Why can't Dems pass the tax proposal using reconciliation? Isn't this how GOP pass it?

[Change Happens]

Did they not pass the tax cuts using reconciliation? why can't we cancel them using the same procedure?

I am watching no chin Senate dude going on and on about how he has 5 or 6 Democratic Senators on his side?

Just in case: I am talking about President Obama's proposal to let the tax cuts for the richest people expire...etc.

[librechik]

1. yes, I wonder...

heh, they never seem to know any strategies that would actually work that aren't blocked by some big bully or other that they just can't disappoint. Like Single Payer. So afraid to even bring it up becasue somebody will get mad (not the voters)

[Winterblues]

2. All it takes is for one Democrat to filibuster.

Democrats don't really have to do anything.. It is the Republicans that want tax cuts for the wealthy. Democrats can let the tax cuts expire and then introduce a bill with only tax cuts for the middle clas if that is what they want. Then let Republicans block that.....

[Change Happens]

5. ok, or pass it using reconciliation....nt

[pnwmom]

11. How? How would passing this bill reduce the budget deficit?

That's what you need to show in order to use reconciliation.

[Hannah Bell]

19. The pubs used it for tax cuts, so i guess the dems can too.

Although reconciliation was originally understood to be for the purpose of improving the government's fiscal position (reducing deficits or increasing surpluses), the language of the 1974 act referred only to "changes" in revenue and spending amounts; not specifically to increases or decreases. Former Parliamentarian of the Senate Robert Dove has stated that reconciliation

“ was never used for that purpose. But in 1975, just a year after it had passed, a very canny Senate committee chairman -- Russell Long of Louisiana -- came in to the Parliamentarian's Office, and he kept having trouble with his tax bills because of the Senate rules. People were offering amendments to them that he didn't like. They were debating them at length, and he didn't like that. And he saw in the Budget Act a way of getting around those pesky little problems. And he convinced the Parliamentarian at the time -- I was the assistant -- that the very first use of reconciliation should be to protect his tax cut bill.<4> ”

Congress has used the procedure to enact omnibus budget bills, first in 1981. Between 1980 and 2009, 17 of 23 reconciliation bills have been signed into law by Republican presidents (a Republican was president for 20 of those 29 years). Since 1980, reconciliation has been used nine times when Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate, six times when Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate, one time when the Democrats controlled the Senate and the Republicans the House, and seven times when the Republicans controlled the Senate and the Democrats controlled the House. Reconciliation has been used at least once nominally for a non-budgetary purpose (for example, see the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007, when a Republican was president and the Democrats controlled Congress). The 1986 Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) contained some health care provisions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)


and since the majority of the bush tax cuts went to the top 2%, keeping the cuts on the bottom (more money to spend = more demand) & rescinding them at the top = better budget position.

[bluestateguy]

3. I'm sure this has already been looked into

But I think reconciliation can only be used once per calendar year.

[county worker]

4. If we do nothing the tax cuts will expire right?

We should just say no to extending the tax cuts and leave it at that if the pukes don't want to do it our way.

[Rochester]

6. And let the R's explain to the voters why they blocked an extension of the tax cuts.

Bastards'll probably still find a way to spin it to make themselves look good, though.

[pnwmom]

9. And the voters will believe THEM when they say: the Democrats

did it. We wanted to approve a bill restoring ALL the tax cuts, but the Dems wouldn't let us. So it's the Dems fault that the tax cuts expired and everyone will have to pay more.

[Rochester]

13. Yeah, you're probably right, the majority of the voters are idiots

and the ones that are not idiots are D's already.

[pnwmom]

16. That's it in a nutshell. n/t

[sabrina 1]

20. Wrong, the public is in favor of anything that

takes money away from the Wall St. crowd. All the Dems have to do is to use a few charts showing them where all the money is going.

This defeatist attitude about everything is what is causing the problems we have. The public is NOT on the side of the wealthy, across party lines.

Let's stop acting like we lost before we even try. I am so sick of this 'we can't do it' attitude. What happened to 'yes we can'?

Force them to fight for the rich. Then see what happens in November. This party is being run by a bunch of fearful, scared wimps THAT is what the public doesn't like. They want to fighters.

Here you are informing us that the Republicans will fight for what they want, and we should just roll over without a fight. If they can fight SO CAN DEMOCRATS! What a losing strategy this has been, every, single time.

