It's Come to This: Yale, Cornell Professors Start Website Asking Rich to Give Bush Tax Cuts to Charity

Hmmm:

A new website is encouraging the richest Americans to give their tax cuts to charity.

Four professors from Yale and Cornell universities created the Give It Back for Jobs website after Republicans forced President Barack Obama to extend Bush-era tax cuts for even the wealthiest Americans.

"Quite possibly, the President had no good alternative," the site noted. "All the Bush tax cuts, not just those for the wealthy, were scheduled to expire at the end of this month, jeopardizing an already fragile economic recovery.

"But we citizens need not abandon ourselves to this failure of government. Instead, ordinary Americans, acting together, can create shadow fiscal policy. By acting together, we can set the country moving toward a just prosperity.

"Americans who have the means should refuse to surrender to Senate Republicans. We should act, together, to give back our Bush tax cuts, by making donations to organizations that promote fairness, economic growth, and a vibrant middle class," the site added.

I fully expect those people that were begging to pay more taxes, like Warren Buffet, to pony up the bucks, now. Right?

The name of the site, Give It Back For Jobs, is a bit of a misnomer, considering some of the suggested charities listed, like Habitat for Humanity, The Salvation Army, Children's Aid Society and Nurse Family Partnership, have absolutely nothing to do with creating jobs or have little to do with economic growth.

Now, I have nothing against giving the money to charity, but they don't have to politicize it. Giving to charity is a great thing and should be encouraged, but not to make a political point.

Also, I believe that they've inadvertently stumbled on one of the reasons why the GOP and conservatives like the tax cuts. They would much rather see the money go into the hands of charities, where the chance of waste is minimal, than in the government's hands, where waste is rampant and almost a certainty.

Dubya: Please Don't Call Them MY Tax Cuts, Nuance

While on his book tour, President George W. Bush expressed his doubts over the wisdom of including his name, when people discuss the tax cuts that he signed into law 10 years ago:

Former President George W. Bush appeared on the Scott Hennen Show today and spoke a bit about his namesake tax reform that is the subject of hot debate in Congress right now. His opinion? The tax cuts would be less controversial if they weren’t called the “Bush tax cuts.”

Here's the part of the interview transcript where Bush expressed this concern:

HENNEN: I did a little analysis of three most used words over the last, I don’t know, three or four months here for sure, and they are Bush tax cuts. It’s everywhere right now with this debate going on. You talk obviously about the economic crisis and the financial crisis in your book and it’s obviously right now recognition of members of congress of both sides that we need to keep your tax policy in place. Does that feel like a vindication?

BUSH: Well I wish they would have called it something other than the Bush tax cuts and therefore would have been less angst amongst some to pass it, but I do believe it’s very important to send the signal to our entrepreneurs and our families that the government trusts them to spend their own money. And I happen to believe lower taxes is what stimulates economic growth and what we need now in our country is economic growth.

I'm know that it must get the left's gourd to keep giving Bush credit for any tax cuts for the middle class. A few would love to let them expire just to pass them next year, and then, they can call it the Obama tax cuts, instead. However, most on the Democrats wouldn't hurt the economy just out of spite. Most that are saying this are lefty bloggers.

Let's go back to Bush's point that it might be easier to pass the bill, if it would just be tax cuts instead of the Bush tax cuts. In the end, I don't think that it'll really matter. The Democrats would still be for letting taxes go up on the rich and for extending the rest of them, regardless of what they are called.

Breaking: Obama Hands the Presidency Back to Bill Clinton or Something/Update: Added Best Twitter Quips From Obama/Clinton WH Presser

Apparently, President Obama had better things to do than talk to the press about the bill that would prevent the massive tax increases for all Americans that is looming large on the minds of this nation or about the deadline that is quickly approaching for said tax bill:

Obama had already held a press conference this week and taking questions from reporters was the last thing he wanted to do. “I've been keeping the first lady waiting for about half an hour, so I'm going to take off,” was his response to the first question directed at him.

“Well, I don't want to make her mad,” Clinton joked. “Please go.”

In a town obsessed with comparing Clinton and Obama and 1994 and 2010, the scene came to life Friday. The two men met privately in the Oval Office for over an hour before deciding at the last minute to make an appearance in front of the cameras, sending the few reporters who were still at the White House late Friday afternoon scrambling. Obama spoke for all of 90 seconds.

