The Democrats’ protest against the Bush tax cuts deal isn’t just a spectacle-it’s giving opponents of the deal on the other side time to rally. I’ve been one of those nervous Nellies thinking that the market would crash and all would be gloom and doom if the deal doesn’t pass.
But several critics over the days since the deal was made public have had a persuasive message: Wait! Citizens for the Republic, which opposes the deal, has sent a letter to each House Republican giving reasons why they should vote against the deal. Our sister organization, Independent Women’s Voice, has signed onto the letter.
Why should the deal be rejected?
The American electorate sent a strong message to Washington on November 2 of this year – STOP THE SPENDING. This ‘deal’ does not reflect the will of the electorate. I urge you to vote it down, and wait for the inauguration of the 112th Congress in three weeks to go back to the drawing board and try again,” [CFTR Executive Vice President Bill] Pascoe concludes.
The letter is critical of the limited, two-year timeframe for the extension of the cuts, which won’t give businesses much certainty, and notes that the agreement reinstates the estate tax. There is also the extension of unemployment benefits:
Our current and long-term fiscal situation is untenable, and the U.S. is quickly headed for a debt crisis on par with what is being witnessed by our allies in Europe. Instead of cutting spending, the Obama tax deal extends for 13 months additional unemployment benefits that were meant to be temporary-without any offsets. These benefits were enacted as part of the President’s flawed trillion dollar “stimulus” plan, and if extended yet again, the additional unemployment benefits spawned by the stimulus would total $185 billion-fast resembling a permanent new entitlement. President Obama should not be allowed to use the present situation to leverage an extension of his own spending habits.
Another problem: Democrats in Congress have been decorating the bill as if it were a Christmas tree:
On Monday, December 6 the “compromise” framework was announced and it contained no earmarks. But by Thursday, December 9 when the legislation was made public there were goodies and favors-also know as earmarks-for an array of special interests.