Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Liberals to Dem leaders: Hold a vote just on extending middle class tax cuts

By Greg Sargent

On Friday I reported here that liberal groups and labor have hit on a legislative strategy to make the fight over the Bush tax cuts work in Dems' favor: Hold a vote just on making the middle class tax cuts permanent, without tying it to any vote on the high end ones.

Now Dem Reps. Raul Grijalva and Lynn Woolsey, the two co-chairs of the House Progressive Caucus, have endorsed this approach, sending a letter to Nancy Pelosi asking her to carry it out:

As Co-Chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, we would like to reiterate our support for President Obama's Fiscal Year 2011 budget proposal that would extend the Bush tax rates for the middle class, but permit the tax levels to return to previous levels for single taxpayers making more than $200,000 or married couples making more than $250,000. We respectfully request that we have a Caucus discussion regarding our position before any proposal is brought to the Floor....

We believe extending the Bush tax cuts would be a giveaway to the nation's wealthiest people and would significantly increase government debt. This debt, in turn, will be paid by the lower and middle classes through increased interest payments and decreased social services for generations to come. This astronomical sum could instead be used to close our budget deficit. It is critical that we pass President Obama' s middle-class tax proposal without providing an even greater lift for the wealthiest Americans who don't need it.

It's impossible to read this without hearing echoes of the public option debate: Liberals and labor pressed Dem leaders hard to include it as a key pillar of health reform; they made a strong substantive and political case; Dem leaders nodded their heads in agreement; and it ultimately never happened. So you might be forgiven for thinking you're watching a rerun of a bad movie. Also, you'll recall that Dems didn't do this before the election because they feared they couldn't pass it in the House, making it unlikely that they will do it now.

But for all the reasons I laid out on Friday, the dynamic is very different now than it was before the elections, making passage this time more likely. Meanwhile, Steve Benen and Jonathan Cohn argue that it's good politics for Dems even if the proposal goes down to defeat.

It's also worth pausing to appreciate the description of this proposal employed above by Grijalva and Woolsey: "President Obama's middle class tax proposal." Obama orginally proposed it. It's his. Holding a vote on it would drive this home. It would force Republicans to vote for Obama's proposal, or against a middle class tax cut. By contrast, a phony "compromise" on a temporary extension of all the cuts would only muddy all these waters further. A temporary extension of all the cuts would merely telegraph Dem weakness, singaling clearly that Dems will cheerfully give the GOP their way as long as everyone agrees to call it a "compromise."

Will it happen? Probably not. Like I said, a rerun of a bad movie. But it's still benefical if Obama and Dem leaders get an earful from the left on it.


UPDATE, 1:06 p.m.: The Dem message to Republicans, translated.

By Greg Sargent  | November 15, 2010; 11:46 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, House Dems, taxes  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: McCain is still on the wrong side of history
Next: The Dem message to Republicans, translated

Comments

Greg, again the myopia of Congress is killing me here. Let's say we have a fight on tax cuts.

That'll eat up a lot of time, DADT won't get repealed, neither will New START and how about the DREAM Act? Nope. Not even a vote. There is a VERY short window of time here during the lame duck, and time spent arguing and fighting about what form of tax cuts to be given only delays everything else.

Hence myopia, fighting over this ignores all of the other things that folks want votes on in the lame duck.

Posted by: calchala | November 15, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

@Greg: "It would force Republicans to vote for Obama's proposal, or against a middle class tax cut."

This seems, from a political standpoint, such an obvious move. Why haven't they done it already? Why didn't they do it before the elections? Such an easy way to make the Republicans either vote against extending tax cuts for the middle class, or force them to argue for tax cuts for the wealthy. Although I'd add an additional permanent substantive middle class tax cut to the discussion.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 15, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin_Willis That's what's interesting RE: A vote on Obama's proposal. The WH was on board for that BEFORE the election. Congress balked. Think they won't balk again?

Posted by: calchala | November 15, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Not sure why they don't co-opt McConnell and Boehners favs talking point....


The American people have spoken and they want us to repeal the top income bracket and extend the middle class tax cuts.

"A post-election Pew Research Center survey finds that most voters (55%) favor either repealing the Bush administration’s tax cuts for everyone (22%) or repealing those received by higher-income taxpayers (33%). Only 40% of voters favor leaving the tax cuts intact. Among all adults, 34% favor keeping all the tax cuts while 30% want the tax cuts for the wealthy to expire and 28% say all tax cuts should be repealed."

