Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

AFL-CIO calls on Dems to vote on just middle class tax cuts

By Greg Sargent

One of the most powerful labor organizations in the country is throwing its weight behind a legislative strategy on the Bush tax cuts in which Democrats would hold a vote on just extending the middle class tax cuts permanently, without any vote on the high end ones.

"The election is over -- we believe Congress ought to get down to business and vote on extending the tax cuts for the middle class, and not vote on the tax cuts for the rich," Bill Samuel, the legislative director of the AFL-CIO, told me in an interview this afternoon. "Congress should not extend the tax cuts for the rich -- not even temporarily -- because that would do more harm than good for the economy."

AFL-CIO's declaration represents the first major institutional endorsement of taking this approach in the lame duck session, suggesting the possibility that labor and leading liberals in Washington may begin coalescing behind it. More broadly, the move is also a sign that labor and liberals will demand that Obama and Congressional Dems draw a hard line against Republicans in the tax cut fight.

But Samuel declined to address some of the potential objections to this approach, claiming the details of legislative strategy should be left to Democratic leaders. Some argue that such a move would allow Republicans to mount a procedural maneuver -- known as a "motion to recommit" -- that would force Dems to also hold a vote (that could pass) on the high end cuts.

There's a way around this for Dems, but it would require two-thirds of the House for passage. While this is an uphill climb, it would force Republicans to decide on whether to vote against a permanent extension of the middle class cuts.

Others argue there's no guarantee that enough moderate Dems would vote Yes to ensure that it could pass -- the primary reason Dems didn't hold such a vote before the elections. But proponents of this approach say moderate Dems who are no longer facing elections would ultimately vote Yes if forced to take a stand.

The AFL-CIO's declaration comes on the same day that Nancy Pelosi appeared to come out against any kind of deal for a temporary extension of both the middle class and high end cuts. Asked if she could favor such a move, she reiterated that it would be "too costly."

Ultimately, of course, the White House and Dem leaders may decide against this strategy, since it risks igniting another messy process battle, which has worked against Dems in the past. But at a minimum, this signals labor and leading liberals are going to be unsatisfied with any "compromise" or "deal" and will interpret any such arrangement as a massive cave.


UPDATE, 3:18 p.m.: Democracy for America is also calling on Dems to adopt this approach. From DFA spox Levana Layendecker:

"It's hard to imagine a smarter fight for Democrats to pick at this moment than forcing every Republican to vote up-or-down on a clean middle-class tax cut that benefits 98% of Americans. Force them to vote, dare them to vote no, and the end result will be good policy and good politics for Democrats. Saying 'We don't have the votes' and never forcing people to show their cards is how leaders in Washington often avoid doing the will of the people. If Speaker Pelosi announced this strategy, it would change the entire debate and finally put Democrats on offense."

Earlier today I noted that the Progressive Change Campaign Committee is pushing for it, too.

By Greg Sargent  | November 12, 2010; 2:46 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, House Dems, Labor, Senate Dems, taxes  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: What left wants: A vote only on making middle class tax cuts permanent
Next: Happy Hour Roundup

Comments

That is just great

The people who jam-packed every government budget in the country with expensive union contracts -


Federal, State, county, local and school budgets ALL of them filled with expensive and bloated union contracts

They are telling us to raise taxes.....

A slight credibility problem there....

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 12, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Why don't ALL income taxes expire???

That would be nice.


If Congress doesn't pass an extension, no one has to pay anything.


NOW that is something I think we all can agree on.


.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 12, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Others argue there's no guarantee that enough moderate Dems would vote Yes to ensure that it could pass...
=================================

A moderate Dem: One who agrees to vote with the Republicans on whatever short-sighted, immoral, greedy, and ultimately destructive policy they dream up.

(That's my paraphrase of many Dave Broder columns over the years, although Dave's versions invariably fail to accurately describe the policy in question.)
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | November 12, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Greg, here's another issue folks aren't seeing with this myopic view on tax cuts. What about DADT? New START? Dream Act?

