Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid reacted in agreement to President Obama’s call for a one-year extension of the Bush tax cuts up to $250,000 of income, but he pointedly did not announce a scheduling of a vote on the proposal, probably because members of the Democratic caucus disagree and would rather extend all the tax cuts.
Here’s the statement from Reid, after Obama’s announcement this morning in the Rose Garden:
I agree with President Obama that we should extend tax cuts for all American families up to the first $250,000 of income immediately. This will protect middle-class families and allow us to reduce our deficit in a responsible manner. Democrats and Republicans should be able to agree that protecting the middle class is the most important priority, so Republicans should stop holding these middle-class tax cuts hostage to extract more reckless giveaways for millionaires and billionaires.
I will be discussing the next steps in the Senate with my caucus in the coming days. Republicans have claimed they want to reduce our deficit; in the weeks ahead, they will have a chance to do so by joining Democrats to vote to extend tax cuts for all middle class American families on the first $250,000 of their income.
Emphasis mine. Reid commits not to holding a vote, but merely to discussing next steps. He’s constrained by the fact that several members of the Democratic caucus won’t welcome taking this vote. Earlier this year, on votes like the Buffett rule, which acts as a de facto tax increase for millionaires by setting a minimum effective tax rate for them, Senate Democrats struggled to maintain a majority. Members like Ben Nelson and Joe Manchin seem ideologically opposed to raising taxes on anyone, even millionaires, and almost certainly on those making over $250,000 a year. Meanwhile, Democrats in tough races in Republican-leaning states in November, like Jon Tester and Claire McCaskill, will have to weigh this vote against the political implications.
These calculations may exist in isolated circumstances on the Republican side as well, particularly for Senators like Scott Brown in Massachusetts. But by and large, Republicans will vote en masse against splitting the tax cuts, no matter how it’s framed. And conservative Democrats will tie themselves in knots over whether allowing taxes on the rich to rise, a popular position, is politically advantageous to them. Keep in mind this is as much about who these Senators raise money from as it is the implications of the vote in raw electoral terms. Donors tend not to like it when you vote to raise their taxes.
This obviously makes it more difficult for the President to gain political advantage over Mitt Romney on this tax plan if he cannot get a simple majority in a chamber of Congress his party controls to agree with it.
UPDATE: I suppose you can read a bit more into Reid’s intentions when he closes by saying, “in the weeks ahead,” Republicans will have a chance to vote on the Obama proposal for extending the tax cuts up to $250,000. So there’s a soft commitment at some point in the future to hold a vote. That doesn’t discount the tension within the caucus over these matters, which has been clear from previous votes.




21 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
A President that doesn’t mean what he says, a non-functioning Senate leader and a Minority House leader setting a lower bar that’ll be the starting point for the CAVEMAN.
This is why you should NEVER give money to either the Senate Democratic Committee or the House Committee. They just use your donation to fund reelection of people who vote against Democratic interests.
A self employed couple making $130K each with four kids are going to pay more than $30K in SS and Medicare taxes right off the top. Lumping a couple like that in a high cost of living area in the same boat as Bill Gates is obscene.
Old Japanese proverb: “At least we ain’t got locust.”
Never saw this coming /s
Although it has not been widely reported, Harry Reid used to be a boxer. A real battler.
You only pay an increase in taxes on the amount ABOVE $250. ANd it’s really hard to feel sorry for two folks making $130k. And your medicare and SS rate on $220k (combined) is about $15k not 30K.
When I look a Harry Reid I just wanna give him am atomic wedgie.
Is it just me???
As they used to say about Gerald Ford, “Musta taken too many shots to the head.”
Yes. Keep those things in mind. Not that the lack of tax revenue is allowing wingnuts and democRATS alike to target the social safety net. Not that tax rates are the lowest they’ve been in decades and the economy has not improved as a result. Keep peoples’ reelection possibilities and their donors’ attitudes in mind.
You’re wrong. Clean up after yourself before you head out.
(KrisA is tired of indulging people who are just fucking wrong.)
He probably never took more than one punch per fight before he took a dive.
How do you know that our s)elected representatives aren’t locusts masquerading as humans?
I applaud your intolerance of factless opinions.
Really?
Yeah. Lord knows that in a high cost of living area, like SF Bay Area, Chicago, New York, LA, etc., one would languish with only roughly $150,000 in net income. Hell, after paying your grossly overinflated rent you’re only left with roughly $90,000 to buy groceries, gas, pay your utilities, and shop at Tiffany’s.
Wait, you may be right. That’s 260k taxes at self employment rates . Isn’t limit around 106k? I’m not sure for self employed though. We need help here.
Heh. I ceded the $30k as true in my figures @16. Call it 35% income tax per person + $30k in SS and Medicare/Medicaid contributions + $10k in state taxes. You’re still left with $150,000 NET.
Now, with their 4 kids, they’ll pay less than 35% in Federal income tax because of Child Tax Credits, plus the first whatever portion of their income is exempt, plus someone who makes $130,000 a year makes 401k or some other retirement contribution which is pre-tax, so they’re really probably only paying an effective rate of 26-28%.
The median household wealth in this country is $77,000. Tell me why I’m supposed to feel any modicum of concern for someone with an annual household pre-tax income of $260,000?
No, they vote FOR Democratic interests (which are entirely different that the old Democratic interests) and against the People’s interests.
Based on the average American income, this highly paid couple can afford to pay more in SS (having 4 kids was their choice).
Why not let all the Bush tax cuts expire? That doesn’t require any vote or approval of Congress. And if you really feel the need to retain the tax cut for those below $250K, at least use the threat of inaction to leverage votes from the Republicans for that. Otherwise, expect a repeat of what happened last year: a tax cut for the middle class at real costs on everything else.