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/11/15/political-malpractice/

As that post above pointed out. Democrats have already won the argument. Now they just need to learn to defend it. Use the American peoples' will against the Republican's who are beholden to the upper class.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 15, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

They so obviously need to do this I can't imagine what could possibly go wrong....

Posted by: BGinCHI | November 15, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Is Clinton's TEMPORARY SURCHARGE still in effect?


Because if the TEMPORARY surcharge already expired, this whole fight is just over the top rate being 35% or 36%

I think in that case, we can all agree on 36%


I'm wondering - I don't think the TEMPORARY Surcharge is even in effect anymore.


.

Posted by: RedRevolution | November 15, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

I like the idea of a TEMPORARY extension of the middle class tax cuts only. Make it three years, not two, so it doesn't get bogged down in election year politics.

I highly doubt it will happen though.

And as to Grijalva and Woolsey's framing, I'd love to think it would stick, but it won't. Any extension of the "Bush Tax Cuts" will retain the Bush label. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

Posted by: HansSolo | November 15, 2010 12:06 PM | Report abuse

This whole 250K level is some ploy in order to Trojan Horse some Black Liberation Theology into the tax code.


The 250K level is just a "codeword" to divide the nation along racial lines.


Above 250K, the population is disproportionately WHITE.

Below 250K, the population is disproportionately BLACK.


The way the liberals are talking - it sure sounds like some sort of RACE WAR, OR CLASS STRUGGLE - like the whole thing is about some historical injustice that some people think exist.


.

Posted by: RedRevolution | November 15, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Man - if only the progressive wrote this paragraph about Obama's health care plan:


would significantly increase government debt. This debt, in turn, will be paid by the lower and middle classes through increased interest payments and decreased social services for generations to come. This astronomical sum could instead be used to close our budget deficit.

________________________________


This is clearly a bunch of deceitful and dishonest people.

Worthless, and the country would be better off without them.


.

Posted by: RedRevolution | November 15, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Since this a tax revenue bill doesn't any bill have to originate in the House?

Posted by: cprferry | November 15, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

"Democrats have already won the argument. Now they just need to learn to defend it. Use the American peoples' will against the Republican's who are beholden to the upper class."

Agree - totally. If the Dems had talk radio on their side and they had an house organ like Fox to "beat the drums", the case could easily be made that the GOP doesn't care about You (the 98%)and cares only about the top 2%. However, even if they were to set up this vote, and pass it,the message would be watered down by the MSM in such a way as to reflect partisan bickering.
Nothing could be better for the Dems at this point than by having the prime message moving into January that the new GOP House doesn't care about the working and middle classes. Starting with Obama's next State of the Union,beat them over the head with that message daily for the next two years and it might eventually resonate on next election day.

Posted by: filmnoia | November 15, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

the dynamic is very different now than it was before the elections

____________________________________


Correct, and the "dynamic" is the country has told the democrats: DON'T TRY TO SHOVE ANYTHING ELSE DOWN OUR THROATS


I really can not describe how incredibly stupid it would be for the democrats to try this.


I suppose it is possible to get so many people around the nation to shake their heads at the democrats that the next election would be lost right away. That is where the democrats are headed - the are so out of touch everyone decides way ahead of time not to vote for them.


Posted by: RedRevolution | November 15, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

The message of the election was for Obama and the democrats to start compromising.


Forcing a situation which is clearly aimed at having Republicans make difficult votes smacks of not working with the other side.


The democrats can have it one way or the other - either they scream bipartisanship and act that way OR they act like this piece is recommending.


Quite rIdiculous - the liberals appear like a bunch of children who should be FIRED.


As the staffs of over 60 democratic House members pack their bags, the Progressive caucus is setting the stage for ANOTHER 60 HOUSE MEMBERS TO LOSE.


The nation is SICK OF THESE KIND OF POLITICS,

LIBERALS: DO YOU GET IT ???

Posted by: RedRevolution | November 15, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

"Let's force the Republicans to vote for or against this middle class tax cut"


The 250K level is "codeword" for dividing the nation along racist lines.

