Even with the Republicans getting Xmas gifts for their favorite backers the rich some conservative Republicans are acting like the Grinch and will vote against it. Of course to be fair one could argue that at least until recently the rich probably favored the Democrats until Obama made nasty noises about Wall St. So what is the problem?
Jason Chaffetz a Republican from Utah complains that the tax bill is larded up with spending beyond the point of being reasonable. One might think that he was complaining about spending in the form of unfunded tax cuts for the rich when there is a huge deficit. But that does not seem to be the problem.
Chaffetz wants further cuts in spending. He is not talking about the tax cuts. Presumably they are just hunky dory even though he rambles on about the debt. Says Chaffetz:"We can't keep adding to the debt, we have to cut spending," "This deal as it is being presented has not one cut. What does the president give up? Nothing." If you cant keep adding to the debts how is it that one can cut billions from government coffers by the tax cuts and also a reduction in what goes into Social Security? What specific cuts does Chaffetz want? Perhaps Chaffetz has read the polls. All Americans are for deficit reduction but when it comes to cutting specific programs none want programs that help them cut.
Other Republicans, includingof California and of Minnesota, are also saying no to the compromise, Chaffetz said:"This is a tarp and stimulus type vote for Republicans, and it's going to scare a lot of them off." While the tax bill may provide a certain stimulus for the economy it is most through tax cuts and most Republicans are for those. Also, Republicans and Democrats both know that the economy and job creating are important.
Other Republicans that have said they are a ‘no' on the compromise include Campbell, who thinks that extending the rates for just two years creates "uncertainty" and believes Congress should halt deficit spending immediately.a Republican from Arizona complained that the bill should contain an offset for the costs of extending unemployment benefits. Also Flake is opposed to the payroll tax cut that helps fund Social Security. Flake points out the the program already faces an eventual budget shortfall and so needs the money. Some of his Republican comrades need to inform him that this is the whole idea. Republicans want to privatize or do away with Social Security. Flake sounds like someone who really cares that Social Security be saved. Flake also complained about the extension of subsidies for ethanol. Did he think that Republicans stood for free markets as opposed to buying votes even phony green votes and real farmer votes?
Flake said:"Voters out there have just got to be about to vomit right now," he told POLITICO. "We have this big election and then we don't make any tough choices when it comes to this tax bill." Bachmann too said that she opposed the deficit spending in the legislation and claimed that unemployment insurance needs to be paid for. No mention by Bachmann of the costs of the tax cuts or that they perhaps should be foregone.
Some Republicans voiced doubts about the deal but have not decided how to vote. However, one can expect the deal to pass with little trouble. The Republicans can claim they will get tough in the next session.