So, like the asshole I am, I’ll quote myself from this morning:
The real question is whether the Blue Dogs (or, as McClatchy calls them, “moderate Democrats”) will vote for tax cuts for the middle class without tax cuts for those who make over $250K.
Here’s your answer:
House Dems say no to holding a vote on extending only the tax cuts for income under $250k.
mistermix +a few
Update: Commenters say that this still under discussion, and that I missed the subtleties of the Democratic position in my drunken stupor. Perhaps, but I’ll have to drink a hell of a lot more to believe that the Democrats in the House will do the right thing, and there isn’t enough gin in the world to make me believe that the Senate won’t fuck it up.
The Dangerman
I don’t get it. Hold two votes, one vote for 0 to 250, another vote for 250+. Simple. What am I missing other than Dems are assholes that don’t want to hold either chamber?
General Stuck
Dude, you need to slow down. here is a more recent article and nothing is decided on yet. Except sitting back and watching the wingnuts shred each other.
Boehner’s remarks started a train wreck in the GOP House and elsewhere, first reports on such disasters are often wrong.
Allison W.
You need an update because it has not been decided yet.
Apparently there is disagreement and I honestly think its just a few Dems causing the problem.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/tax-cut-tussle-house-democrats-split-on-whether-to-hold-vote.php?ref=fpa
Allison W.
Also, no mention of the vote on DADT next week? Well, the bill that contains DADT.
MikeJ
I hope they do the right thing, but I have no doubt that when the republicans are shooting themselves in the foot the blue dogs will rush to get their feet in the way.
slag
I’m with Stuck on this. Let all the Bush tax cuts expire and let Democrats draft and vote on their own middle class tax cut bill. And let the Republicans then try to vote against tax cuts. What’s the problem?
SIA
Thanks for the comments that warn this hasn’t been decided yet. However, the adrenalin and angst have been released through my bloodstream, so with your permission, I will proceed with my original comment in the hopes of ridding my body of the despicable democrat toxin. Fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfucketyfuckfuckfuck.
Thank you.
geg6
How very Firebagger you sound, mm. Hope it’s snark because a more fleshed out TPM post basically says it’s a an anonymous aide or two putting this out there and there are other anonymous aides saying the opposite.
Personally, until Nancy Pelosi comes out and says it, I’m not falling for obvious Blue Dog bullshit. Perhaps you might consider a similar cautious attitude.
Kryptik
Don’t worry. Soon as Pelosi announces a bill about the extensions, Hoyer will be on later that day to say how the House really wants all the cuts extended and Pelosi is a dumb bitch.
That’s the way this House seems to work after all.
slag
Speaking of Democratic fuck-ups, having caught up on my Daily Show watching over the weekend, I have a question:
Has Tim Kaine always been a blithering idiot or has he had a blow to the head or maybe a stroke recently?
I’m quasi-serious in asking this because I’ve seen a bit of Kaine a while ago, and I thought him a decent fellow. But I’ve been wrong about such things before, so I’m curious now: Idiot or temporary loss of mental functions?
Brachiator
@slag:
The Democrats are that smart. They knew the expiration of the Bush tax cuts were coming and had years to prepare some kind of strategy. Obama’s election should have brought forward whatever strategy they had prepared.
Instead, the Dems are again letting the GOP control the narrative. They also seem to be waiting for the November elections (and the small possibility that the GOP might regain the House) before getting down to business.
As an aside, and this gets practically no press, the Democrats have already capitulated to some changes in the estate tax, due to make a comeback in 2011, that makes room for all kinds of loopholes. And of course, for those lucky enough to have a mega rich relative die in 2010, there is no estate tax at all. None. Nada. Zip.
El Cid
O/T, but in the new MSNBC lineup, it’ll be Lawrence O’Donnell, whom I mostly like with occasional weird eruptions (Social Security’s broke!), will be doing the 10-11 pm shift instead of repeating Countdown. (Also, Ed Schultz will be on 6-7 pm.)
Allison W.
Well I hope the rest of the liberal blogosphere got the update. When it was first reported that House Dems wouldn’t force a vote, the usual attacks and criticisms of Dems were unleashed. THEN by the time it was reported that it wasn’t true – barely anyone was paying attention. Its this type of reporting that hurts Dems and drags down morale. Never believe the first reporting of any story.
jayackroyd
Just curious.
How bad is the hit if the cuts just expire?
Can we do that, and issue every household a credit card with a 2000 dollar limit, no payment penalties, 10 year treasury interest rates? While we’re at it, put ATMs in post offices that clear through the Fed. And, hell, some post office savings accounts too.
Competition, I say.
geg6
@El Cid:
You know, I used to have x-rated fantasies about LO. Until the HCR debate. When he turned into someone who would embarrass two presidents he helped to create. That would be Presidents Bartlett and Santos. Ever since then, he kinda repels me.
El Cid
The deficit was lower this month than a year ago. Maybe some Democrat or other should mention that.
El Cid
@geg6: My highest appreciation for O’Donnell was considerably less enthusiastic.
Allison W.
@Brachiator:
Years? That would require them to see into the future. No one here could tell me they saw this gridlock coming from years ago. Also, they wouldn’t need years or even a week to figure out what to do.