There just isn't enough time in the legislative calendar to get all of these accomplished plus a fight on tax cuts.

The NDAA(Defense Authorization) ALONE is projected to be about 3-4 weeks. Please explain how any or all of these things are accomplished in the two months that we have. Or better yet, which one would you give up to engage a fight on tax cuts?

Posted by: calchala | November 12, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Ultimately, of course, the White House and Dem leaders may decide against this strategy, since it risks igniting another messy process battle, which has worked against Dems in the past.

~~~

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the only reason this vote is needed is that the GOP used a, "Messy process," to pass the tax cuts in the first place?

I think our pundits need to do a better job of reminding the citizens how the tax cuts were passed, the logic behind passing them at the time and the actual effects the tax cuts have had. Then they need to remind us of the way Republicans described Reconciliation just last year...

Posted by: HansSolo | November 12, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

@Hans- "I think our pundits need to do a better job of reminding the citizens how the tax cuts were passed, the logic behind passing them at the time and the actual effects the tax cuts have had."

How about we hold Town Halls on the subject where we discuss how the tax cuts have worked out since they were passed? Feel free to bring your guns to the Town Halls.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 12, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Sure the Dems and unions could use this vote against the GOP for a couple of months, but the new Congress will simply introduce a new bill reinstating the previous rates for all. Then it would be the Dems who would be in the awkward position of voting against tax cuts - even tax cuts that Obama supports. The GOP could use any Dem 'No' vote against them for the next two years.

Better that the Dems and Obama and the GOP compromise now so that *all* can claim victory.

Posted by: sbj3 | November 12, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Better that the Dems and Obama and the GOP compromise now so that *all* can claim victory.

Posted by: sbj3 | November 12, 2010 3:32 PM
==========================

Sounds so reasonable.

Like when the Democrats joined with the Republicans to pass the AUMF against Iraq, and then the Republicans demagogued the Democrats as weak on defense anyways for the next x number of election cycles, and then when the entire enterprise predictably turned into a debacle, the Republicans all said "hey, it was your fault for voting with us".

Victory, GOP style.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | November 12, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Then it would be the Dems who would be in the awkward position of voting against tax cuts - even tax cuts that Obama supports.

~~~~

Yes, and the Republicans who balked at extending unemployment benefits because they added too much to the debt (ha!) can explain in detail how the 700 billion hole in the national debt, required so Paris Hilton can afford a new Bentley, is "Fiscally Conservative."

Posted by: HansSolo | November 12, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

I'm helplessly hoping though not wordlessly watching, this tax thing is a distraction.
No one cares.

America needs jobs. The political class is out of touch. The base of both parties is not interested in supply side crap.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 12, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Slightly OT - The link below shows the historic tax rates (both the lowest and the highest) since the income tax was first instituted.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=543

Posted by: HansSolo | November 12, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

It will be interesting to see how the union bosses pull Obama's strings going forward.

it has been easy thus far for Obama to pay off the unions with tax dollars. that will be much harder with a divided government.

the unions not only have to be concerned with the loss of federal jobs, but many of the more profligate states face significant budget shortfalls that threatens union members too.

A shrinking government is not appealing to the unions. Keeping the taxpayer cash flowing is goal one. The size and scope of union involvment in the recent election proves that this is true. They spent millions and raised a veritable army of "volunteers" to save as many union friendly spendthrifts as possible. But they still took major set backs, even in states that are union strongholds.

So I will be interested in how the unions behave in the new reality. Can they force Obama and the Democrats into doing something against their long term political best interest?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | November 12, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

"vote on just middle class tax cuts"

Ya THINK?!?!

This is such a no-brainer that it makes me wonder if House "moderate" Dems actually do have a brain.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 12, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

But in case you think I am mad, I am not, I am saying our political leaders are our enemies. I ♥ this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/automobiles/collectibles/14IRAN.html?_r=1&hp

We do not want to go to war with these people. Can you see the Mullah blessing the Camaro? Do you know what that means?

