Kerry's statement on the tax cuts

[Mass]

I guess this is a statement of support, though he does not say explicitly he will vote for the bill (though I am sure he will and he implies it strongly) and does not call others to do so, just ask them to ask themselves the question.

It is good that it is something that they wrestle with. This is not something they should accept easily. It is an unfair deal. It may be the best they can get, but they need to say loudly whose fault it is, and if they can improve it, it would be great.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/12/08/senator-kerry-backs-middle-class-tax-cut-framework

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), senior member of the Finance Committee, tonight released a statement on the proposal by President Obama to provide tax cuts for every American:

"It's no secret that I've opposed the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. I voted against them in 2001, 2003 and 2005, and I said I'd roll them back in 2004 if I was elected president. I take a backseat to no one when it comes to opposing George Bush's tax policy. They didn't create jobs and they dug an enormous deficit hole that was dumped on President Obama. President Obama knows that. He opposed the Bush policy every step of the way and as a Senator, Joe Biden was right here with me fighting against them. But don't forget for a second that when it came down to the votes in the Senate, the President was dealt a very tough hand. All 42 Senate Republicans voted in lockstep to hold the middle class tax cuts and unemployment insurance hostage, and our Democratic caucus wasn't unified. The votes on Saturday were just the latest reminder when we lost a bunch of Democrats, and the math is clear our bargaining position was going to be even harder come January with all these new Republican Senators. So I think the President had a hard decision to make. He obviously decided that the best possible compromise was to get unemployment benefits, middle class tax cuts, and the Recovery Act provisions extended in exchange for these upper income tax extensions that he opposes, and he decided that in two years the fight over tax breaks for the wealthy will be rejoined. This wasn't an easy call for him. It's a lot easier to deal in hypotheticals than it is to deal with the Senate as it is. We don't have 60 Senators who oppose the Bush tax policies the way I do, and the way Barack Obama and Joe Biden do, so how do you wrestle with that? Are you willing to say no to unemployment insurance if this is the only way to get it? That's what our caucus wrestled with today. Yes, it's a very steep price to pay for something the Senate should've done months ago as a matter of decency and common sense, but how do you cut off 52,000 people in Massachusetts who need those unemployment benefits? Are you really willing to walk away from these middle class benefits which we can't get otherwise when you know the tax cuts for the upper end are going to be extended come January anyways? The truth is, the President got a lot of things here we've been fighting for that we haven't yet been able to win any other way."

Though he will try to improve it in the meantime

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704447604576007603860192170.html

WASHINGTON—A group of nine Democratic senators are seeking to add an extension of Build America Bonds to the tax-cut package taking shape in the U.S. Senate.

The program, set to expire Dec. 31, provides federal subsidies for taxable bonds issued by state and local governments for infrastructure projects. More than $150 billion of the bonds have been issued to help finance such projects as upgrades to Alaskan airports and to school, water, sewer and electric facilities across the country.

"Build America Bonds have proven to be an efficient way to create jobs and build lasting infrastructure across the country," the senators wrote in a letter to Senate leaders, dated Tuesday.

The deal on tax-cut extensions struck between the White House and Senate Republicans didn't include an extension of the bond program, one of President Barack Obama's signature economic development programs.

Congressional Democrats have been critical of the overall deal that keeps tax cuts in place for wealthy Americans, and are seeking to add their own priorities to balance a package they believe is skewed too far to the right.

The letter was signed by Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon, Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Mark Begich of Alaska, John Kerry of Massachusetts, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein of California, and Maria Cantwell of Washington.

[Mass]

1. Matt Viser has it too

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2010/12/kerry_backs_oba_1.html

Senator John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, defended President Obama tonight from some of the intra-party fighting over the tentative agreement the president made with Republicans over extending the Bush-era tax cuts.

Kerry, who has been a top White House ally in that past, said that he did not agree with certain portions of the plan, but that it was a pragmatic realization of what is currently politically doable.

“It's a lot easier to deal in hypotheticals than it is to deal with the Senate as it is,” Kerry said. “We don't have 60 Senators who oppose the Bush tax policies the way I do, and the way Barack Obama and Joe Biden do, so how do you wrestle with that? Are you willing to say no to unemployment insurance if this is the only way to get it?”

“The truth is, the President got a lot of things here we've been fighting for that we haven't yet been able to win any other way,” Kerry added.

Kerry’s statement was distributed by the White House tonight as part of a daylong series of endorsements from various politicians, from Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle, a Democrat, to Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett, a Republican.

And, in case you wonder, Scott Brown still has not decided.

Senator Scott Brown, a Massachusetts Republican, has so far not taken a firm position. His spokeswoman, Gail Gitcho, said yesterday that "He will review the compromise, and while the proposal may not be ideal, he wants to make sure that it is good for American families and a victory for taxpayers." Gitcho said tonight that his position had not changed.

[politicasista]

2. Thanks for posting

Borrowed the links and posted them over at the AA blog (WSY) cause they are totally fed up with Democrats, Liberals/Progressives (minus Biden, Pelosi) not supporting Obama on anything he has tried to do, (that also includes DADT, etc) then turning around and publicly blaming him for nothing getting done.

The feedback "Finally!" :)


OTOH, this was nice comment:

I appreciate John Kerry. He's always out there trying to fight for good policies, and has never undercut President Obama for the sake of his own ego. I'll be genuinely sad when his time in the Senate comes to an end.

[MBS]

3. thanks for sharing that comment!

Actually both comments!
That second comment (the one that starts "I appreciate John Kerry) is EXACTLY the way I see the Senator, and exactly why I support him.

[Mass]

4. Thanks. Frankly, I am not sure I am happy he did that, but I am not surprised

This said, he is not going to be very much liked by the MA base by doing that.

Also, explain how liberal Dems do not support DADT. It is clear they do not support the tax deal, and it seems clear that some of the reasons for that are shared (the dems in the House and Senate should have brought it before the mid-terms, but the lashout by Obama during the press conference was not productive at all, IMHO).

It is news to me. Remember, they are not their to support Obama. They are there to represent their states.

(As for the most ridiculous thread on GD, a thread saying that Obama is wrong to say the country was formed on a compromise. Seems some people need to learn some basic history).

[politicasista]

5. Yep. MA won't like this and that is a downside

to being an ally of the POTUS, they probably don't care that Kerry gets attacked, but he is defending "my/our President."

Didn't see the GD thread (it's been a zoo there), but yep, sounds like a history test is needed.