The Fiscal Cliff, Starting the New Year the Liberal Way.

It doesn't only happen when liberals win, but when the democrats lose or come to a draw the liberals still treat it as a win for the democrats.

Lets look at the fiscal cliff deal.

NPR  says that the answer is "yes" the President won and lost the fiscal cliff deal.  Frankly, I think he lost most of the deal.  Sure he got his rate hike on the highest wage earners, but the republicans managed to keep it above the level the President was asking for, and I think that keeping the rate changes above $400K in income will most likely limit the damage to the small businesses that make this country tick.  The republicans also can state that the President's deal raised taxes on the middle class.  Frankly I think a cut to Social Security taxes is hari kari, but both parties agreed to that in previous years, trading an increase in payroll taxes against a reduction in SS payroll taxes.

For example the President ran on raising taxes on incomes over $250K, which they believed would raise $800 B in new taxes.  What was passed was a bill rising rates on family income over $450k, which they believe would bring in $600 B in new income.  So that $200K gap is only planned to reduce planned net income to the government by $200B.  please compare those numbers $250K to $800B, and $450K to $600B.  Make a couple story problems out of it, maybe play math teacher...  Let me know what you think, but I think you will find an interesting relationship between the two income levels and the resulting income to the government.  

Lets also correct a language issue.  A tax cut doesn't "cost" the government anything.  It might reduce income, but that isn't a cost, that is a reduction of income.  If you "thought" you were getting a 10% raise this year, but only got 5% the IRS isn't going to let you claim a 5% income loss.  Any other way of looking at this is intellectual dishonesty.

It is also basic to the current operating theory that the size of government should grow every year.  In the business world we would spend time and money to determine better, cheaper, more efficient way to do the same work.

Then again Fox News  also likes to point out that the bill that was actually passed was so full of the kind Pork that would make a butcher jealous.  I am proud for the house for not passing the disaster aid for New York until the pork was stripped out.

Now I would really like to see someone hold the administrations (all administrations) feet to the fire on reducing expenditures.  We can not continue indefinitely without  line up our expenses with our income.  I can't do it at my house, my state can't do it, and the federal government can't continue to do it.  Sooner or later all bills come due...

I wish I understood why congress wants to be everything to everyone, and even thinks this is sustainable.  Sure I know the cynical answer is to buy votes, and that might well be true, but I would like to think that even nut jobs like Alan Grayson could understand the fed gov's spending problems.

The most disappointing thing to me is that we are still seeing the press playing free and lose with their coverage.  I remember Cronkite when I was a small child on the news, now I can go back and appreciate his coverage of Vietnam, while I do think its Un-American to not support our troops, at least I can appreciate the will to do it, and then doing it,  and don't forget that Johnson was a democrat.  Johnson was the author of the "Great Society" that at least I think was the push down the slide to socialism we have been on for some time.