A new poll from the National Journal shows that the principle of raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans by letting the Bush tax cuts expire remains extremely popular, even as some Democrats show trepidation about the idea.
A new United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll shows that only 26 percent of the public wants to see all of the tax breaks created during the George W. Bush administration, which are set to expire at year’s end, extended for at least another year. And only 18 percent want the tax breaks across all income levels made permanent, the position taken by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney [...]
In the poll, 47 percent of respondents said they wanted to see the tax breaks extended only for those earning less than $250,000. Eighteen percent said they prefer that all the tax breaks simply expire, which would result in higher taxes across the income spectrum.
The 18% support for letting all the tax cuts expire equals the 18% support for extending all the tax cuts permanently. And yet the emphasis in Washington on these two poles of the debate is anything but equal.
Meanwhile, the plurality supports letting the tax cuts above $250,000 expire. This mirrors the position of the Obama White House and Americans for Tax Fairness, the coalition that has sprouted up around the issue. It does not mirror Nancy Pelosi’s contention that “middle-class” tax cuts include up to $1 million in annual income.
But at the same time as this support for the extension was being relayed, conservative Democrats in the Senate were wavering on whether or not they would allow the tax cuts to expire at all.
At least seven Democratic senators have declined to rule out supporting a temporary extension of the Bush-era income tax rates, breaking with party leaders who have called for letting the rates expire for people earning more than $1 million per year.
Democrats running for reelection, such as Sens. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), have declined to endorse their leadership’s call for a tax increase on wealthy families.
Instead, they want Congress to pass a broad package that would cut spending and reform the tax code, which they argue would inject new confidence into the private sector.
“I would much prefer dealing with the tax code, with all the expenditures, in a bigger package similar to the Simpson-Bowles [deficit reduction] proposal,” Tester said. “If we can do that and we can roll out a big package that is significant, then we can do something with the tax rate from a reforming-it standpoint and do some things that really get our deficit and debt under control.”
Manchin sounded the same theme.
“I’m totally for the Bowles-Simpson [plan] and will continue to work for Bowles-Simpson. We need to revamp the system and I think Bowles-Simpson is the pragmatic way to do it.”
They don’t seem to realize that Bowles-Simpson would actually let the Bush tax cuts expire over $250,000. It’s good for them to abstractly reference some kind of deficit reduction plan that allows them to avoid specifics. But if this is being done for purposes of re-election, the same admakers who would hit these Senators for raising taxes would be able to hit them for calling for the same increased taxes in Bowles-Simpson. So this is a fool’s errand.
Mark Pryor, Jim Webb, Claire McCaskill, Bill Nelson and Ben Nelson similarly would not rule out a full extension. This runs in direct contrast to polling and would seem to be based entirely in ideology.




18 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
What, are they afraid Limbaugh’s gonna demagogue them as tax-and-spend liberals? Too late — that ship sailed years ago.
David, you don’t understand: the goal isn’t to reduce the deficit, it’s to enact Simpleton-Bowles or, preferably, even something more draconian. There’s only one item on the agenda: complete the gutting of the safety net and the destruction of the middle class.
which is of course the way to frame the statement just the way our opponents want us to frame it, and just the way to insure it loses support
“as polls show the rich are paying to little”
“as polls show the rich are taking advantage of the lower class”
“as polls show the rich are getting away with having everyone else pay their bills”
but of course, thanks to authors like david, we’LL keep using the terms our opposition want us to use
Why has everyone conviently stopped calling them Tax Cuts For The Rich?
If there’s to have been any honesty over the last 10 years by people calling them Tax Cuts For The Rich, all of the tax cuts must expire.
Anyone now acknowledging that there’s a $250,000 dividing line, that the 25% tax cuts above this line were for the rich and the 75% below this line were not, then they’ve been telling a 10 year long lie.
Let them all expire.
Conservadem opposition is simply the self serving path. They do not want to raise taxes on themselves and their friends (read doners).
The fact that they so readily reach for the Obama supplied cover of Simpson Bowles is evidence of their patrician preferences.
Hang on there Alan.
Canwe keep them for people making, say……around……$68,431.90???
If they are really worried about raising taxes on the working and middle class there is a simple fix. Raise the personal exemption. This could also eliminate that destructive payroll tax cut (even though like Simpson and Bowles its stated purpose and its real purpose are vastly different), and as a plus even hedge fund managers would get their extra few dollars. They could raise the exemption so that it mirrors poverty level in the US or they could even make it match what all those socialist European nations do. But that alone would give most of the middle class their tax cut, make it for everyone and stop the supposed stimulative damage (because we all know damn well there is no stimulus coming from the Waltons and the Romneys and the Dimons that they wouldn’t be doing even if they were paying Clinton rates).
And as a plus they could say they are simplifying the tax code…
We will not see meaningfully higher tax rates on the richest soon, as they own and operate the political class.
Would someone compile a list of those in the “Democratic” Party who aren’t actually “Conservative Dems”. The entire party has moved so far right that the term has become redundant.
Polls indicated the public wanted a public option in health care, and see where that got us.
Even if this poll is 100% accurate (and it’s pretty close), who gives a shit? Certainly not the 1% and their hired staff called federal Representatives & Senators.
The
whoreslobbiests,courtesanspols &greedy crookstitans of business stopped giving a crap about the US populace long about 30+ years ago.They’re just more obvious in their disdain of the serfs these days.
Polls, schmolls. Someone gets paid to do a poll because it’s part of the Kabuki Show “tradition” and gives owners of the
various propoganda outlets“media” something to write/say.As poll shows public wants less welfare for the rich.
You may or may not be aware: but, Rep. Nancy Pelosi wants tax cuts for middle-class(ish)Americans. Well, if the middle-class is still making $250,000 to $1,000,000 a year!
Call her and let her know if you support her wishes…202-225-4965. Without your calls and comments, she will push for more tax cuts for the rich.
:-)
The only way I’ll find it fair is to do unto others, but not unto me.
It’s all very odd. On the one hand, so many of us admit that politics is controlled by those who are able to donate the millions necessary to get elected to Congress or the White House. On the other hand, we pretend that public opion somehow matters to these same politicians.
Or, what onitgoes said @ 11.
so very true.
s̶t̶r̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶l̶i̶k̶̶e̶ ̶i̶t̶s̶ ̶h̶o̶t
Save your time and money. Pelosi will sell us out whether we call her or not. She’s the daughter of a corrupt Maryland politician and knows whose support she values. Hint: we don’t matter.
“Conservative Democrats”, also known as “Democrats”.
By the way, Mr. Dayen, there is no debate over whether the Bush Tax Cuts should expire because they already expired, in 2010.