Democrats unlikely to repeal tax cuts for the rich

[Javaman]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/09/01/99992/democrats-unlikely-to-repeal-tax.html

are poised to play a leading role this month in thwarting their party's effort to raise income tax rates on the wealthy.

Tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 expire at the end of this year. President Barack Obama and Democratic congressional leaders have been eager to extend the breaks for individuals who earn less than $200,000 annually and joint filers who make less than $250,000. Those who earn more would pay higher, pre-2001 rates starting next year.

However, a small but growing number of moderate Democrats are balking at boosting taxes on the rich. Many face electorates that recoil at the mention of any tax increase. Some represent areas that are loaded with wealthier taxpayers. Further, some incumbent senators who don't face voters this fall are reluctant to increase taxes on anyone while the economy remains sluggish.

>snip<

Democratic leaders still vow a big effort this month to boost the top tax brackets, now 33 and 35 percent, back to 36 and 39.6 percent, the rates that were in effect in the 1990s. Both House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who faces a tough re-election fight, want a vote before the election Nov.

[inenemyterritory]

1. I will bet

harry caves in. >sigh<

[Fumesucker]

2. Good...

I'm planning on winning the lottery next week and I damn sure don't want to pay it all out in taxes..

Can somebody loan me enough for a ticket?

[Richard Steele]

3. At this point, I think it's pretty damn clear that the Obama Administration...

...isn't EVER going to do anything to change the course
that the B*sh years set this nation on. :(

[burrowowl]

4. I wonder why he is so

Bu$h and $?

Is he afraid or ignorant?

[shanti]

7. well, he's not ignorant

:eyes:

[Richard Steele]

11. I think he's an actor playing a role.Our "Elected Government" is nothing but puppet theatre...

He's just the shiniest puppet on-stage at the moment.
(There will be more gaudy distractions to come,
once they put Palin in the White House.)

His choice of "Chief of Staff" was all the proof I needed
to know that things were going to proceed exactly as they have.

[LostInAnomie]

5. Was there ever REALLY any doubt the rich would keep their tax cuts?

Seriously!? Anyone that has been paying attention in the last 30 years should have known that the rich get what they want. EVERY. FUCKING. TIME.

[notesdev]

6. Let me put on my surprised face

[AtomicKitten]

8. They don't need to repeal it. Let the damn thing expire on 1/1/11.

Democrats want to keep the middle class tax cuts in the bill but there is no way in hell the Rs and compliant Ds will let that happen without keeping all the tax cuts.

They will need 60 to extend them (hooray for the filibuster for once; can't pass it by reconcilation because it blows a hole in the budget) but I'm hard-pressed to count 19 ConservaDem/BlueDog votes to reach that magic number.

Just let the whole mess expire and screw the Democrats supporting extending tax cuts for the wealthy that add an estimated $36 billion to the deficit.

[Yupster]

9. I agree

Just let the whole thing expire.

Why should we fight for tax cuts for the rich.

Bush wasted the country's money with a huge tax cut for the rich. It's about to expire. I don't see what the problem is.

[HughMoran]

10. Having taxes go up for the middle class may be untenable during this never-ending recession

This entire situation sucks.

[Stinky The Clown]

15. So you favor leaving the bush tax cuts in place?

[dflprincess]

12. Strange that Alan Simpson hasn't commented yet on the rich not pulling their weight

:sarcasm:

(But if he did that, the talking heads at Fox would go nuts and then Obama would have to throw him overboard.)

Better to "fix" the deficit by cutting Social Security benefits.

[JamesA1102]

13. This article is BS

First, the cuts are not being repealed, they are expiring. If congress does nothing they will expire no matter what. It's not like healthcare where they had to get blue dog votes to make something happen.

Second, there are several hurdles that an extention of these cuts would have to overcome. Nancy Pelosi has to be convinced to bring such a bill to the floor of the house for a vote. Even if that happens, it has to go to the Senate and be able to get 60 votes (yes that goes both ways) which means every Republican and 9 Dems have to vote for it. Even if you count in Lieberman, Bacus, Nelson, Bayh, Lincoln, Landreiu, Warner and Feinstein it still comes up short. Even if it doesn't it then has to be signed by the President.

[Javaman]

14. Thanks for the heads up.

when I posted this, I didn't know what to make of it. It smelled like BS, but I wasn't sure.

thanks! :)