Congressional 'Centrists': We love the Bush Tax Cuts!

[SirNitram]

Link

House Democrats say leadership has their work cut out in convincing the public to support a tax increase on those making more than $250,000.

Centrists and liberal Democrats told The Hill they support allowing President Bush’s tax cuts on those making more than $250,000 to expire, but said leaders must win public support by portraying the tax increase as reducing the nation’s record budget deficit.

“I believe there is a message from back home that is loud and clear: do something about these out of control deficits,” said Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.), a centrist whose district was won in 2008 by GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (Ariz.).

“Failure to address that would produce the worst consequence for the country and therefore the worst consequence politically,” Pomeroy said.

Tax increases always carry political risk, and raising taxes during a recession could be labeled as hampering economic growth.

Democrats worry that if their leaders wait to long in selling the move, Republicans will be able to sway public opinion and it will be difficult to allow the cuts to expire.

That could be doubly painful for Democrats, since allowing an extension of the tax cuts would drive up the budget deficit.

“If we’re going to rescind these [tax cuts], which is still going to be a battle, we have to have our message out there on why we are doing it,” said Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a group committed to ending tax cuts for the wealthy. “On taxes and some other things we’ve been on the defensive the whole time.”

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) on Wednesday said tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush and benefiting those earning more than $250,000 likely would be allowed to expire at year’s end. The plan aligns with President Barack Obama’s pledge to raise taxes on wealthier individuals.

Absent Congressional action, all of the Bush-era tax cuts will expire in December, including those on people making less than $250,000.

Obama and Democrats would like to extend the tax cuts on those making less than $250,000. But to do so, Hoyer said the third-top tax rate must be restructured since it affects earner making above and below $250,000. This means Democrats must introduce legislation that somehow splits this bracket so tax cuts for the middle-class are extended without affecting those earning more than $250,000.

But such legislation will meet resistance since some Democrats think all of the Bush tax cuts should be extended.

Rep. Mike McMahon (D-N.Y.) co-authored a letter with Rep. Bobby Bright (D-Ala.) in January asking Obama to include in his budget request to Congress an extension of all of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for two years. Obama did not honor their request, much to McMahon’s chagrin.

“I think it is a political liability because it’s a [bad] policy right now for the economy and could have a bad impact on jobs,” said McMahon, adding, “I think it is something that is going to be a lively discussion.”

The Joint Committee on Taxation expects half of the revenue raised by the tax increase to fall on businesses that are taxed as individuals, known as “flow through” organizations. The increase will definitely be felt in McMahon’s district, where the cost of living is among the country’s highest.

“A working couple making $250,000 is barely making ends meet,” he said, adding, “If you have a partnership or an S. Corporation you are definitely affected… As professionals or shop owners or restaurant owners, you get hammered.”

Grijalva disagrees, saying he has seen little evidence to suggest that the tax increase would single-out small businesses.

“All the information we have seen and the percentages that are affected is such – that it’s not going to hurt small businesses,” he said. “And right now part of what we need to do is create incentives to support small businesses and we don’t have the revenue coming in so I don’t know how we are going to do that.”

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.) said tax increases on those earning above $250,000 would generate $850 billion in revenue over 10 years, and discounts the idea that Democrats will be exposed politically for supporting expiration.

“If you’re asking whether allowing the Bush tax cuts for the very wealthy to expire when the average income there is $800,000-plus in order to help stabilize the economy, bring deficits down? No,” he said.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) said the political risk for Democrats would largely depend on how their districts would be affected by the tax increase.

“I guess it depends on which congressional seat you are talking about,” he said. “I think that is an individual member’s decision and depending on their constituency.”

Grijalva acknowledged that Democratic leaders may not have the 218 votes needed to ensure expiration since the debate will likely divide his party.

“That’s going to be a fight,” he said.

It’s not expected any time soon. But once it begins some Democrats say support for expiration could cost their party in November.

“Some members probably have concern with that,” said Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.), a Blue Dog who supports the expiration of upper-bracket tax cuts since few in his district would be affected by the increase.

“My people are wanting to get rich enough to pay that tax,” he said.

No matter what passes the House, it is the Senate where the fate of tax legislation is usually decided. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), a supporter of the 2001 tax cuts, said no decision has been made on letting the upper brackets expire.

“We haven’t addressed that yet, not in committee or in leadership,” he said. “We’re not addressing that yet.”

I remember when people took pride on being 'centrist' and supporting 'centrist' politicians. Gullible bunch of retards.

[Big Phil]

How fucking hard can it be to convince people to support repealing the Bush tax cuts? It affects what, 5% of the population, if that?

Rhetorical question, but: are Congressional Democrats a bunch of idiots?

[SirNitram]

How fucking hard can it be to convince people to support repealing the Bush tax cuts? It affects what, 5% of the population, if that?

Rhetorical question, but: are Congressional Democrats a bunch of idiots?

