Democrats, led by former co-chair of the Super Committee Patty Murray, continue to threaten that they will let a host of tax and spending measures expire at the end of 2012 if they don’t get an acceptable policy solution:
In a speech Monday, Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), the Senate’s No. 4 Democrat and the leader of the caucus’s campaign arm, plans to make the clearest case yet for going over what some have called the “fiscal cliff.”
“If we can’t get a good deal, a balanced deal that calls on the wealthy to pay their fair share, then I will absolutely continue this debate into 2013,” Murray plans to say, according to excerpts of the speech provided to The Washington Post.
If the tax cuts from the George W. Bush era expire and taxes go up for everyone, the debate will be reset, Murray is expected to say. “Every proposal will be a tax-cut proposal,” according to the excerpts, and Republicans would no longer be “boxed in” by their pledge not to raise taxes.
Because Lori Montgomery is a hack, she frames this as Democrats risking a situation “that could plunge the nation back into recession.” But this is where the imagery of a fiscal slope versus a fiscal cliff is important. If we go into 2013 with the various tax hikes and spending cuts unchanged, the economy will not collapse all at once. Rather, the tax hikes in particular play out over a very long time frame, with some money in withholding changing, but not an appreciable amount to change near-term circumstances. Once you get past that first couple months things start to bite a little harder. But the 2012 tax situation is already locked in stone, and that is what will guide everyone’s April 2013 returns. The full effects of the fiscal slope really wouldn’t be felt until much later.
The trigger cuts are not really so similar. The cuts would have to come right away, and certainly the layoff notices, which by law must get distributed 60 days before any action, would go into effect early. Governors are trying to delay the issuance of layoff notices in the defense sector in particular.
So a game of chicken on the trigger is a harder sell. But you will not get anywhere without playing some hardball. And Democrats are learning that they have no leverage whatsoever over the tax issue unless they are willing to let them all expire and come back with a different round of tax cuts later. That’s the only way to occasion a split between the Bush tax cuts below $250,000 of income and above it. It’s worth noting that creating an arbitrary line at $250,000 ensures that progressive policy will probably get starved for a long time, absent unrealistic economic growth figures. It would be a tactical victory that presages a longer-term struggle. But at a time when Democrats are supremely unwilling to engage in even these tactical games, it’s at least a step. And when Mitch McConnell calls it “an outrageous ultimatum,” you know that it’s actually likely to work.




42 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
They’re going to let the “Bush” tax cuts expire that Obama recently signed into law? Unlikely, to say the least.
It’s time for some hard ball. Hope the Dems don’t fold as they have in the past.
You GO girl!!!!!!
Uh, they’re no longer the Bush Tax Cuts. Let’s get real and call them what they are: the Obama Tax Cuts.
No one is going to let the 1% tax cuts expire because the 1% is running the show.
Pay no attention to that Kabuki Show. It’s done so that our elected “reps” can pretend that they’re, you know, doing something.
Funny you should mention that. You know how those cardboard cutouts of people will fold or bend if you don’t cram a stick up their…..phone;s ringing. Gotta go.
x2
I’d like to see Democrats do this, but they won’t.
Besides, the “fair share” argument is going nowhere anyway. Most people look at 48% paying nothing, yet demanding much, as balancing anything the 1% gets quite well.
This is one reason Obama was at 45 to 48% approval in Gallup last September before he began the whole “fairness” campaign push and he is still there today. It’s going nowhere, and he just doesn’t open his eyes to see.
If Obama and the dems actually do this, I’m sure the republicans have quietly told them that a measure in favor of motherhood wouldn’t pass the House…which means, more of the same gridlock.
And Barack Obama hasn’t shown himself to be the slightest bit displeased with that.
Bingo! One would have to be clinically insane to believe this episode Kabuki Theatre.
No.
As DDay said, “at least it’s a step.”
If you refer to Obama by his initials, the odor of corruption in our government becomes evident = BO.
Hope, especially considering the actions of this administration, is a 4 letter word.
2 steps forward, 3 steps back.
He needs to capture Osama again.
We DID leave a buoy. Right???
I’m curious about the author’s assessment that drawing the line at 2500000 will put a dent in progressive policy? I’m not disagreeing or criticizing; I’m trying to understand the reasoning–or rather, the relationship between drawing that line and progressive policy.
since there are no such things, she is talking about pixie dust
edit
I see I am not the first to point this out, thank goodness
A vague facsimile to a “step” in my book. JMHO, of course.
Rumour has it that the Obama campaign has chosen a theme song to accompany the “Forward” mantra. It’s title is “Slavishly Devoted to O”.
The “if” says it all.
Quotes from the second page of the article:
“Murray, who served as the panel’s Democratic chair, argues that her party was willing to tackle entitlement costs. But the GOP’s tax offer was a “bait and switch,” she is expected to say Monday, that would have slashed rates for the rich while generating too little cash to reduce the deficit.”
“That’s good strategy, said Erskine Bowles, the Democratic chairman of Obama’s deficit-
reduction commission, who is still trying to build support for a framework to raise taxes, overhaul entitlement programs and rein in the national debt.”
So … the choice is between cuts to programs like Social Security and Medicare (Republican position), or cuts to those programs PLUS tax increases (Democratic position). Because the deficit.
In totally unrelated news, many voters — particularly those who depend on these programs to live a halfway decent life during this depression — are unenthused about voting for either party, and are called stupid when they say the fix is in either way.
talk is cheap…..do it!