I’m going to take the Dems side on your ‘letting the Repub set the narrative’ comment. The media did that. Reid put out a comment- a good one. Why didn’t the MSM pick it up? Why haven’t liberal blogs picked it up? Gibbs had a great comment, the WH had a great comment? Why aren’t they being plastered all over the internet? The MSM chose to pick up and run with what the GOP had to say. Repubs put out a statement, Dems put out a statement and each and every time the MSM and sometimes the liberal blogosphere only picks up on the GOP statement. At least that’s my observation.
amorphous
Which poster will get too liquored up and accidentally de-anonymize him/herself on the front page? My guess is John Cole or ED Kain.
Maybe MMonides, if that dude ever writes anything again.
AhabTRuler
I don’t know about all that, i stumbled across another story, and I think that this:
should definitely be a tagline. That dude is king, especially with the extra long rat-tail and the bowl cut.
Chris
I think this calls for the “41-59 majority” tag.
Why is it that 41 Senate Republicans can dictate economic policy in a body that Obama, Reid, Durbin, etc. keep telling us requires sixty votes to get anything done?
And how is it that with the White House, the Senate, and the House all in Democratic hands – and not by tight margins, either – we are about to enact another round of tax cuts for the rich at the same time we’re about to cut Social Security?
If the “deficit hawks” support this, it should be the final nail in the coffin for that term.
geg6
@El Cid:
Well, we middle aged women have to get our semi-realistic (as in, he might go for it if I actually met him, unlike say, Justin Beiber) sexual fantasy objects where we can. ;-)
Corner Stone
@amorphous: Cole’s been doing this too long, inebriated or sober.
And Mmonides or whatever that clowns name was? Who cares if he does.
El Cid
@geg6: You see Tina Fey on SNL when Bieber was the guest? She was the teacher desiring him. Pretty sure it was Bieber.
geg6
@Chris:
Um, because it takes 60 votes to get anything done and the Dems have only 59 (at best, since Ben Nelson still breathes), perhaps?
Corner Stone
@Allison W.:
Yeah. They were set to sunset when they were passed. Years ago. And it didn’t take a fortune teller with a third boob to know this was coming.
Why are we still even mentioning the “Bush Tax Cuts”?
Corner Stone
@jayackroyd: I’ve never been sure why there isn’t a public utility set up along similar lines. Even with standard default rates it still sounds like a break even or better operation.
Why do we need banks that have to drive EPS every quarter? They get their money from the Fed. Who are they serving?
Marc
In this case doing nothing means the good guys win. Obama knows this, which is why he rejected the Richie Rich tax cut out of hand. Because he knows when he’s in a position of power.
Now a split decision (middle class vs. rich) requires 60 votes, but his stated position is perfectly defensible andwell-articulated. The only debate between Dems is on tactics.
geg6
@El Cid:
Yup, that was Bieber. And I don’t really lust for him. I just couldn’t think of a cute young man other than Ashton Kutcher (who I could lust for, actually). And Ashton would be a bad example since he is married to a woman just about my own age.
Mogden
It takes a special kind of genius to make the pathetic Republicans in the Congress, coming off the most loathed Presidential term in recent memory, into the reincarnation of Machiavelli.
El Cid
Cuba goes Galt.
db
I think you would normally have it nailed when you refer to the Senate fucking it up.
And under normal circumstances Pelosi would have those wussyblue dogs’ balls turning blue in her vise grip. But with the DCCC telling some of these blue dogs that they are on their own for money, I am not sure how much she can squeeze them.
Even if she is able to pull it off, Reid’s abilities to push the likes of Nelson and Lieberman are much more limited.
RalfW
If the Democrats are so freakin’ stupid that they send a bill to Obama with both middle and high income tax cuts, after the Orange One fumbled this so fabulously, then Obama should have the balls to veto the whole damn thing and watch the idiotic House and Senate Dems disappear in a puff of sulfurous smoke.
KG
@Corner Stone: the smart thing would have been to push for a complete overhaul of the tax code. Lower rates, fewer loopholes, have an honest debate about what deductions we allow and why. This was actually one of the reasons why I first liked Charlie Rangle, he was talking about blowing up the tax code years ago. I probably wouldn’t agree with him on much after blowing it up and starting over, but if everything was on the table, it’d be a lot of fun, I think.
slag
@Brachiator:
Nobody could have predicted…
KG
@El Cid: that came as a surprise to me. Figuring that the news of Cuba possibly becoming slightly more free (the laid off people will be able to work for themselves, the self-employed will be able to hire employees, etc), I figured I’d check the a blog I use to read by a Cuban guy in Miami. I have to admit, I’m disappointed (but probably shouldn’t have been surprised) that it got two lines about how the government is laying off “slaves”.
sfinny
@KG: After spending two semesters actually reading the Internal Revenue Code in 1992, I would agree about blowing the whole thing up. Of course the AICPA would lobby against it because nobody would need an accountant to do their taxes if it wasn’t complicated.
But OMG the convoluted nature of the beast was truly a monster to be admired. I am sure many of the rules had a good reason, but so many were outdated, ridiculous, or just completely unfathomable. Just what’s needed to fuel lawyers and accountants fees.
