DSCC chair: Dems open to temporarily extending Bush tax cuts for the rich

[Enrique]

New Jersey Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez said Sunday that Democrats are open to temporarily extending the Bush-era tax cuts for Americans earning more than $250,000 per year, which are set to expire at the end of this year.

“I certainly believe that there may be some opportunity for a temporary approval of some of these cuts,” Menendez, who chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said during an appearance on ABC’s “This Week.” “But we’ll have to see what can be worked out.”

Menendez made clear that Democratic leaders were completely closed to the idea that the tax cuts for households earning more than $250,000 be made permanent, citing the $4 trillion impact on the national deficit.

“That’s not going to happen,” he said. “What we will not support, certainly what I will not support is a permanent extension.”

When the dust settles after Tuesday’s election, one of the most pressing concerns that Congress plans to address in the lame-duck session is whether to extend all or some of the tax cuts. Republicans have resoundingly said they will only support an extension for all Americans, while Democrats have argued for extending them to only households earning less than $250,000. The debate over whether to extend the tax cuts erupted before Congress adjourned to campaign for this year’s mid-term elections without putting it to a vote.

Ultimately, the fate of the tax cuts will come down to President Obama. The White House is reportedly considering a plan to de-couple the tax cuts, which would make them permanent for households earning less than $250,000 and extend them temporarily for those who earn more. In the worst-case scenario for taxpayers, neither party will compromise and the new Congress will have to address the issue in January after all the tax cuts expire.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/31/democratic-senate-campaign-chief-says-party-is-open-to-temporary-extension-of-bush-tax-cuts-for-wealthy/#ixzz142lGJney

[Me.]

1. And The Dems Are Wondering Why There Is An 'Enthusiasm' Gap?

[Cosmocat]

24. Gutless pukes ...

this was a MAJOR win/win for them going into the election, and they should have had the god darned battle a month and a half ago ...

I am with most that I don't trust them to barter this out at this point ...

The Rs will threaten armed insurection if they don't get the upper tax cuts permanently passed, and the Ds will roll over and take it ...

[Deep13]

26. bingo.

:-(

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

2. Do I really need to say it again?

Camels, eyes of needles, etc.

Tax the rich. If they don't like it, tell them I said they're going to Hell.

[Frustratedlady]

3. They can't be serious. If they do that, I throw up my hands in disgust.

I will be convinced the Pugs and Dems are one and the same.

You may see me on HGTV's House Hunting International, or whatever they call that show.

[ProSense]

4. They're going to expire

“I certainly believe that there may be some opportunity for a temporary approval of some of these cuts...But we’ll have to see what can be worked out.”

"Democratic leaders were completely closed to the idea that the tax cuts for households earning more than $250,000 be made permanent"

“That’s not going to happen,” he said. “What we will not support, certainly what I will not support is a permanent extension.”

[Enrique]

6. they're going to extend them so they don't expire n/t

[ProSense]

7. How?

Democrats have a 59 maojority through the expiration date.

[FBaggins]

13. Democrats may pass it in the lame duck session.

Then republicans can't have a tax cut be the first thing they pass in a new Congress.

It also lets us frame the timeline rather than fight for/against whatever the republicans craft.

[ProSense]

15. Not going to happen. Here is the scenario

laid out perfectly by Steve Benen:

No matter what happens tomorrow, policymakers will still have to resolve the lingering dispute over Bush-era tax rates. President Obama wants to make permanent the lower rates for families making less than $250,000 a year, while allowing Clinton-era rates to return for the wealthy. Republicans insist on keeping all of the Bush-era rates, and adding the cost (about $4 trillion) to the debt.

As you no doubt recall, Congress adjourned before reaching a conclusion. At this point, however, the White House has an idea about how to proceed, and as one senior Democratic aide told the Washington Post, "The concept of 'decoupling' is a hot topic right now."

With Republicans poised to gain ground in Tuesday's elections, the White House is losing hope that Congress will approve its plan to raise taxes on the nation's wealthiest families and is increasingly focusing on a new strategy that would preserve tax breaks for both the wealthy and the middle class.

According to people familiar with talks at the White House and among senior Democrats on Capitol Hill, breaking apart the Bush administration tax cuts is now being discussed as a more realistic goal. That strategy calls for permanent extension of cuts that benefit families earning less than $250,000 a year, and temporary extension of cuts on income above that amount.

The key is to "decouple" the rates for the middle class from the rates for the wealthy. President Obama, under this scenario, would essentially offer the deal -- Congress makes the lower rates for the vast majority of the country permanent, and he'll concede to a temporary extension of the breaks for the rich.

