Tweet
Since returning to the control of Republicans, the House has returned to the “Hastert rule,” (named for the former House Speaker, Denny Hastert) where only legislation that has a majority of votes among the majority, rather than a majority of votes overall, will get a vote on the floor. The Senate’s tax bill, which extends the Bush-era tax rates only on the first $250,000 of income, fits into this sweet spot. It probably has enough votes to pass but not enough to capture a majority of Republicans. Therefore, John Boehner rejects bringing it to the floor.
The House rules have a way around this conundrum, and Nancy Pelosi will try to use it. It’s known as the discharge petition. Here’s what she had to say today:
The clock is ticking, the year is ending, it’s really important, with tax legislation, for it to happen now. We’re calling upon the Republican leadership in the House to bring this legislation to the floor next week. We believe that not doing that would be holding middle income tax cuts hostage to tax cuts for the rich. Tax cuts for the rich which do not create jobs, just increase the deficit, heaping mountains of debt onto future generations.
And so, to that end, we are – we will be introducing, if the bill, if there is no announcement of scheduling of the middle income tax cut, which, by the way, has tremendous support in the Republican Caucus – I think we would get a 100 percent vote on it if it came to the floor. If it is not scheduled, then on Tuesday we will be introducing a discharge petition which you know with – if we get 218 signatures, would bring the bill automatically to the floor. That would mean that we need some Republicans who support middle income tax cuts, to sign on with us.
Discharge petitions have worked to force legislation to the House floor in the past. But this is a different, highly partisan era. Republicans operate on the Iron Law of Institutions, where the individual lawmaker’s position within the caucus matters much more than their position as a whole. This makes it extremely difficult to get a Republican to sign onto a discharge petition of the Democrats. There are probably 350 votes in the House for a bill to crack down on currency manipulators, for example, but John Boehner has refused to bring it to the floor. Supporters of the bill went for a discharge petition, and here’s what happened when one Republican signed it:
Despite a full court press from Dems, not a single Republican had signed the petition to bring the bill to the floor. This, even though 99 Republicans voted for this measure last time, some 31 Republican Senators crossed party lines to support the bill in the Senate yesterday, and the bill currently has dozens of Republican co-sponsors in the House [...]
Late yesterday, aides say, Dems thought they had scored a breakthrough: GOP Rep. Harold Rogers had signed the discharge petition. Rogers is no back-bencher — he’s chair of the powerful Appropriations Committee — and Dems thought they’d be able to use his support to lure other GOPers to sign it.
Alas, today Rogers has quietly taken his name off the petition.
What happened? According to a GOP aide, the GOP leadership contacted the Appropriations Committee staff and let them know that Rogers had signed the petition. The leadership noted that it was unusual for committee chairs to affix their names to such petititions, as it could be seen as stepping on the jurisdiction of the committee that has jurisdiction over the issue in question. Rogers then took his name off of it.
I would suspect that on an even more high-profile issue like tax cuts, you would see similar arm-twisting if a Republican dared to sign the discharge petition. There are lame duck members who aren’t coming back to Washington who might give it a try, but not enough to force the bill onto the floor.
So I suspect the Boehner firewall would hold here. It does make Republicans uncomfortable to have to deny the discharge petition, however. Maybe the President could talk about it on his road tour.
8 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
You might have thought that after the ass-kicking republicans received on Nov. 6 they might have a little more respect for the American people. But no, they are still the little pos posse, led by the pos asshole boner. I had thought it will be nice to have a little break from having to work to put these assholes down, but I guess the work is just starting. Personally I think boner and his fellow morons would be too ashamed of their irresponsibility, but I guess we’ll have to teach them again in the next election. On a more personal level, fu, boner, pos. We’re coming for you.
Thanks for the update.
At this point, I only believe what happens, not what’s “proposed.”
Hope this comes to pass, but only time will tell. I trust neither party to do what’s right for the 99%.
Can anyone explain what the advantage is in doing this now rather than after Jan 20th 2013? I know that Pete De Fazio, Dem from Oregon, is suggesting rather forcefully! that such matters wait until the new Congress is in session.
I know from watching TV, the President and other top Democrats want to extend the “middle class tax cuts,” which really are merely simply evasions of paying Social security in full, in return for the Republicans to figure out ways to stop revenue spending and perhaps slightly tax the rich. It hurts my head to watch this “Grand Bargain” be discussed on television by the usual suspects.
The Grand Bargain is, as others far wiser than I am, merely a Grand Betrayal of every single principle that the Democrats have ever managed to bring into political life since the days of FDR.
After all, a real middle class tax cut would immediately see to it that those of us in the 20K to 40K bracket get some relief. Those of us in that bracket are now paying over 1 percent more in our taxes based on our income, so that the Obama extension of the Bush era tax cuts would be somewhat remedied. Obama could make this a talking point – that the four percent extension for the rich worked out to a one percent tax hike on the poorest of the income payers.
But over the last thirty years, I have heard very few Dems worry about those of us in this tax bracket. And when they do discuss us, their total ignorance of what it means to live on this amount of money is truly astounding. Witness Hillary Clinton praising her notion of a Health Insurance reform bill” circa 1993 –”The people making 24K a year would pay only $ 2,400 a year for this insurance.” Where would anyone who is making 24K find an extra 2,400 bucks? I guess we simply need to cut back on our spending during our annual visits to Machu Pichu, Maui and the French Riviera.
It all depends on how much the Republican caucus hates John Boehner, doesn’t it?
