UPDATE: The House passed their tax bill, with the permanent extension on only the first $250,000 of income. The vote was 234-188, with 3 Republicans actually supporting, and 20 Democrats opposed.
It’s good that Pelosi managed to pass this bill procedurally speaking, and it will be a nice vote for 2012. But it could have been done in 2010 with no harm, too. Anyway, the Senate’s not touching this, so don’t expect it to become law.
Multiple congressional Democratic sources tell CNN that a compromise to extend all Bush-era tax cuts temporarily is getting close, and that there is increasing concern among Democratic lawmakers that the White House will not fight hard enough to get Democratic priorities in return.
“The goose is cooked,” said one senior Democratic source, “the question is what the larger deal is going to look like.”
Many Democrats are unhappy at the prospect of giving up on their goal of permanently extending tax cuts only for those making $250,000 and less. Sources in both parties say a deal in the works would extend all expiring Bush era tax cuts for all income levels for two or three years.
Nothing novel here, it’s been obvious for weeks. It’s a matter of that larger deal, and the votes they will get from Republicans in exchange for giving them what they want. The list includes – a one-year extension of unemployment benefits without offsets, as well as another year for the Making Work Pay $400 tax credits, the college tuition tax credit and the HIRE Act (which gives businesses a tax credit for hiring unemployed workers). New START wouldn’t be included in the overall deal, but could get a wink and a nod. Democrats on the Hill are worried that Obama won’t secure too much of even that lukewarm stew, and certainly not anything beyond it.
I think we have to step back and see just what a major cave this is, and how revealing about the true intentions of the Democratic Party.
The soundbite in that above ad is from May 2007. At the time, there was a real fight in the party over whether to yank the Bush tax cuts immediately upon taking office or just let them expire. Obama’s language in the bite makes it clear he wanted to extend the “middle class tax cuts” on the first $250,000. He spent two years, along with his party, doing nothing about that and backing themselves into a corner. They could have extended those tax cuts at any point and would have had stronger approval for it than they actually still have even now.
Make no mistake, letting the tax cuts on the wealthy expire was the biggest applause line of the campaign. Not just the 2008 campaign, but going all the way back to the 2006 campaign. It was the animating principle of the Democratic Party, the position most commonly attributed to them, at least in domestic policy. If you knew nothing else about Democrats, you knew from their speeches that they wanted to let the Bush tax cuts expire and put the money to better use. That’s why base Democrats are so angry about this.
In addition, that idea, of getting rid of tax cuts massively tilted toward the rich, has pretty clear evidence attached to it, visible from the evidence. Millionaires and billionaires simply made out like bandits in the Bush tax cuts.
I think it’s clear that the right thing to do, on the merits, was to let them all expire, if not yank them prematurely. If the stigma of raising taxes bugged you (it didn’t bug the last Democratic President, who won re-election after raising taxes) or if you thought the economy couldn’t take the hit, you could always go back with some shiny new “Obama tax cuts” later. You could have decoupled the tax cuts on the first $250,000 of income with the rest. You could have done any number of things. But the truth of the matter, the ugly truth, is that all that campaigning in 2006 and 2008 was a clown show. There was no real intention to raise taxes on millionaires.
I think most of them truly believe that raising taxes on millionaires will be bad for the economy and bad for politicians who vote for them. They are wrong about the economy, but it’s an article of faith among the ruling class that raising taxes on millionaires is bad in every way, all the time, and even those with a Kenynesian bent can see this particular tax hike as being counter-productive if they choose to.
They always believe that tax hikes are ruinous to their careers no matter what (and the tsunami of cash that was unleashed against them during the last cycle just emphasized that point.)
I’m not defending them. But there has to be a good reason the Democrats failed to extend the tax rates for the middle class separately the minute they took office and it isn’t because the date just crept up on them. Nobody’s that dumb. If they had been serious about doing what Obama ran on they could have gotten it done as an economic imperative in the early heady months. And the Republicans would have had no choice but to vote for extending the middle class tax cuts a year and a half ago when the millionaire tax cut would have still been in place. The only reasonable explanation for not doing it is that the Dems never really wanted to decouple them in the first place.
No, they didn’t. A great deal of elected Democrats, enough to tip the balance, believe that the politics runs against them, they can talk themselves into seeing it as good policy, and most important, their lives and worldview is pretty well aligned with the millionaires they habitually interact with on a daily basis. Obama has shown no real will to buck that.
They call it the ruling class because it rules. And they don’t want to pay for the fiscal damage they’ve created. That’s why we are where we are today.
UPDATE: Sam Stein hearing the same things about worries of a cave.
UPDATE II: The White House doesn’t bother to lie about the vote in the House.
“The President continues to believe that extending middle class tax cuts is the most important thing we can do for our economy right now and he applauds the House for passing a permanent extension. But, because Republicans have made it clear that they won’t pass a middle class extension without also extending tax cuts for the wealthy, the President has asked Director Lew and Secretary Geithner to work with Congress to find a way forward. Those discussions started just yesterday and are continuing this afternoon. The talks are ongoing and productive, but any reports that we are near a deal in the tax cuts negotiations are inaccurate and premature.”




100 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Obama lied?
This is news, why?
It also has to do with the fact that rich people can buy political campaigns with a snap of the fingers. So long as there is no limit to campaign spending, this is what will obtain.