“I thought, given the fact that he presided over as good an economy as we've seen in our lifetimes, that it might useful for him to share some of his thoughts,” he said before turning the podium over to Clinton. “I'm going to let him speak very briefly, and then I've actually got to go over and do some – just one more Christmas party. So he may decide he wants to take some questions, but I wanted to make sure that you guys heard from him directly.”

“First of all, I feel awkward being here, and now you're going to leave me all by myself?” Clinton joked, getting a smile out of his successor.

But the former president couldn’t get enough. Clinton fielded nearly a dozen questions, twice as many as Obama took during his briefing room press conference on Tuesday. He knew the reporters by name – calling out Ann Compton of ABC and George Condon of the National Journal with ease. Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, repeatedly tried in vain to rein him in. (“Gibbs will call ‘last question,’” Obama informed reporters as he left for the party.)

But even before Obama left Clinton alone, the former president was the center of attention. One of the cable television shots had completely blocked Obama out, even as he stood by Clinton’s side, his arms crossed, nodding occasionally while his predecessor delved into his thinking on the tax cuts compromise and went on to throw his support behind Senate ratification of the new START treaty with Russia

Twitter was a buzz during this press conference. My twitter feed is filled with snarky comments regarding his swift departure from the press conference and the possible reasons for it.

Given the obviouse backlash that followed this presser, I have to wonder: what in the world was he thinking? He has to know how this would look. This makes him look like he doesn’t really care much about this issue at all or that he doesn’t take the office of the presidency that seriously.

Alternate headline: Obama Tells America That He’s Just Not That Into You

Update: Here a few of those snarky comments that I mentioned above:

@thecajunboy

"I think Barack Obama just said "F It!" and handed the presidency over to Bill Clinton."

@daveweigel

"Remember when folks were worried that President Hillary would give too much influence to Bill? So yeah."

@keder

"The current President looks very satisfied that the former President is doing his job for him. I've never seen a stranger spectacle."

Rep. Ellison (D-MN): We Must Create "Real Crisis" to Force Change in Obama's Tax Compromise

On an interview with Minnesota Public Radio, Democratic Representative Keith Ellison from Minnesota called for fellow Democrats to cause a “real crisis”, in order to force Republicans to drop the tax rate extension for those in the $250.000 and above tax bracket:

Minnesota 5th District Congressman Keith Ellison said Thursday that Democratic lawmakers "need to create a real crisis" to force Republicans to renegotiate the tax cut compromise.

House Democrats voted Thursday to reject the tax cut deal between the White House and Congressional Republicans.

The compromise would extend Bush-era tax cuts for all Americans, including the wealthy. It also would renew benefits for the long-term unemployed, a measure President Obama had pushed for to prevent about 2 million Americans from losing benefits in the coming weeks. Republicans had opposed extending unemployment benefits.

Ellison, who was recently elected co-chair of the Progressive caucus in the House, voted against the compromise.

"I think that we need to create a real crisis here so that the Republicans will have to answer for denying Americans unemployment benefits on the eve of the Christmas holiday," Ellison said. "We let them off the hook, in my opinion."

Ellison is hoping to play a game of chicken with everyone’s taxes and the health of our economy. He is betting on that the Republicans would rather raise taxes on those who create jobs for this economy and cost us job growth than to let them expire for everyone and have everyone’s taxes go up in a few weeks.

However, a few Republicans, like Jim DeMint, have indicated that they are not totally opposed to letting the cuts expire in January. They would do this looking to get an even better deal, when they have a greater majority.

If they go that route, they have, also, indicated that any new tax bill would be retroactive to the beginning of the year to ensure that no one will pay higher taxes in the end. This would still cause more money to be taken out of people’s checks at the beginning of the year, until it gets passed. However, people would get their money back in the form of a refund, when they file their 2011 this is the best way to go, though, because a dip in people’s take home pay, no matter how if it is only for a few weeks, will have a negative effect on our economy and cause a lull that would be felt for longer than just a few weeks.