Hear, hear!
Yeah, you really gotta stop taking all of those fancy vacations!
I remember when my rightwing family went in joyful BLISS when Ronald Reagan “cut taxes.” Yeah, those tax cuts worked like a charm to INCREASE my taxes. No matter how much I showed my family my pay stubs, they couldn’t stop their Happy Dancing when Daddy Reagan CUT ALL TAXES…
If you’re making above a certain level, it’s a CHOICE not to give a shit about anyone else… Many of the “churches” (not all) have worked overtime to Preach the meme that if you’re poor, it’s your own d*mn fault for being a lazy slacker-moocher who simply cannot be bothered to “work hard,” like all the rich, mostly white, people do.
I’m pretty cynical about what will be done by this or the next Congress. The millionaires & billionaires in the House & Senate have no clue – nor do they care – what it’s like for the majority of their constituents. They talk pretty sometimes but that’s about it.
My sense is that it isn’t going to get done now. Not extending the tax cuts. Not preventing the sequester. This time, unlike in 2010, the Democrats have the advantage of coming off of an election mandate and are pushing back. Every day that passes, the end of the Bush tax cuts completely and “jumping off the fiscal cliff” become more likely. It has been so hyped that when that happens on January 1, people likely will be relieved. At which point, it’s not on the President to offer spending cuts but on the House Republicans to decide what spending to increase and what taxes to cut or raise. Before this through-the-looking-glass world, that would be a politician’s dream situation. For Republicans, it is a nightmare. They suddenly become practically accountable; it they don’t do it, it’s visibly their action.
Re to Hillarycare, in 1992, I earned $36K a year, had employer-provided health insurance and paid $2400 or a little more a year for family coverage. A salary of $24K twenty years ago went much much farther than that amount today.
The middle class tax cut that President Obama wants to extend is on federal income tax; he wants to extend the payroll (FICA) tax cut as well.
Expect a lot of discussion in the next Congress on tax reform, specifically having to do with deductions and exemptions in individual and corporate taxes.
There are two types of balance A and B.
A. (State taxes = state spending – state debt), for the states and
B. ( Federal Deficits = Net Private Savings + Net Imports,) for money creating USA.
In B, Net private savings includes all states and businesses and individuals, all money users.
Almost no one thinks in terms of B even though all data supports it.
Taxes matter for A which do not create money.
Taxes DO NOT matter for USA because it creates money. Equation B is used by the fed, treasury and BEA. It is an accounting identity.
Without federal deficits exceeding net imports net private savings can only be NEGATIVE. If the annual deficits are added we get
cumulative govt deficits over all years = gross national wealth, with proof in
http://pshakkottai.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/cumulative-deficit-vs-household-net-worth/
We need deficits first. Taxes can be adjusted to be more progressive later. Deficits are the source of wealth!
My conclusion is the tax discussion is all kabuki because people are thinking of A whereas the truth is equation B.
Cutting deficits or just keeping it at zero will produce a death spiral described by Mitchell in
http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/11/24/the-arithmetic-of-austerity-its-not-a-fiscal-cliff-its-a-death-spiral/
In http://my.firedoglake.com/letsgetitdone/2012/11/12/an-mmt-fiscal-responsibility-narrative-some-truths-after-a-second-crowd-sourcing-revision/
By: letsgetitdone Monday November 12, 2012 4:28 pm
He summarizes the phony crisis we have and concludes with
Current claims that we have a fiscal crisis, must debate the debt, must fix the debt, and must immediately embark on a long-term deficit reduction program to bring the debt-to-GDP ratio under control, all misconceive the fiscal situation, and smack of a campaign to create hysteria among the public. They are based on the idea that fiscal responsibility is about developing a plan to bring the debt-to-GDP ratio “under control,” when it is really about using Government spending to achieve outputs that fulfill “public purpose.” There is no fiscal crisis that will require “a Grand Bargain” including cuts to popular discretionary spending and entitlement programs. It is a phoney crisis!.
The only real crises is one of a failing economy and growing economic inequality in which only the needs of the few are served, and also one of lack of political desire or will to solve these real problems. MMT policies can help to bring an end to the first economic crisis; but not if progressives, and others continue to believe in false ideas about fiscal sustainability and responsibility, and the similarity of their Government to a household. To begin to solve our problems, we need to reject the neoliberal narrative and embrace the MMT narrative about the meaning of fiscal responsibility. That will lead us to the political action we need to solve the political crisis and eventually toward fiscal policies that achieve public purpose and away from policies that prolong economic stagnation and the ravages of austerity.
The proof platinum coin option should also be discussed. I am sure the congress knows it.
“The US is obligated by the 14th Amendment to pay all its debts as they come due. Nevertheless, our national debt cannot be a burden on our grandchildren; unless they wish to make it so by stupidly taxing more than they spend. This is true because, assuming the debt ceiling is raised when needed, or repealed, we have an unlimited credit card to incur new debt at interest rates of our choosing. So, we can “roll over” our national debt indefinitely. Or, alternatively, we can create all the money we need to pay off the debt-subject-to-the-limit, without ever incurring any more debt. One way to do this is through Proof Platinum Coin Seigniorage (PPCS). A second way is through subordinating the Fed to Treasury and then using the Fed’s ability to create money out of thin air to pay back all debt instruments (“savings account balance”) when they fall due. The first way is legal now. The second is constitutional, but would require politically unlikely action by Congress to authorize it.”