I’m all for letting them all expire. But if the so-called middle class tax cuts is a biggie for you, this showed it could be done. Especially since at this point in time I’m pretty sure that all of it will continue, they damn well better get most of the candy store for it. Which they won’t because there is one leader among the three, and the other two aren’t fit to wear her pumps.
It’s clear that the super wealthy would rather spend their ill-gotten gains on fighting tax increases that are only fair and just and would inure to the greater benefit of our nation as a whole. One has to wonder how much they spend to avoid paying their fair share of the taxes v. how much could be collected in taxes. After they get done paying off all of the politicians, how much do the zillionaires actually “save”??
It all comes down craven greed & rampant selfishness. Most distressing.
My “bet” is that the tax cut will remain for all concerned, thus meaning a big “loss” in revenue for the nation.
And THIS is why the vote Pelosi took today was Kabuki theater.
It. Never. Had. A. Chance. To. Become. Law.
Never.
It’s Pelosi trying to make Pelosi look like a real liberal when even Pelosi knows, this has ZERO chance of becoming law.
And like the Obama apologists, Pelosi now has plenty of apologists for her bullshit actions. I say bullshit actions because it’s bullshit to vote on a bill everyone knows has ZERO chance to become law unless there are other political reasons to do so. But there are no political reasons to do so now (you could’ve made that argument November 1, but not now). By the time 2012 rolls around, which is the next time any of these assholes face voters, NOBODY is going to remember this bullshit vote in the lameduck session of the last Congress.
Nobody.
What a bunch of bullshit. The fact is the Democratic Party, like the Republican Party, wants the cuts extended for the millionaires too. And if anyone still doesn’t believe that, it’s because they’re being blinded by partisan faith.
Judge them on what they DO, not what they say. Today’s vote was just a way of SAYING they don’t want to end the tax cuts for the rich, while what they’ll actually DO is…. extend the tax cuts for the rich.
I’m sure a bankster vote is worth way more than mine.
Great things pass in the House all the time.
The Senate is the gas chamber where all good bills die.
DDay, thanks for your usual incredible persistence and juggling fifty thousand breaking stories at the same time. Question on details: what is quickest way to get text of H.R. 4683 (4863?) which House just passed?
FYI: 3 GOP who voted YES were Ron Paul, Walter Jones and John Duncan. I saw one other flip YES to NO in waning minutes of the vote; I wonder who it was.
That’s not what Jane said earlier. She said it was kabuki because Pelosi scheduled a bill that would require 290 votes to pass, which she was guaranteed not to have, so therefore in the House what Pelosi was doing was all kabuki theater. Well, bullshit. It wasn’t kabuki in the House any more than the first healthcare bill or every single unemployment extension bill for the past two years were kabuki. The House does its work, once in a while, and we screw ourselves by calling it kabuki when they do what we want. We wanted this exact bill to pass — extend only middle class tax cuts. Pelosi did it. It’s bullshit to call that kabuki. She does not control the Senate, and Jane did not say it would be kabuki because the Senate would not pass it, at least not until her late update.
FWIW, Jim Moran (D-VA) is saying to let all of them expire: http://my.firedoglake.com/reglawyer/2010/12/02/a-message-from-congressman-jim-moran-d-va/
thomas.loc.gov
Top post on DKos right now over here:
That’s why ending the filibuster is so critical. Any Democratic Senator who in any way defends the filibuster (either by voting or by making public statements) should get a progressive primary opponent in their next election cycle.
Even third-party advocates should remember that you have two potential shots at any DINO Senator: once in the Democratic primary, and once in the general election.
I don’t give a shit what Jane said or didn’t say.
It’s me saying this is why it’s bullshit, and it IS bullshit. Talk to me when the end run occurs, and if the tax cuts for the rich aren’t passed, I’ll print this comment post out and eat it, while recording it with my webdam. This is a vote for show only. “See, we tried to only cut them for the middle class, really we did!!” When in reality, that is NOT what’s going to happen.
You want to reward them for taking a vote everyone on the planet knows will not become law, go ahead. You want to pay attention to what they say instead of what they do, fine, go ahead.
Because at the end of the day, they will pass an extension for the tax cuts for the wealthy, and they will do so with the support of Nancy Pelosi (who can, as speaker, block any bill from even coming up for a vote if she really wants to).
So, give them props for this bullshit if you want to. I’m not. I’ll still be with you on the issue though. As well as most likely other issues.
Even the HuffPost is calling this political maneuvering (ie: theater) -
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/02/house-passes-tax-cuts-for_n_791262.html
I have to kind of agree with Fractal here. My beef with Pelosi is why she didn’t do this in September if there was a way to get the vote she wanted without risking a motion to recommit.
Paraphrasing from Animal Farm: all pigs are created equal, but some pigs are more equal than others.
If it hasn’t been apparent since 2000, it sure as hell is obvious now. “We, The People”, do not matter, unless we are: 1. A multi-national corporation that contributes to the political campaigns of both Tweedledee (R) and Tweedledumb (D) or 2. A multi-millionaire that contributes to the political campaigns of both… you get the picture.