TRANSLATION: "Let's force the Republicans to vote for or against Black Liberation Theology and a Redistribution of Wealth"


Posted by: RedRevolution | November 15, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

The 250K level is "codeword" for dividing the nation along racist lines.

TRANSLATION: "Let's force the Republicans to vote for or against Black Liberation Theology and a Redistribution of Wealth"

Posted by: RedRevolution | November 15, 2010 12:23 PM

This is your idea of honest debate? You deserve no forum to spew your idiocy.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 15, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

I'm wondering if it is even worth the electrons it takes to transmit this through the internet to state how stupid this idea is


1) The nation just had an election in which the democrats made this an issue - the democrats lost. To now insist on passing this proposal would be seen as against the will of the election - that is a really stupid thing to do


2) This proposal would require the votes of 60 House democrats who just lost their elections. They are probably thinking about how they will come-back, or any future political prospects they may have.

The LAST thing they want to do now is vote for this dog of an issue


3) From a practical point of view, the Republicans in the Senate are going to filibuster. There is no way that Susan Collins or Snowe in Maine are going to go with the democrats after this past election.

Also Joe Manchin is not going to show up in Washington and start to "rubberstamp" things like this.

The other democrats - 14 of them in the Senate to be precise - are going to have serious thoughts about NOT supporting this ahead of their 2012 elections.


So, the proposal is dead. It can't pass.


The ONLY thing is proposal can do is DAMAGE the democratic party further.


From my point of view, GO AHEAD, DO IT.


.

Posted by: RedRevolution | November 15, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Even that Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman disciple, that Super Libertarian Free Marketer and Free Trader, ALAN GREENSPAN, came out against borrowing more money to give to the mega-rich. How in the world can Bohner explain this one away?


Posted by: mongolovesheriff | November 15, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

pragmaticagain at 12:32 PM

Honestly, it is Obama's point of view.


_______________________________________

I don't even think that Clinton's TEMPORARY SURCHARGE is even in effect anymore.


So repealing Bush's tax cuts would only be the difference between 35% and 36%


I think Axelrod and Obama found this out - and they have a thorny issue there

I don't think the people on this blog understand that subtle point - the top rate IS NOT 39.6, THE TOP RATE IS 36%.

.

Posted by: RedRevolution | November 15, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

How in the world can Bohner explain this one away?

~~~~

Well, if it gets close to passing I'm guessing we'll find out that it contains, "Death Panels."

I'm snarking, but, as Sullivan reminded us this morning, for many Republicans "reality" is subjective.

"The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' ... 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/11/from-radicalism-to-pragmatism.html

Posted by: HansSolo | November 15, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

"The nation is SICK OF THESE KIND OF POLITICS,

LIBERALS: DO YOU GET IT ???"
__________________________________

Your sick of tax cuts on the middle class being extended?

Posted by: Patzer111 | November 15, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Just to be CLEAR


Joe Manchin and Chris Coons are going to be sworn in today. Those two votes do not represent a change in party affilications.


Mark Kirk will be sworn in in two weeks. That represents one additional vote for the Republicans.

So, this proposal would require TWO extra votes to break a filibuster in the Senate. In addition, I would not count on Joe Manchin to start off with a vote like this - he doesn't want to be perceived as "rubberstamping."

Remember Joe Manchin has to go for re-election in 2012.


So, in reality the democrats need THREE votes in the Senate.

OH, by the way, if you think that Ben Nelson is going to vote with the democrats on something like this, you can start to whistle dixie.


This idea is going NOWHERE in the Senate. There is little reason the democrats would want to spend time on it.

Posted by: RedRevolution | November 15, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

"This idea is going NOWHERE in the Senate. There is little reason the democrats would want to spend time on it."

Except that Democrats would love to see Republicans filibuster a tax cut for the middle class.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 15, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

"So you might be forgiven for thinking you're watching a rerun of a bad movie."

You're so funny Greg. I for one just can't wait to see how many great jobs will be created during the extension of the tax cuts. I've been patient for almost 10 years now but I'm sure it's just around the corner. I'm certain we'll be seeing cuts to SS any minute now as well, you know because the deficit NEEDS it. WoooHoooo!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe we'll get a 26 week extension of unemployment benefits as a trade off. Or, we could just be watching a rerun of a bad movie.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 15, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

pragmaticagain at 12:32 PM


Do you realize that with the deductions available, the 10% bracket has been rendered a virtually 0% bracket?

Do you understand that Clinton's TEMPORARY Surcharge is really the center of this discussion? Clinton committed to a temporary surcharge, meaning T E M P O R A R Y

Clearly, the democrats are not saying that.

This IS an attempt to redistribute wealth - to give a larger and larger group in this nation a "free ride" - and have the upper class pay much of the bills.


That is not going to work.

Posted by: RedRevolution | November 15, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

lmsinca at 12:51 PM


I agree with you - I think they should extend unemployment for a year - there is no telling what the Republicans will do with it next year - make it ONE YEAR now. I would agree to that.


And I would also agree to making the top rate 36% - (instead of the 35%)


_____________________


I would just like to say that comparing a wartime economy is just not entirely honest.

The reasoning the democrats have is the recession would be worse if it were not for the stimulus.

Well, the same reasoning could to go to the Bush tax cuts, the job creation would have been much better if there was no wartime economy.

Posted by: RedRevolution | November 15, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

@lms

exactly. extend all the cuts temporarily for 2 or 3 years in exchange for another 26 weeks of unemployment.

both sides get something they want and can declare victory. what a concept.

Posted by: sold2u | November 15, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Can anyone point to an instance where a tax hike on the upper income bracket increased unemployment?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 15, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Imsinca

I'm trying to tell everyone - the top rate is really 36%

The other part of the rate was Clinton's Temporaty Surcharge - 10% over 36% brought the effective rate to 39.6%


The rate was NEVER 39.6%. Bush's tax cuts brought the rate FROM 36% to 35%.


Do you see that????


I think this whole fight had an ERROR in it - the Clinton Surcharge was already GONE.


.

Posted by: RedRevolution | November 15, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

All, two Senate Dems have proposed "compromises" on the tax cuts:

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

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 15, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

OT - David Frum (Former Bush Speech Writer) has a good piece up on Republicans V Reality.