Republicans would accept such a bargain, right? Wrong. By all appearances, "decoupling" is the opposite of what the GOP wants -- the key to the Republican strategy is holding middle-class breaks hostage to get the lower rates for the wealthy. Under Obama's potential proposal, the benefits for the rich would be temporary, and when they would be due to expire, Republicans would be forced to fight for an unpopular tax-cut plan that primarily benefits millionaires and billionaires.

<...>

[FBaggins]

19. Then they'll force him to veto a tax cut (or democrats to filibuster it)

I doubt there will be six democrats with the stones to do that after tomorrow.

We're handing them a win right out of the gate? Why?

[ProSense]

22. Why would Dems need to filibuster? n/t

[FBaggins]

25. Because enough democrats have indicated that they'll support it...

...that they have enough votes to pass it absent a filibuster (even in the best-case scenario tomorrow).

[ProSense]

27. Democrats don't have to filibuster bills

They decide which bills come to the floor. Republicans filibuster to prevent that. Democrats' 59-seat majority remain intact through the expiration.

[FBaggins]

28. They do if a majority intends to pass it.

You're going around in circles. Democrats don't want it to expire because then republicans get credit for cutting taxes (and we were trying to call this the "Obama tax cut".

And expiration eventually happens and the new congress takes over. Then they get to decide what comes to the floor in the House AND they have majority support to extend the entire thing in the Senate.

Leaving the president to filibuster a popular bill right after getting his hand slapped by the electorate?

Doesn't sound wise.

Pass it now while we can a) take credit for it, and b) can influence timelines, expiration, maybe even "decouple". Wait for later and we have less leverage.

Also... keep in mind that withholding tables don't reprint themselves overnight. Even with a lame duck passing, there could be a couple months of higher withholding.

[ProSense]

29. Democrats don't need to filibuster a bill they decide to send to the floor.

If they decide to send a compromise bill to the floor, then the decision is made. They don't need to filibuster.

The bill can't get to the floor unless Democrats present it.

"Leaving the president to filibuster a popular bill right after getting his hand slapped by the electorate?"

The President doesn't filibuster.

If Democrats present the tax cuts in two separate bills, Republicans have to decide to vote for each or filibuster each.

[FBaggins]

33. Then we're right back to my #13.

That's why they try something during the lame duck.

The President doesn't filibuster

Of course. Sorry... I realized that I was repeating my "veto of filibuster" comment from earlier and deleted the wrong one.

If Democrats present the tax cuts in two separate bills, Republicans have to decide to vote for each or filibuster each.

And they don't have that option unless they take action in a lame duck session.

[ProSense]

35. "And they don't have that option unless they take action in a lame duck session"?

The tax cuts expire in December.

[FBaggins]

36. And we won't control the House in January.

Thus we no longer get to decide what comes to the floor.


If you're going to present two bills and force republicans to act... you have to do it while you retain control... IOW, lame duck.

[ProSense]

37. The Senate has no input?

Any bill (and it would have to be a new bill) that offers tax cuts for the rich, if it can even pass in the House, will die in the Senate.

[FBaggins]

38. After almost half of the senate democratic seats in this election are lost?

Sure... they have "input"... and they're telling you that their current input expectation is to bend over.

See the OP... the head of the DSCC says that they're willing to give republicans everything they want in exchange for making the renewall temporary.

We'll have Coons and probably Manchin there for the lame duck session... and both have said that they're ok with an extension at all levels.

[ProSense]

39. They will still be the majority, and

will still decide which bills come to the floor.

You are are assuming that the issue doesn't get resolved in the lame duck session, and it will be easy to address after the tax cuts expire. Once they expire, tax cuts for the rich are not going to be an easy sell.

Up until the tax cuts expire, Democrats control this issue.

[FBaggins]

40. Can you try that again?

You are are assuming that the issue doesn't get resolved in the lame duck session,

No... you're the one that said that's "not gonna happen"... I said that the lame duck session was where we would try to get it taken care of (while we still have solid majorities and before republicans can take credit for it).

and it will be easy to address after the tax cuts expire

No. It will be easier for republicans to "address" it perhaps... but our ability to keep it from passing will then rely on filibuster/veto (again, as I said already) because, regardless of how bad tomorrow is, there are more than 50 senators next year who would vote to extend the entire package.

Once they expire, tax cuts for the rich are not going to be an easy sell.

But tax cuts for everyone IS an easy sell... particularly when those "cuts" are really just "leave things the way they were until a few days ago".

Once again... if we want language in there that splits rich from "everyone else" in the bill... by far our best opportunity is to do it before we lose dozens of seats.

Up until the tax cuts expire, Democrats control this issue.