Nah. Blue Dogs, however, are whores. Not even EXPENSIVE whores.

[Starglider]

“A working couple making $250,000 is barely making ends meet,” he said

WTF? Isn't that five times the US median household income?

[aerius]

“A working couple making $250,000 is barely making ends meet,” he said

WTF? Isn't that five times the US median household income?

Cocaine ain't cheap you know, and have you priced out an S-class Mercedes lately? Not to mention the mortgage on a million dollar home and vacations to Hawaii, Japan, and Dubai. These people are hurting man, don't you feel their pain?

[Surlethe]

“A working couple making $250,000 is barely making ends meet,” he said

WTF? Isn't that five times the US median household income?

Yes - see this. US median household income is a tad over $50,000 annually. If someone making $250,000 is barely making ends meet, it seems to me like they made some pretty poor financial decisions at some point in the past; I'm not inclined to be sympathetic.

[Questor]

“A working couple making $250,000 is barely making ends meet,” he said

WTF? Isn't that five times the US median household income?

Yes - see this. US median household income is a tad over $50,000 annually. If someone making $250,000 is barely making ends meet, it seems to me like they made some pretty poor financial decisions at some point in the past; I'm not inclined to be sympathetic.

We'll Surlethe, you have to understand, in addition to supporting himself and his trophy wife in a million dollar house, he also has to support his ex-wives and his original million dollar house.

We should feel sorry for him.

[Broomstick]

“A working couple making $250,000 is barely making ends meet,” he said

WTF? Isn't that five times the US median household income?

It used to be a few years ago. Given how the country has gone down the toilet, it may be more than five times today's US median income.

[eion]

How fucking hard can it be to convince people to support repealing the Bush tax cuts?

They don't even have to repeal them, they're expiring. All they have to do is convince people not to support any legislation to extend them! Even the people who agree with their expiration can honestly say they've never voted for a tax increase.

[ArmorPierce]

“A working couple making $250,000 is barely making ends meet,” he said

WTF? Isn't that five times the US median household income?

Yes - see this. US median household income is a tad over $50,000 annually. If someone making $250,000 is barely making ends meet, it seems to me like they made some pretty poor financial decisions at some point in the past; I'm not inclined to be sympathetic.

If they feel that a household pulling in $250,000 a year is 'barely making ends meet,' wouldn't you think he or anyone who holds this view support much more generous social programs for the poor?

[hunter5]

How fucking hard can it be to convince people to support repealing the Bush tax cuts? It affects what, 5% of the population, if that?

Rhetorical question, but: are Congressional Democrats a bunch of idiots?

The problem is the tax cuts were for everyone and people are scared they will all see a rise in taxes. The Democrats have to find a way to word this so the people know they are letting the cuts expire only for those making over $250,000 but keeping them for everyone else. They also need to show how letting the tax cuts expire will not hurt the economic recover. This isn't an easy task because $250,000 a year can describe many small business owners who most people don't really see as rich.

[The Yosemite Bear]

more bread and circuses, give cake and mcdonalds to the poor and let them die of diabeties.



you teabaggers need a bullet to the brain

[eion]

How fucking hard can it be to convince people to support repealing the Bush tax cuts? It affects what, 5% of the population, if that?

Rhetorical question, but: are Congressional Democrats a bunch of idiots?

The problem is the tax cuts were for everyone and people are scared they will all see a rise in taxes. The Democrats have to find a way to word this so the people know they are letting the cuts expire only for those making over $250,000 but keeping them for everyone else. They also need to show how letting the tax cuts expire will not hurt the economic recover. This isn't an easy task because $250,000 a year can describe many small business owners who most people don't really see as rich.

Easy, pass a bill that takes effect the day of the tax cuts expiration that creates new tax cuts that equal the previous ones expiring minus the 250k ones. This does two things:

1) Clearly differentiates the Bush tax cuts from these

2) Forces the Blue Dogs to vote for this, as otherwise ALL the tax cuts will expire, making them look bad.

Keeping it amendment free is pretty easy in the house, and doable in the Senate (Republicans can't really vote against for tax cuts)

And any small business owner making more than $250,000 a year that isn't incorporated in some fashion is an idiot of monumental proportions.

[K. A. Pital]

“A working couple making $250,000 is barely making ends meet,”

I want to be a working man making 1/10th of that. Good lord. "Making ends meet"? Well perhaps they should stop overconsuming. I can't understand it. I just can't. I can live on a monthly expendable income of $266 (per a family of 2 with no children), or $3200 a year. It's a hard life, but to a great surprise, it's actually what most people here live like. Even if they make more, it all goes into savings because housing is a bitch these days.

Even considering a tenfold difference in price levels (though it's not anywhere near that), $250 000 is quite a huge sum of money. If you can't "make ends meet" with that, something is wrong in your head.