Unless “We The People” get organized politically, and soon, we the people and everyone who ain’t a multi-national corp or multi-millionaire will soon be “We The Fucked. And the more I see of this Kabuki the less i think the Democratic Party is capable of being our agent for organization and change.
Great Post, you guys sure are churning out alot of material today. I dont know about anyone else but I dont know if i can vote for another Democrat again. Of course that would leave me not voting cause theres no way i can vote for the Republicans. I certainly didnt think the President was going to turn out to be a republican . . .
“The Senate’s not touching this.”
It’s a Senate bill as a wrapper. The Senate will have to dispose of it some way. The House has helped the Senate eliminate as many procedural impediments as is in the power of the House to do.
My suggestion to Reid. (Of course, when has any Democrat listened to my suggestion.) Bring the House bill to a vote; the press will do the job of calling it the middle class tax cut although they might let the Republican boners cry about chickencrap procedure (“they forced us to vote against the middle class”). Have an up-er-down vote on the cloture calling it the vote on the bill; make it a recorded vote. If it fails, drop the whole thing and let all the tax cuts expire (the estate tax is in there as well).
Could someone please post a full list of the 20 House DINOs? (If you feel that any of the “No” voters were acting on principle, as a protest against Pelosi’s real or alleged kabuki performance, please note that for each of them.)
Exactly, in September, or October, or November 1st, this would’ve been a worthwhile exercise.
But the bottom line is SHE DIDN’T hold in September, did she?
Watch what they DO, not what they say.
Nice to see the veal pen is still getting fed…
The vote on extending only middle class tax cuts was on H.R. 4853, not one of those other bill numbers. According to the House vote docket, as of this minute that vote is second from the top of the list (Roll Call 604). Two other procedural votes on the same bill were Roll Calls 596 & 597 at same link.
But text of H.R. 4853 is not yet revised to show today’s action, according to the Library of Congress (LOC) bill summary.
yup I’m sure we agree on the substance, I read all your posts when I’m on a thread.
yeah, what took her so long? She got the headline from DKos that we were begging her to get, but she lost the chance to make use of it before the midterms: “Republicans Vote Against Middle Class Tax Cuts.”
And I’m going to just stand doubt on the Senate can’t do this. If Pelosi can find a way to make this an up and down vote, why the hell can’t Reid. In the maze that is Congressional rules, there is a way.
I remember being told over and over, that the very method that passed the health insurance reform manure couldn’t possibly be used – we would need to pass fillibuster. So I’ll just sit and wait for someone with more knowledge then I to prove that Reid just isn’t willing to do it.
And yes, they should just let them die. And yes, if they weren’t they should have pulled this before the midterms and used it rather then wait.
And yes, everyone should be retrained to call them the Obama tax cut and that everyone gets it, just that rich want EXTRA. But that is a whole other argument.
Isn’t calling this Kabuki premature, until there’s some indication Pelosi will actually agree to introducing one? Or are we saying the Dems wont filibuster an extension in the Senate next term?
Maybe Pelosi felt that in September there wasn’t a way to pressure the Senate to vote on the measure passed through, and now there is.
I tend to agree with you and Fractal about Pelosi. I’ve now seen enough to agree with Jane about O, but I’m still willing to give Pelosi the benefit of the doubt, and I was a bit taken aback by Jane’s harsh attack on her. Even in a DINO-ridden environment, there is still some value in solidarity. And it now appears that Jane was wrong on some of her facts; 290 votes weren’t needed to pass the House bill after all. It did pass, and that remains true even if Jane and OldFatGuy turn out to be right about the ultimate significance of this.
I accept most of your argument except this piece:
Bad comparison, IMHO. Correct me if I’m wrong but the examples you cite had some chance of passage. The chances may have been small but not zero. In the case of this bill, there is no chance of passage. That’s my definition of Kabuki. YMMV
In the interest of comity, would I be correct in saying that you may agree with Jane that it was Kabuki — but not for the precise reason she stated?
They are in the Roll Call (vote number 604).
“Sometimes I wonder if we shall ever grow up in our politics and say definite things which mean something, or whether we shall always go on using generalities to which everyone can subscribe, and which mean very little.”
When do we round up the banksters and plutocrats and put them on trial before a People’s Court?
I would suggest that “things” are even worse than you suggest, PW.
The ruling classes can thumb their noses at the rest of us and say, “Nyah, nyah, nyah, you can’t touch us, not only do we own the political system, but the legal system as well.”
The rule of law is dead.
“Things” will continue to worsen, ever more rapidly, until “the people” have had … enough, then, if the demagogues hold sway (as likely they shall, if Prince Obama Bubba has his way …) “the people” will be exhorted to vanquish the other “people” … and the class-war will be transformed into a civil-war … and the ruling classes will triumph once again.
If “the people” do not seek and find solidarity, then they will tear each other apart under the watchful eyes of the police and the “militia” … and the “Harvard Boyz and Gurlz” will cheer.
“The people” must hang together, united in common cause and common understanding, they must seek bread AND roses, else they will, as Franklin once warned, hang alone.
