Rich Radio Talkers To Make Bazillions Off AMT Fix And Don't Know It!

The New York Times reported the cost to the federal government of the permanent AMT fix over the next decade at $1.8 trillion, here, based on the findings of the Joint Committee on Taxation.

Do you know what that means?

If something costs the federal government something, it means it saves someone something, namely, the (mostly) rich taxpayers who pay the damn thing, who now get to bear the blame in the liberal media for increasing the deficit over the next decade because of it. That's a good thing to a conservative, last time I checked (keeping the money, not getting the blame), unless you are a conservative radio talk show host whose stupidity is exceeded only by the size of his paycheck. (Sean Hannity is so stupid he's actually criticizing the fiscal cliff deal because it does just that, increase the deficit. Someone should tell him he's just adopted the liberal argument that tax cuts increase the deficit, not that it would do any good). Teams Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham and Beck really ought to call their CPAs before they continue shooting their mouths off about what a massive victory Obama just achieved on the backs of the rich. The irony here is that while Obama thinks he just won a free Cadillac, it turned out to be a Pontiac from Rent-A-Heap, delivered by Rush, Sean and Glenn. They made Laura drive.

When are you stupid people out there in radio land going to get it? Like this guy does:

"The AMT fix, like the Medicare 'doc fix' was an end of year ritual that couldn’t be resolved permanently.  Why you may ask?  Because any permanent fix would reflect in the CBO’s deficit and debt estimates for the years going forward.  Fixing the AMT for any one year was considered a cost for that particular year, but the CBO would base their estimates by current law, which would have the AMT not being fixed for the next year and every year afterwards.  Fixing the AMT for one year is a cost of 92 billion dollars.  A permanent fix it for the next ten years costs almost a trillion dollars.  From a purely crass, political position, having the costs of a permanent fix to the AMT and Bush income tax cuts accrued under the Obama administration ( two items that Republicans wanted to do but could never find the money for):

Priceless.

However all is not well in conservative talk radio land.  I made it a point to listen to what I think was a fair cross section of conservative radio for their take on all things fiscal cliffdom, and I must say, it was a muddled mess of incoherence."

Nov. Unemployment Revised UP To 7.8%, Dec. At 7.8%

One revision to reported unemployment for 2012 went down, from 8.3% to 8.2% (July), and one went up, from 7.7% to 7.8% (November), a wash.

December unemployment comes in at 7.8%.

Read the pdf from the BLS for yourself, here.

The number of people whose primary and secondary jobs are both part-time jobs has increased in the last year, December on December, by 6.4%, from 1.99 million to 2.118 million (Table A-16).

The total not in the labor force has increased 2.56% in the last year, adding 2.233 million for a total of 89.445 million Americans not in the labor force.

Why Isn't There A Single Conservative Radio Talker Happy About The Fiscal Deal?

Why isn't there a single conservative radio talker happy about the fiscal deal? Not a one is glad that Bush's lower tax rates have been made permanent for the vast majority of the American people.  I thought the Bush tax rates were every Republican's sine qua non, since at least 2003.

I see that the reported salary of Glenn Beck is $20 million/year. Sean Hannity reportedly makes north of $10 million/year on television at Fox, and $20 million/year on the radio. Rush Limbaugh makes way north of $38 million/year if you add in his signing bonus. And Laura Ingraham? Not very credible sources say she makes $15 million/year, but that was before the very recent relaunch of her radio show in 2013 under new, and presumably more attractive financial, circumstances. HuffPo here thinks her TV contract with Fox, filling-in for O'Reilly, is in the neighborhood of $1 million annually.

These four people dominate the talk radio airwaves from 9AM-6PM everyday, and they're all severely critical of the fiscal cliff deal. But there hasn't been a single word of gratitude to today's Republicans for getting the Bush tax rates made permanent for 99.7% of the American people.

The reason, of course, is that the radio talkers haven't the slightest feeling for the American people, the slightest understanding of their day to day experience, having left them long ago for the airy regions of the richest Americans in the top 0.3% income club where they now reside, the lowly victims of a paltry 13% tax increase agreed to by Obama and the Republicans, and they are livid.

Ungrateful wretches.