~~~~~

Well before the crash of 2008, the U.S. economy was sending ominous warning signals. Median incomes were stagnating. Home prices rose beyond their rental values. Consumer indebtedness was soaring. Instead, conservatives preferred to focus on positive signals — job numbers, for example — to describe the Bush economy as “the greatest story never told.”

Too often, conservatives dupe themselves. They wrap themselves in closed information systems based upon pretend information. In this closed information system, banks can collapse without injuring the rest of the economy, tax cuts always pay for themselves and Congressional earmarks cause the federal budget deficit. Even the market collapse has not shaken some conservatives out of their closed information system. It enfolded them more closely within it. This is how to understand the Glenn Beck phenomenon. Every day, Beck offers alternative knowledge — an alternative history of the United States and the world, an alternative system of economics, an alternative reality. As corporate profits soar, the closed information system insists that the free-enterprise system is under assault. As prices slump, we are warned of imminent hyperinflation. As black Americans are crushed under Depression-level unemployment, the administration’s policies are condemned by some conservatives as an outburst of Kenyan racial revenge against the white overlord.

Meanwhile, Republican officeholders who want to explain why they acted to prevent the collapse of the U.S. banking system can get no hearing from voters seized with certainty that a bank collapse would have done no harm to ordinary people. Support for TARP has become a career-ender for Republican incumbents, and we shall see what it does to Mitt Romney, the one national Republican figure who still defends TARP.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/magazine/14FOB-idealab-t.html

Posted by: HansSolo | November 15, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Sargent, I know you greatly admire Obama, but please. It was the president who abandoned the health care option, and since he wouldn't back it, or anything else of his previous promises, the democrats punted.

Obama has made 'caving' his profession..or he's really a republican in a democrats suit (as I suspect)

Posted by: newagent99 | November 15, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

sold2u

"extend all the cuts temporarily for 2 or 3 years in exchange for another 26 weeks of unemployment."

At this point it's more likely we'll see an extension of the tax cuts and NO extension of unemployment benefits. They arrested 4 99ers in NY today, so it's pretty clear where we're headed IMO. Dems are weak and Repubs are stubborn. I'm cutting back on Christmas.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 15, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington at 1:00 PM


Mike - I tell you what - please go to wikipedia and read up on the history of the income tax

What was the first income tax rates when it was first put into place???


Look at all the rates over the years.

Remember, job creation takes some time to phase-in.