Right... which is why I said to handle it then... which you replied wouldn't happen.

Did you change your mind somewhere through this thread and not realize it? :)

[ProSense]

43. "No... you're the one that said that's 'not gonna happen'..." No

I didn't. It will be addressed, but the outcome will likely be an expansion of the middle-class tax cuts or both tax cuts expiring.

"No. It will be easier for republicans to "address" it perhaps... but our ability to keep it from passing will then rely on filibuster/veto (again, as I said already) because, regardless of how bad tomorrow is, there are more than 50 senators next year who would vote to extend the entire package."

That's inaccurate because in the Senate, Democrats will decide which bills go to a floor vote.

Up until the tax cuts expire, Democrats control this issue.

Right... which is why I said to handle it then... which you replied wouldn't happen.

No, here is what I said and your response

Me: If Democrats present the tax cuts in two separate bills, Republicans have to decide to vote for each or filibuster each.

You: "And they don't have that option unless they take action in a lame duck session."

I did conclude, as Benen pointed out, that Republicans are likely not to go for that deal, at which point, the tax cuts will likely expire.

[FBaggins]

44. Please re-read my #13 and your reply.

but the outcome will likely be an expansion of the middle-class tax cuts or both tax cuts expiring.

The first won't happen, the second isn't "adressing" it.

[ProSense]

45. They both address it.

You seem to think that addressing it means passing.

If Democrats offer two bills and Republicans fail to support either, that's addressing it.

Now, if they expire, the likelihood of tax cuts for the rich being passed, even on a temporary basis, decreases significantly.

[FBaggins]

46. You've made no accommodation for tomorrow.

If you think that Democrats suddenly grow a spine after a bad beating when they weren't willing to force this issue before the beating... you haven't watched our party for very long.

Once again... the OP is about the DSCC willing to give away the things that you claim they'll force. How can you reconcile the two?

[ProSense]

47. What does tomorrow have to do with the expiration date? n/t

[FBaggins]

48. There are TWO expiration dates.

One on the tax cuts... one on the careers of 30-50+ Democrats. Then there are the half-dozen democrats who see themselves as "next" until the memory of this election fades.

[ProSense]

49. There is one expiration date on the tax cuts.

That is a fact. The rest of your comment, as it relates to the tax cuts, is speculation.

"Then there are the half-dozen democrats who see themselves as "next" until the memory of this election fades."

Oh my.

[FBaggins]

51. I'm sorry... you obviously don't remember '94

Democrats were shellshocked and took months to try to grow a spine.

It's going to get ugly around here if we don't pull off a big beat.

[ProSense]

52. This isn't 1994. n/t

[FBaggins]

53. Right... it's starting to look like

we'll look back on '94 fondly.

No, it's not '94 in terms of causes or in the strategy to recover from it... but the shell-shock is the same. The impact on other senators who watch their team go down hard is the same.

I still haven't gotten an answer on the basic question. Surely you agree that Democrats in the Senate displayed little gumption when the issue came up earlier this year, right? What makes you think that they get MORE unified after tomorrow? And WHY would the DSCC be publicly agreeing that they're willing to allow an extension for everyone if you think they might actually pull together and keep it from coming to a vote?

[ProSense]

55. "we'll look back on '94 fondly."

Oh please.

You seem giddy.

"The impact on other senators who watch their team go down hard is the same."

Democrats are going to control the Senate.

"WHY would the DSCC be publicly agreeing"

Senator Menendez is one Senator and can speak for himself. He does not issue official Democratic positions on legislation in Congress.

You seem to be confusing the title of the OP with his comment as a single Democratic Senator.

[FBaggins]

64. Not in the least bit "Giddy"

Just right.

And wishing I wasn't.

[ieoeja]

34. We still would not get credit.

The public will associate tax cuts with the Republican victory in this election. Even if Democrats created the tax cut, they would still credit the Republican victory with having forced our hand.

If they even go that far. More likely they will simply "remember" that the Republicans passed this after they took control of congress. FNC and RW radio will be repeating this lie ad nauseum in 2012 and beyond.


Gore in 2000: "The threat of attack on the US by Islamic terrorists is the number one national security concern facing this country today."

Bush/Cheney in 2000: "Gore is such an idiot that he actually believes a bunch of nomads in the desert are a graver threat than Communist China."

9/11: "Allah akbar!"

9/12: "Bet you're glad Gore isn't president now!"


You think the American Idiots on 9/12 are suddenly going to get a brain? The same people who believe that we increased taxes last year when we actually decreased them? Good luck with that.

