you get??
Seems like a no-brainer to me...
Which is why it probably hasn't trickled up to Congress... :D
Here's a bet for you though. I don't think Republicans will compromise on this because it jeopardizes their true goal - tax cuts for the extremely wealthy.
Republicans don't HAVE to compromise on it. The Democrats have already indicated they are going to cave...
I mean.. What would Republicans be if the cave after they have already won??
Oh yea.. Democrats :D
Sorry, just COULDN'T resist... :D
Michale.....
95
michale,
where's your 48% from? certainly not the article i ceted. the bloomberg article says "12% of the increases would be from businesses with actual workers." and how many of those even are real small businesses as we think of them, as opposed to hedge funds, law firms, bankers, brokers and various other entities that (in spite of carrying the "small business" label) are either not small or not businesses as the lay person defines those terms.
this line of argument seems to me less like a serious concern and more like a gigantic red herring that the ultra-rich and their political flunkies are throwing out to excuse their continued use of government to squeeze the last drop of blood from the collapsing middle class.
and to clarify, let me re-state - their political flunkies of BOTH political parties.
Why not across the board tax exemptions for businesses that have x number of employees?
I'd be willing to consider some form of this. Though it still sounds like its largely going to benefit those at the top with the largest businesses. But we could probably come to a compromise on a version targeting small businesses. At least it's asking something in return from businesses - create jobs.
My issue w/ trickle down is that it doesn't. In fact, all the wealth gains went up. Not down.
So I'd be willing to discuss any sort of compromise that actually helps small businesses w/o giving the largest ones handouts they don't need which won't help the economy.
Republicans don't HAVE to compromise on it. The Democrats have already indicated they are going to cave.
If it were me, you would. Because I recognize that I have the ace. If I do nothing, everything expires. And I'd be willing to play it.
I'd shut the government down until Republicans were willing to negotiate. And by negotiate, I mean actual compromise.
In the case of a shutdown, the public will blame both parties. For the first time in 2 years, Republicans will actually have to take some responsibility for something. Democrats will too. But not alone.
What I'm afraid Obama doesn't realize is that Republicans will keep running it up the middle or punching him in the face (choose your sports analogy) until he fights back.
And I'm not faulting Republicans on this. In fact I don't understand why Republicans don't just ask for a tax cut for the upper 1%. They don't really care about the rest of us anyways. And then yunno what? I'd turn around the next day and say I want something else. Hell, if he's gonna give in over and over. Why not?
*sigh*
Ok, I'm done. It just gets me. I don't think I've ever seen someone with quite the ability to take 4 aces and treat them like a pair of deuces.
-David
david,
Ok, I'm done. It just gets me. I don't think I've ever seen someone with quite the ability to take 4 aces and treat them like a pair of deuces.
why win big when the house pays you to lose. how familiar are you with democrats again?
~joshua
NY,
AP Fact Check: Majority Of Small Businesses To Be Hit By The Democrats’ Tax Hike Are “Small, Even Tiny Businesses.” “THE FACTS: The 3 percent figure is statistically correct, but misleading. That's because the overwhelming number of small businesses are very small, even tiny. And there are a lot of them - for instance, a house cleaner, a dog walker, an ice cream vendor, somebody who makes money selling things on eBay. In reporting the raw numbers of tax returns that include business income, the Internal Revenue Service doesn't distinguish between small homegrown businesses and far less common but extremely profitable ventures such as some hedge funds and doctor and lawyer partnerships.” (Tom Raum, “FACT Check: Small Business Caught In Tax Battle,” The Associated Press, 11/29/10)
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112900797.html
Left Out In The Cold
2
December 2010
Posted by: Research
0 Comments
House Democrats Vote To Saddle Small Businesses With A Job-Killing Tax Hike
Today, House Democrats Voted To Raise Taxes On Small Businesses. (H.R. 4853, Roll Call Vote # 604, 12/2/10)
HOUSE DEMOCRATS’ BILL RAISES TAXES ON SMALL BUSINESSES
Nearly Half Of The Business Income That Is Reported On Personal Tax Filings Goes To Families And Businesses That Would Have Their Taxes Raised By Democrats. "The numbers are clear. According to IRS data, fully 48% of the net income of sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations reported on tax returns went to households with incomes above $200,000 in 2007. That's the number to look at, not the 3%." (Kevin A. Hassert and Allan D. Viard, Op-Ed, "The Small Business Tax Hike And The 97% Fallacy," The Wall Street Journal, 9/3/10)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703959704575454061524326290.html
David,
If it were me, you would. Because I recognize that I have the ace. If I do nothing, everything expires. And I'd be willing to play it.
Yes, you probably would. And, as likely, I probably would be more than willing to not put you into that position.
But, then again, we don't know everything that the Democrats know.
Once again, we're back to the question of "WHY"...
Perhaps Democrats know something about letting the tax breaks expire that would be catastrophic to this country...
In the case of a shutdown, the public will blame both parties.
Ya think?? :D
Personally, I think the public would blame the Party who can't spin very well.
Guess who that would be?? :D
NY,
why win big when the house pays you to lose. how familiar are you with democrats again?
Com'on! Don't do my job for me!! :D
Michale.....
96
why win big when the house pays you to lose. how familiar are you with democrats again?
I know, I know, joshua. The real issue is with money and how most pols are incented.
Big business to pols: "Stick with us and we'll make everything easy for you and you'll have all the money you need to get re-elected. Step out of line and we'll crucify you with the media we own."
Usually I'm not this cynical. Sometimes it just gets to me.
On a less cynical note, I happened to visit Powell's bookstore in Portland over the weekend and they have one of the best and biggest poetry sections I've ever seen. It was the size of a mall bookstore.
Perhaps Democrats know something about letting the tax breaks expire that would be catastrophic to this country.
Or, more likely, it's simply politically easier to give the rich their tax breaks than it is to fight for what's right.
Personally, I think the public would blame the Party who can't spin very well.
You might have me there.
I don't necessarily want Dems to spin better though. Spin implies twisting the truth. But boy do they ever need to make a better case for some principles.
Here's one which should be a "no brainer": The middle class drives economic growth.
-David