Efforts to Bridge the Partisan Divide
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-12-01/efforts-bridge-partisan-divide
President Barack Obama called it “productive” while Republican leaders said it was a “frank” discussion. The president met with congressional leaders from both sides of the aisle yesterday to find common ground on pressing issues over the lame duck session. Among the topics they discussed were extending the Bush tax cuts, whether to repeal “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” and ratifying an arms agreement with Russia. Both sides pledged cooperation, but no concrete agreements were reached in the meeting. Republicans say they view the midterm election mandate differently than the president does. Diane and guests take a look at the efforts to bridge the partisan divide.
Guests
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Editor and Publisher of the Nation, writes a weekly column for The Washington Post.
Byron York
chief political correspondent, Washington Examiner
Ron Elving
Washington editor for NPR.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
One thing Democrats and Republicans should be able to agree on:
stop allowing the government to borrow the money needed for the tax breaks for the wealthy from the wealthy. If the government is allowed to borrow money right from the people who would otherwise just be paying it in taxes, there is little incentive for balancing the budget and getting rid of the debt. End this practice that just raises taxes for all us making less than the rich (we who can't afford to lend back tax breaks right back to the government, but have to spend it for living).
Daniel
Washington, DC
Here is my video about this issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpyohGdjFB4
Diane,
Is your panel discussing bipartisanship? Or are they really discussing power sharing to retain their political duopoly? The Tea Party threatens the Republicans. The Blue Dogs threaten the Democrats. If the leaders of each party cannot figure out how to work with one another and hold a center, then one or both of the parties will fracture and potentially fail.
Love the show!
This morning I heard a report from an individual who asked the question, "Do we want to use the credit card or use our bank account? (to fund the extension of unemployment) I want to use the bank account!" My comment and question is this: What about those of us who have neither? NO credit card and NO bank account! That comment came from an entitled, arrogant, well employed person who has no clue. He does not need help and SHOULD be taxed more than those of us who make $30K.
Less Talk, More Action
The more I hear in the media about the partisan divide, who has a mandate based on a numerical majority, the general unwillingness to bypass their egos to "fix the country," the more disheartened I am when people are suffering, losing their jobs and homes.
Regardless of the political party or ideology, I submit cutting the salary of all members of Congress in half and their operational budgets reduced to minimums like many of us citizens have had to face during this economic downturn.
When will we hear less talk about the issues and SOMETHING be done in a positive direction?
Louis Hill
Dallas, Texas
I do not understand the Republican party, how the rich create the jobs by allowing them to keep more money with out paying taxes.
The rich people creating jobs is an individula decision, they may invest or decide not to do so and just keep the money and not to take chances.
But if the government gets the money to its exchequer by the way of taxes, they are liable to create jobs and it is guaranteed that the investment would be there, since this money belongs to all. So it is inevitable the investment would be made for the benefit of all.
I do not understand the common man in America still believes and wait till these millianaires to give alms to the poor.
This type of democracy is not exactly communisam, but it is still similar to be ruled by the few rich. Like earlier saying goes like this "rich always rule".
Inspite USA is democratic but this democratic is type of democracy controlled by the rich and poor wait fro their blessings and alms.
It is frustrating to listen to the inaccurate description of exactly what unemployment benefits expired last night. It has nothing to do with the 99 week limit. The law that expired provided the federal funds to pay for benefits beyond the time limit for state benefits, which generally expire after 26 weeks. Even if these funds were renewed, they would not provide benefits beyond 99 weeks.
Penny
Virginia
Would someone please comment on the 425,000 / week unemployed over the past 6 months who've received no extensions at all.
First point -- the idea that unemployment benefits dis-incentivize people from looking for work is a canard. When I was unemployed for 6 months (twice in two years), the 300 dollars a week I received was just barely enough to keep groceries in the house. But it was just about enough to scrape by until work became available. That 300 dollars can make the difference between a productive citizen and a destitute social case.
Second -- please tell Mr. York that the answer to how long we should continue unemployment benefits is this: until more jobs become available. Why is this considered an unreasonable goal in some quarters? The tough love, kick-'em-on-the-street approach does not work if there are no jobs.
Third -- an individual who makes $30K and has their taxes raised or their unemployment benefits cut is in much bigger trouble than a millionaire who suddenly has to once again pay late-90s tax rates. They are not equivalent.
Tell Mr. York that another question to discuss is, do we simply want to become a banana republic where the rich own 90% of the wealth? We might as well consider it.