Posted by: shrink2 | November 12, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

@iftheundertow: "Like when the Democrats joined with the Republicans to pass the AUMF against Iraq, and then the Republicans demagogued the Democrats as weak on defense anyways for the next x number of election cycles, and then when the entire enterprise predictably turned into a debacle, the Republicans all said "hey, it was your fault for voting with us"."

Yes, except in this case we are talking about *tax cuts* so the GOP won't be able to "demagog" or say "it was your fault for voting with us."

Posted by: sbj3 | November 12, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

@hans: "Yes, and the Republicans who balked at extending unemployment benefits because they added too much to the debt (ha!) can explain in detail how the 700 billion hole in the national debt, required so Paris Hilton can afford a new Bentley, is "Fiscally Conservative."

See iftheundertow 3:39 PM - the GOP will have cover in the form of moderate Dems.

Posted by: sbj3 | November 12, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

I find it difficult to believe that many moderate House Democrats, or even moderate Republicans, would vote down a bill extending tax cuts for the middle class (while omitting cuts for those in the top bracket) if it were actually brought to the floor. It would be too easy for a future opponent to run a 30-second ad saying "Rep. Doe voted against tax relief for middle class Americans," which would technically be true even if they voted 'Yes" on a later vote to extend the cuts for all brackets. They'd wind up sounding essentially like John Kerry: "I voted for lower taxes after I voted against them."

Posted by: zenarcade | November 12, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

in response to this:
============
Yes, and the Republicans who balked at extending unemployment benefits because they added too much to the debt (ha!) can explain in detail how the 700 billion hole in the national debt, required so Paris Hilton can afford a new Bentley, is "Fiscally Conservative."

==========

What we have here is pretty much run of the mill liberal bigoted stereotypes.

when a liberal thinks of the "rich" they think of paris hilton. They ignore the millions of folks whose income exceeds the 113,000 threshold required for inclusion in the top 10%.

All "rich" people, according to thoughtless bigots like this, are ne'er do well trust fund babies who deserve to have their money taken from them by righteous liberals will good intentions and nasty attitudes.

so pal, explain yourself in detail. Tell us here why you find such uninformed insulting bigotry and stereotyping to be acceptable behavior. Tell us why you have such a poor imagine of hard working Americans who earn their incomes. Tell us why you are so addicted to other people's money that you can't be bothered to seek the truth about the people you want to rob.

This is ugly, ugly stuff from the American left. As they finally come to realize their plight the nastiness will be turned up to new levels of bigotry.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | November 12, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

