Today begins the final two months of the Democratic majority in the House, and the large majority in the Senate. Today, two Democrats, Chris Coons and Joe Manchin, will be sworn in as Senators, while Mark Kirk’s swearing-in must wait, under Illinois law, until the certification of his election, which will happen later in November. Roland Burris stays a Senator until that time, so for the moment, the split remains 59-41, and will stay that way through Thanksgiving.
So what do Democrats plan to do with that majority, as well as their 255-178 spread in the House? Not a heck of a lot. The lame duck session will be dominated by talk about what to do on the Bush tax cuts, but there are some other issues that are likely to get taken up as well. Since I wrote about the possibilities for the lame duck when the last session ended before the midterms, the focus has narrowed a bit. Let’s go over it.
• Bush tax cuts: We know the battle lines here. Democrats want to extend the tax cuts for the middle class, while Republicans want them extended for all tax brackets. They also want the additional tax cuts, like the ones to dividends, the estate tax rates, and a variety of others, set back at Bush-era levels. The terrain where Democrats and Republicans disagree costs about $700 billion dollars, but overall we’re arguing arguing whether to blow a $3 trillion or $4 trillion dollar hole in the budget. For reference, the ENTIRE BOWLES-SIMPSON CATFOOD COMMISSION REPORT gets a savings of $4 trillion. Yet “pass nothing on taxes for the next two months” wasn’t their preferred recommendation.
It looks like Democrats don’t have the votes to pass tax cuts for the middle class only, and the Republicans certainly don’t have the votes to get the tax cuts for the rich made permanent. The meet-in-the-middle here looks like a 2 or 3-year extension, which even Jim DeMint floated this weekend. But that is in no way a “compromise,” as it gives Republicans everything they want and sets up for another fight down the road on an issue where Democrats have already given ground.
• Expiring measures: The government must pass a spending bill, either as a stopgap or something more, by December 2nd, to avoid a shutdown. The argument is over how long the stopgap will last. Nancy Pelosi wants to fund with a continuing resolution through the fiscal year, to September 30, 2011. Republicans want a shorter stopgap, so they can get a whack at setting spending levels when they take over the House.
There are also a host of other expiring measures that Democrats will try to take up. Unemployment benefits beyond 26 weeks will start to expire unless Congress passes an extension by the end of the month. This wouldn’t include any help for the “99ers,” but would merely allow the extended benefits currently in place up to 99 weeks to continue at a time of mass unemployment. It’s very iffy whether the Senate can get that done. In addition, the “doctor’s fix” and a host of tax extensions expire by the end of the year, so we’ll see if the tax extenders bill gets revived to deal with that.
• Food safety: This is actually the bill with the most likely chance of passage. Harry Reid already filed cloture on it and two other bills to start off the lame duck session. The other two, on electric vehicles and paycheck fairness, are actually not expected to pass. But the food safety bill, which received a unanimous committee vote last year, has a good chance of getting done. The cloture vote is likely on Wednesday. The bill would increase plant inspections and give the government more authority to institute recalls. Tom Philpott calls it a small step in the right direction. More important to the members of the Senate, it seems to have the votes, and they can wax eloquently about the bipartisanship it fostered.
• Defense authorization bill: I wouldn’t expect to see this until December. That’s because the Pentagon survey on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell won’t get released until after December 1, and the defense authorization bill includes DADT repeal. So that means that two Republican votes would need to be secured by that time in order to pass the bill. Several have said that they would want to see the survey before making a decision, including Scott Brown, George Voinovich, Olympia Snowe and Judd Gregg.
If it did pass the Senate, then you’d need a House-Senate conference or some mechanism to iron out the differences, with both chambers passing the same bill, all in December, and it’s unclear at this point how deep into the month the session will last. So it’s going to be a tall order to get the bill passed.
It’s also unclear whether Harry Reid will again try to slip the DREAM Act into the defense authorization bill, or whether he will allow a vote as a standalone measure. As a standalone bill, the DREAM Act actually has a shot at passage; Bob Bennett (R-UT) and Dick Lugar (R-IN) have said they would vote for a standalone bill. I do think you’ll see a standalone DREAM Act voted on in the House, perhaps as early as this week.
