Politically, how would it have worked out if the Dems let the Bush tax cuts expire, and then promptly introduced a bill with tax cuts similar to the Bush ones, but that exclude the top 2% of Americans?
I assume the Republicans would block the new bill. But wouldn’t that be disastrous for them, since they would be blocking a bill that would provide needed tax cuts to 98% of Americans?
How would the Republicans spin this so that they can both block the bill and come out ahead in public opinion?
The same way they’re spinning what did happen, that Democrats are Socialists who only want to punish the people who create wealth in this country, and give handouts to the lazy bums who vote for them and contribute nothing of value.
Do you think they could get away with calling 98% of Americans lazy bums who contribute nothing of value?
Also, having let the tax cuts expire, what is done is done. “Here is a new law to cut taxes on 98% of taxpayers. This new law does not punish anyone, it helps 98% of Americans. You can either vote for it, or deny these new tax cuts to 98% of taxpayers”.
I’m more curious as to why the Democratic leadership let the issue languish until after the mid-term elections. They had to know that the Democratic party would be in a weaker state after the elections; why not put this matter front and center in the run-up to the elections, and let Democratic candidates come out and say, “I’m going to vote for tax cuts for everyone. My opponent will hold your tax cuts hostage so he/she can get additional breaks for the very wealthiest?” I can’t believe that this would have hurt the Democrats in any meaningful way, and it’s possible it might have actually helped some candidates. Then again, the Democrats have never (or at least in my lifetime) been anywhere near as good at messaging as the Republicans have.
“The Democrats are endangering a very fragile recovery by threatening to raise taxes on small businesses so that they can win political points through class warfare. This is not a about tax breaks for the rich, this is about protecting the small businesses that are the backbone of this country.”
Whether you agree with that or not, it was the winning argument.
For God’s sake, I wish this stupid meme would go away. The bill the Democrats passed had tax cuts FOR ALL TAXPAYERS, not just those making under $250,000. No one benefited more under the bill than the rich.
Well, they could have let them all expire and introduced their bill, but there is nothing saying that it would get through…which would probably have a negative effect on the Dems if they pushed it through. After all, the Pubs would point out that they weren’t the ones who let the things expire, that they were for keeping them in place during these trying economic times, etc etc.
Letting the things expire is something the Dems could have done…but it would require cooperation by the Pubs to get the new bill passed. What would the Dems be giving up that would make it worth while for the Pubs to play along?
I’m sure that this is how the Dems would spin it, but I’m unsure that’s how it would actually play out with the public. After all, it would have been the Dems who let the things expire. Also, I’m unsure how it would play to independents and the non-aligned centrist moderates if the Dems tried something like this. It would be obvious what the Dems were trying to do, after all. Also, I’m unsure how popular or unpopular this effort to effectively raise the taxes on the top 2% earners while leaving everyone else the tax cut they had from Bush. I know how Dems think of this, but the thing is, folks who think it’s a great idea are already going to be voting for the Dems.
Personally, I think it would backfire on the Dems if they had tried something like this…which is most likely why they didn’t try it.
They would truthfully say that the Dems deliberately let the tax cuts expire and are trying to backdoor the process and get their way for political reasons, and that they are willing to work with the Dems on a compromise that both parties can agree to, but that the Dems are basically not willing to compromise or negotiate, as evidence by the tactics they are using. ‘Are you feeling the pain from the raise in taxes, even though the Democrats have been saying that no one not ‘rich’ got any sort of cut? Well, blame the Democrats, since they allowed those supposedly fictitious tax cuts to vanish for political reasons. We want to try and restore them, but thus far the Democrats simply won’t compromise or work with us on getting this essential thing put back in to help all Americans through these troubled times’.
-XT
Because that works both ways. They didn’t want the Republicans saying, “Look at the Democrats, raising taxes and hurting the economy” during the election.
The poor set upon rich guy making 500 K would have had the tax up to 250k. Then he would have had to pay the extra 3 percent on the last 250. Subtract all the deductions the wealthy get and his tax would have been minuscule.
It is about the top 2 percent who are billionaires and those approaching it. They may actually have to kick in for the terrific government services they enjoy.