DW
and to Sebastos @30
I think Jane was entirely correct to call out Pelosi & Obama last night on MSNBC. That was before anyone (even the genius David Waldman) knew about the procedural maneuver Pelosi had up her sleeve. I totally agree with Jane about Obama, and many, many others on the many threads here at the Lake today who are fed up with our so-called Democratic prez. I also agree with Jane that Obama and Pelosi have a duty to exercise moral leadership to protect the population and that our people are being destroyed before our eyes. At Christmas time fer chrissake. Failing to extend unemployment benefits will be the ultimate disgusting Scrooge move: not only selfish and cruel, but self-destructive for the wealthy, because pushing another several million Americans into poverty at the end of the year, and into foreclosures, threatens the very capitalist system that the greedy rich prey upon.
But we have power on the Net because we are precise and focused and we collaborate relentlessly until we get our message right. And it is the wrong message right now (today, Thursday afternoon, Dec. 2) to say that Pelosi did not try honestly to do the best she could to make sure tax cuts were extended only for the middle class. We want to claim victory and demand the same courage from the Senate.
Yay! We Won! Republican assholes voted against middle class tax cuts but the House passed them anyway!
Demo-zombies like Digby always begin their analysis with the presumption that the democrats are congenitally well-intentioned and contort their reasoning from there. According to Digby, almost all their faults are based upon fears, not bald-faced, cynical deception. And yet the dems have sold out to corporate amerika time and time again … damn near as bad as the republicans, and effectively more so on the health care corporate bailout debacle … but that’s only becoz they are afraid. Poor things … they mean well.
And somehow these cowards continually summon up the courage to defy the clear majority of people’s will .. see public option and tax cuts … despite running on the exact opposite to get into office. And once those pesky elections are over, they vote in favor of their own economic class’ interests and against the promises that they brazenly made in front of crowds of thousands of people to get elected. Oh Lord, the poor things are such cowards … such shrinking violets.
And in the end, folks like Digby that complain about the dems’ “cowardice” will still exhort us to continue supporting those poor, bullied democrats on the ridiculous premise that at least they mean well. Bullshit!
Z
Well, just remember, at the end of the day, if this bill, as I feel quite sure, doesn’t become law, the only way a new one which includes the tax cuts for the rich would become law is if NANCY PELOSI allows it to. Because as speaker, I’m pretty sure she can decide what even gets a vote and what doesn’t. So if she really is against the tax cuts being extended for the rich, then she can block it in her role as speaker.
She won’t though. And the excuse she’ll use is that the new bill will include an extension of unemployment benefits. They are always, ALWAYS, looking for some way to do what they really want while making it look like they’re doing it despite their opposition.
And yes, the unemployment benefits should be extended. But not if the price is the continued looting of our treasury by the rich. They’re the WHOLE REASON we’re in this mess. They’re the reason there is so much unemployment. It’s because of those uber wealth MOTU’s that the financial crisis occurred. And now, in order to extend unemployment benefits we’re supposed to give them their tax cuts???
I’m sure Jane and most others will be on board at that point. I won’t. This whole thing is disgusting bullshit. It’s class war, and right now only one class is fighting it. I don’t mind losing, but losing without fighting is bullshit.
Here’s a preliminary list of the twenty Democratic “No” voters, compiled from the roll call at the source you cite:
Baird
Boren
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Doggett
Herseth Sandlin
Klein (FL)
Matheson
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Minnick
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Peterson
Pomeroy
Scott (VA)
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Visclosky
And the following are the four Democrats who didn’t vote:
Berry
DeFazio
Delahunt
Hastings (FL)
Some of these, like Walt Minnick (ID-01), are known lame ducks. I’d like to narrow this down to a list of those still in the House (if any), with their full names and district identifiers. Every one of them should get a primary opponent in 2012. That includes the four non-voters, unless they were just in an auto accident or have some other very good excuse.
Thanks for that.
Let me ask what you think the connection is between what Pelosi did — assuming her intentios were pure — and the likelihood of extending unemployment benefits. Is it positive? Negative? No connection?
And one other question: do you think her move was coordinated with the WH? Or might it have seemed unhelpful to them?
An excellent distillation of the “bullshit”, Zeabow.
DW
I think a few of these, like Jim Moran and Gwen Moore and Bobby Scott, voted this way because they said publicly they’d rather all the tax cuts expire.
Thank you. The kabuki queen is overrated by so many of the demo-zombie groupies. She ain’t no liberal, she consistently gave rahm the keys to treat the house like it was his play thing. She’s absolutely deplorable.
Z
Your last paragraph, OFG, says it all, most truly and well.
DW
it’s more than 20 minutes til Wapner….more like NEVER.
it’s pretty naive to think that House members don’t know exactly how the Senate will or will not act, on every bill the House does or does not pass. we call it “The Village” for a reason. this mostly Kabuki, the cover House dems need so they can say when the Senate fails to act in the right way, “see! we tried! you should still support the dem party! we’re on your side, Little People.” and in truth, there are still a small subset that really do, some of the black and latina women in the house, some others… but in the end, what matters is the extension for the rich, and that will pass. the media will rewrite history and talk about “balance” and “compromise” and most americans -too busy looking for one or too stressed from having to work three- jobs will look up in disgust and wonder how an extra 300 or 600$ in april or may is going to pay for their heating bills all winter long, assuming they aren’t in trouble with the IRS already for unpaid student loans or other draconian measures which generally mean the more poor never actually see these “refunds” or “tax reductions” in the first place. and let’s not forget: the bean counters who work for MegaCorp USA? already rubbing their hands with glee at this “tax break” for “middle class” americans. it’s called “raising the rent” and because consumer americans don’t have pricing power or the ability to fix markets, we pay a tax in the form of higher prices on necessities every single frakking time a ‘rebate’ like this is awarded to us by our congresscritters.
don’t even get me started on how tax “breaks” do nothing for the unemployed, the self employed, or for those who need a great deal more help than a couple of hundred bucks to hang on to their upside down homes, or pay for expensive surgery, or put their kids in day care so they can take that full time job, or…
It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favour of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion.