• The Reid omnibus. The House has passed over 400 bills that the Senate has not taken up. Many of them are noncontroversial in nature. It’s possible that Reid will combine hundreds of these noncontroversial bills into an omnibus package, which he will then offer for a vote. Tom Coburn, in the past, has put holds on and tried to block these kinds of omnibus bills, and I can see it being controversial. It will depend on whether the Senate leadership wants to take the time needed to get this through.
• Remainders: I’ve heard talk about taking one last shot at the DISCLOSE Act on campaign finance reform, and I pretty much don’t believe it at all.
The White House has made the new START treaty a top priority, and they’re trying to bribe Jon Kyl into giving up on his objections to the treaty by promising spending on so-called “nuclear modernization.”
On energy and the environment, outside of the Promoting Natural Gas and Electric Vehicles Act of 2010, which will get a cloture vote this week, I wouldn’t expect anything.
Lindsey Graham wants a vote on Chinese currency manipulation, perhaps similar to the House bill that passed right before the midterms.
There are also the looming cat food commission recommendations hanging out there. If they actually get 14 of 18 commissioners to sign off, the Senate and House have basically promised a vote.





30 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
With this Congress, it’s virtually impossible to set your sights too low.
Jim DeMint does not represent the majority of Americans. NO to extension of Bush-era tax cuts for the uber-wealthy. Dems don’t need to do anything strenuous to make this happen. Just let the clock run out.
Kucinich ’12.
The reason extending the tax cuts for the bottom 98% costs $3 trillion is that Obama has pre-compromised on the estate tax, capital gains tax cuts, dividend tax cuts, etc. If everything went back to Clinton era levels it would be far less than $3 trillion.
Obama budget: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/112xx/doc11280/03-24-APB.pdf
Alternate scenarios: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11705/08-18-Update.pdf (see table page 24, PDF page 42).
Let all of the bush tax cuts run out. There would be a big fight over extending the middle class cuts and not all dims would support that without their bosses getting a share. I am more worried about the catfood commission report. All of the lies and misinformation go toward cutting SS (just a first step) and obama is helping the congress to abdicate their responsiblity of discussion and voting by providing this up-or-down vote.
Dems and Obama WANT to extend the Bush Tax Cuts for the rich. And they will. The compromise temporary extension will last until Obama loses in 2012. JEB/Palin will make them permanent.
Same as Republicans, Obama and the Dems are proponents of Trickledown Milton Friedman Economics.
I heard a funny one the other day, it should be JEB and Elizabeth Cheney, they wouldn’t even have to change the bumper stickers.
If the election were held yesterday, JEB Bush and Liz Cheney would have won. There is no reason to think they will not win in 2012.
The cure as espoused by advisors is for Obama to tack rightward.
There is every reason to believe that Obama will do exactly that.
It is a recipe for losing in 2012.
Does this mean EFCA’s not on the table? /s
IF they extend the Bush tax cuts, they will assure that they become permanent because no is Obama getting a second term. sot the next republican congress and president will do it AND privatize SS as well.
“Democrats want to extend the tax cuts for the middle class….”
NO, THEY DON’T! Why would you say such a thing? The Dems control the House, the Senate, the Presidency.
If the Dems wanted to extend tax cuts for the middle class, they would do it!did, they’d do it! Why do you pretend the Dems WE elected WANT to act for our interests when EVERYTHING they’ve done in the last 2 years indicates the ONLY thing they want to give us is LIES?
Here’s the chant for 2012:
Repeat again and again at rallies. Vote third party at the polls.
True dat Dems and Obama WANT to extend the Bush Tax Cuts for the rich. BUT, only need a handful of obstructionist Dems to derail the legislation until the clock runs out.
Grayson, Feingold, what do you have to lose?
and even that savings only occurs because the commission thinks we will find a way to control the growth of healthcare costs, though the commission does not say how we will do this.
One thing they’d DAMN well better do is fix the Medicare reimbursement for doctors! It’s going to drop by something close to 25% in January unless Congress fixes it, and thousands of doctors will drop Medicare patients like me.
I haven’t seen anyone talking about this, but it’s big. And millions of Medicare patients could be affected, finding themselves with insurance no one will honor…
Sometimes I wonder if I’m the only one that feels this passionately about stopping the tax cuts for the rich.
This could be a great test for us to see how well the back bencers got the message from the last election. If we can make a lot of noise, like we did over health care, then we’ll soon know if the message was received 5 by. You will start to memebers of the progressive caucus voice their opposition. If the progressive caucus gets loud enough to change a few Senators minds, then this can be blocked in the Senate.