Note: this is not to disparage accountant or lawyers. Life does always fill a vacuum. And as there can not currently be an “honest” debate about reforming the entire tax code, I am sticking with fiddling with the edges (i.e. the current rate expiration/continuation argument.)
Corner Stone
@KG: IMO, and it’s a SWAG, but this seems like it will create an even crazier black market and “mafia” style provider system.
cat48
Don’t attack me, but Obama has been very clear on Labor Day; 2 days later in Cleveland where he repeatedly referred to Boner as Mr. Boehner; Friday at Press Conf; and today at the Lawn Meeting he had in Va. Perfect, clear, message about tax cuts……the fucks in Congress I honestly can’t tolerate any longer except for Speaker Pelosi & Whip Clyburn…..they’re the only sane ones or the ones I can tolerate.
Clyburn was on msnbc earlier & echoed Obama. Haven’t heard from the Speaker yet.
Corner Stone
@KG: Not to go crazy or anything but steps could have been taken in the interim.
We all knew this was coming.
Well, all of us but Allison W. She apparently did not know this was coming.
Brachiator
@Allison W.:
RE: They knew the expiration of the Bush tax cuts were coming and had years to prepare some kind of strategy.
The Bush tax cuts had a built in expiration date. The Democrats didn’t need a crystal ball to see this coming. As soon as Obama became the nominee, and certainly as soon as he was elected, Obama and the Democrats should have had some outline of a tax plan in place. This became more critical as the economy went deeper into recession. Instead, the Democrats seem to be playing it by ear. The Republicans, on the other hand, have been consistently calling for making the Bush tax cuts permanent at least since Obama pushed for the first stimulus.
And it’s not just about gridlock. The Democrats don’t seem to have thought about what they want to do. But since they are in charge, they should make the GOP react to their proposals instead of letting the GOP take the lead, especially since the GOP’s policies are stupid and obstructionist.
A comment is not nearly the same thing as coherent policy. And while the media comes in for their share of blame, the Democrats have to come up with an effective way of crafting their message and getting their point across.
As an aside, I find it curious that Obama, and to a similar extent, other Democrats, depend so much on speeches. I recall that Ross Perot knew how to make use of graphics and visuals to make his point. The Democrats started out as masters of the new media. Now, they seem like antiquarians.
eastriver
Hey, mistermix; nice username. What, was sirsnazzysnazz already taken? And mastermixtape? What are the odds?
El Cid
@KG: It would have been hilarious though a disastrous mess had Raul Castro announced that all lands and properties would be given back to Cubans from whom they had been appropriated after the Revolution. And then said, “No, I kid, I kid…”
soonergrunt
@Allison W.: That bill WILL come up for a vote. It has to. That is, unless you think the Congress is going to be OK with the US Army, US Navy, and US Air Force ceasing to exist as legal entities.
DADT repeal is part of the Bi-annual Military Authorization that is required by the Constitution. A vote against DADT repeal is a vote to disband the Army.
As far as a tax cut for the middle class goes, I’d rather see the Senate fight it out because they will never get the votes to extend the Bush cuts for the rich, because nobody likes that right now. If Mitch McConnell decides to filibuster the tax cuts for the middle class, well then it’s very easy to blame the Republicans in both the House and the Senate, but if the House passes it, and the Senate does not, it gives political cover to the House Republicans which can be spun into cover for all of the Republicans because most voters don’t make the distinction.
I’d rather force the Senate Republicans to do just what they’re dying to do–try to extend tax cuts for the rich at the expense of the middle class, and pay the political price than have a tax cut at all, because if we can maintain control or even expand control in the Senate and hold the House, then we can do whatever the hell we want to do with the tax code.
cat48
It took the Senate forever to do HCR. Does anyone honestly think they had time to do Tax Reform too in the last 2 yrs? Not a quick job at all. I think O went for the Clinton rates because of them.
Edit Should be “last 19 mos”. The media has me saying 2 yrs five mos. ahead!
slag
@KG: They’ve been working on that. Doesn’t happen in a year.
Also, can I point out how f’ed up it is that nobody knows about the revamp plan for the tax code? This is our government working and all people know anything about is shit that Boehner says.
Violet
@soonergrunt:
Hey, soonergrunt! How ya feeling? Still on the good drugs?
General Stuck
@Brachiator: I suspect the plan was to simply let the tax cuts expire, or do what they are mulling over now. A temp extension for the mc tax cuts, and if need be, compromising with the wingers to get it passed and adding the wealthy cuts as well for a few years. Doesn’t seem to me a great deal of planning is necessary for those options. Now if you are talking about a complete tax overhaul proposal, I would like to know how that would have fit in with all the other major issues Obama and dems have tackled, like HCR and the record stimulus, and finreg etc…..
If the wingers are controlling the message on this issue then they are doing a piss poor job of it and are warring with each other on whether to oppose any bill, compromise or not. And dems win no matter what, as no plan is necessary for all the cuts to expire and dems propose new ones for the mc. I don’t get all the hand wringing by progs and others how dems are screwing this up. it is one of those rare instances where no plan is really necessary, other than doing what Obama and dems have been saying they wanted all along. To extend the mc cuts and let the rich ones expire. There is nothing the wingnuts can do about that.
edit – but clamor for the rich to get tax cuts too. That is not a winning message.