- Dean William R. Inge
Becoz she doesn’t want the tax cuts for the rich to actually expire!
Z
Obama in “I’m well to the right of my hero Ronald Reagan and somewhat to the right of my predecessor” shock.
The tax cuts should be allowed to expire for all, period. Then the onus would be on the Republicans to try and pass a tax cut for the wealthy while millions are out of work. Of course, this would only happen if the Democratic Party platform actually meant something, which it doesn’t. It should be clear to everyone by now (except for brain dead Obama apologists) that neither party gives a bloody damn about us. That’s why all this pleading with the Democrats to do the right thing is just a waste of time. We should be directing our energies, money and resources into organized civil disobedience, strikes, marches and the formation of a third party. The system is too corrupt to be fixed from the inside.
Pelosi’s job is getting legislation passed by the House. She did that. Without any crap amendments. She is not responsible for the disaster in the Senate. That’s all Reid’s fault for not eliminating the filibuster at the start of the last session.
This session is over in a couple of weeks. I would be very surprised to see another tax bill brought up. This is the one. There won’t be another one. Whatever deal Obama is cooking up with the Republicans is for the next session, when the Republicans can write whatever bill they want. I expect it will not be limited to the full Bush cuts, but will include a bunch of additional cuts, but that remains to be seen.
Hopefully, House Democrats will vote against that bill, but it will pass with Republican and a few blue dog votes. They will be able to go back to their constituents and say “I voted for just the middle class cuts, but against the budget-busting cuts for the wealthy”. That’s what this vote was for, to help provide cover for two years from now.
poverty at the end of the year, and into foreclosures, threatens the very capitalist system that the greedy rich prey upon.
sorry, you overestimate the importance of the american consumer market. sure, a lot of lower level members of the Franchise will suffer as this market continues to implode. but the real money? let’s face it kids: america can’t compete with an emerging middle class market of half a billion people in Chindia, where consumer protection laws are considerably more lax. trust me when i say the MOTU class has paid the best and brightest of the bean counters to analyze this. their conclusion: destroy and enslave the once Free people of north america, and strip the continent of its natural resources while distracting the native population with illegal and legal drugs and glowing box devices. by the time enough of us realize what is going on, it will be too late and our supersized domestic security forces will be given reign to indulge in their nazi fantasies on those of us who complain too loudly. meh, all empires fall. it’s just our turn.
Hear! Hear! Hear!
To me why this is a test case for Obama is that all the previous excuses do not apply–unlike all the previous fights this Congress, we win if nothing happens. Someone has to realize that’s a strong bargaining chip, and the sooner it gets towards adjournment the stronger–not weaker–our hand becomes.
If we have any extension at all, I want to see the Repugs pay dearly for it.
I know that the Repugs will hold a lot of things dear to us–unemployment insurance extension at the top–hostage too. But there’s reconciliation to get around that one.
(Though the Dims don’t listen to me either).
stewartm
Then they’re dumber than we think they are. It.Won’t.Matter.
As the current Majority Speaker, she could certainly use her position to publicly say “I will not allow this bill to come to a vote in the House again.” This would hamstring the Senate in making changes, and force the Rethuglicans to either lose the fight on their merritts or whimper and pass it.
If Pelosi doesn’t let the bill come back to the House, the Senate has to leave it unchanged to pass it. If they don’t pass it, there will be hell to pay for everyone, Rs and Ds.
dave dayen
in the earlier post you wrote that Connolly and Perriello voted no.
They voted yes! Please update that story before their offices get a needless storm of calls.
.
In a just world, perhaps. In our world, not so much.
Thanks for this. I’m glad to see Peters voted YEA this time around.
I believe you are referring to the test vote that was taken first. My congresscritter voted no and I called his offices. This time he voted yes so maybe lots of people called.
Here is an updated list of the twenty Democratic “No” voters, with full names and district identifiers:
Baird, Brian (WA-03)
Boren, Dan (OK-02)
Dahlkemper, Kathy (PA-03)
Davis, Artur (AL-07)
Doggett, Lloyd (TX-25)
Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie (SD-AL)
Klein, Ron (FL-22)
Matheson, Jim (UT-02)
McIntyre, Mike (NC-07)
McMahon, Michael E. (NY-13)
McNerney, Jerry (CA-11)
Minnick, Walt (ID-01)
Moore, Gwen (WI-04)
Moran, Jim (VA-08)
Peterson, Collin C. (MN-07)
Pomeroy, Earl (ND-AL)
Scott, Robert C. “Bobby” (VA-03)
Taylor, Gene (MS-04)
Thompson, Mike (CA-01)
Visclosky, Peter (IN-01)
And the following are the four Democrats who didn’t vote:
Berry, Marion (AR-01)
DeFazio, Peter (OR-04)
Delahunt, William (MA-10)
Hastings, Alcee L. (FL-23)
How many of those “No” votes are real lame ducks pissed that the vote didn’t come before the election? No, wait a minute; they are all Blue Dogs. Wait a minute. They are both.