But read up on it - then you can debate it out.

Posted by: RedRevolution | November 15, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

"Can anyone point to an instance where a tax hike on the upper income bracket increased unemployment?"

1937

Posted by: sold2u | November 15, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

I agree 100% percent with the article.
Make those fiscally responsible Republicans
explain why they are willing to add hundreds
of billions dollars needlessly to the National debt.

Posted by: wave06 | November 15, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

These are NOT TAX 'CUTS' !!! What the Democrats want to do is RAISE the existing tax rates that have been in effect for the LAST TEN YEARS !!!

Why must the media TWIST The language constantly to spin their argument !!!!

AGAIN ...DEMOCRATS want to RAISE YOUR TAXES ... There is NO 'tax cutting' involved here.

Posted by: killerm1 | November 15, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Not true. I am extremely liberal, but I also feel very strongly that the tax cuts should be allowed to expire for everyone who makes a middle-class or upper class wage. It is clearly evil to allow the richest amongst us to not have to sacrifice in these times, but it is hypocritical for the middle class to not sacrifice as well. We have big problems, and the tax cut for the rich will certainly help close the gap. But the middle class tax cut will still cost us the most. Both income groups should be ashamed of themselves to fight for an extension.

Posted by: piotrorloff | November 15, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

@Hans: "OT - David Frum (Former Bush Speech Writer) has a good piece up on Republicans V Reality."

Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and Frum is a thoughtful guy. But Frum predicted that Republicans would be defeated soundly in November, and that the Tea Party folks would be punished at the polls for not listening to wiser, more educated folks like himself. Not only was he wrong, he was *wildly* wrong. So I tend to take such things with a grain of salt.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 15, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

@mikefromarlington: "Can anyone point to an instance where a tax hike on the upper income bracket increased unemployment?"

Arguably, if you get to pick when the negative impact of the tax hike was felt, you can suggest that every time it was done, it eventually had a negative impact on employment.

But there's an easy way around that argument. Exempt s-corps filing on individual tax returns from the expiration. Or create a 1040-SC form for individuals with employees and contractors who file on their individual tax returns, and they get a built in "employer" deduction that offsets or more than offsets the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Then, letting the tax cuts expire can't really about jobs--except jobs for maids and nannies and gardeners.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 15, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

A % of the democrat base pays NO taxes

The left wants a free lunch...with healthcare and housing on the side

The left has a social conscience in which that which bothers them should be paid for by someone else

Spend less, tax less and let the indigent anitAmerican left's base and body go to hell.

Posted by: georgedixon1 | November 15, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

@Patzer: "Your sick of tax cuts on the middle class being extended?"

No, indeed, they should be made permanent. I'm sick of Obama's temporary tax credits being referred to as "tax cuts". Why isn't the Obama administration attempting to make the Obama tax credits, such as they were, permanent tax cuts, as well?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 15, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

A % of the democrat base pays NO taxesThe left wants a free lunch...with healthcare and housing on the side The left has a social conscience in which that which bothers them should be paid for by someone elseSpend less, tax less and let the indigent anitAmerican left's base and body go to hell.
====================

What a bonehead post.

A % of the right wing base also pays no taxes - possibly a larger percentage given that the red states as a group have a higher poverty rate.

Posted by: rapchat1 | November 15, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

We should be cutting spending, not taxes. We can cut taxes once we start running in the black.

Posted by: robert17 | November 15, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

I guess the liberal groups and labor didn't understand the results of the election. What more does the American people have to hear from the liberal groups and labor to know they aren't concerned about jobs, the economy, the deficit, and the debt. It's all about class warfare and social justice with them. Their going to get their socialist America one way or another. Who buys, hires, invests, and upgrades, the poor? Who does these liberal groups and labor connect with other then those who hates this country, hates profits, hates capitalism, hates the free market, and hates tax cuts for all Americans.

Posted by: houstonian | November 15, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

The morons at the White House have no idea how to do anything but capitulate. If Obama backs down on this as well, I will sit out in 2012 just like I sat out in 2010 (despite Axelrod's belief that fear of republicans would motivate me to vote for a party that turns its back on me every time it can)

Posted by: aksunder | November 15, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

My belief is that if we are serious about the debt, then we should let the tax cuts expire for all. Either we can afford it or not. Yes lets balance the budget & National debt, but not on the backs of the broke or those just getting by.