But Democrats have much more to lose than the Republicans do by balking at passing the Obama Tax Compromise. They will be negotiating at a much bigger disadvantage next year than the Republicans would, if the deal fell through in Congress. Plus, the White House and the Republicans are positioning the Democrats as the obstructionists, if it fails. They would become the new “Party of No”. The Democrats will talk big over the next week maybe two, but in the end, I believe that they will reluctantly pass it. They are just making sure that the American people know where they stand on the issue. They are grandstanding in the highest order.

I find it amusing that progressive, liberal Democrats have suddenly started to care about huge creating deficits, if there are only a few jobs that are created by this bill. This is what Ellison said about that point, “You need to understand me. I' m not saying that there won't be any jobs created from this bill, but how much per dollar will the jobs cost?” Where was this concern, when the Democrats were passing a about a trillion dollar bill that would in the end create zero jobs net:

A study by Daniel J. Wilson of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank suggests that the net job creation from the $814 billion stimulus bill passed in February 2009 was zero by August 2010. In the first year, the stimulus "saved or created" 2 million jobs (not 4 million as repeatedly claimed by the administration), but this number proved to be short-lived, paying for temporary jobs, at a very high cost of $400,000 per job "saved or created."

By August, 2010, the impact of the stimulus on net job creation had disappeared. This is an astounding result, which destroys the Paul Krugman argument that the economy would be so much better right now if only Congress had approved much more spending in February 2009. Double the initial spending, double the number of temporary jobs, with likely the same net result by this point in time, or a trivial number of "permanent jobs created . In fact, the unemployment rate is at a substantially higher percentage rate today at 9.8% than when the stimulus bill was passed.

That $400,000 per job figure based on the assumumption that 2 million jobs would have been created. It was no where near that, and what jobs were created are now gone. He is being a bit of a hypocrite if he didn’t care then but cares now.

Using class warefare rhetoric, he goes onto complain that letting people keep their own money is somehow not fair. They want to keep taxes low for everyone not just the rich. So, how is that not fair? Liberals believe that your money is really the government’s money, and they are only being gracious in letting you keep as much money as they do. Only in the minds of liberals, do they believe that letting people keep the money that they make is unfair.

DeMint: On Second Thought I'm Not 100% Committed to Filibustering Obama's Tax Compromise

Two days ago, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) went onto the Hugh Hewitt radio show and flat out said that he'd vote no on both cloture and in general votes for the tax cut compromise:

HH: I’ve got some quick questions for you. The first is if the deal reached between the President and the Republican leadership yesterday makes it to the floor of the Senate in substantially the same form, will you vote for cloture to allow a final vote on it? And would you vote for it on that final vote if it cleared cloture?

JD: No.

HH: On both counts?

JD: On both counts.

However, after being blasted by many, including Jennifer Rubin, his office has walked back his previous statement in an email sent to the Washington Post's conservative writer:

Senator Jim DeMint's staff pushed back hard on my post earlier today, insisting DeMint is not really threatening to filibuster the bipartisan tax deal. Spokesman Wesley Denton emailed me, "Senator DeMint has simply stated he does not support the deal as currently structured as it includes huge new deficit spending and death tax hikes. Americans just voted in a historic election for Washington to stop the deficit spending that is mortgaging our children's future." He also defended DeMint's position on the death tax, arguing that "there is no question that raising the death tax from its current rate of zero to 35 percent is a large tax hike that will hurt family farms and small businesses and could destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs." The bottom line seems to be that DeMint will be "open to a temporary extension of all current tax rates without new deficit spending," but he won't give up pushing for the Bush tax rates to become permanent.

So, he is still saying that he's against the compromise, but he just isn't going to commit to the filibuster, just yet. DeMint may very well come around on the fact that this may be the best deal that he can get and still get the bill passed before taxes go up in three weeks. Time is running out, and the escalating pressure of the upcoming deadline will probably be what gets those that aren't so sure about this bill, right now, on both sides, to eventually concede that this is the best thing to do for the country. I would expect DeMint to cave sometime next week, after other Republicans talk to him and convince him to support the bill.

H/T to HotAir's Allahpundit

Senate Republicans Hold Firm on Promise Not to Support Any Bill Before Taxes, Budget Are Addressed

Harry Reid tried to put two bills up for a vote today that was defeated by almost of the the Republican's voting against the measure. They did this, by-in-large, because they had promised not to let any other bill come up for a vote, until the tax and budget issues are taken care of before the lame-duck session is closed.

