Senate Extends Payroll Tax Cut, but Only Briefly

Today the Senate approved a $33 billion bill to extend unemployment benefits, extend the payroll tax cut, and avoid pay cuts for doctors who accept Medicare. The bill, which was passed in the Senate 89 to 10, is said to be necessary to keep the economy in check because without it, the payroll tax would rise from 4.2% to 6.2% of wages by January (about $1,000 tax increase for every $50,000 income family).
But the bill only lasts for two months.
Some politicians are criticizing the Senate's inability to approve a year long bill saying it is a "failure for the American people." The House of Representatives will begin debating the legislation next week but the passage of it is questionable because the Republicans in the House have been trying to use the payroll tax cut as a way to pass construction for Keystone XL. Obama has threatened to veto the bill if those provisions are included.
Do you believe that the bipartisan approval of the bill in the Senate, even if it only extends for a brief period of time, is a success?

The Week So Far

After the events that have been going on this week, I have had to pinch myself multiple times to reassure myself that I am not dreaming and that everything that has happened so far is reality. So far, Ohio has voted against Issue 2, Maine has voted to keep same-day registration, Mississippi (I still can't believe this one) voted against a law that would say human life begins at conception, Rick Perry single handedly tanked his campaign, and now Republicans and Democrats have both voted, unanimously, for a law designed to create long term building projects. I'm getting a bit overwhelmed from that but now it also seems as if part of the jobs bill past 94 to 1, in the Senate, that gives veterans a much greater chance to get a job once back in America and families that rely on the free lunch program can now get internet for only 9.95 dollars a month! That's a fifth of the average!

Based on my personal bias, I think that all these things are, to put it simply, spectacular. As of now, Veterans can be that much less worried about what they are going to do for a living after they get back from their tour of duty (best Veterans Day present I can think of). The best part about this law, is that it doesn't add to the deficit. Funding is taken from other programs for Veterans. The bill works by giving businesses the incentive to hire veterans by giving tax credits worth 5,600 for hiring a veteran out of work for six months and 2400 for hiring a veteran out of work for four weeks.

The second new thing I mentioned was the plan for poorer families to only pay 9.95 a month for internet. I think that is a great idea. We are finally giving people who can't afford much an opportunity to join the economy and society. Just think, how often do you need to use a computer, then think how often you need to use the internet, and then think about how some people can't afford that. The internet is basically the go-to place when you want information, so people without it have serious problems as a result. This is just one way to finally alleviate some of those problems by making obtaining internet that much easier. All and all a good measure and a good week (so far).

A Change in the Tone of Politics? Doubtful.

Remember what President Obama said in the State of the Union speech about trying to fix the problems with how Washington works?

"Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, no matter how malicious, is just part of the game. But it's precisely such politics that has stopped either party from helping the American people. Worse yet, it's sowing further division among our citizens, further distrust in our government.

So, no, I will not give up on trying to change the tone of our politics. I know it's an election year. And after last week, it's clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual. But we still need to govern."

That change doesn't seem to be starting just yet.

Last week, Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) placed a blanket hold on at least 70 of President Obama's nominees awaiting confirmation by the Senate. A hold, you'll recall, is a method by which a senator asks to be informed before a particular motion (in this case, the President's nominees) is brought to the floor, thereby stopping the motion from reaching a vote until the hold is removed. After some pretty blunt criticism from the White House, which suggested that the blanket hold was just retaliation after not getting earmarks, the senator lifted some of the holds. The removal of some holds, according to this entry in the NYTimes blog, "may temper a threat by Democratic leaders in the Senate–and even the White House–that the administration would make recess appointments during next week's Presidents' Day break, bucking any notion of senators' approval."

Though Sen. Shelby's spokesperson later said that the senator wanted to draw attention to issues of national security and was unconcerned with earmarks, it turns out there has been a conflict between Boeing and Northrop Grumman over who will get the contract for an Air Force (an issue of national security?) aerial refueling tanker (giving it to Northrop would create jobs in Alabama, Sen. Shelby's state). Sounds like an earmark to me... But either way, the blanket hold (not just on nominees associated with the aforementioned conflict) just seems like a really disruptive bid for attention. Is preventing the government from functioning efficiently (appointing people to positions that need to be filled) really a good way to draw attention to a problem? The tactic does attract attention, but that attention probably isn't a good thing; Shelby and his blanket hold have been subject to ridicule over the last week. Do the holds give the White House more reason to make recess appointments so that Shelby doesn't win anything but a designation as a symbol of the unhelpful, inefficient game of American politics? After all, the government needs to govern.

Deficit Commission?

Obama is supporting a Senate proposal which would create an eighteen member bipartisan deficit commission who's task it is to propose a plan to gradually reduce our national debt. This commission is opposed by many Republican's, but Obama is prepared to issue an executive order creating a similar commission if necessary. I feel that this commission is necessary to start the initiative to lower our national debt. I believe the Republicans will find it more convenient to pass the Senate bill rather than forcing the President to issue an executive order. I believe with the right bipartisan commission, our government can effectively formulate ideas on how to lower our national debt over the next few years. The vote on this commission is scheduled for Tuesday, so if it does not pass, Obama might introduce his new commission in his State of the Union address on Monday.

