Here is Charles Krauthammer’s summation on the House Republicans’ performance on the payroll tax holiday.
The GOP’s performance nicely reprises that scene in “Animal House” where the marching band turns into a blind alley and row after row of plumed morons plows into a brick wall, crumbling to the ground in an unceremonious heap.
With one difference: House Republicans are unplumed.
I can go with that.
It is still a little demoralizing to see Krauthammer engage in the kind of myopia on stimulus the Republicans are becoming famous for. He argues, in a seemingly convincing manner, that no businessperson is going to hire someone just because of a two-month or one-year payroll tax holiday. Here’s how he puts it:
Obama is also selling it as a job creator. This takes audacity. Even a one-year extension isn’t a tax cut; it’s a tax holiday. A two-month extension is nothing more than a long tax weekend. What employer is going to alter his hiring decisions — whose effects last years — in anticipation of a one-year tax holiday, let alone two months?
This is a $121 billion annual drain on the Treasury that makes a mockery of the Democrats’ reverence for the Social Security trust fund and its inviolability.
Here’s the problem. It isn’t just a $121 billion drain on the Treasury. It’s a $121 billion stimulus package. And it’s not just an extension of the payroll tax holiday; it’s also an extension of unemployment benefits. It puts a lot of money in people’s hands. Or, more accurately, it puts a little bit of money in a lot of people’s hands. This will translate into lots and lots of small transactions that would not have taken place without the bill. And that means more revenues and more profits for countless businesses. Unemployment insurance is the most effective stimulus known to man, because almost all of the money is spent immediately. And increased demand and increased profits opens the door to more hiring.
So, no, people aren’t going to hire someone because they have to change their payroll withholding formula. They’re going to hire people to meet increased demand and they’ll pay for it with increased profits. This will create economic growth, and the government will get a lot of its money back as a result.
This is what’s missing from all Republican rhetoric about creating jobs. They think rich people will hire people if they have more money. But they won’t hire people unless they have customers with money to spend. Letting the rich hoover up ever cent of wealth created in this country has resulted in an economy where the rich are richer than ever but no one else has enough money to keep the wealth machine growing.
On the politics, I agree with Krauthammer. The Republicans have acted like morons. But he isn’t any better than them when it comes to the substance.
Also, too, the bill doesn’t cost Social Security a dime.
They say that even a busted clock is right twice a day, but apparently Krauthammer can’t even match that.
What an incredible oversight. It never even occurs to him that there is a force in this economy other than the whims of the rich. He just completely overlooks middle class consumption and spending as a driver of economic activity.
But they’re not changing it…it’s our fucking wages, not their contribution.
Unless Mr. Krauthammer is saying that if the payroll tax was 4.2% on the employee contribution that they’d cut our wages to reflect this and then pocket the extra twenty cents (ie, pay us $9.80 an hour instead of $10). Which is loltastic.
They still have to change the formula.
K…goes into compiler, changes the 6 to a 4, re-compiles.
So yeah they have to change the formula, but it’s not like it’s on the employer side. His argument would have made sense if that’s what was on the chopping block.
What’s funnier is watching anti-Obama “progressives” spew the same “killing Social Security” bullshit as Krauthammer.
Well, that’s Obama, isn’t it?
Even when he does something for the little people he does it in a way that advances the plute agenda.
And then there are the times he does something in no way for the little people and entirely for the plutes, such as extending the Bush tax cuts or setting up not one but two cat food commissions.
He is the good cop.
The Republican candidates are all bad cops – some of them bad to the point of seeming like psychos.
But they are all cops.
Well, that’s Obama, isn’t it?
No, its you.
Srsly. It’s a regressive tax, being cut, and you’re talking to me about accounting?
I don’t approve a regressive tax. I disapprove the defunding.
Can he get the daily prize when he already won the lifetime achievement award?
You are exactly right.
It’s about demand.
The supply side view reflexively taken by CK is pure mythology invented to justify greed.
The entire conservative outlook if pure mythology invented to justify greed.
With regard to modern conservative Republicans, no they do not — think. They follow the orders of their rich campaign donors. And it is folks like the Koch brothers and other rich donors (who play both sides of the street) that have the wrong idea about their importance as job creators. And it can’t be laid at the feet of Ayn Rand because she wasn’t around during the age of the robber barons. It’s the hubris of folks so eaten up with individualism that they think they are self-sufficient. Hedrick Smith described it accurately two decades ago. It’s a form of infantilism.
Krauthammer has found a racket more profitable than a failing psych practice. It’s time we stop dignifying common shills with the title of wanker. Krauthammer rarely rises to the challenge of wankiness. This time is not an exception. And in his allusion to Animal House (why does that seem so out of place for Krauthammer), he aspires to the rhetorical heights of Thomas Friedman or MoDo. And flops. Because he can’t imagine the foppish Republicans to be wearing plumes. And “lemmings” was a more apt description of the Republican strategy.
I wonder why the Republicans have so much resistance to seeing demand as stimulative. I think some comes from the notion of “small business” which for them includes multinational companies and not the mom-and-pop stores on the corner. The ones who give the big bucks, I would gather, either sell commodities (ie., energy, which everyone needs and so cash in the pocket doesn’t matter much) or their demand is overseas, exports. What the average American has in his/her pocket to spend only effects the shop on the corner and so they don’t care. It might be interesting to see if there is a disconnect regarding the attitude toward “demand” for big companies and actual small ones. Or between companies whose businesses involve exports (eg, GE) or businesses whose customers live here (eg. WalMart, Best Buy, the supermarket chain.
he doesn’t give a shyt about Social Security