Posted by: wave06 | November 15, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

"Sigh"...

I keep wondering when the short attention spans of Americans will realize (for a second time) that "trickle down Reaganometrics" don't work.

Reagan tried it and failed (doubling the national debt in the process, then having to raise taxes 3 times to attempt to salvage the situation).

Bush II took the US budget, which was the healthiest it had been in a century and turned it into something shades away from the next Great Depression.

It's been tried twice, in big macho fashion the past 20 years and failed miserably both times, yet the short bus contingent is ready to "try again".

You have a group of Republicans running around, touting ideas on how to reduce the budget, yammering about their great ideas, yet the net sum money saved with ALL their ideas combined is 70-80 billion a year.

This in comparison to wiping out the Bush tax cuts, the lions share of which went directly to the nations top 2% of earners and which were never affordable that save us ~400 billion a year.

Quit wasting our time. Do away with the tax cuts, restore the tax code to the level it was when Clinton was President and move on.

Posted by: Nosh1 | November 15, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

The Dream Act--another underhand AMNESTY.

So California's Sanctuary Cities copiously engorge themselves on taxpayer’s money, thanks to the return of Sen. Barbara Boxer and Jerry Brown. Los Angeles county and San Francisco is drowning in public entitlements being given away as freebies to millions of illegal aliens. Senator Barbara Boxer and ex speaker Nancy Pelosi are hard line liberal progressives, who ideology is you don't have to work for a living as government will pay your way. Senator Harry Reid who squeaked back to the Senate is another member of the Liberal extremist groups, who has sold his soul for large minority votes, promising the Dream Act--a sleight of hand, to pass a De-Facto Amnesty. The Dream Act will not only reward students of criminal aliens, who stole through our borders. But will also function as a sponsored pass for the whole families to arrive after the newly naturalized students use the "Chain Migration Act" to open the gates to their Immediate Relatives—the spouse, minor children, and parents of adult U.S. citizens.


Chain Migration refers to the unceasing and often-snowballing chains of foreign nationals who are allowed to immigrate as the law allows citizens and lawful permanent residents to bring in their extended, non-nuclear family members. This Chain Migration is the primary mechanism that has caused legal immigration in this country to quadruple from about 250,000 per year in the 1950s and 1960s to over one million a year since 1990. As such, it is one of the chief menaces in America's current record-breaking population boom and all the attendant sprawl, congestion, school overcrowding, dwindling energy supplies and other impacts that reduce American's quality of life. This type of immigration is very dangerous to our society as the US population is beginning to see the light, from the costs brought to them in higher taxes from catering to the illegal alien population by Liberal zealots.


Posted by: infinity555 | November 15, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

The Lame Duck Dream Act would explode our population even more and as the Heritage Foundation has projected, at a cost of 2.6 Trillion dollars and millions more uneducated relatives. This certainly will put our Social Security at risk. Senator Reid, Barbara Boxer Diane Feinstein and the creeping fetid fringe groups of Liberal lawmakers are not concerned with the costs, but the amount of votes extended to them by grateful minority blocs in future election, the lobbyists secretive bribes and a need to exert their influence upon America. It’s beyond comprehension that Harry Reid would try for the passage of this Dream Act, when our schools are overcrowded with the children of illegal aliens, the massive cost to taxpayers and the terrible reality of the 15 million jobless rates in this nation. This will add even more red ink to our US deficit and certainly not riding the favorable wave of the Tea Party, to lower taxes and reduce a over encroaching federal government.


Any new incremental Amnesty--as that is what the Dream Act is, will just keep on attracting the forever poor and desperate across our borders. We must secure our border with an electrified fence, stop the drain on our social services by pregnant women who intentionally birth their children here, to take advantage of instant citizenship for the infant; so all family members can stay. Now is the time to release your anger on all members of Congress, by calling (202)224-3121 beginning this Monday? Learn the reality of illegal immigration at NumbersUSA and which politicians are corrupted at Judicial Watch.

Posted by: infinity555 | November 15, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Another idea to bypass acting like adults. Enough with the gamesmanship. Get about the peoples business or get voted out. We'll tired of the games. Mr. Greg Sargent , did you every get past high school? Cuz, you sure don't act like it.

Posted by: richard36 | November 15, 2010 3:34 PM | 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