On the phone with McNerny’s local office right now, looking for an explanation. I’m on hold. The aide is actually trying to find an explanation for me :)
Obama will cave in, you can take that to the bank, run by the banksters.
This is a revised list, without the three Representatives you mentioned, who can be given the benefit of the doubt. I’ve also removed known lame duck Walt Minnick:
Baird, Brian (WA-03)
Boren, Dan (OK-02)
Dahlkemper, Kathy (PA-03)
Davis, Artur (AL-07)
Doggett, Lloyd (TX-25)
Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie (SD-AL)
Klein, Ron (FL-22)
Matheson, Jim (UT-02)
McIntyre, Mike (NC-07)
McMahon, Michael E. (NY-13)
McNerney, Jerry (CA-11)
Peterson, Collin C. (MN-07)
Pomeroy, Earl (ND-AL)
Taylor, Gene (MS-04)
Thompson, Mike (CA-01)
Visclosky, Peter (IN-01)
And the following are the four Democrats who didn’t vote:
Berry, Marion (AR-01)
DeFazio, Peter (OR-04)
Delahunt, William (MA-10)
Hastings, Alcee L. (FL-23)
I would appreciate hearing about:
1. Any errors in this list
2. Any further Representatives on the list who are lame ducks
3. Any further Representatives on the list for whom there is credible prima facie evidence that they may have had principled reasons for voting “No” or not voting.
The two are not mutually exclusive, if they are willing to use reconciliation on the extension of unemployment benefits.
BUT–and it pains me to say this–if forced to choose between the two, I agree with you—I would rather see all the tax cuts expire. That is the better outcome. There will be suffering, but there will be even greater suffering if the extension of the budget-busting tax cuts becomes the justification for the next phase of the assault, which is passing anything akin to the Catfood commission’s proposals.
stewartm
My question:
“Why did Congressman McNerny vote No on middle-class tax cut extensions today?”
Staffer’s response (not the original person that put me on hold, another person took the phone call after a few minutes)
“That’s news to us. Can I have your name and number, I’ll look into this for you and give you a call back?”
I wonder if she’ll call…
great questions! Or as Sebastos likes me to say great questions!
Taking last ones first, I have no idea how the White House (WH) deals with the House now that Rahm is gone, Axe is on the way out the door, and Plouffe is either not all the way hired yet, or is just settling in. There was no change that I know of after the midterms in WH Congressional liaison staff, who were extremely experienced folks the last I read about them.
What about unemployment insurance (UI)? I like to think the “99′ers” in Pennsylvania were decisive in knocking Arlen Specter out in the Dem primary (folks whose 99 weeks of UI had expired). Jane and Marcy and DDay have reported on the exact numbers of millions of unemployed, and I have seen breakdowns by state and/or congressional district somewhere. Krugman has posted several columns and blogs about the dire economic impact of not extending UI. There is a massive need for extended benefits.
Does Pelosi’s display of guts & command of the House, combined with millions and millions of needy unemployed, combined with her master-minding passage of tax cuts for only the middle class over united GOP opposition, make it more likely that Pelosi can again command the House to pass something that millions of workers need? The question seems to answer itself. But I don’t mean it as a rhetorical question.
How do we measure the likely impact of particular House votes on future House votes? Do we judge by the standards of the MSM, which called the vote just taken on H.R. 4853 a “vain effort” (NYT) or “mostly symbolic” (WaPo)? Both outlets say the House bill has little or no chance of passage in the Senate, because it will require 60 votes to avoid a filibuster. But NYT says Reid is gonna bring up the House bill as quickly as possible along with Schumer’s proposal to raise taxes only on incomes of a million or more.
If everything depends on beating the 60-vote threshold in the Senate, presumably nothing will get done, including extending UI, unless the WH pulls a miraculous rabbit out of a hat. But we still want to see the Dems force the GOP to filibuster tax cuts for the middle class and show the GOP having a temper tantrum over raising taxes on the wealthy.
There’s time enough for her to say that if/when Reid can bring it to the floor. We are nearing the end game for this session, and there are a very limited number of votes remaining.
The Republicans are on record as saying “no action on anything until we deal with taxes”. OK, dudes, here’s your tax bill. Vote it up or down, there is no time to do another one. If you want to filibuster it, OK, no tax bills this session, now let’s talk about the START treaty.
I see your point. I just think Nancy should be trumpeting this today. Why isn’t she in front of the press yelling “we passed middle class tax cuts, I challenge the Senate to do this same! Take this up tomorrow so we can move on to START or DADT or UI extensions!”?
great work! lightning turnaround! roadmap for primary season starting in (counting down …..) 12, 11, 10, 9 …. months.
Well, maybe she will. Isn’t the House still in session? Has the nightly news cycle started? Maybe she had to pee or something. I mean, this stuff just passed like an hour or so ago…
this is real important and I agree with you. also agree with 4cdave @51 and @68. and you again @69.