the GOP will have cover in the form of moderate Dems.

~~~~

Well now that is true:(

But I think the proper term is "Corporatist" and not "Moderate."

Posted by: HansSolo | November 12, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

skip, let me educate you so you stop embarrassing yourself with Fox talking points.

The problem with public employee unions is that they have a corrupt relationship with elected officials. They do not care about growing or shrinking government, they care about their union. They want to get paid more to work less.

The AFSCME and the SEIU pay big bucks to get people elected who will sit on the heads of the managers they "work" for.

The public employee unions are not socialists, they don't care about the big picture, they care about themselves.

We agree on this, Democrats who get union money from the people who work in the government they run, those Democrats are likely to coddle the union that gave them that money...ya think!?

[Disclaimer. I am not down on and in fact fully support labor unions in sweat shop prone industries, industries that routinely exploit illegal labor, organized industrial labor in general, the weekend, a five day work week...so don't bother...I am down on public employee unions.]

Posted by: shrink2 | November 12, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Cut a deal. Temporarily extend all the tax cuts in exchange for extended unemployment benefits. Done.

Posted by: sold2u | November 12, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

sold2u, do you know if it is true the maximum benefit for an unemployed worker is ~$24,000 a year? That is top dollar, no matter what they were making before they lost their job? Because if this country can not support families at that level and is still worried tax cuts for millionaires might be about class war, this country deserves...

Posted by: shrink2 | November 12, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

@oc:Why don't ALL income taxes expire???

That would be nice.
=====
why don't you enjoy the income tax free existence in somalia, or the eastern congo. Feel free to drive to the govt supported airport on the govt supported roads and fly over there in a government inspected jet.

Posted by: srw3 | November 12, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

@shrink. Yes, I believe UE benefits top out at 24k.

If I had my way we would rescind the tax cuts gradually as unemployment drops. UE drops to 8%, 250k and up pay more, 7%, 100k - 250k revert, 6%, everybody's taxes revert.

I know the tax rate for the top 2% is a cause celebre for the left, but first do no harm..

Posted by: sold2u | November 12, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Raising taxes $700 Billion in the middle of an Economic Crisis is just irresponsible and stupid.


Obama has already CAUSED health insurance premiums to go up $800 Billion this year - that is the equivalent of a tax increase.


This issue - pushing this agenda item with NO ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION, is absolutly why democrats have PROVEN they are not fit to govern.


Case closed.


Keep the democrats out of government.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 12, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Skip - Wow, you sound really upset. Take your meds.

I make well over 113K a year. That doesn't put me in the top 1%.

"All "rich" people, according to thoughtless bigots like this, are ne'er do well trust fund babies who deserve to have their money taken from them by righteous liberals will good intentions and nasty attitudes."

Nice straw man. I know quite a few wealthy people who weren't born into money. Oddly enough, most of them agree with me on issues of taxation.

"Tell us here why you find such uninformed insulting bigotry and stereotyping to be acceptable behavior. Tell us why you have such a poor imagine of hard working Americans who earn their incomes."

So Paris Hilton earned her money, is that what you are saying? You seem to think I'm a bigot because I (rightly) point out that Paris Hilton is a big recipient of the Bush tax cuts. Are you saying she isn't? Does mentioning Paris Hilton make me a bigot? Maybe you should look that word up, I don't think it means what you think it means.

"Tell us why you are so addicted to other people's money that you can't be bothered to seek the truth about the people you want to rob."

Ah, so are all taxes robbery, or just the taxes on the rich? Yesterday you were saying taxes were punishment and taxing people was immoral. Now taxes are robbery too? So who should pay for our military, infrastructure, etc? Apparently you don't think you should, which leaves responsible adults like me to pay for your share. Nice.

As to progressive taxation, I'd just point out that President Lincoln was the first to pass a progressive tax and that the concept first came up in Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations." I'd also point out that, per the link I've provided above, the top marginal tax rate of today is well below historic norms. You seem to think raising the top marginal rate is "un-American" and "robbery" but all that shows is that you don't know much about America, and you know even less about taxes.

Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

PS - I'm not you pal.

Posted by: HansSolo | November 12, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Skip,

Your story, then, is that if I refer to "the rich" I must mean the top 10% of earners, and I am bigoted against them?

I'm one of "them," Skip. I support progressive taxation. Paying a lot in taxes means I'm making a lot of money. That's not a problem that keeps me awake at night.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 12, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