The comments about "belief" and "religion" were interesting, in part because neither justifies reckless and immoral behavior but also because "belief" often embraces a variety of responses. As someone with a Quaker background who is against war, I could be one of those so opposed to war that I could try to justify any responsibility once the war started. But however strongly I feel about war, I wouldn't stand by and watch someone wounded and dying on a battlefield without trying to rescue them. (In fact, antiwar people during the WW1 were notable in their work with the ambulance and medical services in the field.)
What the Republicans are saying is that "belief" justifies patently immoral, not to say inhuman, unwillingness to help others who are badly wounded on a battlefield their economic policies created. It's not hard to see their arrogance in other behaviors, but their willingness to refuse aid to the suffering beats all.
I just heard the man from Elkhart saying he would be willing to pay more taxes. I am in total agreement with him and so are many of my friends and none of us earn anywhere near $250,000. ALL of the tax cuts should expire. Our grandchildren need this even more than we need this tax cut now.
One of your guests mentioned " a VA nurse, looking out and wondering why her pay has been cut" or some such wording. Although I am a daily listener to and staunch supporter of this show, it is untrue comments like that that lend fodder to conservative pundits. This nurse will not get a pay cut, her salary will simply stay where it is for 2 years. In my profession, at a state university, wages have been frozen for 2 years already, with no increases anywhere on the horizon. I personally see no reason ANYONE should be getting pay raises in this economy.
Sincerely,
donna
I have a question for Ron, if there is no inflation, why is it my taxes, health insurance, car and homeowners insurances, electric and natural gas bills, water rates, gasoline and food costs have all gone up while my pay is frozen?
To a realistic common mind, it would seem that if all your living expenses going up would mean inflation.
Regarding gays in the military:
Why is there no open discussion about the similarity between arguments against gays and the arguments against African Americans? The issues were essentially the same. There was plenty of evidence to show that the African American human beings were fully capable of serving in war, yet the military leaders and the troops felt that they could not serve with "those" people. It's exactly the same now with gays and lesbians. Let's use our heads!
Hello Diane:
I think the solution to the tax cuts is to tax the millionaires - not the middle class. The $250,000 cap does not represent the wealthy taxpayer. It represents the middle class. My wife and I spent years in school to get good educations (which we paid for) and are employed by large corporations. Together we each make about $125,000. While that may seem a lot to many people, we don't consider ourselves wealthy and certainly do not consider ourselves in the same category as Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. Raise the cap to $1M and I don't think you'll get anyone to disagree that individuals at that level need to pay more taxes.
Mike
WHAT ABOUT THE WAR BUSH WAGED INDEPENDENTLY WITHOUT THE NOD FROM THE UN? WE FUNDED IT AND DESTROYED OUR BALANCED BUDGET AND ECONOMY.
John,
Yes, it is about helping winners get more and losers somehow deserve to be kicked when they are down. Somehow this "morality" will get people to work even harder, but in that the winners rig the system to make it even harder to improve a tough condition, the winners still can blame them for their own situation.
The tax breaks are the same thing. The tax breaks for the rich are deficit spending, so the government has to borrow the money. And then guess who has the cash to lend the government. The rich can take the tax breaks and lend it back to the government in the form of bonds and TBills. Then the debt must be payed by the rest of us.
Daniel
yesterday, I was starting to wonder if our country is heading for a 2nd Civil war, with no physical boundaries, just political, religious, etc...
Sharon
Indiana
THANK YOU! To the brave patriot who called in and said he was happy to pay his taxes. I wish more of our fellow citizens were willing to step up and contribute their fair share.
Go Katrina! Owning it on unemployment benefits!
Panel, talk about National Hiring Day, Jan 17, 2011. Call for corporations to put patriotism ahead of profits and help their country in hard times.
On the program today there has been so much talk of losing homes. Many families are losing homes due to irresponsibility in the Clinton Era. How many banks were encouraged to give out loans to those, who didn't have the financial background necessary to sustain the amount in loans.
At what point do the American people have to be responsible for excessive loans, and excessive credit spending?
this whole 'borrow money to pay for tax cuts' is BUNK. The Bush tax cuts addressed the non-stop and ever increasing tax requirements forced upon a populace by irresponsible spending by our government. Don't increase taxes again. Budget / cut spending.
Extending anything that costs tax dollars may be morally correct.
The big problem is the US income is just not there.
Congress both parties have over extended their credit card.
Congress should be on a budget just like tax payers are.
Whole deal is crazy, Congress is spending money they do not have and will not have in the future unless US gets spending under control.
Hello,
One issue I'd like to see mentioned is the effect on the U.S. and world economy of the increased price of oil from 2001 to present. Rising from 20 to over 80 dollars per barrel, this increase has taken purchasing power from the U.S. economy that offsets a large part of the Bush tax cuts for middle income individuals, and has limited the economic recovery. Shouldn't talk regarding balancing the budget and stimulating the economy also consider the effects of this drain on the U. S. economy? Thank you.
