One of the major priorities of the Republicans during the lame-duck session was to extend the Bush tax cuts that are set to expire this year. Robert Bluey, Director of Heritage’s Center for Media and Public Policy, reported that Democrats are working to prevent this happening. “Democrats will use a procedural maneuver preventing the GOP from offering an amendment to extend all of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts,” writes Bluey.
Republican leaders criticized this procedural ploy: “This is disappointing and a sign of bad faith after the president agreed to bipartisan, bi-cameral talks,” commented Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan. “There will be bipartisan opposition to the Democrats’ push to raise taxes on small business.”
Would President Reagan support the New START? President Obama, in a recent broadcasting campaign, has been arguing that he would. However, Edwin Meese and Richard Perle, two former Reagan staffers, in a piece found on the subscription only page of the Wall Street Journal, beg to differ.
The main reason Reagan would have objected to this treaty is that it may well undermine his dream that our country might one day be shielded by a missile defense system from nuclear attack. On this issue, Presidents Obama and Reagan are diametrically opposed.
Writing in the New York Post, Heritage’s expert delineates the three reasons for Beijing’s position:
1. Above all else, [North Korea] keeps the Korean Peninsula divided; China does not want a powerful Korean neighbor on its northern flank.
2. Beijing certainly doesn’t mind having the nettlesome North distract its rivals in Washington and Tokyo with its provocations — leaving them less time and resources to focus on China’s rise.
3. Finally, the collapse of North Korea, which might happen if Beijing stops forking over food and energy aid, could trigger a vast flow of refugees into China, or even incite a North Korean civil war that might include a tussle over nukes.