Welcome to the Ranks, Senator Brown

In the race for the Massachusetts Senate seat, Brown (Republican) has emerged victorious. This means that the Democrats have lost their sixty seat majority, and could possibly overthrow the healthcare changes President Obama has been working so hard on. This is an hour that Obama is probably mourning.

From the article, "In a race that became the center of national attention, Brown’s win is widely seen as a vote against the president’s agenda from one of the most reliably Democratic states. "

The article also notes the irony that Brown won, considering that the Senate seat in question belonged to Ted Kennedy, who dedicated his life to healthcare reform.

Democrats nervous about Massachusetts senate race

Polls have demonstrated that the Republican Candidate, Scott Brown, is either ahead or even in the race. President Obama will be visiting the area to help out the Democratic Candidate, Martha Coakley.

Unfortunately for Democrats, it seems that the wind in their sails, with Obama's rise, is dissipating. This is probably due to voter dissatisfaction with progress made by the Obama administration. Obama's popularity is falling, so it is to be questioned whether his presence in Massachusetts will actually help Coakley.

Obama's popularity has fallen among younger voters in particular, and this is probably because he made a few promises that quite simply have not been kept, although there are, of course, obstacles that prevented him from keeping them.

The possibility of low voter turnout for the Democrats, as they try to maintain their majority in Congress, is a serious threat to them. Obama is being criticized by both the left and the right.

The Democrat's campaign is trying to encourage a high Democrat turnout by parading the polls that say they're in trouble.

I'm not really sure what to think of the whole article. Clearly the Obama administration isn't as efficient as it claimed it was going to be, but to be perfectly fair, what administration has been? Every administration encounters problems, and every single election the American population expects some terrific revolution and efficiency to be increased, and it never is. As to whether or not Coakley is elected or not, I don't know what effect Obama's help will have. I think it will probably work, but once again, what do I know?

Is this the end?

In the past few days, there has been headline after headline about Senior Democrats retiring from their positions. Democratic Sen. Dodd of Connecticut, Democratic Sen. Dorgan of North Dakota, and Colorado's Democratic governor Bill Ritter have all decided against seeking re-election this year. This string of retirements comes as a shock to many people who saw the sweeping victory of the Democrats in the 2008 election as an indication of the party's strength. Now, it seems that the party can't hold up against the pressure. Because of all the Democrats retiring, the GOP is now trying to argue that the electorate "is turning in their favor". No offense, but I think it's a little early to be jumping to conclusions like that.

The GOP are also pretty happy with the way things are turning out as a result of the stimulus package and the economic state of the nation in general. Even though the public approval ratings for the Democrats have been steadily going down, the electorate haven't immediately thrown their support behind the Republicans. I think that the People are waiting to see what happens. They remember what a Republican White House did, and although they aren't quite happy with the new White House, they aren't ready to go back to what we used to have.

Although there are quite a few Democrats retiring this year, there are more Republicans leaving than Democrats. "Democrats noted Wednesday that there are more Republicans than Democrats retiring fromthe Senate and House...Fourteen GOP House members are retiring, compared with 11 Democrats."

One of the major reasons that Democrats are freaking out about all these retirements is that it threatens their 60-seat majority in the Senate. This majority allow the Democrats to overcome Republican filibusters, which we learned can hold up (and eventually kill) a bill before it can be signed into law. It's sad to see how polarized our government is; no wonder nothing ever gets done! In all seriousness, though, I think the number of senior Senators retiring this year is a bit abnormal because most of them would probably be re-elected since they are the incumbents. Still, sometimes you just have to know when to call it quits and let someone else take over.

The Senate is all about helping those in need.....so hip.

See link in title for the Washington Post Article on this.
When I heard this news I was a little shocked to hear that all of the Senate voted unanimously on a bill to extend unemployment benefits in states that have high unemployment rates. This measure was done to stimulate the economy but I feel like extending these benefits only extends the amount of time people don't have to work while they look for a new job. The money would be much better spent creating new jobs for people instead of giving it to people who would most likely freeload off of it for longer. By actually lowering the unemployment benefits it would encourage people to work harder to find a new job instead of knowing that they can be more lax in terms of finding new work for themselves.
I completely see the merit of this bill, the homebuyer tax credits, and the business tax credit refund that are being coupled with the increased unemployment benefit bill. However, these economy boosting ideas may not produce the best effect. These bills are supposed to make people want to spend more knowing that they are receiving something back for their expenses but handing money back could just result in people saving it for later use instead of immediately spending it and thus stimulating the economy.
I have doubts that these bills will actually end up being effective in the long-run but then again if all of the senate voted yes on these bills then they have to work! right? maybe? I'm unsure!

A Comedian in the Senate?