Chief Takeaway From The Fiscal Cliff Deal

The chief takeaway from the fiscal cliff deal is that, despite his many shortcomings, especially as a communicator, Vice President Joe Biden, who brokered the deal through Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell, would actually make a much better president than his boss, Barack Obama.

I think I've been wrong about old Joe . . .

Rush Limbaugh Is Back And He's As Big An Idiot As Ever

Rush Limbaugh is back and he's still a big fat idiot.

He actually says Obama won a "massive victory" in the fiscal cliff deal, for raising taxes on the top 0.3%. You know, on people just like Rush. Rush's salary? $38 million/year.

If ever anyone needed any proof that Rush couldn't care less about the principled nature of the lower Bush tax rates for all Americans, this is it, because those rates just became permanent for everyone, except for Rush and about 600,000 other rich Americans who make $400,000 a year or more. Their taxes go up about 13%, but only on paper. You would think a so-called conservative would at least acknowledge that victory and give George Bush some credit, but no, not even after a caller reminds him about that at the end of the first hour. The entire opening monologue was completely self-referential, and suggests that Rush is talking his book here. He doesn't even understand the math in the deal, which now lets the income rich keep $1.8 trillion over ten years from the permanent AMT fix. Their cost under the deal? $600 billion over ten years, as I said, on paper. Even the income rich can still shift income out of the "ordinary" category to the now 33% higher, but still low dividend and capital gains rate category to escape the 39.6% top income tax rate. They will, and the somewhat rosier federal revenue scenario used to sell this deal won't even materialize. The rich will stay that way. They will not pay much more. And the Democrats will be stuck with another failed scheme.

Obama didn't win a victory here, the American people and George Bush did, and I still haven't heard a single so-called conservative radio talker even acknowledge it, let alone be grateful for it. That doesn't buy ears. Only what bleeds does, or what might bleed, which is why all Rush can talk about is some hypothetical threat in the future, when an actual threat, increased tax rates on everyone, has been completely neutralized in the present by good Republican leadership.

I say, "thank you". All Rush can say? "@#$% you".

NYT: Fiscal Cliff Deal Gave Obama Only "Small Victories"

The New York Times, here at CNBC.com, admits it: Obama's victories in the fiscal cliff deal were small.

"For President Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress, the fiscal deal reached this week is full of small victories that further their largest policy aims. ... White House officials took the path they did because they feared that a hardened stance on the debt ceiling would result in no deal at all: taxes would have risen on nearly everyone; automatic spending cuts would have begun; jobless benefits would have ended for many; and markets may have reacted badly.

"In the chaos that could have followed, the officials believed, a grand bargain would have been unlikely. If anything, Democrats -- worried they would be blamed for the economy's troubles, as the party holding the White House -- might have struggled to get a deal as good as this week's. Having won this round, Democrats still have compromises to offer Republicans in the next one, like changes to Social Security."

In other words, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts was a gun pointed at Obama's already terrible economy. There was no way the Democrats were going to let that gun go off and ruin the second term of the most overrated president in history. The stock markets knew it for months, which is why they never tanked even as the expiration date passed.

Here's a newsflash for the readers of the NYT: this deal is as good as it's going to get, and Democrats lost big even on the tax hike on the rich because, despite raising taxes on estates and on high incomes, dividends and capital gains, the AMT fix is going to cost the Feds (read: offset the taxes paid by the rich) $1.8 trillion over ten years. The price of that to the rich was barely $600 billion over ten years for those other things, about which so-called conservatives doth protest too much. The rich aren't going to be getting any less rich at all.

And the Times boasts that the deal reduces economic inequality. In their dreams. What a joke.

If Democrats won anything, it's that the economy isn't going to tank immediately under their mismanagement, and that they have more time to take the credit for the successes the Republicans achieve.

CNBC: "The Bush-Era tax cuts will be extended for 98% of Americans"

Actually it's 99.7%, but hey, who's counting.

Here.

Heh. Heh. Gloat. Gloat.

Liberal Henry Blodget Agrees: Pres. Bush/Republicans Won Battle Of Fiscal Cliff

Liberal Henry Blodget of BusinessInsider fame writes for YahooFinance, reproduced here:

"Ever since the Bush Tax Cuts were first enacted in 2001, one goal of the Republican party has been to 'make the Bush Tax Cuts permanent.' ...

