Tweet
Before passing the state fiscal aid bill, Democrats actually gave Jim DeMint two votes on tax rates. He wanted to add massively to the deficit – literally trillions of dollars – by freezing in place the tax rates on individuals and “small businesses” that we have now, and which make us one of the most lightly-taxed industrialized nations on the planet. And look at this: Democrats rejected the measure entirely. On both votes, only Ben Nelson crossed the aisle to vote with all Republicans, including Collins and Snowe.
Now, perhaps on a bill dealing with the tax code, the numbers would be different. But here you have a vote on making all of Bush’s tax cuts permanent, and Evan Bayh voted no. Kent Conrad voted no. Blanche Lincoln voted no. Joe Lieberman voted no. Mary Landrieu voted no.
Republicans have no traction whatsoever for making the tax cuts permanent. Either the rates for the middle class will be extended, or all of the cuts will expire, at which point Democrats will probably try to pass their own “Obama tax cuts” on the middle class. Maybe he’ll try a payroll tax holiday, or something like the tax cuts in the stimulus and the HIRE Act.
The point is, those are the choices. If you can’t get more than 42 votes, you don’t have a tenable position. The tax cuts for the wealthy are toast.
CORRECTION: I must have misread the chart. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) actually did vote yes to extend all the tax rates, on both votes. George Voinovich (R-OH), noted deficit hawk, voted no. So flip those two.
5 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
There are two ways to approach this, either tactically or strategically.
I much prefer the strategic.
To wit, the Democrats should let the tax cuts expire and in doing so, can campaign on the following notional:
The Democrats will take the presumed savings accrual and invest these monies into On-The-Job Training Contracts for the millions that are unemployed. For in doing so, all empirical evidence–historically, suggests that the taxpayers would receive into the Treasury, these perceived ‘costs’ within a period of 18 to 24 monthsm and due to these taxpayers returning to work and with a sizable uplift for the overall economy with an increase in Demand.
Now, will the Democrats go in this direction? Sadly, their ‘street smarts’ are focused on Wall Street, and not on this potential of viable voters.
Jaango
Instead of just letting the Bush tax cuts die, Obama says he wants to preserve the tax cuts for the middle-class. By putting the bill on life-support and tinkering around with it’s insides, I fear that the final result will be a frankenstein monster which still contains tax cuts for the rich hiding behind a few gimmicks and sops to appease the middle class.
As a (for the time being) member of the middle class, I say don’t do me any favors. Just let the Bush tax cuts die!
Or, another way of looking at it: if the GOP can only muster 42 votes, I’m sure Obama and Rahm can hustle up 18 Dem votes – all in the spirit of bipartisanship, you know.
Only 42 votes for more money for rich folk? Me needs hankie.
But isn’t 42 the new majority in the Senate?