Once again, I am befuddled. The Democrats have a great issue that is very popular, that the president ran on in his campaign, and that makes good policy sense. Let the tax cuts on the rich expire, but extend them for the other 97% of Americans. Technically, we can’t afford to make the tax cuts permanent for anyone. But we do have an incentive to extend them as a form of stimulus in this down economy. So, let’s make the Republicans vote on it. Are they going to vote in lockstep against extending middle class tax cuts on the eve of an election? Let’s see if they’ll cave. If they do, great!! We have our preferred policy. If they hold firm, great!! We have a rock solid issue to beat them with all the way to November 2nd.
So, what do the Senate Dems do? They punt. They want to hold the vote after the election when it can’t help anyone.
I understand that some Dems don’t want to cast a vote that raises taxes on anyone, even if it is only the top three percent, before the election. But do we seriously think it will be easier to pass that tax hike in a lame duck session?
I don’t get it.
They’re not raising taxes on anyone! Hold two votes…let the Blue Dogs vote to lower taxes on both, let Obama veto.
I hate my party.
Btw, bully pulpit didn’t work out as well on an issue that the Democrats had 100% of the leverage, did it?
I understand there is some question over which chamber actually collapsed first. It’s not just the senate whatever the timeline, the house also capitulated. Pretty dispiriting for Dem voters who are paying attention.Or depending on how its reported, anyone.
I guess I remain confused as to why those sorts of votes that die on the House or Senate floor are supposed to have electoral impact. Would most voters know that a vote even happened if nothing came of it? And wasn’t the whole political commentariat mad at the Dems on Tuesday for putting forward DADT for a vote and then failing to pass it? I guess I can see how it would be better for a candidate to say “We tried to pass the tax cuts but failed to” rather than “We want to vote on the tax cuts,” but it only seems like a marginal difference to me unless something actually passes.
Not trying to be snarky here, it’s just not clear to me why people are treating this like an enormous capitulation. But maybe I don’t understand how discrete messaging like that really affects voters.
Seems simple enough: if there’s a vote, the message is, Reps killed middle-class tax cut. Or, if it passes, Dems passed middle-class tax cut over huge Rep opposition. When nothing goes to the floor because Dems are too fucking stupid or craven to allow it, there’s no message at all. The Dems killed the tax cut vote, not the Reps, contrary to Obama’s stupid statement. Man, I’ve about had it with these bumbling cowards and incompetents. We really do need a new country.
Ok. But my assumption is the vote would have failed. So wouldn’t the headlines be “Dems Fail To Pass Their Agenda?” Isn’t that what it was on Tuesday with DADT, and today with DISCLOSE?
Well, given that the Dems will fart martian sand before they manage to get a message out, I suppose you have a point. But the ads and talking points had just written themselves and were locked and loaded for this election. Until the Dems decided THEY’D be the ones to kill the vote on lowering taxes for working Americans.
Hm, well I guess I see your point about the ads.
With all Repugs and 44 dems the house was a loser. The stupid 44 dems then turn around and demand to make permanent all the wealth based tax cuts, ( divident income, inheritance, etc. )
Lots of good new out the D caucus today.
Would it have made a difference if the president had issued a veto threat on extending tax cuts for the rich? Would the Blue Dogs be making this much noise if Obama had issued a veto threat?
Not stupid, just being made to do stupid things for fear of annoying their wealthy donors.
Of course when they get pounded in the coming elections because nobody likes wet kleenex, they won’t have any wealthy donors. Stupid is the word. Or at least the kindest one.
DING DING DING!! GIVE THAT MAN A KEWPIE DOLL!!
Or as someone named DRC put it at balloon-juice:
and let’s not forget it’s gotta be difficult to vote against your own perceived interests:
Except extending the richie tax cuts was not the issue. It was extending the middle-class ones that they wouldn’t vote on. Anyway, this is not a reality-based issue, it’s keeping government vs killing government. The piddling tax “increase” on the parasite class will make no practical difference to their happiness, power, spending, or anything else. It’s apparently just craven, pants-shitting terror at being accused of “raising taxes” and being a “tax and spend” Democrat. Half a century and these morons still haven’t found a way to counter the argument, short of heading for their hidey-hole. There is really nowhere left to turn to in America, except where the teabaggers direct us to: your friendly nearest gun show.
Kerry’s wealth is mostly because of who he is married to. Baucus’s bankrupt status might explain why he acted as he did about healthcare reform.
The ones to note are the Maine twins, Liebermann, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, and Evan Bayh. It is also useful to know where there wealth comes from. Every time their accountant fills out the disclosure form, they learn how their blind trust has been invested.
It’s a clear pattern. And if you’re befuddled, it’s only willful.
Obviously they don’t want it to pass. There’s no other explanation.
They evidently look forward to losing big in the next election, too. It will be hard to work for, or vote for, a party that so richly deserves oblivion. I’m referring to every party on the ballot. As Durbin so remarkably confessed, “they own us”. And “they” has no further connection with “us”.
They don’t have to do anything in the lame duck session for the tax cuts to expire. It’s only Republican framing that calls it “tax hike”. It’s the result of George W. Bush ramming it through with reconciliation.
The same sunsetting becomes an issue on healthcare reform and student loan administration in 10 years when the parts of the healthcare reform act that were passed by reconciliation expire.