"The Republicans may not have gotten everything they wanted out of the Fiscal Cliff deal, but they got almost everything.

"And when it comes to the broader fiscal battle, the Republicans are winning: The federal government's tax revenues are at the lowest level as a percent of GDP in the past several decades.

"The Republicans, in other words, are well on their way to starving the beast."

Moody's Warns Lack Of Deficit Reduction Could Affect AAA Rating Negatively

As reported by Reuters, here:

"On the other hand, lack of further deficit reduction measures could affect the rating negatively," Moody's said.

Moody's placed the U.S. credit rating on a negative outlook August 3, 2011 when the Congress and the White House wrestled over a relatively routine measure of raising the debt ceiling to the point where the United States was on the brink of default before hammering out a deal.

That political impasse and near financial calamity prompted rival rating agency Standard & Poor's to take the unprecedented move of cutting the U.S. credit rating to AA-plus from AAA.

George Will Gives But One Cheer For George W. Bush, Fiscal Cliff Winner

Here:

"Third, one December winner was George W. Bush because a large majority of Democrats favored making permanent a large majority of his tax cuts. December’s rancor disguised bipartisan agreement: Both parties flinch from cliff-related tax increases and spending decreases. But neither the increases nor decreases would have tamed the current $1 trillion-plus budget deficit nor made a discernible dent in the 87-times-larger unfunded liabilities of the entitlement state."

The Youth Vote: Suckers Overpaying For HealthCare

So says Mish, here:

The fact of the matter is youth overpay for health-care as the benefits primarily go to the elderly. Obama needed a pool of fresh suckers to overpay for health-care costs to keep the system solvent for a bit longer.

George Bush Vindicated: Dems Make His Tax Rates Permanent

"I won? That doesn't make any sense."

Stock Markets Love Tax Certainty, Why Not Republicans?

Bloomberg Headline Is Complete BS: Conflates Payroll Tax Cut With Income Tax Deal

The headline at Bloomberg here is total bullshit: "Senate-Passed Deal Means Higher Tax on 77% of Households".

The end of Obama's temporary payroll tax cut, the cause of almost everyone's tax increase, has nothing to do with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, but that doesn't stop Bloomberg from lying about it, with a little help from the so-called non-partisan Tax Policy Center:

The budget deal passed by the U.S. Senate today would raise taxes on 77.1 percent of U.S. households, mostly because of the expiration of a payroll tax cut, according to preliminary estimates from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington.

More than 80 percent of households with incomes between $50,000 and $200,000 would pay higher taxes. Among the households facing higher taxes, the average increase would be $1,635, the policy center said. A 2 percent payroll tax cut, enacted during the economic slowdown, is being allowed to expire as of yesterday.

The Senate deal does nothing to raise taxes on anybody except the very rich. The absence of a provision extending Obama's temporary payroll tax cut for another year does. The latter had nothing to do with the expiring Bush tax provisions, which Democrats just overwhelmingly voted to make permanent.

There's only one way to save the failing Obama: George W. Bush's tax rates.

Speaker Boehner Wins One For The Sipper

The 112th Congress just made the evil Bush tax cuts permament, and conservatives think they've lost?

People who think such things are not terribly intelligent.

Really rich people lost a little (a 13% tax increase on the backs of the top 0.3% of wage earners, who will promptly elect not to take income in the form of wages). Meanwhile the Bush tax rates are set in stone indefinitely for the remaining 99.7% of us. I say let's drink to the 2013 13% tax increase. It'll never hurt them much anyway.

Liberals voted for this. Do you understand what that means? While certain Republicans are whining loudly today that they just overturned a decades long stand against increasing tax rates and suddenly became hypocrites who can't live with themselves any longer for doing so, liberals had to cry uncle and vote in massive numbers for George Bush's tax cuts to save Obama's sorry ass. Who's the hypocrite, huh?!

The 112th Congress voted 346-175 to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, nearly 2-1, and WE LOST?! The only thing Republicans lost was their strategy of trying to link spending cuts to a tax agreement, which was not very wise. So it didn't work. Big deal. Quit whining. Declare victory. Move on. Republicans continue to hold the purse strings. So tighten them. The sequester is an opportunity. The debt ceiling is an opportunity.

