Senate Democrats feel boxed in on tax deal

[ProSense]

Senate Democrats feel boxed in on tax deal

By Alexander Bolton

<...>

Some Democrats worry that White House senior adviser David Axelrod may have given away negotiating leverage by acknowledging that Democrats would probably accept a temporary two-year extension of all the 2001 and 2003 cuts.

<...>

“It doesn’t sound like the Republicans have the slightest interest in compromise,” said one Democratic aide.

But another senior Senate Democratic aide expressed doubt that Axelrod’s revelation changed the political calculus in the Senate Democratic Conference.

The aide noted that a significant number of Senate Democrats have called for a temporary extension of all the Bush tax cuts.

more

Well, they can blame the President, and then people can hound the President to veto whatever they pass.

[thereismore]

1. How the fuck can they be? It's a WIN WIN for us. If you screw this one I'll be crushed. But

then again, what else is new.

[Cosmocat]

24. Friggen ...

W
E
A
K
K
N
E
E
D

J
A
C
K
W
A
G
O
N
S

[mth44sc]

2. Dear Dems

Ya just got you ass handed to you. Maybe functioning out of fear ain't the way to go...

[riderinthestorm]

3. Great thread in GD about this. The Progressive Caucus proposes

that they disengage the high end tax cuts from the middle class tax cuts for the vote. They simply vote on the middle class tax cuts and let the high end tax cuts twist in the wind without a vote. That way the middle class tax cuts aren't held hostage with the high end ones.

The Rethugs are then in the box.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9562782

[ProSense]

5. Yes, but the House is

not the problem. There are more than 250 Democrats in the House through the date the tax cuts expire. All that's needed is about 220 votes to pass a tax cut. They do not need a single Republican vote.

If the vote fails in the House, it will be because of Democrats. I think it will pass.

[FBaggins]

20. They don't need a single republican vote... But they still can't pass it.

There aren't 220 democrats willing to vote yes on that strategy.

Your error is assuming that messaging/spin is the same thing as reality. That if we don't CALL it a "tax increase fo the rich" it won't be a problem. That everyone will just understand that the cuts have expired and now we're just looking at new cuts... The past doesn't matter.

It's too easy to spin the other way. Nobody will pay less next year than they did this year (therefore they will admit few claims of "cuts") and this plan results in higher taxes for a few. That's not a problem for many progressives... but trying to spin it as not REALLY a vote to soak the rich isn't going to work... Because that's what it is.

They may be able to afford it (they can)... But your strategy doesn't rely on admitting that: instead it pretends that it just "happened".

The votes don't exist in the House ti pass a bill that results in a tax increase during a deep recession.

[Cosmocat]

23. Really? Seriously? Do ya think?

This is some kind of brilliant "strategy" to these friggen twits?

They should have done this in freakin October ...

[Jim Sagle]

4. The Senate Democrats CONSTRUCTED the box and then HOPPED INTO the box.

Now WE'RE the ones in the box. As intended.

[msongs]

6. never underestimate the idiocy of top dems in DC lol nt

[ProSense]

8. It gets worse

When January rolls around, there will be six fewer Democratic Senators.

[DJ13]

7. Doesnt Obama have to sign anything they come up with?

He could put his foot down and specify what he will sign, and what he wont.

[Mz Pip]

10. Good luck with that

His attempt to be "bi-partisan" will assure that he will cave on this.

He's a smart guy, but he seems totally clueless about the republican agenda. He also seems to forget that he's the President and actually has some power in this situation.

[ProSense]

11. Interesting

His attempt to be "bi-partisan" will assure that he will cave on this.

He's a smart guy, but he seems totally clueless about the republican agenda. He also seems to forget that he's the President and actually has some power in this situation.

So if Senate Democrats pass this, are they also totally clueless about the Republican agenda?

[polichick]

12. Perhaps the WH and Congress shares the Republican agenda...

...about tax cuts for the wealthy - after all, they are wealthy themselves.

[ProSense]

13. Perhaps, but

we'll see.

[joshcryer]

14. I will be shocked if they pass it.

[Mz Pip]

15. Honestly

I am completely clueless as to what they are about. They seem to have lost their ability to clearly articulate their message.

There is no reason to continue the Bush tax cuts for the rich guys. How hard would it be to say "They have been in place for nearly 10 years and don't seem to have resulted in job creation." Duh.

I don't know what they are doing. I really don't.

[riderinthestorm]

16. "They have been in place for nearly 10 years and don't seem to have resulted in job creation" nt

[FBaggins]

21. Sorry. The administration handed them the spin on that one.

Just look at how many jobs WOULD have been lost if they hadn't been there. :)

[polichick]

9. The fucking box is their own greed! (edited to be in compliance...

...with the new rules.)

[Webster Green]

17. They must be really shitty poker players.

Idiots!

[AtomicKitten]

18. I think Dems should call the Rs bluff and let the damn tax cuts expire.

All of them. If the Democrats can't out-maneuver the wingnuts on this issue which should be a no-brainer, Dems should just stand back and let the tax cuts expire.

Dems need to put the GOP on the defensive. Make them explain why they think adding more to the debt vis a vis Bush's monster tax cuts for the rich is a good idea. Make them explain why they are holding the middle class tax cuts hostage on behalf of the wealthiest Americans.

[RBInMaine]

19. Again, for the civics 101 people, you need 60 votes to get anything done in the Senate. Also, the

Pubs are again and again and again calling the top 2% a "tax on small business" and they are getting away with it with the help of the their corporate media propaganda friends. The best route is to call their bluff by agreeing to a temporary extension of the top 2%, THEN let them just try to filibuster that.

[de novo]

22. Actually, you need 51 votes in the Senate. Unbelievable how

strongly that message creep has taken hold. The Dems have lived for two years on that pathetic excuse for inaction, "We need 60!".

Weak ass fucking Democrats. Force filibusters, expose obstructionists, reconciliation, change the rules. There are so many ways they could be more forceful.

Don't give me that 60 votes bullshit.