KG
@sfinny: my law school is one of the few (perhaps only) that requires income tax law as a class. I hated that class, and seeing how insane the code was pushed me solidly into the “fuck it, let’s scrap the income tax and go to a national sales tax” camp.
@Corner Stone: yeah, I’m perhaps being too optimistic. but I have a vested interest in seeing a more free Cuba.
@Corner Stone: and yeah, they definitely could have planned better, if it didn’t come across that I was agreeing on that point, my bad. This was something you could see coming like Haley’s Comet. And don’t think I didn’t catch the Mallrats reference earlier.
@El Cid: that probably would have led to a few interesting discussions in my family
Linda Featheringill
@slag:
I agree. Let the Bush tax cuts expire. Then if you want new tax cuts, forward a new bill.
And yes, there will probably be a good deal of drama but still the dreaded Bush tax cuts will have expired.
We need the money.
Linda Featheringill
@soonergrunt:
Hey, Sooner! How are you doing?
You are speaking in longer sentences and even paragraphs now. I take that as a sign of progress.
:-)
KG
@slag: again, they’ve known this day was coming since 2001. They’ve had four campaigns to lay the ground work and have it in the public subconscious. But then again, it’s not like the Democrats have ever been known as an organized political party.
handy
Maybe Dems could frame the discussion as sort of an…UP OR DOWN VOTE!
yeah maybe not.
handy
Maybe Dems could frame the discussion as sort of an…UP OR DOWN VOTE!
yeah maybe not.
slag
@KG: Look. I’m with you on the plan for Bush’s tax cuts. But having a plan ready for a complete tax code overhaul? That’s absurd.
And no, the Dems don’t need to convince anyone we need a tax code overhaul. So, that’s not a problem here.
KG
@slag: I’m not saying they should have had a plan ready, but it is something they could have been working into their platform over the last few years. It’s like HCR, they made it part of every campaign from 2000 through 2008. They could have done the same thing with tax code overhaul. Hell, they did it with HCR to the point where the Republicans were forced to come up with plans (shitty plans, sure, but plans nonetheless)
El Cid
The right has a plan for reforming the tax code: Eliminate the IRS and the income tax with their super-awesome-perfectly-just “Fair Tax” letting average and poor people pay a much larger percentage of their income in sales taxes while reducing national revenues to a pittance so that we can finally achieve the Brazilian hillside slum shack lives they prefer we have.
Allison W.
@Corner Stone:
Of course they knew it was going to sunset, what they didn’t know (and no one else knew) was how toxic the political environment would become.
I’m not sure what your news sources are, but I’ve been seeing “Obama’s middle class tax cuts” practically every where not just on liberal blogs.
Allison W.
@soonergrunt:
what part of my comment would make you think I would think something like that?
James E. Powell
Not to be negative, but this is one of those situations where public pressure would bear fruit. Unfortunately, the left, or progressives if you prefer, do not have the “bury your congress-creature in calls & letters” network that the right-wingers do.
If there are two bills pending, one that extends all the tax cuts, one that only extends those for less than $250K, thousands upon thousands of right-wingers who make nowhere near $250K will call and write demanding that rich peoples’ taxes be cut.
Will the progressives do the same in favor of the other bill?
It’s important because even though polls show support for extending only the under $250K cuts, congress-creatures do not care as much about polls as they do about pissed off voters.
Can we organize something on the intertubes to convince people to communicate, loudly, with their representatives and senators?
Allison W.
Sort of watching a movie and just heard: “the humping I’m getting is not the worth the humping I’m getting”
Allison W.
@James E. Powell:
I would love to see several hundred people from each of the blue dog districts or states coordinate a call — fax — write –walk — in and let them know what we want. Doesn’t have to be all liberals, if you know someone, anyone who agrees with you on the tax cuts, have them contact their reps in congress.
RalfW
As of 21 minutes ago, Ben Nelson has nominated himself as asshole in chief.
KG
@RalfW: I honestly find it hard to believe that the GOP would filibuster even a partial extension of the Bush tax cuts. It just doesn’t make sense… not only are they voting against a tax cut, but they are allowing the Democrats to frame them as being against lower taxes. It’s 15 pounds of stupid in a two pound bag.
Nick
@James E. Powell:
Especially on this issue, I get the sense this is even more of an “I don’t care” issue among liberals than healthcare or FinReg. I mean even some of my firebagger friends don’t want to get rid of the tax cuts, mainly because they’re rich and they’d rather dismantle the Pentagon than lose their tax cut.
sirsnazzysnazz
@eastriver: I’m sorry, were you talking to me?
Nick
@James E. Powell:
Actually, I have an interesting perspective on this. A Democratic State Senator from New York once told me he lost a race because of a tough vote he took that was popular with Democrats. Even though he did it, the voters still didn’t turn out for him.
Keep in mind there’s a fear that even if they do the right thing, it doesn’t mean the voters will be there anyway. They play to the likely voter models, which skew conservative.
FlipYrWhig
@RalfW:
That’s not exactly what you call a recess appointment.
