Why are Democrats the only ones making concessions on the Bush tax cuts?
Monday, November 08, 2010 at 3:00 pm
As the debate over the possible lapse or extension of the Bush tax cuts heats up in anticipation of Congress’ post-election return next week, you might have noticed that the goal posts of a possible compromise between Democrats and Republicans keep getting pushed back. A long time ago, many Democrats wanted to let all the Bush-era tax cuts lapse — they’d fought against the regressive cuts in 2001 and they’d be excited to see them go. More recently the consensus, put forth by the Obama White House, was to extend the cuts permanently for households making less than $250,000, while letting them lapse for those making more than that. Still more recently, the White House allowed that the continued economic downturn might justify extending the cuts for all income earners for two years, while making the cuts for most Americans permanent. What have Republicans offered during the same time frame? Nothing.
One good reason for this power imbalance, explains Adam Serwer, is that Republicans feel they’ll win whether or not negotiations break down:
Republicans, meanwhile, have been less accommodating, with some suggesting that they could simply hold off until January, when they will control the House and hold a stronger hand in the Senate. That would set the stage for a more powerful push to permanently extend all the cuts — the preferred GOP alternative.
“They might blame GOP obstructionism. But, you know, people are going to start missing a lot of money in their weekly paychecks in January. And there’s only going to be one person in the White House,” said a Republican House aide, speaking on condition of anonymity to describe party thinking.
In other words, if talks break down and taxes shoot up for everyone, Republicans are banking on Americans blaming the president. If, on the other hand, Republicans get their way and make the cuts permanent for all income earners — racking up nearly an additional trillion dollars of federal debt over the next decade in the process — they’ll be nothing short of ecstatic about that, too.
32 Comments
Pingback posted November 8, 2010 @ 3:27 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jonathan Cohen and gacodergirl, WashIndependent. WashIndependent said: Why are Democrats the only ones making concessions in the debate over the Bush tax cuts? http://bit.ly/dxXau1 [...]
Pingback posted November 8, 2010 @ 4:04 pm
[...] Why are Democrats the only ones making concessions on the Bush tax … [...]
Pingback posted November 8, 2010 @ 4:09 pm
[...] the Republicans actually may have a functional majority, …GOP expands footholdBoston GlobeWhy are Democrats the only ones making concessions on the Bush tax cuts?The Washington IndependentRepublicans oppose compromise with Obama on tax cutsLos Angeles [...]
Pingback posted November 8, 2010 @ 4:45 pm
[...] Why are Democrats the only ones making concessions on the Bush tax … [...]
Pingback posted November 8, 2010 @ 6:31 pm
[...] Why are Democrats the only ones making concessions on the Bush tax … [...]
Pingback posted November 8, 2010 @ 6:32 pm
[...] Why are Democrats the only ones making concessions on the Bush tax … [...]
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 8:35 pm
Maybe because they haven't made any concessions on anything for two years.
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 8:35 pm
Maybe because they haven't made any concessions on anything for two years.
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 8:47 pm
While the Dems held a filibuster-proof majority, concessions from the Republican side were irrelevant, so your point is moot.
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 8:47 pm
While the Dems held a filibuster-proof majority, concessions from the Republican side were irrelevant, so your point is moot.
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 8:49 pm
Anyone who gets their news from sources other than MSNBC, CNN, and the like is familiar with Diane Feinstein's infamous quote regarding ObamaCare: “I will oppose any amendment no matter how good that amendment may be”. Now that they're in the majority, it's the Republican's turn to be inflexible.
But that's different, right?
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 8:49 pm
Anyone who gets their news from sources other than MSNBC, CNN, and the like is familiar with Diane Feinstein's infamous quote regarding ObamaCare: “I will oppose any amendment no matter how good that amendment may be”. Now that they're in the majority, it's the Republican's turn to be inflexible.
But that's different, right?
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 8:51 pm
I dunno. Maybe the Democrats have forgotten THEY STILL HAVE THE SENATE AND THE PRESIDENCY AND DON'T KNOW HOW TO TELL JOHN BOEHNER TO GO **** HIMSELF?
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 8:51 pm
I dunno. Maybe the Democrats have forgotten THEY STILL HAVE THE SENATE AND THE PRESIDENCY AND DON'T KNOW HOW TO TELL JOHN BOEHNER TO GO **** HIMSELF?
Pingback posted November 8, 2010 @ 8:54 pm
[...] Why are Democrats the only ones making concessions on the Bush tax cuts? « The Washington Inde… [...]