[Tarheel_Dem]

20. Thank You.....

:thumbsup:

[donheld]

56. The tax cuts for we the middle class are going to expire too

In order to extend ours the repugs and cowardly dems will demand those of the rich be extended too.

[Kdillard]

5. What else can they do when they don't have much of a choice if they want to get this done?

[Enrique]

8. they can let them expire

they could have repealed them the second Obama took office, and should have done that, in my opinion. But now they're about to expire of course they can let them expire.

[Kdillard]

12. If they let them expire then it expires for everyone without a new agreement in place.

That is the issue. Dems want to keep some of the cuts in place. Now if Dems reach an agreement to permanently give those tax cuts to those that they want and temporarily keep the tax cuts for the rich for another year or two at the max I won't be upset.

[KansDem]

9. Let me see if I understand this...

Impeachment of lying, murderous traitors Bush and Cheney is "off the table," but tax cuts for the richest to the determent of the working and middle classes is back "on the table?"

Do I have this right? :shrug:

[bigdarryl]

10. And Obama will be a one termer because someone will challenge him in

the Primary in the Party don't be surprise if Cynthia McKinney challenges him for the nomination.You heard it hear first. BUT it depends on the President on if he wants to continue this get along with the rethugs

[ChiciB1]

11. Same Ole, Same Ole... Guess They'll NEVER Get It! As We Ring Our Hands

at what is on the horizon, they still roll over! Guess I should JUST GIVE UP.

[Kdillard]

17. I don't understand this reasoning. We don't have the votes to get what we want without agreement

from the GOP and neither do they. If we want to get anything permanent done on this both sides have to compromise. If an agreement can't be reached then the tax cuts will expire for everyone. I don't get the kneejerk responses from people who should know better.

[Teaser]

14. can these people think at all?

if they are trying to impact the goddamn elections tomorrow, well, that cake is baked. There is no media strategy at this point that's going to change whatever is going to happen.

And getting rid of these tax cuts is good policy. We're about to go into a lame duck session where many Dem's will have lost their jobs and can vote their conscience without fear and do the RIGHT THING.

Why telegraph this strategy now? Maybe 6 months ago it would work, but what they really should have done then is fought harder on the middle class extensions.

Morons.

[harun]

16. Dem's have been trying to figure out how to do this all along. As

soon as they find a way to blame it one someone else they WILL extend the tax cuts for the highest earners.

[democrank]

18. Gee, what a swell idea.

Might as well just rubber stamp anything Bushie. After all, Obama has rehired some of Bush`s people, might as well extend torture, the war in Afghanistan, help for banksters and corporations...wait....

[freebrew]

21. Weak=willed bastards!

Let them ALL expire!
What's a few more $$ for the middle-class anyway?
Hell, we'll all be broke pretty soon anyway. Let the rich take care of things for a while.
Then, when we're all unemployed or working for peanuts, we can come up with some other way to
take back our country. It's pretty apparent that voting won't work when all the propaganda is against us.

[GSLevel9]

23. oh it's extended... no doubt. After Tues... no doubt. nt

[Joanne98]

30. DINOS!

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Telalim]

32. At some point there will only be one big party in America.

No more Democratic party no more Republican party- just the

Corporate party

Obama (C)

[kath]

41. GROW. SOME. F#%@ING. SPINES.

soooo sick of this shit.

[krawhitham]

42. this might be the trade-off for getting unemployment extended

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ramulux]

54. Genius Political Strategy

Mr. Menendez I salute you and your incredible political savvy. I mean how is giving up on a winning issue a day before a major election NOT a genius move?

[donheld]

57. This is why no matter what happens tomorrow we'll not get far.

These rich fools and big business have too big of a strangle hold on the Senate, Congress and yes the President too.
Not enough of them will stand up to them. Far too many of the dems always cave and they get their way.

[jeanpalmer]

58. What does the catfood commission say about this?

How do tax cuts for the rich fit into deficit reduction?

[avaistheone1]

59. No wonder Dem voters have a hard time coming out and voting for Democratic candidates

when our Dem politicians are doing everything possible to keep the policies of the old regime in place.

Why is it so hard for the wealthiest of this country to pay their fair share, especially when our economy is sliding off a cliff?

[JCMach1]

60. Of course they are...

:grr:

Funny how they started rolling-over months ago... sigh

[Raine]

61. They're already planning on screwing us over

repukes and Democrats. :argh:

[bklyncowgirl]

62. Great, just great. Can't these Democrats stand for anything?

Bad policy, bad politics. Worse yet he's my Senator.

[Thrill]

63. Watch how Democrats bend over and take whatever the Repubs

make them. It will be a huge difference in Republican controlled Congress and Democratic controlled.