And it’s the right thing to do dammit. There is no justification for this. Polls show Americans overwhelmingly want to end the cuts on the rich, so there’s no political need to do this. They don’t provide any jobs or any stimulus otherwise are economy would be overheated right now and not in recession depression, so there’s no economic reason to do it.
And cutting taxes on the rich at the same time everyone’s panties is twisted over the deficit is the absolute height of hypocrisy, and they should be called on it.
I’ve already called both of my Senators. I’m going to call them everyday until a vote is taken or it’s collapsed and won’t pass. I hope others will join in too.
Please, let’s take that last election out for a spin and find out if any of the Dems were listening. And as far as the “compromise” of just extending them two or three years, well, what are the D majorities going to be like in two or three years??? NOW is the time to kill them, with the majorities they have now. Let the Republicans bring up tax breaks for the rich on their own. Polling indicates to me the American public has finally caught on to their bullshit. One can always hope.
RAISE TAXES ON THE RICH NOW. They’re the assholes that put us in this shithole we’re in. And they’ve not been held accountable for that at all. Here’s a small slice of accountability.
Call your rep and Senators today.
Food Consolidation? In its original form?
I like Kucinich on the issues, but he’s a freaky-looking little guy who folded like a cheap suit when Pelosi told him to vote for the crappy health-care bill.
Alan Grayson? Russ Feingold? An independent run by Bernie Sanders?
I think EFCA was dead the moment Obama was sworn in, if not earlier. He never even tried to get it passed. I now think he was always opposed to it and lied to us about it.
And the three you mentioned voted the same way on the “crappy health-care bill.”
Be that as it may, Kucinich is only a niche candidate. We should run someone with broader appeal.
I read an article that nothing had to be done for the tax cuts, they just expire. this is not correct?
That’s right, they would all expire if nothing is done.
But the Democrats say they want to extend them for the middle class only. The Republicans insist they will only go along (as in not filibuster) if the tax cuts include the rich too.
So those are the battle lines. We need to make the Dems not give in to the R’s on this issue. Or let them stall out and do nothing. That’s fine too, then ALL the tax cuts expire.
I’m ok either way. I just don’t want to see them extended/made permanent for the rich. If anyone needs any more proof of whether or not the two parties are essentially the same, then this could be it. We always get tax cuts for the rich when Republicans rule. The Democrats still rule for the next two months, so if we get tax cuts for the rich again, then it’s further proof that the two parties are the same.
Jon Walker has a fresh cross-post ready: Senators Offer “Compromises” on Extending Bush Tax Cuts, but Fail to Shift Debate
Yes. It is very telling isn’t it? The Bush Tax Cuts for the rich which have an automatic 10 year expiration date is the primary concern of Obama and the Congress.
Repigs and Dims, How to keep the Tax Cuts for Fat Cats frm expiring are Their Primary Worry.
We’ve seen how vital those tax cuts have been in creating jobs (in India and China) and a “robust economy” (in India and China).
No fucking tax cut extensions, no fucking deals, no fucking compromises, no fucking prisoners.
Awesome!
Very well said good sir!
Looking at the income of most Representatives and Senators, it is clear they have a conflict interest even voting on this issue! One by one, each and every conscientious Congressperson should stand up, state their rounded off annual income or net worth and say they are willing and happy to eliminate the tax cut in their income bracket for the good of the deficit and the country.
Here’s the facts.
The Democrats have a majority in the House right now and could pass the middle class tax cut. Then Reid could bring it up and fight for it if the Republicans filibuster it and the entire party could make a loud noise that Republicans are trying to raise taxes on the people during a recession. I think they’d blink.
But this all requires Democrats to have a fighting spirit and we know they don’t. They already have given up as if the GOP already was in charge in the House and the Senate majority was already reduced.
Eh – unless it’s tax cuts for the super wealthy, ain’t nothin’ gonna happen during the lame duck. Count on it.
The Republicans thought the economy would improve without intervention, that’s why they voted NO for two years.
Now, if that’s true (and it probably is regardless of what employment does), the Democrats better do the same. Otherwise, the Republicans will claim in 2012 that everything they did (including tax cuts), helped the economy. It’s a recipe for disaster for Democrats in 2012.