FlipYrWhig
@The Dangerman:
You’re missing that a bunch of conservative Democrats want to use the leverage they have to reinstate the tax cuts for the top 2%, and that they’d rather do that than try to score a tactical win against Republicans. They don’t want to go with the obvious, good, winning strategy because they don’t believe in it. They want those tax cuts and they want to run on them. They’re fucking poison. And when the leadership doesn’t give them some measure of what they want, they act _worse_.
asiangrrlMN
@RalfW: Rusty pitchfork, meet the asshole in chief. I think you know what to do. Ben Nelson….gaaaaaah!
Nick
@The Dangerman:
What you’re missing is the 250+ would have enough votes to pass with Blue Dogs and the Senate would hold up the middle class tax cuts until the President signs the 250+ into law.
What you’re missing is the Republicans can get away with holding middle class tax cuts hostage because no one will call them out on it. Whos going to do it? Wolf Blitzer? Andrea Mitchell? David Broder?
Brachiator
@General Stuck:
If this was the Democrats plan, they could have been more definitive about it instead of letting the Republicans muddy the waters. When the GOP calls for “making the Bush tax cuts permanent” many Americans automatically assume that this includes them and not just the wealthy. This immediately puts the Democrats on the defensive.
Also, as I noted, even though it doesn’t affect huge numbers of taxpayers, GOP obstructionism and lack of Democratic Party policy has resulted in an almost comical uncertainty over the estate tax for people who died in 2010.
I’m not sure what you mean here. The Making Work Pay credit, which was a small tax cut, has expired. There is not much in the current code that provides for middle class tax cuts. That is, an expiration of the Bush tax cuts restores the old higher brackets for upper income payers. But given the sad state of the economy, I would think that a bold Obama policy would seek more extensive middle class tax relief, not simply keeping the status quo.
Depends on what you’re looking for. In 2009, taxpayers got to exclude the first $2,400 of unemployment compensation from their gross income. That break has gone away, even though unemployment continues to be a problem. This will increase the tax liability for many who are already up against a wall. Obama is pushing for more small business relief, which is good, but doesn’t do much for wage earners. Numerous other little breaks have also expired or are set to expire within the next couple of years.
And even though nobody talks about it because everybody in Congress knows that it has to be done, there will have to be another patch to prevent middle class taxpayers from having to pay the alternative minimum tax.
Uh, no. A more effective Democratic strategy would have been pairing more middle class tax relief with an explicit rejection of the Bush tax cuts for the rich and any consideration of making these tax cuts permanent. This should have been coupled with a more rational revision of the Estate Tax, instead of the crap being quietly cobbled together behind the scenes. The Democrats could also have thrown the GOP a bone or two.
Then, when the GOP tried to call for making the Bush tax cuts permanent, the Democrats could more clearly have challenged them and asked, “why do you hate the middle class?”
And yet there are people who think that Obama raised their taxes last year and wants to raise them again this year. The Democrats also need to take on the tea bagger nonsense that they are being crippled with new taxes. I know that hard core tea baggers can’t be convinced, but some of the people who listen to them are being misled, and the Democrats need to do a better job of getting the facts out.
This is not entirely true. Even if nobody does anything and lets the cuts expire, the government still has to address some tax issues. For example, here is a taste of the practical impact over the estate tax, from the IRS website.
Even when you do nothing, you still have to do something.
Comrade Luke
@Allison W.:
The very day the tax cuts were passed people were saying the Republicans would push to make the tax cuts permanent when the expiration date came near.
What does that have to do with the “toxic environment”? And the environment has been toxic since 1994; “no one could have predicted” doesn’t fly.
jhh
I don’t get all the responsible googoo (good govt) handwringing here, there is way too much thinking going on.
The default outcome of GOP obstruction this time is that no bill whatsoever is passed. For things like health care or unemployment bennies that bugs the Dems, but this time they can live with it, because it means the Bush tax cuts expire. Yeah, there is some pain, but a lot less disruption than when the GOPers on a whim shut down the govt under Clinton.
Among other things, that ploy didn’t even save money since the shutdown arrangements cost $800M a day (read that today). And it was worth it to jettison Newt.
I think that the Kabuki show this time goes like this. During the runup, Obama goes all over explaining that the economy needs stimulus—it’s 1938 all over again— but the deficit is looming, a tough tradeoff is facing us. Tax cuts aren’t the best stimulus in terms of leverage (direct aid to desperate people leads to greater monetary velocity, etc), but since the GOP has blocked everything else, OK we will do tax cuts, but we have to limit them to the middle and lower classes because (a) they need and will spend the money, stimulating the economy, and (b) people in the top 2% (>250K) are doing fine, don’t need the money, and it will cost our children $700B plus compounding interest to extend the cuts on the rich. Goolsbee, Genthner, Summers et al all go on the talking head shows and do the intellectual talk thing. By then maybe Elizabeth Warren is on board and standing up for consumers on the View and in front of Congress.
The GOPers and some Blue Dogs balk.So what do they say? That the rich, whose share of the national wealth has exploded, deserve an extra (wait for it . . .) BAILOUT on top of what they got already by virtue of owning stock and being deeply connected to Wall Street? Does the Teaparty Express threaten to castrate pols who don’t vote to borrow money to BAILOUT the already rich? Do Boehner and McConnell explain that their Wall St sugar daddies are threatening to not buy them lunch and give them free plane rides to golf vacations if they don’t get another BAILOUT? Do the Wall Streeters themselve go on TV and demand more taxpayer BAILOUT on top of TARP because dammit, they are worth it?