These tactical moves are now all possible only because of what the House just did. What stewartm said @53 is very important: we win if nothing happens; progressive policies win if no tax bills are passed, because the wealthy do NOT get their tax cut and WILL not get one in the next Congress if even a single Dem Senator has the cojones to filibuster.
moran is neither a blue dog nor a lame duck. His comment posted earlier is persuasive. It will be interesting to see if he sticks by his guns as this plays out.
The other thing is, I don’t think Pelosi went off the reservation, here. This has to have been coordinated with the WH, and must mesh somehow with the negotiations they are holding.
If they could get this thing passed in the Senate, somehow (and, no, I don’t think they can), it would greatly strengthen the negotiating position with the Republicans for the next Congress, since they will be throwing one tax cut proposal after another over the wall to the Senate. Without the political cover of middle-class cuts, the rest look like a bald upper-class money grab.
did you go to dinner? DDay has yet another post up (19 today?) giving excellent details on economic impact of extending unemployment insurance (UI). Only a few comments so far, but he might explain over here how WH plans to pull this particular rabbit out of its hat.
For myself, personally, I’d like everything to expire. My wife and I still qualify for the earned income tax credit, so we get everything back when we file anyway.
For the millions of families that fall into the range of “middle-class”, though, I could see how this would hurt. I feel it’s important to pass this particular bill to ease their pain.
If it takes extending the cuts for folks making over $250k to keep the cuts for the middle class, I say let em all fail. We’re in the same camp on that one.
You’ve got a great point here.
I happen to agree. We can’t afford the middle-class cuts (at $3 trillion over 10 years) either. However, it would help those who are still working. If you are going to cut, that’s the place to do it.
At this point in history, the US can’t afford any tax cuts of any kind for anyone ever again period. If you want a tax cut, it needs to be paid for with a tax increase somewhere else, specifically on the wealthy and big business. This one should get a $3 trillion offsetting tax hike on the wealthy (above and beyond letting theirs expire).
Another revised list of Democrats voting “No” or not voting, purged of known lame ducks and those with known prima-facie principled reasons for their actions. Only seven “No” votes and two non-voters remained. To my surprise, McNerney turned out to be among the lame ducks! Please post to correct this if I’m wrong. While researching this, I was also struck by how many of the lame ducks were not defeated, but were retiring of their own volition. I suppose they’re currying favor with their corporate masters for their retirement.
The remaining “No” votes after the purge:
Boren, Dan (OK-02)
Doggett, Lloyd (TX-25)
Matheson, Jim (UT-02)
McIntyre, Mike (NC-07)
Peterson, Collin C. (MN-07)
Thompson, Mike (CA-01)
Visclosky, Peter (IN-01)
Remaining non-voters after the purge:
DeFazio, Peter (OR-04)
Hastings, Alcee L. (FL-23)
Once again, I would appreciate hearing about:
1. Any errors in this list
2. Any further Representatives on the list who are lame ducks
3. Any further Representatives on the list for whom there is credible prima facie evidence that they may have had principled reasons for voting “No” or not voting.
from TPM :
[Re-post: I tried to edit this to correct a minor error, and a bug in the "Edit" function messed up the formatting.]
Another revised list of Democrats voting “No” or not voting, purged of known lame ducks and those with known prima-facie principled reasons for their actions. Only seven “No” votes and two non-voters remained. To my surprise, McNerney turned out to be among the lame ducks! Please post to correct this if I’m wrong. While researching this, I was also struck by how many of the lame ducks were not defeated, but were retiring of their own volition. I suppose they’re currying favor with their corporate masters for their retirement years.
The remaining “No” votes after the purge:
Boren, Dan (OK-02)
Doggett, Lloyd (TX-25)
Matheson, Jim (UT-02)
McIntyre, Mike (NC-07)
Peterson, Collin C. (MN-07)
Thompson, Mike (CA-01)
Visclosky, Peter (IN-01)
Remaining non-voters after the purge:
DeFazio, Peter (OR-04)
Hastings, Alcee L. (FL-23)
Once again, I would appreciate hearing about:
1. Any errors in this list
2. Any further Representatives on the list who are lame ducks
3. Any further Representatives on the list for whom there is credible prima facie evidence that they may have had principled reasons for voting “No” or not voting.
And she did!
McNerney wanted tax cuts for everyone, and has said publicly in the past that he would not vote for a bill that raised taxes on anyone in our current economic climate.
Just an FYI, that has been a long standing bug at FDL – all you have to do is refresh your screen after an edit and all the original formatting does return intact
Unless I am misunderstanding you–no. I’m one of those “middle class” people you speak of, and my tax bill will increase about $40 per paycheck. Not fun, but hardly a killer to my budget either. Nor will I doubt letting them go up for anyone else making more than me (and paying more) will it kill. For taxpayers more towards the bottom end–$10, or $5, or even less a paycheck.
What *will* kill everyone are cuts to the entitlements, a la Catfood variety. Conservatives have been playing this game for the past 30 years–slash taxes, then raise a hue and cry about the deficit to justify gutting the safety net. The huge Reagan-Bush deficits are not a bug but a feature, designed to further their ultimate plans. By contrast, any tax increases that make the deficit smaller serves to protect the safety net.
And for letting them all expire killing the economy–the CBO chart has continuing the Bush tax cuts at the very bottom of its possible stimulus methods.
stewartm
I’m gonna check on McNerney. This is just outstanding work you are doing in the heat of all the rest of us talkin strateegery about what the next votes should be/could be.