The democrats who want to rest their case on a "class struggle" argument are dangerously out of step with America.

Seriously folk, I really can not believe that adults are persisting with this crap


If you are going to try to jam anything through the Senate, you now need 2 extra votes in the Senate, because Kirk takes office immediately.

And please dont be silly enough to believe that Manchin can be relied on on party-line votes. He has to run for re-election in two years and the LAST thing he needs is to be seen as a rubber-stamp for Obama.

So, you probably really need 3 votes in the Senate.


Good luck with that.


,

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 12, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Typo - It was supposed to read:

PS - I'm not your pal.

Posted by: HansSolo | November 12, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

sold2u I posted this screed on the prior thread by mistake. Look, people don't have a good idea what job creation is all about. They think government versus rich people, either, making the rich richer will create jobs or making the government richer will.

This is not true. Very rich communists, kings, you name it, they don't create jobs, government does not create jobs no matter how rich it gets. Same with the rich. All of human history is the story of what the people who concentrate all the wealth do. Creating jobs: not a priority.

This is not an either or problem it is not a cause célèbre. We can have a middle class or not. This is a question of what America wants to do with itself.

Our families generated the largest (as a proportion of gdp) middle class in the history of nations. They did not do it on purpose, but now, if we want to have one, we have to know where it came from.

Our families used a variety of methods including hard work, slavery, expeditionary colonialism, thrift, collective bargaining, immigration, freedom to invent and improvise, the luck of an easily conquered land stuffed with resources and a temperate climate, outstanding military capabilities and a willingness to use them, religious freedom, English law and customs guaranteeing wealth fungibility for all persons, to name a few specifics.

We should stop arguing about whether or not even richer rich people will create jobs. They won't. It is much more complicated than that.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 12, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Shrink2 - Nice rant!

You want to know who really creates jobs? We do. We do when we demand products and services that we don't want to, or can't, provide for ourselves.

This is why the middle class is so important: In order to drive demand high enough to create the need for new jobs, demand needs to be coming from a vast number of people. Being rich is nice, but there is only so much food, clothing, etc a small percent of the population (the wealthiest one half of one percent of people) can consume. The bigger the middle class, in theory, the more demand there is.

Posted by: HansSolo | November 12, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

let me respond:
First, shrink2:

Yup, the unions don't care about anybody, anybody but the unions. Not even their members. After all it was the treasurer of the teachers union that called his members "beasts". Quite a guy, no?

And now to hanssolo: I doubt your statement about income. It is just hard for me to believe that someone with such lackluster reading skills could be employed at all.

I didn't write top 1% sonny. I wrote top 10%. REad a bit more carefully. Point at the words if you must. But, child, do try to get it right, OK?

Whether the handful of people still talking to you agree with you or not isn't data son. Its anecdotes. In otherwords, so what? You still cannot support your position with anything close to a moral explanation. Yesterday you tried the laughable willie sutton excuse. You rob from the rich because that's where the money is. It might make you feel better, but it ain't exactly a valid reason for theft.

You just can't read well enough to mount an effective counter argument. Like a lot of ignorant blow hards you hear what you would like others to say. Why not just accuse me of talking in code? That used to be the great liberal excuse for name calling. Why not trot out that old chestnut?

And I can always tell when I've hit home. some thoughtless liberal, hanssolo in this case, will advise that I take my meds. Apparently given enough SSRI's people will lose their sense of decency and become liberals. Wow. I wonder if sales of that drug will exceed sales of heroin anytime soon!

No buddy, you just can't read. I never said taxes were immoral. I asked YOU to provide a moral basis for hammering the rich. You can't do it, hence the name calling and bigotry.

Adam Smith didn't do it either. Its just the same old clap trap: they got so let's take from them. No morality there: just greed.

No pal, you're not smart enough to be my pal.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | November 12, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

shrink2 and HansSolo-

Excellent arguments, full of common sense. Well Done!

Posted by: wiccan | November 12, 2010 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Good, so if we want to create jobs, we have to stop thinking government will do it or rich people will do it. We have to have a concerted effort from all sectors of society.

Old metaphors, the Manhattan Project, the Man on the Moon, WW II, they inform, but they are not models for what has to be done. But the current debate on tax cuts is irrelevant, immaterial, worse than distracting. Every week that goes by matters.