Yeah, for all the tax cuts to expire. The issue was extending the “middle-class” one. I suppose I could console myself by believing that this is Dems taking a stand against all ALL tax cuts, but that would be pure fantasy. If this were going to happen before the election, it might even be smart politics, but it’s not. So it’s still just cowardice and stupidity as usual.
yeah, but then they expire for everyone, raising all of our taxes from what we paid the last 7-9 years. That breaks a promise the president made repeatedly. If it is hard to keep that promise now, why will it be easier in a lame duck session?
Obama could just roll out that I would love to give you a tax cut but this piece of shit Congress only wants to hook up the rich.
It won’t be, and it won’t happen. If it doesn’t happen now, it’s not happening without extending them for everyone.
You are probably right.
Republicans have a TV Channell and radio stations. Those Corporation groups are outspending Dems like 20 to 1. Dems shit all over themselves on messaging.
So in this, its 4th down, you are losing, late in the game, Lets PUNT!!!
At least GOP aholes understand the game.
I get it. Some idiot framed it in terms of the Bush tax cut instead of talking about the Obama middle class tax cut. And they paired the two parts of the tax cut repeal, wanting extend one and not the other.
It would have been better to push only for an Obama tax cut and not say anything about the tax cut for the top 2% expiring.
And it’s the usual suspects. The same folks who screwed up health care reform. The same folks who screwed up the parts of financial industry reform that got screwed up. The folks who have been running away from Obama like he’s a leper as fast as they can. The folks who know they are going to lose to Republicans in November because of a grumpy electorate. The ones who will immediately pick up lobbying jobs.
And Steny Hoyer who sees loss of the House as all good for him. And hears the words “Speaker of the House Steny Hoyer”.
It appears to me that Hoyer is looking to 2012 cause he sure is not looking to win in 2010. I can not believe Pelosi is allowing this to happened and maybe she can not prevent it because he caucus is full of selfish, crappy teammates. I would just call of their bluff. Have the votes and let the Dems vote against middle class tax cuts.
The problem is that Pelosi would have to avoid a motion to recommit. And the Blue Dogs will join with the Republicans on a motion to recommit. They have done it a number of times already.
Please describe the impact of ‘recommitting’?
http://www.congressmatters.com/storyonly/2010/3/20/2205/-On-Motions-to-Recommit
The ironic part is the involvement of Rahm Emanuel.
House Democrats take up a middle class tax cut bill
House Republicans plus Blue Dogs bring and pass a motion to recommit, adding permanent tax cuts for the rich
Now the bill comes up for a vote on final passage, with permanent tax cuts for the rich in it. How do you cast your vote? Aye or no?
http://www.congressmatters.com/tag/Motion%20to%20recommit
Gotcha.. flips the table and makes Dems vote AGAINST tax cuts.
Ouchy.
Umm, perhaps it’s one of those weird permagov moves that have no purpoes but to make the ‘right’ outcome of this election more probable?
Otherwise, I can’t possibly think of another reason.
It was not a vote to raise taxes on anyone. It was a vote to lower them on 97% of Americans.
The only thing that makes sense is that the plan is to actually extend the Bush tax cuts across the board, perhaps in hopes of buying a few elections back.
Anyone got another possibility. My jaw is still on the floor.
The best outcome would be to let them all sunset. It’s not exactly great for stimulating the economy, but it does come close to solving our budget problem.
Then they should have STFU about it and just let it happen, instead of starting a soap opera about a middle-class tax cut and then flushing it down the toilet. It may solve the near-irrelevant deficit problem, but it will play hell with the economy and pretty much assure that the crazies get to run at least half of Congress. Nice going, fools.
You know, Dave, I expect more from you than repeating this idea that our budget deficits don’t matter. That’s a Dick Cheney talking point, and it’s total crap. I understand that a lot of progressives want to differentiate between short-term and long-term debt to explain why investing now can actually improve our debt later. But that wasn’t what you said. You just said that our long-term deficits don’t matter, but they do. They’re unsustainable. We can’t keep taxes this low and spending this high, and still meet our obligations to people who’ve spent their careers paying into our Social Security and Medicare systems, or who have earned their benefits through military or government service.
There’s also a point at which too much of our GDP is wrapped up and unavailable for investment. And then there is the pain of paying a huge percentage of our tax revenues just to finance our dabt. And then there is our credit-worthiness. And then there is the injustice of asking our kids to pay for our lifestyles.
So, don’t belittle the seriousness of our financial problems.
Mmmmm-Hhmmmm…
Earlier today, I read postponement was likely and fired off unusual for me “What are you, nuts?” letters to Pelosi and Reid.
I just now saw a news announcement they are definitely postponing the tax cuts issue until after the election.
Maybe they’re planning to use it as a “vote Dem or you’ll be voting for tax cuts for the wealthy, a bigger hole in the deficit, etc.”
Then, I’ve always been a wishful thinker.
I am (not quite) seriously to the point of calling for Democrats to boycott this election and let the GOP take the House 435-0. Then we come back in 2012 with 435 politically competent candidates and take our chances.
I just cannot believe how STUPID the Democratic caucus is. But it is. It really is.
Seems reasonable.
A stupid party for a stupid country. Why would that change in 2 years?