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 8:54 pm
Because Republicans are nihilists. They would rather see the middle class go away then give in. Problem with Demo's is the actually give a crap
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 8:54 pm
Because Republicans are nihilists. They would rather see the middle class go away then give in. Problem with Demo's is the actually give a crap
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 8:56 pm
So every law in the Senate now takes 60 votes? That's not American. You shouldn't tout that my fiend In any event actual Dems were not 60, 2 indies and then ms. brown came to washington.
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 8:56 pm
So every law in the Senate now takes 60 votes? That's not American. You shouldn't tout that my fiend In any event actual Dems were not 60, 2 indies and then ms. brown came to washington.
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 8:57 pm
She never said that. Go hump Rush's leg some more.
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 8:57 pm
She never said that. Go hump Rush's leg some more.
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 8:58 pm
The cuts were made, let's see, in 2001. If you let them expire that's a tax increase. Not raising taxes is not a cause of “racking up nearly an additional trillion dollars of federal debt…”
And the answer to “Why are Democrats the only ones making concessions on the Bush tax cuts?”: Because the Democrats lost and the Republicans won!!!
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 9:21 pm
I despise Dianne Feinstein. But I also hate it when people take things out of context to try and make their point. The comment mentioned by Mike was made BEFORE the bill was passed by reconciliation. He is attempting to make that a CURRENT statement. Since the political landscape has changed, some Democrats are backpedaling on different things. She is an arrogant witch, but let's stick with what EVERYBODY says from hereon out. Because we can throw out the Republican “No compromises!” too. Let's get over the hyper-partisanship on BOTH sides, for the good of the nation.
Comment posted November 9, 2010 @ 2:23 am
Thanks for the fantastic blog post and it is nice to see such a postive blog that offers so much value so thank you for that. Awesome and interesting article. Great things you've always shared with us. Thanks again.
Comment posted November 9, 2010 @ 12:57 pm
I'd prefer to see ALL the Bush tax cuts expire. How much good have they done over the past 8 years? How many jobs have been created? Clinton left office with a budget surplus. (As we all know, the economy boomed under Clinton even with those higher rates!) The Bush tax cuts, two unfunded wars, a Medicare prescription drug benefit for seniors that wasn't paid for, and an economy that tanked under Bush have left this country in a dire fiscal hole. Letting the tax cuts expire would help us repair that damage and restore confidence in our economy. Spending cuts alone won't do it. Republican David Stockman (Reagan's budget director) said recently that if you asked republicans to come up with specific spending cuts under penalty of death, they couldn't come up with 50 billion dollars worth, let alone 1.3 trillion.
I understand the reasoning behind keeping tax cuts in place for the lower 98% of wage earners. But extending those cuts for the upper 2% makes absolutely no fiscal sense at all. It's “voodoo economics.”
Comment posted November 10, 2010 @ 1:14 pm
i love mac makeup very much
buy cheap makeup online with
mac cosmetics wholesale price.
northface jacket are made of the best material.
the cheapest north face jackets on sale.
you can enjoy the sports in winter with the north face coats
columbia sportswear jackets
columbia jackets on sale
columbia outerwear
Pingback posted November 13, 2010 @ 11:27 am
[...] Why are Democrats the only ones making concessions on the Bush tax cuts?. Comments (0) [...]
Comment posted December 4, 2010 @ 12:08 am
canl? sohbet
canli sohbet
canli chat
canl? sohbet
sohbet
canl? sohbet odalar?
canl? chat odalari
sohbet odalar?
chat odalari
sohbet siteleri
akdeniz sohbet
Radyo Dinle
Turkiye FM
Radyo
Sohbetci
Chatci
Sohbet Yap
Sohbet
Muhabbet
Muhabbet Sitesi
Sevda
Sevda Sohbet
Sevda siteleri
sohbet
chat
sohbet siteleri
chat siteleri
sohbet
sohbet siteleri
polis odalari
polis sohbet
memur odalar?
memur sohbet
mersin sohbet
chat sohbet
mersin sohbet
chat sohbet
djakman
kayseri sohbet
bedava sohbet
mersin fm
Damar Sohbet
Comment posted May 26, 2011 @ 8:30 am
Youre so right. Im there with you. Your blog is unquestionably worth a read if anybody comes throughout it. Im lucky I did because now Ive obtained a whole new view of this. I didnt realise that this issue was so important and so universal. You certainly put it in perspective for me.
wenger backpack
Comment posted May 26, 2011 @ 8:30 am
Youre so right. Im there with you. Your blog is unquestionably worth a read if anybody comes throughout it. Im lucky I did because now Ive obtained a whole new view of this. I didnt realise that this issue was so important and so universal. You certainly put it in perspective for me.
wenger backpack
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
rss