Somehow I don’t think there will be such strident talk unless they GOPers have completely lost their marbles (which may be the case, you never know with these guys). If they do speak up before the elections, it could cost them a lot of votes.
I suspect they will try stealth maneuvers to block without being seen. The Dems ought to counter that, but being spineless jerks may not. And they could lose one or both houses.
But if that happens, well, the tax cuts will expire, and you can bet the GOPers will be wild to get them back in 2011. And then they have to deal with Obama’s veto. And he can then play pin the blame for the foundering economy on the elephant.
If the GOPers think this thru, they may conclude that quick passage of the middle class only version without a lot of publicity is wiser. They can then campaign on vague promises of cutting taxes more without being tagged as buttboys for the >250K set.
But you never know, they may be too revved or Tea Party-shy to think, in which case we get too see if rope-a-dope is really what O is up to, for the Nth time.
ciao
jhh
Mark S.
@asiangrrlMN:
There you are! Here’s someone else who really needs a pitchforkin’.
asiangrrlMN
@Mark S.: Holy shit. I may have to break out the entire line of Garden Implements(TM) for that asshole. I….anger….can’t type….
#Goes off to start the ritual nekkid seasoning procedure, only 15 minutes late#
NYT
A Democratic congress which has already allowed estate taxes to expire completely in 2010, is not going to impose higher taxes on those earning over 250K. Never.
After all, almost all of them are either in that category themselves, or expect to be immediately after leaving politics.
If you dont see this you have been paying no attention to the Democrats over the last 10 years.
Midnight Marauder
You should switch to whiskey.
+4
danimal
This is a good time to stick it to the Blue Dogs and conservadems. Put ’em on record if they dare protect the richest 2% at the expense of all the rest of us. A unified Democratic Party would WIN this vote easily.
There is just no way the GOP would be able to oppose tax cuts for the middle class for very long. Ben Nelson and his ilk want to play footsy on taxes; I say make them vote with the Republicans and don’t give them any cover.
General Stuck
@Brachiator:
I don’t agree with this. Obama and dems have been clamoring since and before Obama’s election their plans to let at least the tax cuts for the wealthy expire. I don’t know how they could have been any clearer on that score. Now Obama has locked himself in on the under 250 thousand promise to extend, and even make permanent the Bush cuts. But it is not his decision in the end, it is congresses decision. And as early as two months ago, Hoyer was saying we can’t afford to extend ANY of the tax cuts. Though obviously, with a faltering recovery of the economy, this has made at least a temp extension of the mc tax cuts likely a good idea, at least politically.
And I don’t agree that the notion of letting taxes revert to Clinton level of prosperity is a big loser for dems. Indies that decide elections are big deficit hawks, and polls have indicated for a long time that most people wouldn’t mind that much paying Clinton level taxes. And they won’t rise till Jan after the election and Obama can ride to the rescue with some fresh relief, and dare wingnuts to oppose them by demanding rich people get breaks as well. That is about as popular with the 98 percent of non rich Americans, as herpes.
They can and likely will do something when the tax cuts expire. Obama can and likely will propose his own mc tax cut tailored to dem priorities and likely less expensive. That is the whole point. The only question is, will not addressing it before expiration and before the election hurt dems all that much? Boner handed dems a ticket to put the wingers on the spot, by simply calling for a vote on mc tax cuts and daring Boner and wingers to vote no before the election. That is a win any way you cut it. And the gooper senators have already pledged no mc extension without wealthy tax cuts as well.
It is wingnuts who have lost the message war on this, and even the media won’t be able to save them.
General Stuck
@jhh: You are mostly correct in my opinion, for what it’s worth.
Now I must retire for my beauty sleep, and we can continue this debate about nothing tomorrow. Later alligators.
James E. Powell
@Nick:
Keep in mind there’s a fear that even if they do the right thing, it doesn’t mean the voters will be there anyway.
Exactly. I saw how this operated when I worked in the Ohio House back in the day. The model is the NRA v. even the most innocuous restriction on gun sales. They aren’t just likely voters, they are “definitely going to show up and vote against you for this” voters.
There is no issue I can think of that inspires any similar passion in similar numbers on the left, or even on the center-left.
Jennifer
@slag: I blogged just this suggestion several days ago.
Since then, I’ve added another rationale for passing new legislation restoring cuts to everyone but the wealthy: it was their asses that got pulled out of the fire with TARP and the bailouts. The banksters are all in this group that stands to see a historically quite modest rise in the marginal rate, but beyond that, this income group owns 75% or more of all stocks and other financial instruments – assets that would have been worthless without the bailouts. So we spent almost $800 billion to make sure they saw only temporary losses to the value of those assets. Meanwhile, it fell on the middle class and low-income people to deal with the fallout with lost jobs, lost homes, loss of life savings trying to stay afloat while unemployed, etc etc etc. So far, these are the only people who were wiped out by the financial crisis, and most of them had nothing to do with causing it.
I’d say that $660 billion paid over a decade in the form of slightly higher marginal rates, in return for almost $800 billion in bailouts which protected these people’s wealth from being entirely wiped out is a helluva sweetheart deal, one that any person with an iota of fairness would embrace. Which is why we’re being told that they shouldn’t have to pay back ANY of the costs of saving their fortunes – helping them hang onto their wealth is a privilege the rest of us should be willing to pay for.