[babylonsister]

7. Here's info-usually only used for budget resolution...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_%28United_States_Congress%29

[pnwmom]

8. They can only pass them under reconciliation if they can show

a net decrease in the budget deficit. The problem is, doing nothing will raise everyone's taxes and just about close the budget gap. But a bill that restores a lower tax on the middle class will increase the deficit, so it can't be passed by reconciliation.

[zipplewrath]

10. they passed the original cut via reconciliation

So I'm not sure why they can't pass a new cut by reconciliation. It should be the exact same procedure, just lowering taxes only for those below $250K instead of everyone.

[pnwmom]

12. By using phony baloney numbers with unrealistic expectations

(based on the trickle down theory) that we knew would never hold up. And we were right. They didn't.

We're not the party of trickle down -- they are. That's why we can't manipulate the numbers the way they did.

[muntrv]

14. Dems. don't line up like the republickers do.

[tritsofme]

15. Due to Congressional Democrats' failure to pass a budget resolution, reconciliation is not available

this year.

No budget resolution, no reconciliation instructions, no reconciliation bill.

You are exactly right, this is a perfect situation for a reconciliation bill, Democrats could have passed their bill out of the House and had it on the president's desk with 50+1 votes in the Senate. Definitely one of the most incredibly stupid self-imposed constraints I have ever seen.

[pnwmom]

17. No, this is not the "perfect" situation for a reconciliation bill.

It would ADD to the budget deficit, whereas you can only include deficit-reducing measures in a reconciliation bill.

[BzaDem]

18. Believe it or not, reconciliation used to be able be used to add to the deficit in a 10 year window.

Democrats that changed the rules in 2006 to prevent that from happening, since that's what the GOP used to pass the Bush tax cuts in the first place. At that time in 2001, it was the first time reconciliation was used to add to the deficit.

[pnwmom]

21. That's probably why so many here think we can use it again that way. nt

[tritsofme]

22. I did forget about the rules change, thank you.

However it does not excuse the straight jacket Democrats put themselves in by not passing a budget resolution this year.

Perhaps in hindsight, Democrats would have been much better served by revisiting the budget reconciliation procedures in January 2009, instead of just giving an exception to the MC tax cuts in the statutory PAYGO rules that still require a 60 vote environment in the Senate.

[LostInAnomie]

23. Pssst...

Most of the Dems probably want the rich to get the tax cuts as much as the republicans do. They'll just act like they're being forced into it.

[MadHound]

24. Better question, why won't the Dems force a real live filibuster and put up an actual fight for once

If they did that on this issue, they would gain a lot of respect and pick up a lot of votes.

[AnArmyVeteran]

27. Because Reid is a timid coward and probably a sell out.

Reid is the most inept senate leader in the history of our country. If repiblicans even whisper the word filibuster Reid goes running to the nearest dark corner to tremble and cry in total fear. Reid hasn't forced republicans to perform the duties of a filibuster once. He might as well be a damned republican.

[MadHound]

28. Then the question is why doesn't Obama have a meeting of the minds with Reid

Invite him over to dinner at the WH, and give him a swift kick in the ass in order to jumpstart things? LBJ, as much as I loathed the man for many things, he could get the Congressional Dems to do what he wanted. Then again he knew where a lot of bodies were buried, so:shrug:

[AnArmyVeteran]

30. Obama is no LBJ that's for sure. We have a government full of prostitutes.

I wonder if President Obama has ever put one demand on Reid. Like you, I didn't like LBJ but he knew how to control congress. Obama has absolutely no leadership skills to direct congress in any direction. The only faction in congress Obama listens to are the republicans who he has caved into time after time. Every bill passed has been so watered down they are virtually ineffective.

I am sick of cowardly leaders. We have a government made up of cowards and the corrupt with both parties trying to outwhore the other to the highest corporate bidders. We don't have a government. We have a brothel filled with prostitutes and pimps, all of them selling out the people who worked their asses off to put them in office.

We need extremely strict campaign finance laws that will purge almost every corrupt member of congress and the executive branch out of office and preferably into prison. I'm sick of being lied to, sold out and shit on.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

25. Weeks from a crucial election, it's much better politics for Rs to 'hold HOSTAGE middle-class

tax relief', as President Obama put it in today's speech--IMO not for the last time by any means:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/obama-attacks-g-o-p-on-tax-rates/?pagemode=print

[laughingliberal]

26. I had the exact same thought last night. Guess we're still scared of the GOPpers. nt

[samrock]

29. If it was good enough for the Republicans

to pass this tax cut initially it should be good enough for the democrats to pass Obama's version of it.

[jillan]

31. I think their strategy is to expose the repugs blocking middle-class tax cuts.