The first one rejected was the one that dealt with a bill that was designed to compensate 9/11 survivors' for lingering health issues stemming from inhaling dust from the World Trade Center collapse:

Senate Republicans on Thursday derailed a bill to aid people who got sick after exposure to dust from the World Trade Center's collapse in the Sept. 11 attack.

Supporters were three votes short of the 60 needed to proceed to debate and a final vote on the bill that would have provided as much as $7.4 billion in health care and compensation to 9/11 responders and survivors. The bill failed on a test vote, 57-42.

Fifty-seven Democrats voted for the bill and 41 Republicans opposed it. Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, switched his vote to 'no' at the last moment, a parliamentary move that allows him to bring the measure up again for a vote.

Backers of the legislation see this lame-duck session of Congress as possibly its last chance. The bill has passed the House.

Republican senators have promised not to consider any other bills until the Senate acts on funding the government and extending tax cuts.

That one is a bit tricky because the Democrats have already used their no votes as a way to label Republicans as not being compassionate to those who survived the tragedies of 9/11. Republicans must speak out on this to make sure that Americans know why they voted against this bill. They can't let the Democrats frame this debate without their side of the story being expressed.

Even in the next Congress, this has a chance to be passed later on, but for now, it is not an issue that must be acted on immediately.

The second bill was on the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" military policy:

The Senate on Thursday rejected a Democratic bid to open debate on repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy banning openly gay and lesbian soldiers from military service, possibly killing any chance for it to get passed in the current congressional session.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, called the vote without an agreement from any Republican senators to support the motion, ensuring it would fail.

The vote was 57-40 in favor of the cloture motion that required 60 votes to pass.

While most polls show that the majority of Americans favor the repeal, this won't be as toxic for the GOP because most Americans, also, realize that this issue doesn't need immediate attention.

Keeping it Classy: Democrat Calls Obama's Tax Compromise "Republican Wet Dream Act"

A congressman from New York took a shot at Obama's Tax Compromise using crude language:

Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) used a crude play on words Wednesday, when he described what he saw as Obama's gift to the GOP in the recent tax cut deal as the "Republican Wet Dream Act" -- apparently no relation to the actual Dream Act.

"Members of the Democratic caucus are saying 'why should we take this vote, we're gonna get blamed for adding to the deficit,'" Ackerman told MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan in his analysis of the potential political consequences of passing Obama's tax plan. "This isn't the Dream Act, this is the Republican Wet Dream Act. They get the Democrats to add to the deficit, they get all the benefits for their wealthiest friends in America to pay them off for their huge contributions that they made during the campaign and got an exemption from the U.S. Supreme Court. The whole thing is an absolute absurdity."

Can we please refrain from using any sort of juvenile sexual innuendos please?

Pelosi, House Democrats Re-Take All Americans Hostage, Deny Vote on Obama's Tax Compromise

The Democrats in the House won't even entertain the idea of passing Obama's tax compromise. It was strongly rejected by the Democrats in a House vote, today:

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."

This has been mishandled very badly by the president. Why in the world did Obama not get the Democrats in a room and explain to them why this is a good deal for them and the country? Could he not set aside sometime to sit Pelosi and Reid down and convince them to back this deal? This whole left-wing revolt could have been avoided, if he would have made a little effort to do that.

It is also interesting that, after years of labeling the Republicans as the party of no and uncompromising their ideals to appease their base, it is now the Democrats that are taking this hardline stance to appease their hard-left base.

This will be a disaster for all, if some sort-of compromise isn't reached in time and everyone's taxes go up in January.

Twice As Many Americans Disagree With Extending Unemployment Benefits Than Agree

This seems to fly in the face regarding to Obama's claim that Americans are with him on the issues:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that nearly half (49%) of adults, in fact, think providing unemployment benefits for 99 weeks increases the number of people who remain unemployed. Just 28% disagree, while another 23% are not sure.

Unemployed Americans are now eligible for up to 99 weeks of combined state and federal unemployment benefits because of emergency legislation passed by Congress. This legislation is now up for renewal. But 41% think 99 weeks for benefits is too long, while 16% say it’s too short a period. Thirty-four percent (34%) feel the benefits period is about right.

Perhaps one reason for the skepticism about the lengthy benefits arrangement is the finding that 58% of adults think it is possible for anyone with a college degree and willing to work to find a job within 99 weeks. Only 22% don’t think it’s possible for someone like that to find employment in a nearly two-year period. One-in-five (20%) are undecided.