El Cid
The Burlington Coat Factory Imam is getting more media savvy.
Brachiator
@General Stuck:
Again, when the GOP says “make tax cuts permanent” people think that this means everybody, not just the wealthy. This misapprehension is exacerbated by tea bagger nonsense and the relentless attack on Obama as a stealth Kenyan Muslim revolutionary.
I can’t imagine the Democrats in Congress coming up with a tax bill independent of Obama’s input.
Hoyer is a fool if he believes this.
We are not living in the time of Clinton anymore. The Obama stimulus package already goes beyond Clinton in terms of increasing certain credits and deductions, which are targeted tax credits. For Obama and the Democrats to stand pat in the light of the present economic malaise would be extremely foolish.
I don’t know that this is true, and even if it were true it is irrelevant to what the best tax policy might be.
Obama needed to do something to give him and the Democrats more leverage in the upcoming mid term elections. Riding to the rescue in January might be too late, especially if the Dems lose more seats in both houses of Congress. They missed an opportunity to give more tax relief in 2010. It will be harder for them in 2011.
Again,waiting for the formal expiration of the tax cuts is politically stupid and squandered a huge opportunity.
You’re guessing about what Obama is likely to do in the future and how successful it might be. And although Obama has to play to the GOP with respect to the cost of any of his proposals, this should not be a major focus.
The delay hurts the American people. This is more important than the impact on the Democrats’ electoral hopes.
Nately's Whore's Kid Sister
@MikeJ: Furthermore, when the GOP class is shouting itself in the foot, the frightened donkeys eat their words, and vomit forth new words, as I shall relate here:
“Is there still a middle class? Damn, this is taking longer than I thought.”
Naturally, if you drink enough gin, the gin may come back up, and it doesn’t look, smell, or taste the same as when it went down. So it is with Democratic promises on anything that doesn’t ultimately support corporate welfare and and the right of Money to Vote. I don’t think they have the balls, the spines, the brains, or the heart to vote the right thing and say enough wealth concentration already.
That’s how I roll when I’m feeling hopeless and I’d rather be wrong.
Jennifer
@Brachiator: Why the assumption that legislation can’t be passed before the Bush tax cuts expire?
I could see a presser with Obama, Pelosi, and Reid to announce that all Bush tax cuts will be allowed to expire, as written into the legislation by the Republicans, and announcing introduction today of a new tax package to take effect Jan 1 which restores all of the cuts except those for people making over $250K.
Then it’s just a matter of “vote against it b***es, I dare ya to vote against tax cuts for 98% of the voters 6 weeks before an election.”
Even Lieberman would get on board. They just need to make it the only choice – tax cuts for 98% of working people, up or down vote.
AxelFoley
@AhabTRuler:
This. Make it so, Cole.
MattR
@AxelFoley: It definitely beats “don’t tase me bro”, but I think I have to be a square and come out against what the guy did. It ended up being a moment of levity, but it could have ended up escalating things intensely. And I also wouldn’t want the same done in a reverse situation.
asiangrrlMN
@AhabTRuler: Thirded. That’s a righteous story and a great tagline.
@MattR: Guy was about to burn the Koran. I think I woulda grabbed it and run, too.
ETA: I woulda grabbed almost any book being burned.
Update eleven-billionty: If there were weapons visibly present, I would have thought twice.
KDP
Calls would probably be useful. What annoys me is that ‘let the tax cuts expire’ for the wealthiest 2% is always stated without context.
For one, isn’t this increase based on actual, taxable income? That is the income on which you owe federal taxes AFTER you have deducted your mortgage interest, taken your individual and dependent exemptions, business, medical and other deductions.
So, in order for you to be affected by this increase, you likely need to have a gross income of substantially more than 250k. Those who gross $250k (even $300k) would probably never see the increase because their taxable income would fall below the limit.
That context seems important when communicating the message to those whose income is near the limit. The small business owner who has a gross income of $400k may very well have a taxable income of $220k after deducting business expenses.
I think it would message better if, every time it is referenced, Obama, Pelosi or the others would say something like, “Only your taxable income, your income after all exemptions and deductions are applied, is affected by the expiration of these tax cuts. Even if your gross income is $250k, you will not be affected because your taxable income will fall below the limit.” To say it affects only those making more than $250k is misleading as it affects only those whose taxable income is over $250k.
Am I missing something here?
Update: See, I’m right.
Income tax
EGTRRA generally reduced the rates of individual income taxes:
a new 10% bracket was created for single filers with taxable income up to $6,000, joint filers up to $12,000, and heads of households up to $10,000.
the 15% bracket’s lower threshold was indexed to the new 10% bracket
the 28% bracket would be lowered to 25% by 2006.
the 31% bracket would be lowered to 28% by 2006
the 36% bracket would be lowered to 33% by 2006
the 39.6% bracket would be lowered to 35% by 2006
It’s your taxable income that is affected, not your gross income. This is an important distinction that is lost in the noise.
Here’s a link from CBO projecting effective tax rates through 2014. Haven’t read through since I’m trying to beat the timer.
Well, it’s off to Kamloops BC for me tomorrow.
