My question relates to the “fiscal cliff” issue. Specifically, the expiration of the “Bush” tax cuts and the administration’s preference of their expiration for only the upper income brackets. The optics for the Republicans in objecting are less than ideal as their position is easily portrayed as looking out for the rich.
So, why doesn’t the House simply pass a bill extending the all the tax cuts? Harry Reid would most likely effectively kill it by ignoring it. If this happened would not the tables be turned and the Democrats look like the proverbial bad guys?
Again, I’n not looking to start a political discussion on the merits of either side. I’m just curious as to why this strategy has not been adopted.
They can still be the bad guys because the country is deep in debt and they are refusing to ask the wealthiest among us to pay slightly higher taxes, to help reduce that debt.
The Dems wouldn’t automatically be the bad guys because they are pitching the idea that we need to raise revenues, and that doesn’t happen if nobody’s rates go up.
I don’t know what the quotes are about. Is there some ambiguity about under which administration these were passed?
A few reasons:
[ol]
[li]It doesn’t really pay off to be seen explicitly as time-wasters. If the house passes a bill knowing that it will not pass the senate, they will be seen (correctly) as being ineffectual. Especially if it is seen that they didn’t even try to compromise, like that action of just passing a bill to extend the Bush tax cuts would be.[/li][li]With new elections being quite far in the future no one cares as much about making unpopular moves as they did before the election. [/li][li]The Bush tax cuts are not all that popular, except among its core constituency, which is not all that large. It is not clear that opposing their extension would make democrats into “bad guys”.[/li][/ol]
The question is, look to whom like the bad guys? For most people, and particularly among those paying the most attention to the issue, one’s view of who is right and who is wrong in the fiscal cliff negotiations is coterminous with one’s partisan identification. In other words, the bad guys are the ones on the other side. Procedural wrangling isn’t likely to change that perception among many people.
Well, they would have expired already, had they not been extended under the current administration. Perhaps that’s what the OP is alluding to.
The press don’t usually pay much attention to symbolic protest votes like this. Indeed, I’m not even sure if the GOP hasn’t tried what you suggest. But since the bill wouldn’t even come to the floor in the Senate, it would be meaningless and even on a slow news day, not really worth much press time.
They were extended during Obama’s Presidency, so really they can be said to both share credit/blame at this point. (They were originally set to expire in 2010.) Maybe “Bush/Obama tax cuts” is going to far, but I can see the reason for the quotes.
There was a minor scuffle about them when they were extended then, too. IIRC the extension was part of a package deal with extended unemployment benefits.
To be clear Obama has always drawn the line in the sand at the “98% of taxpayers” / $250,000 thing. Both parties agree on perpetual extension for those earning under $250,000, and that’s what Obama campaigned on in 2008 and again in 2012. The disagreement and horse trading and political grandstanding is all about those earning above $250,000.
aaaand I missed the edit window. Thanks a lot Obama.
First, the Senate can always make amendments to bills sent along by the House. So the Senate just adds a simple “Except for rich people” amendment and sends it back to the House.
Second, part of the discussion is the overall budget. You could pass revenue and spending bills at different times, but it makes a little more sense to do all of your horse-trading at once with a larger bill that sets taxes and spending at the same time.
On the subject of looking like bad guys: I know I’m among a growing group of people who are willing to define “bad guy” as “anyone in either party who hinders a compromise position that allows the country to get back to work.” I can assure that you we are not amused by empty partisan gestures.
Because with raising taxes and not lowering spending, the Dems could be seen as the Tax & Spenders that they are characterized as by the Pubs. What makes it worse is that Obama wants to unilaterally (and illegally both by statute and Constitution) raise the debt ceiling. The Pubs are playing the Dems game of sitting back and letting the other party shoot themselves in the foot and so even if letting the tax cuts expire is a good thing, it will still work against the Dems in the court of public opinion.
What the Dems should do is offer some symbolic spending cuts and put the Pubbies on the defensive.