Yes. Thanks for all that.
I was kicking around the idea earlier that there could be common ground here.
Having these tax rates set on a cycle, maybe 5 years or 10 years, would allow these to pay for themselves. The cuts would exist outside of normal budgetary concerns because at the completion of each on/off cycle, the ledger sheet would be zero. (Not taking into account economic growth, as salaries tend to rise faster than inflation for the top 2%, right?)
I know this is political madness and probably doesn’t make much fiscal sense. Just some numbers I was toying with in my head earlier.
As of Nov. 10, McNerney’s website was claiming that he won re-election: link.
NYT confirmed his win on Nov. 24. In fact, McNerney was the reason the Dems claimed a clean sweep of every California House race in which a Dem was incumbent, according to NYT!
Sebastos, sorry my @88 was in response to your @81.
This was the plan all along, Mission Accomplished. If we allow this clown to run for reelection without a serious primary challenge then we are just as bad as he is. Final point, hopefully he will at least get unemployment benefits extended for the same amount of time that the tax cuts are extended. I wldnt hold my breath on it though.
I see that now – it’s just a problem with the Preview function when used with Edit, not with the final form of the edited message. (Incidentally, I’ve also observed that hyperlinks in Preview, with or without Edit, don’t work, but they do work in the final posted message.)
what are the PVI ratings of those 7 districts? Are these folks the best we can get in R+11 districts?
You said:
Get your fact straight. I’ve been saying just that for days:
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/11/30/why-is-nancy-pelosi-making-house-democrats-walk-the-plank-again/
Moreover, major media outlets are now calling it symbolic, meaningless and political kabuki.
She’s made a mockery of the House with this vote, and if possible, reduced the power of the body even more.
Well, now we know. That doesn’t sound like a “principled reason” – at least, not the kind of principle that would justify leaving someone’s name off the list. And Fractal has confirmed that he won re-election, so he doesn’t get exempted as a lame duck either, and he goes back on the list.
The remaining “No” votes:
Boren, Dan (OK-02)
Doggett, Lloyd (TX-25)
Matheson, Jim (UT-02)
McIntyre, Mike (NC-07)
McNerney, Jerry (CA-11)
Peterson, Collin C. (MN-07)
Thompson, Mike (CA-01)
Visclosky, Peter (IN-01)
Remaining non-voters:
DeFazio, Peter (OR-04)
Hastings, Alcee L. (FL-23)
As usual, I would appreciate hearing about:
1. Any errors in this list
2. Any further Representatives on the list who are lame ducks
3. Any further Representatives on the list for whom there is credible prima facie evidence that they may have had principled reasons for voting “No” or not voting.
Pelosi …” has made a mockery of the House with this vote, and if possible, reduced the power of the body even more.”
Precisely so, Jane, precisely so.
DW
Good point about “the best we can get”. I’ve added the PVI ratings, from:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2010/House/house.html
The revised list of non-principled, non-lame-duck, Democratic “No” votes:
Boren, Dan (OK-02, R+14)
Doggett, Lloyd (TX-25, D+6)
Matheson, Jim (UT-02, R+15)
McIntyre, Mike (NC-07, R+5)
McNerney, Jerry (CA-11, R+1)
Peterson, Collin C. (MN-07, R+5)
Thompson, Mike (CA-01, D+12)
Visclosky, Peter (IN-01, D+8)
The non-voters:
DeFazio, Peter (OR-04, D+2)
Hastings, Alcee L. (FL-23, D+28)
Note that while some of these districts are indeed heavily Republican-leaning, by no means all of them are. Indeed, only two (OK-02 and UT-02) have double-digit Republican PVIs. (I wonder if Alcee Hastings, in a D+28 district, might have abstained on principle? If anyone can confirm this hypothesis prima facie, please let me know so I can remove him from the list.)
As usual, I would appreciate hearing about:
1. Any errors in this list
2. Any further Representatives on the list who are lame ducks
3. Any further Representatives on the list for whom there is credible prima facie evidence that they may have had principled reasons for voting “No” or not voting.
I agree that no one’s going to remember this vote.
It might have made sense as a prelude to letting all the tax cuts expire: “We tried, but Republicans wouldn’t let us extend for just the bottom 98%…”
Sorry I missed your post, I was dawdling over at Naked Capitalism. I critiqued your kabuki posting from mid-day today (not 11/30) which seemed to focus on Pelosi’s supposed error in putting a bill on the floor which needed 290 votes. Pelosi dodged that super-majority requirement, so I would not call that part of her tactics kabuki, if anyone asked me. The lede of your post on 11/30 also focused on the assumed need for 290 votes.
You called it right in terms of what the MSM would say about the House vote, even though it was a completely different House vote that what everyone thought it would be a few days ago. We’ll find out in a few weeks whether Sam Stein’s prognostications about the Senate turn out to be correct.
Our constitution itself is intended to be flexible, modifiable document by our Founding fathers. Thats why we have amendments when super majority of our country decides it needs to be amended.
One cannot make Taxation for any Section or all sections Permanent by any logical stretch of imagination. That by itself shows what Kabuki theatrics means.
Liar in Chief.
Don’t ever ask for my vote again.