MattR
@asiangrrlMN: I know. I know. But it is the whole, “I may hate what you say but I will defend your right to say it” thing. Burning the Quran is a hateful act, but allowing it is the price we pay for our freedoms. And if someone wanted to burn the flag in protest I would not want some teabagger to grab it to stop them. (BTW, I would make an exception if the book/flag in question had additional historical value beyond that as a symbol)
(EDIT: And I am wiped out and heading to bed so I wont be able to defend my position further tonight. Have a good night)
asiangrrlMN
@MattR: Hm. You have a point. I don’t like your point, but I see it and grudgingly concede it. Gr. Night. Sleep well.
arguingwithsignposts
@asiangrrlMN:
Hey, grrl. is this where the late night crew is hanging out? what’s been up?
Shalimar
Subtleties of the Democratic position usually means “We’re still trying to find the best message so we don’t pay a price for fucking over the vast majority of Americans like we’re about to do.” It doesn’t mean they haven’t already decided on their course of action.
Uriel
I really don’t get the upside of putting off a vote on this- sure, as a dem you can say something like “republicans won’t let us vote on a middle class tax break! OMG! Obstructionists!”
But all the republicans have to do is put up a bill- exactly like McConnell has already done- allowing for the exact tax break you are fighting for, admittedly with a kick back to the 2%-ers, and now you, as a dem, are right back on the defensive, forced to argue why you won’t support the exact tax breaks you claim to support because- deficits, fairness, proportionality, and marginal brackets!
And, in one simple move, you’ve made a simple, straight forward argument complicated and nuanced and subject to interpretation. Which means you now have to sell it, using a demonstrably hostile media framework.
Now you have to convince all those middle class schlubs that, no, you will never, ever, in your entire life, make anything close to $250K a year. So sorry. But you know, it’s the lot of the common man in today’s America! So buck up, and vote for us- because we realize the ultimate futility of your unrealistic dreams! Even if you don’t! But, chin up! That’s what makes us great!
Rather than just biting bullet and getting this crap done now, with language that makes it clear that, “Hey, we’re doing you 98% of the population a f*ng favor! Right here and now! So screw those assholes! You’re welcome!”
That seems like a much better message to walk into the midterms with.
And, in case none of this makes any sense, I should add-
+6 or 7. I forget which. Which means it could be 8 or 9. I guess. Who knows? It’s a mystery…
Uriel
And, just for the sake of comparison- what constitutes a few? I mean, given I’m probably presently well over that threshold….
General Stuck
@Brachiator:
It is fairly amazing, or you are just being completely contrarian and argumenative for the hell of it.. But I disagree with every single thing you say in this comment. It sounds like something Bob Loblaw would write and defies even cursory knowledge of politics in this country.
General Stuck
@Brachiator:
And I will add, if anyone thinks that raising taxes on those working, by 3 or 4 percent is going to be the end of the world for democrats, then they are fools. Except when you start to get toward the lowest of earners still required to pay fed income tax. And dems can and will offset any winger demagoguery on the issue by bringing up a vote for mc tax cuts and making wingnuts vote against them because they don’t include cuts for the rich will take care of that before the election.
General Stuck
@General Stuck:
Besides, nothing will get passed before the election, unless dems compromise and add tc for the rich as well. The senate goopers have already promised this. So for those hand wringing that dems have to extend the mc cuts are also saying they support extending the rich ones too, because in reality it may be the only thing that could pass before the election. But It is near impossible to pass anything but gas in congress this close to an election. And doubly so this one. So most of this is a moot point, and will likely stay moot in the lame duck session to follow. But dems need to try, I agree, but if they fail, it will be because of republican obstruction due to grubbing for the rich, and it will be the same if they block a later attempt by Obama to pass post expiration new tax cuts for the middle class. Dems cannot lose, but they should and will put the mc cut extension up for a vote before the election.
Jamie
Oddly those making over 250K will still get a tax cut on the first 250K they make. why doesn’t the MSM say that?
Bobby Thomson
@Uriel: This.
soonergrunt
@Linda Featheringill: Well, I’m off the pain meds. Still a little sore, but that’s to be expected, I guess. A little more time off and I get to start looking for a job. I think I’m going to take some classes for a couple of IT certifications first, though.
soonergrunt
@Allison W.: I didn’t mean it as an attack or anything. It was a rhetorical device. I mean, that nobody thinks that the wingtards are soooo far out there that they’d de-authorize the Army, Air Force, and Navy just to keep gays from serving openly…or are they?
General Stuck
“fools” is a bit too harsh in tone, especially to start the day. So I amend it to “mistaken” in the spirit of peace and lurve.
Frank Chow
@mistermix
If you are a gin drinker, I highly recommend Ransom’s Old Tom Gin, http://www.ransomspirits.com/
It’s the way they used to make it back before prohibition. Fantastically complex and you can simply sip it on the rocks.
asiangrrlMN
@arguingwithsignposts: Well, I was here, but nobody else was, so I took my rusty pitchfork and went home.
@soonergrunt: I’m so glad to see you commenting, and I’m extra-glad that everything went so well.
Peter
@Nick: Rachel Maddow probably would, but then being the lone voice in the wilderness shouting the truth seems to be her schtick.