It is too bad neither party has leaders. All politics all the time, that is all they do, all they know. America is energized with anger about this, but it is only about the politics of resentment. That energy needs a leader, anything but a Napoleon, but it is ripe for demagoguery.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 12, 2010 5:20 PM | Report abuse

This sounds too sensible for the Dems to possibly follow.

Countdown till a blue dog calls this a crazy plan....

And gosh, it would let the Bushiest part of the Bush Tax Cuts remain attached where they belong. The Decider.

Posted by: BGinCHI | November 12, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

skippy: "Yup, the unions don't care about anybody, anybody but the unions. Not even their members. After all it was the treasurer of the teachers union that called his members "beasts". "

Wow, how underwhelming your evidence is.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 12, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

I asked YOU to provide a moral basis for hammering the rich.
...
Posted by: skipsailing28
===========================

Where in reality is this happening?
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | November 12, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

"You still cannot support your position with anything close to a moral explanation. Yesterday you tried the laughable willie sutton excuse. You rob from the rich because that's where the money is. It might make you feel better, but it ain't exactly a valid reason for theft."

Well, first, taxes aren't theft.

Second, before you insult someone's reading comprehension, maybe you should learn that proper nouns, such as names, should be capitalized.

"And I can always tell when I've hit home. some thoughtless liberal, hanssolo in this case, will advise that I take my meds."

Well, I'd guess a lot of people suggest you take your meds, but I doubt it is because they are liberal.

"I never said taxes were immoral. I asked YOU to provide a moral basis for hammering the rich. You can't do it, hence the name calling and bigotry."

As I've pointed out, morality isn't the issue, economics is the issue. That you demand to know, "A moral basis for hammering the rich," points towards your belief that morality is somehow involved with taxation. Your continued hyperventilating over the taxation of the super wealthy indicates, to me, that you do think progressive taxation is immoral.

Do you even know who Adam Smith is? Have you ever read "The Wealth of Nations"? Did you look at the chart of historic income tax rates and realize that today's top marginal tax rate is well below historic norms?

You obviously don't know what you are talking about. I get that you love your ignorance, and I wish you and your stupid a long and happy life.

Posted by: HansSolo | November 12, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

All, Happy Hour Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/happy_hour_roundup_128.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 12, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

It is still a tax increase, and it would still be a drag on the economy

I do not understand why the democrats are so insensitive to the lack of jobs in this economy -

The democrats appear to be against anything that helps people over 250K - even if it does help the economy

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 12, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Wow, it's hot in here!

Here's my doubt about the aforementioned strategy: Assuming that Dems in the House can pass the middle class tax cut on its own and get around the 'motion to recommit', wouldn't Republican senators just be able to run out the clock so that the new GOP-controlled House could introduce its own bill reinstating all of the Bush tax cuts? Sure, Obama and Senate Dems could easily veto/filibuster/vote it down, but then they would be the ones who are blocking tax relief for the middle class, right?

It seems like temporarily extending all of the tax cuts (for a year), followed by an immediate vote on a new bill to permanently extend the middle class tax cuts, would be the best way to rob the GOP of their biggest trump card and ensure that the goal of getting rid of the Bush tax cuts for the rich is ultimately achieved.

Posted by: billy_burdett | November 12, 2010 9:47 PM | Report abuse

Wow, it's hot in here!

Here's my doubt about the aforementioned strategy: Assuming that Dems in the House can pass the middle class tax cut on its own and get around the 'motion to recommit', wouldn't Republican senators just be able to run out the clock so that the new GOP-controlled House could introduce its own bill reinstating all of the Bush tax cuts? Sure, Obama and Senate Dems could easily veto/filibuster/vote it down, but then they would be the ones who are blocking tax relief for the middle class, right?

It seems like temporarily extending all of the tax cuts (for a year), followed by an immediate vote on a new bill to permanently extend the middle class tax cuts, would be the best way to rob the GOP of their biggest trump card and ensure that the goal of getting rid of the Bush tax cuts for the rich is ultimately achieved.

Posted by: billy_burdett | November 12, 2010 9:47 PM | Report abuse

Who is buying this baloney?

Have some facts:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/03/us/politics/election-results-house-shift.html

Posted by: FrankTrades | November 13, 2010 7:35 AM | Report abuse

The Dems could and should have held this vote before the mid terms. They didn't. Their actions speak quite loudly. They are determined to give more borrowed money to the ultra wealthy, just like the Republicans are. The outcome is already decided, the only issue now is how to allocate the blame.

Posted by: Bullsmith1 | November 13, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company