Susan Estrich has a column about Elizabeth Edwards.
George Will is loving Mike Pence and looking at 2012.
Peter Ferrara had a good piece yesterday on Obamanomics.
Karl Rove writes on the "Democratic Revolution" with regard to Obama's compromise on the Bush tax cuts. In the end, he says,
If he fails, taxes will go up for every American on Jan. 1. If that happens, the new Congress would likely rectify the situation within days after being sworn in. The political damage to Mr. Obama would not be undone nearly as quickly. Failure to pass the tax compromise would make the president appear impotent. Confidence among Democrats would collapse. And there would be more challenges to Mr. Obama's leadership from within his own party, perhaps even in the 2012 primaries. Most importantly, failure would imperil $400 billion in tax cuts that would be a more effective economic boost than Mr. Obama's justifiably ridiculed stimulus. Without much healthier economic growth and far more robust job creation, Mr. Obama has little chance of wooing back the independents who elected him in 2008 yet abandoned Democrats in 2010.The Senate takes up the DREAM Act this morning.
I'm off to work. We kill Caesar today. Act 3, Sc. 1.
2 comments:
I use Marc Anthony's eulogy in my poetry unit when discussing blank verse. I love how he is saying two things at one.
And yet they are both honorable men...
lol
If the concern is that a lot of the wealthy may cut or prevent job hires then why not provide a tax incentive for the business they are in charge of rather than boost their income? How many of those making 250K+ are directly responsible for hiring employees? I’d guess (I know I shouldn’t) that some proportion of these wealthy either inherited it, or or are responsible for a minimum (and not negotiable) number of jobs like doctors, lawyers, actors and sports players (the latter of course to a possibly negligible degree. It seems like a crude way to ensure job growth to just give them all tax reductions. I know there are already business incentives but proposing more to compromise would be much more helpful than flat out giving money to the wealthy. Of course there’s nothing wrong w/ giving money to anyone, except when there are people trying to make ends meet, with no purchasing power on their own to afford necessities like food and health care, which are by the way much more efficient for productivity than luxury cars and 4-star dinners. Something’s off here. Is it just that democrats are completely inept at explaining things or am I not understanding the message?
Post a Comment