What a stupid argument to make that Clinton-era taxation was neither good nor balanced. I’m all for letting the tax cuts expire, but using Clinton-era taxation as a threat while undermining it in the process is totally counter-productive. This shows that the Democrats want to Starve the Beast to the point that they’re tripping up their own arguments against the Republicans to so…saying the economy won’t all collapse at once isn’t an exactly a re-assuring image to go with Clinton-era taxation, like it’s going to slowly damage the economy. I guess we’re just supposed to be thrilled that less income is going into the federal government with the Social Safety Net in particular being strangled by this “fiscal slope,” but I’d rather protect that income stream so that we have a safety net in the future.
Strangle Social Security so you can claim it’s underfunded and a drag on the deficit so that you create your own crisis in order to cut it. I’m all for never letting a crisis go to waste, just the Democrats have a tendency to create the crisis as an excuse to try and put one over on voters…the Republicans try and do the same things, just they’re more open about it and don’t so much try and hide behind the over party for cover.
I think that’s good. It’s catchy and easy to dance to.
Besides, Olivia Newton John could use the royalties.
(That is very good!)
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
That is easily the most transparent and pathetic combination of pandering built on top of an empty threat that I’ve read in a long time.
There is no way in hell the Democrats are going to do any such thing. Some new contrived “crisis” will come to the fore to give them all, “But we had to or the last unicorn would die.” political cover, and exactly nothing useful about the tax cuts will change at all.
I agree, the republicans are totally open in being the dastardly, despicable bastards subservient to the 1% that they are today. The democratic party, and my family was proud to be members, can’t seem to find any direction. Pelosi and Harry Reid are clueless and worthless.
Prior to elections politicians will say almost anything.
If Obama is re-elected, before he is sworn in, he will sign a bill
that will extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
You can take that to the bank.
My nit-pickyness. Hope you don’t mind. No disrespect intended, but I’m tired of attributing the current round of 1% tax cuts to Bush the Dumber. IMO, Obama OWNS them now. If Obama and/or putative “Democrats” don’t have the stones to OWN what they have endorsed/passed/enabled, then that says a lot, including the fact Murray is standing there in the light of day braying about them being the “Bush” tax cuts.
Gimme a break. Yeah: talk about pandering… and lying thru your teeth.
No kidding. A likely possibility is an “October surprise” of having to bomb bomb bomb Iran…
Wow. You are one clever kid.
If I read this right, what is being said is that the Democrats are willing ti make a deal cutting the budget and programs like Social Security and Medicare (think Obama’s “Grand Bargain”) in exchange for some piddling tax increases. Am I supposed to be happy about this?
Yes. You got it. People should read the entire article. This is a “deal” about like that used car with the defective odometer that the sales person tells you was only driven by a little lady on Sundays. Caveat emptor.
“We did leave a buoy, right?”
Best line of the week, easy…. :o) :o) :o) :o)
Oh, they’re his, lock, stock, and barrel.
So is the economy. You don’t come in after a landslide win with locks on the board in the House and Senate, and the GOP shitting green nickels about what you might do, then do rehab on bushCo, Inc, and be able to pack it all off on the republicans.
As fucked up a campaign as Romney’s running, I don’t think that will work for Obama. Hell, if it does work, then ANY lie is good to go.
Oh yes, Murray will want a deal alright – cut SS, cut Medicare and Medicade, and don’t forget – throwing American workers under the bus. Same old sh*t different day from Murray.
Yes, you’re supposed to be thrilled that the Social Safety Net will get cut because it is Democrats doing the cutting. It’s like you’re supposed to be thrilled about nationalized Romneycare – and consider it liberal – because it was Democrats who passed it.
Retroactively not pass the tax cuts to 1999 is what I say. Make it retroactive, Patty. Seems to be working for Romney: if it’s good for the repubs ought to be for the 99%. Similarly, tax retroactively to 1999 the cash that Romney is stashing in the Cayman Islands, Switzerland, Bermuda, etc. Make it all not passed RETROACTIVELY. That will save Social Security right there: tax the rich RETROACTIVE.
Applying the same standard as Romney at Bain, the POTUS was not responsible when the Bush tax cuts were renewed last time. He was only the President in title only: some other minion made the deal. Just because he was the President doesn’t mean he was actually making decisions. Even if his signature is on the bill, doesn’t really necessarily mean that he made the decision to sign it. In fact, he probably handed over that entire business to somebody else and was not involved in the daily decision making. Even though his signature is on the bill.
Yeah, Obama is only President in title only – Obama lets the corporate lobbyists run the government.
They will ALWAYS be the BUSH tax cuts. PERIOD
she has a lot of support from veterans in WA., HOWEVER
like the rest of the rotating villains, she’s dependably 1 of the rotating sell outs who will enable the real sell outs –
I PROUDLY wrote in “Medicare ForALL” instead of voting FOR her in 2010, as I did for all state and federal dems, and I’ve NEVER felt bad about it. at least when I’m getting lied to and when I’m getting sould out, I did NOT vote her bullshit.
oh yeah, I proudly voted FOR her ’92 and ’98 … ugh. I so fed up with this pack of craven cowards, diaper pissers, excuse makers and sell outs. the sooner their branch of the Democratic party is permanently unemployed, the better off we’ll all be.
rmm
Just a thought:
Didja ever wonder whether the
UnitedCorporate States of America have Swiss Bank Accounts or maybe Cayman Island Accounts or others? Or maybe the NSA, CIA, IRS, FBI has their own?Maybe we should? Medicare? SS? Defense!? RNC? (Probably already!)
Mr. Taibbi, might it be worth a look?
Right, the Dems are really going to flip the script. See big O’s nods to specific constituencies on social policy? Look at us, we’re all populist progressives now. Whee.
Not so many promises on economic policy, though. The Grand Bargain is still on the table, or maybe under the table for the moment. They even got rid of Simpson, because he runs at the mouth and drools at the thought of cutting SS and the Meds. So unsightly. They’re just getting ready for that lame duck session. Whee.
Profiles in courage.
And you are insightful. Welcome to FDL.