He may have more of an argument regarding the upper-end tax hikes, but even then, Obama only has a very slight advantage over the GOP on the issue. However, most of the issues aren't that close.

This doesn't bode well for Obama and the Democrats, if he continues with the thinking that the American people are by-in-large on his side. They aren't, and last month's election should have proved that to the Democrats resoundingly. Unfortunately, they still haven't heard you. Americans will just have to talk louder in two years, if he doesn't wise-up by 2012.

House Passes "Chicken Crap" Tax Bill That Will Likely Die in Senate, Update :Max Baucus St to Introduce His Own "Chicken Crap" Bill in Senate

Here's John Boehner expressing his displeasure with the bill that Pelosi introduced and was passed by the House. The vote was split largely on partisan lines:



This "chicken crap" bill was just a form of posturing and a drawing a line in the sand by outgoing Speaker Pelosi. The Republicans in the Senate and maybe some moderate Democrats will no doubt filibuster this to death in the Senate, and Pelosi knows it and did anyway:

This bill is as dead in the Senate as the Democrats’ chances are of taking back Congress in 2012, but Madam Speaker wants to remind her base that she’ll be fightin’ for the cause next year after having led the party to utter ruin last month, so here she is forcing a meaningless vote to give Democrats a few days of “party of the rich” talking points. I wonder if, when the inevitable deal is struck extending all the cuts temporarily, she’ll be willing to bring that new bill to the floor or if she’ll refuse out of spite and force Boehner to do it himself when he takes the gavel next year. That’ll be a bureaucratic hassle for taxpayers and the IRS, but Nancy’s got to prove her worth somehow.

Basically, Pelosi just wasted everyone's time, today, so she can get some good talking points for 2012. What she needed to do is focus on a bill that she knows will pass both the House AND Senate.

Update:

I just saw this, right after I hit post. It looks like Sen Max Baucus is set to introduce a similar bill in the Senate, but as I said before, it has very little chance of passing.

Senate Republicans Warn Reid of Nuclear Option If Tax Cuts, Budget Aren't Dealt With First

The Republicans in the Senate sent a letter the the Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid warning him that the Republicans will throw a monkey wrench in his agenda, if the extension of the Bush's tax cuts and a federal budget isn't passed before even discussing the liberals' wishlist:

Dear Leader Reid,

The nation’s unemployment level, stuck near 10 percent, is unacceptable to Americans.  Senate Republicans have been urging Congress to make private-sector job creation a priority all year.  President Obama in his first speech after the November election said “we owe” it to the American people to “focus on those issues that affect their jobs.”  He went on to say that Americans “want jobs to come back faster.”  Our constituents have repeatedly asked us to focus on creating an environment for private-sector job growth; it is time that our constituents’ priorities become the Senate’s priorities.

For that reason, we write to inform you that we will not agree to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to any legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all American taxpayers.  With little time left in this Congressional session, legislative scheduling should be focused on these critical priorities.  While there are other items that might ultimately be worthy of the Senate's attention, we cannot agree to prioritize any matters above the critical issues of funding the government and preventing a job-killing tax hike.

Given our struggling economy, preventing the tax increase and providing economic certainty should be our top priority.  Without Congressional action by December 31, all American taxpayers will be hit by an increase in their individual income-tax rates and investment income through the capital gains and dividend rates.  If Congress were to adopt the President’s tax proposal to prevent the tax increase for only some Americans, small businesses would be targeted with a job-killing tax increase at the worst possible time.  Specifically, more than 750,000 small businesses will see a tax increase, which will affect 50 percent of small-business income and nearly 25 percent of the entire workforce.  The death tax rate will also climb from zero percent to 55 percent, which makes it the top concern for America’s small businesses.  Republicans and Democrats agree that small businesses create most new jobs, so we ought to be able to agree that raising taxes on small businesses is the wrong remedy in this economy.  Finally, Congress still needs to act on the “tax extenders” and the alternative minimum tax “patch,” all of which expired on December 31, 2009.

We look forward to continuing to work with you in a constructive manner to keep the government operating and provide the nation’s small businesses with economic certainty that the job-killing tax hike will be prevented.