[hunter5]

How fucking hard can it be to convince people to support repealing the Bush tax cuts? It affects what, 5% of the population, if that?

Rhetorical question, but: are Congressional Democrats a bunch of idiots?

The problem is the tax cuts were for everyone and people are scared they will all see a rise in taxes. The Democrats have to find a way to word this so the people know they are letting the cuts expire only for those making over $250,000 but keeping them for everyone else. They also need to show how letting the tax cuts expire will not hurt the economic recover. This isn't an easy task because $250,000 a year can describe many small business owners who most people don't really see as rich.

Easy, pass a bill that takes effect the day of the tax cuts expiration that creates new tax cuts that equal the previous ones expiring minus the 250k ones. This does two things:

1) Clearly differentiates the Bush tax cuts from these

2) Forces the Blue Dogs to vote for this, as otherwise ALL the tax cuts will expire, making them look bad.

Keeping it amendment free is pretty easy in the house, and doable in the Senate (Republicans can't really vote against for tax cuts)

And any small business owner making more than $250,000 a year that isn't incorporated in some fashion is an idiot of monumental proportions.

Looks good as long as we can keep it amendment free (sorry but I really don't see a snowballs chance in hell of that happening) it might work.

[eion]

Looks good as long as we can keep it amendment free (sorry but I really don't see a snowballs chance in hell of that happening) it might work.

In the House it’s relatively easy. The Speaker can do all kinds of things to limit amendments, and with the majority they have a lot of these can be voted down quickly. In the Senate, the easiest way would be to move it through Reconciliation, allowing it to bypass any filibusters and therefore requiring only 50 votes (plus Biden) to pass, which means it cannot break any of these conditions, known as the Byrd Rule:

1) if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
2) if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
3) if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
4) if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure, though the provisions in question may receive an exception if they in total in a Title of the measure net to a reduction in the deficit; and
5) if it recommends changes in Social Security.

And since the original bill that created the Bush Tax Cuts™ was passed under Reconciliation, a bill creating the same thing minus the 250k bracket should meet the rule.
Whether the Democrats have the political wherewithal to do so is another matter entirely.

[bobalot]

How fucking hard can it be to convince people to support repealing the Bush tax cuts?

They don't even have to repeal them, they're expiring. All they have to do is convince people not to support any legislation to extend them! Even the people who agree with their expiration can honestly say they've never voted for a tax increase.

That's what I thought. Don't the democrats just have enough people to block it from being renewed?

[Questor]

How fucking hard can it be to convince people to support repealing the Bush tax cuts?

They don't even have to repeal them, they're expiring. All they have to do is convince people not to support any legislation to extend them! Even the people who agree with their expiration can honestly say they've never voted for a tax increase.

That's what I thought. Don't the democrats just have enough people to block it from being renewed?

Yeah, but that might involve forcing Obama to veto.

I don't know if they have the balls to do that in an election year.

[eion]

How fucking hard can it be to convince people to support repealing the Bush tax cuts?

They don't even have to repeal them, they're expiring. All they have to do is convince people not to support any legislation to extend them! Even the people who agree with their expiration can honestly say they've never voted for a tax increase.

That's what I thought. Don't the democrats just have enough people to block it from being renewed?

More than enough. They have 59 Senators (58 if we remove Liebermann, if only we could), That's 9 or 8 more than they need to kill any legislation renewing the Bush Tax Cuts in the Senate (Biden gets to vote in a tie, remember).

And that's if they don't Filibuster such a bill, because in order for a bill to move out of filibuster, 60 senators would have to vote for cloture, which would require every Republican senator plus 19 Democrats. Obama’s veto stamp doesn’t need to get within a mile of this.

In other words, the Senate has just as much chance passing a bill making ALL the tax cuts permanent as I do waking up next to Robert Downey, Jr. Sometimes the sewage trap of American politics does come in handy.

[hunter5]

Looks good as long as we can keep it amendment free (sorry but I really don't see a snowballs chance in hell of that happening) it might work.

In the House it’s relatively easy. The Speaker can do all kinds of things to limit amendments, and with the majority they have a lot of these can be voted down quickly. In the Senate, the easiest way would be to move it through Reconciliation, allowing it to bypass any filibusters and therefore requiring only 50 votes (plus Biden) to pass, which means it cannot break any of these conditions, known as the Byrd Rule:

1) if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
2) if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
3) if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
4) if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure, though the provisions in question may receive an exception if they in total in a Title of the measure net to a reduction in the deficit; and
5) if it recommends changes in Social Security.

And since the original bill that created the Bush Tax Cuts™ was passed under Reconciliation, a bill creating the same thing minus the 250k bracket should meet the rule.
Whether the Democrats have the political wherewithal to do so is another matter entirely.

Well most modern politicians are not know for have good intestinal fortitude but we shall see. It is the Dems move up to them if they decided to choke under the pressure.