I'd say it was liberals and Democrats who lost, and lost big.

Bar owner John Boehner just won one for the sipper, with a lot of help from Ol' Kentucky.

Pour me another.

Republicans Are So Stupid They Don't Even Know They Won

The Republican tax regime of George W. Bush, vilified by Democrats as the source of everything wrong with the country since 2007 when Nancy Pelosi took over as Speaker of House, was made permanent last night, mostly by Democrats and liberal Republicans, and there's narry a voice on the right crowing about the victory. Instead they're all eating crow, and in public, complaining about how they couldn't support tax increases on the rich or about the lack of spending cuts.

To the first point, they don't call Republicans the party of the rich for nothing. They have opened their mouths wide today and removed all doubt. And when it comes to the spending side, Republicans' mistake all along has been to link spending decisions to a tax package. Without a fixed lodestar of revenue, debates about spending have no point of reference. But now, happily, they do, no thanks to them. It is sad that what finally gave permanence to the Bush tax rates was Democrat fear of booking another recession by sucking money out of people's wallets which normally would get spent, crashing GDP. Saving Obama's reputation and his second term demanded it, who now thinks he just won the Cadillac when all it is is a Pontiac. There's plenty of incompetence to go around.

The Washington Post here has the vote breakdown:

The House voted 257 to 167 to send the measure to Obama for his signature; the vote came less than 24 hours after the Senate overwhelmingly approved the legislation. ...

The bill drew 85 votes from Republicans and 172 from Democrats, meaning well more than half of its support came from the Democratic minority.

With 151 Republicans voting “no,” the GOP tally fell far short of a majority of the GOP caucus. That broke a long-standing preference by Boehner to advance only bills that could draw the support of a majority of his Republican members.

Senator DeMented Jim Bailed On Fiscal Cliff Compromise Vote

Senator Jim DeMint bailed on the fiscal cliff compromise vote.

People wonder why.

Answer: it's called going Galt.

Reminder: Elected Democrats in Wisconsin did the same thing by fleeing the state to try to prevent a quorum. Not that that was the situation here. But nevertheless . . .

Really bad form, there, Jimmy boy.

Have fun wrecking the Heritage Foundation, if it were possible to wreck it even more than it already is.

OK, How Long Before The Ratings Agencies Downgrade Us Again?

I'd take bets, but that's illegal, so I'll just wager a hearty pat on the back that the next debt downgrade takes three months, tops.

Futures Soar On Fiscal Cliff Compromise

George Bush Beats Obama: NYT Says Republican Fantasies Fulfilled By Democrats

I won? Hey, that doesn't make any sense.

For once The New York Times gets it right, here, emphases added:

Just a few years ago, the tax deal pushed through the Senate in the early hours on Tuesday would have been a Republican fiscal fantasy, a sweeping bill that locks in virtually all of the Bush-era tax cuts, exempts almost all estates from taxation, and enshrines the former president's credo that dividends and capital gains should be taxed gently. ...

... a hard-fought compromise that [Republicans] could have easily framed as a victory. ...

The bill would do much more than head off the automatic tax increases and spending cuts. It would fix in place a tax code that for more than a decade has caused struggles over regular sunset provisions, temporary solutions and fleeting incentives. The bill would finally make permanent five of the six income tax rates created in 2001 by the first Bush tax cut. It would codify Mr. Bush's successful push, in 2003, to make tax rates on dividends and capital gains equal so that one form of investment income is not favored over the other. ...

The 10-year price includes $762 billion to lock in the Bush tax rates of 10 percent, 25 percent, 28 percent and 33 percent, along with some of the Bush-era 35 percent bracket; $354 billion to continue Mr. Bush's expanded child credit; and $339 billion to secure Mr. Bush's 15 percent capital gains and dividend rates for families earning less than $450,000. The alternative minimum tax fix would cost the Treasury $1.8 trillion, according to the bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation.

Democrats say they had little choice. The Bush White House and Republican Congresses structured the tax cuts so that letting them expire would be politically difficult. Add the threat of across-the-board spending cuts if Congress does nothing, and President Obama felt he had no choice but to extend most of the tax cuts or watch the economy sink back into recession.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!