###
SENATE REPUBLICAN COMMUNICATIONS CENTER

This is going to be a bit of a risky move for the Republicans. The left has already leaped onto this claiming that the Republicans are obstructionists. However, I believe that this will ultimately be seen as a bold, but needed move by most of Americans.

The tax cuts and the budget are far more urgent than repealing DADT, START, DREAM Act, or anything else that the Democrats can up with in between now and the end of the year.

Business, especially small businesses, are waiting to hear from Washington. Until they do, they will know how much their taxes will be next month, and they will be holding off on doing any major hiring until they know exactly how much taxes will should be taken out of their hiring budget.

Businesses aren't the only ones that will have their taxes go up in January, if nothing is done. The taxes of ALL Americans will go up in less than a month. Since we're already two months into the fiscal year, the budget is already way past due, too.

Considering that for a bill to pass it must go through the House, Senate, and Congressional Reconciliation before it even gets to the White House, there is only a limited amount of items that can actually be achieved in just three weeks. They won't be able to address them all, no matter how much they say otherwise.

The only reason why they are pushing for the more liberal bills to be passed ahead of the tax or budget bills is because it'll be much harder for them to pass it in a month, when the Republicans gain the House and a few seats in the Senate. If the election results were reversed, and the Democrats would have huge gains, it would be a completely different story. The Democrats would be waiting until January for all of those non-essential bills. They are playing politics and pandering to their base at the expense of our economy and all of our livelihoods.

I'm Shocked...Shocked, Poll Says Americans Evenly Split Over Extending Tax Cuts For Wealthy

This poll was released this morning shows that the country is just about evenly split over the Bush tax cuts issue:

As top Democrats and Republicans begin negotiations over extending the Bush-era tax cuts, a national poll indicates that the public remains divided on whether the wealthiest Americans should continue to receive those cuts.

Four in ten questioned in a USA Today/Gallup survey released Wednesday say that the cuts should be extended for all Americans, with 44 percent saying they support extending the tax breaks but setting limits on how much of wealthy Americans’ income is eligible for the lower rates, and 13 percent saying the cuts should be allowed to expire at the end of the year.

An Associated Press-CNBC poll released Tuesday indicates that half questioned wanted tax cuts to be extended only for families making under $250,000 a year, with 34 percent saying they should be extended for all Americans, and 14 percent calling for the cuts to sunset for everyone at the end of the year.

Forty-nine percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey conducted in the middle of November said the tax cuts should be extended for families making less than $250,000 a year, with another 15 percent that said the cuts should not be extended for anyone. That left 35 percent who favor an extension of the tax cuts for all Americans regardless of how much money they make.

This really shouldn't come as a shock to anyone, but it was still worth mentioning.

Clyburn: We Don't Really Need to Extend Bush Tax Cuts During Lame Duck

The assistant minority leader, or is it the assistant TO the minority leader, of the US House has recently stated his doubts about whether the Bush tax cuts are "essential" or not:

Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, the new No. 3 leader of House Democrats in the 112th Congress, said it's not "essential" for Congress to extend the Bush tax cuts because if all income taxes go up as scheduled on January 1, "you've got a big deficit reduction taking place, which is also a good thing."

Clyburn is the first Democratic leader to suggest any benefit from a failure to extend the Bush-era tax cuts. The White House and every Democratic leader to date has described extension of the middle-class portion of the Bush tax cuts as a top economic and political priority.

He's missing the forest for the trees. If they fail to extend the tax cuts, there will be much uncertainty in the market because ALL Americans will be uncertain about what their budget will be and how much money they will have during this upcoming year. So, they will hold onto their money and not buy/invest until they are sure what their taxes will be. This won't be a small raise in our taxes. It'll be significant enough that people will have to make huge changes to their financial plans either way it goes. We need to get this over with, so they can go ahead and plan for next year.

Also, his assertion that the increased taxes will help with the deficit is untrue, if you consider what will likely happen at the beginning of the 112th Congress. As Paul Ryan stated last night, if the cuts are not passed during the lame duck, it will likely be passed at the beginning of next year, when the Republicans will get a huge majority in the House, and if it is passed, it will most likely be made retroactive to the beginning of 2011. So, there will be no benefit on that end at all. The Democrats would have put America through alot of anxiety and uncertainty for nothing.