RGL
I am with President Carter on yesterday's show and Katrina today on President Obama hanging tough on ending tax cuts for the wealthiest. How are "real" Americans okay with the Republican position (and that of some cowardly Democrats) to cut social security and end unemployment benefits while continuing tax cuts for the wealthiest - that were never a good idea. Spending by the wealthiest clearly has not aided the economy and it is obscene to make that case. Economist agree that it is an empty promise. We of course know the real incentive. Who, after all, were those secret financial supporters of Republican candidates in this past election.
What kind of kool-aid do the Republicans have and how do they get "real" Americans to drink it. What kind of compromises on actually helping people in need and the environment, etc. do the Democrats have to make to be the party of "real" Americans?
Katrina is right, an argument that blames one party can be "dead on arrival" but at some point we have to speak clearly and get to the bottom of this troubling phenomenon.
The real issue is the republicans are for the rich or affluent, however you define it. The democrats are for the average american. The problem is the republicans are better politicians; they scheme to support their agenda. The democrats believe "good intentions" and common sense will survive. It won't. The amazing thing is how stupid (and I mean stupid, not ignorant or uninformed), the american electorate are. They consistently vote against their own best interests. Democrats must realize that they, too, must use under-handed politics to be successful because they are fighting for stupid people who don't know to support them for the outstanding representation they are being given. We are debating on whether we should give tax breaks to the top two percent of the population versus putting money into the economy, whether that is unemployment benefits or other econmomic stimulas programs! As far as I'm concerned the American Electorate deserves what they get! I would like to have a discussion with one of those unemployed voters who voted for the republicans in November. I wonder how he or she feels and I wonder if he or she would describe him or herself as stupid? I sure do!
I tuned in @ 34 after and never heard, even from the always generous Katrina, that the Republicans favor benefits extension, but believe they should be paid for and not added to the deficit. All I heard was
conservatives throwing families onto the streets and how could they?
It gets tiresome.
A panel member did say no problem about the deficit at this tough time because there is history of America running one even larger. Not mentioned was that the larger deficit paid for World War 2, after
which America was the only man left standing, was the world's
biggest creditor (not the world's biggest debtor), and China had not been invented.
Instead of sighing in dismay at Republican perfidy, Diane might better
put a lid on it.
I tuned in @ 34 after and never heard, even from the always generous Katrina, that the Republicans favor benefits extension, but believe they should be paid for and not added to the deficit. All I heard was conservatives throwing families onto the streets and how could they? It gets tiresome.
A panel member did say no problem about the deficit at this tough time because there is history of America running one even larger. Not mentioned was that the larger deficit paid for World War 2, after which America was the only man left standing, was the world's biggest creditor (not the world's biggest debtor), and China had not been invented.
I remember vividly when the Bush Tax Cuts went into effect. Although I was making a good living, the cuts were not significant for my tax bracket but they really gave the very top tax bracket a big break. Meanwhile my property taxes were raised because Federal funding to education was cut. So I am all for letting the Bush TAX CUTS LAPSE forever everyone.
Listener inquired, "Why do Americans vote against their best interests?" It's not rocket science- Americans are misinformed.
The only other rational reason why any politician can support tax breaks for wealthy is that $ influences political campaigns? Anyone who doesn't support cash breaks for wealthy need watch their backs. Wealthy corporations, hedge fund managers, and some individuals are simply doing what they do best in the parameters that they are allowed to work with. Flooding the elections with undisclosed money and distorting the truth clearly works. You can't blame them for doing it.
Otherwise, how can anyone who cares about the well-being of our country can support tax breaks for the wealthy? The richest couple percent of Americans and corporations presently have UNPRECEDENTED cash reserves. Yet product Republicans are selling is that if we extend tax cuts to the wealthy it will suddenly prompt hiring??? Right.
Republicans believe that there should be tax cuts for the wealthy when economic times are good (as when cuts were enacted by W following Clinton) and when economy is bad (now). What has happened to our economy since they were enacted SHOULD offer some kind of clue of which path is better.
More jobs were created during Clinton era (8 years) THAN 20 YEARS OF REAGAN, BUSH Sr, AND Jr. COMBINED. Or to put it another way; on average 250% more jobs were created in each of Clinton years than each year of Reagan, Bush SR, or W??
It's not just a matter of growing the economy- it's a matter of creating economy that works better for all- not just the fabulously wealthy.
Since the 70's as economy was in general expanding, "all boats were not lifted"; the wealthy and executive compensations income expanded 10, 20, 100, 400X the average American's income.
I wish FACTS were expressed a little more often than they are in public debate. Today's show is an overdue step in right direction.