Then we all know as the last decade has shown clearly, the trickle down theory of economics is a failure. The rich have had their way for 10 years and job creation has gone way down. Hiring is dependent upon demand. People have to buy things to make the economy hum. The poorer will spend almost all their money . They don’t have the luxury of foreign vacations and homes and Cayman and Swiss bank accounts. It all gets spent in America.
They should have just let the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire. Then introduced a bill for unemployment extension. they are not related.
It’s funny, but I actually agree. They should have let the whole thing expire and had everyone go back to paying what they paid before the tax cuts…rich, poor and middle class alike. Of course, the political fallout from this would have been painful, since people would have found out that, indeed their taxes have been less since the cut, even if they aren’t ‘rich’. But it would have been the fair thing to do, and personally I think it would have been the right thing to do as well.
They aren’t related, but again they could have introduced such a bill, but how would they have gotten it passed without Republican cooperation? Why would the Republicans cooperate on this, since they don’t believe it’s a good idea (mostly because the price tag dwarfs the revenue we would supposedly get back by having the tax cuts expire)?
-XT
I assume that also, since almost anything the Dems do backfires on them :), but I wanted to know what spin the Republicans would use to achieve this.
I think the response to the above would be a very simple diagram the Dems could show the American people:
| |
| |
You Republicans Tax cuts for you
| |
| |
“This is you, this is your tax cut. This is the Republicans standing between you and your tax”
As I said, I’m sure the Dems would try to spin it this way. Unfortunately the facts would be that the Dems allowed them to expire over the objections of the Republicans, and then tried to backdoor the process by doing an end around to get their way. This would be pretty obviously an instance of the Dems playing naked politics by thwarting the opposing party and forcing them to do what the Dems want without concession or negotiation. I seriously doubt this would play well for the Dems. YMMV, and maybe your simple diagram would win the day and turn public opinion against the Pubs on this…but I doubt it.
-XT
So, next year a person making above $250k would pay more in taxes than he did this year, but in your view, that is a tax cut?
[bolding mine]
It’s funny, because the bolded part looks exactly like the way Republicans have behaved recently, and it’s working out great for them, with no backlash from the people.
There are so many recent cases where one can say about the Republicans: “This is pretty obviously an instance of the Republicans playing naked politics by thwarting the opposing party and forcing them to do what the Republicans want without concession or negotiation.”
And yet, the Republicans are doing great.
Maybe Republicans are better at the politics game, or maybe this is a winning strategy for them because their supporters don’t punish them for dirty/naked tactics as long as they get what they want while Democratic supporters punish Dems for dirty/naked tactics even if they get what they want.
Obama just schooled the Republicans. The Republicans hung their hat on this tax cut for the rich, nothing of real import one way or the other. By making it a bargaining chip he got far more in return.
Want proof? Jim DeMint might filibuster because he knows it is a good deal for Obama and the country and it increases Obama’s chance of re-election.
Progressives are opposed because they are playing class politics. The average person couldn’t give a crap about class politics.
That’s because the Republicans have at least been mouthing words that they are willing to work with the Dems on a compromise. They conceded that they will give up some things (extension of unemployment benefits) to get the tax cuts extended for all Americans. If the Dems pulled what you want them to pull then it’s going to be obvious to everyone that they chose to try and force what they want through without regard to the other party, to do basically a back door. The Republicans CAN’T do that, because they don’t have the numbers to do it…the Dems have been in charge in the house and senate since 2006 and controlled the Presidency since 2009, so it’s not an option for them.
It’s apples to oranges on this one. Besides, I wouldn’t say the Repubs are doing great, just that the Dems are doing particularly badly right now. The Dems are caught between a rock and a hard place (my sympathies are with Obama, if not with the Dem idiots in the house and senate)…their base wants them to take hard line stances and give no ground, beating up the Republicans every chance they get on some sort of moral grounds. Unfortunately, that means absolutely nothing will get accomplished, and the rest of the public will see that in a negative light from the Dems perspective. The Dems own base is their own worst enemy, IMHO, because they don’t understand how politics works in this country…and they don’t understand that their political sacred cows aren’t shared by a large enough percentage of the country to get through whatever they want, regardless of the opposition.
Perhaps. Or, perhaps Obama et al know something you don’t. It’s hard to say really. I wouldn’t recommend the course you seem to want the Dems to take on this, but if they want to give it a try maybe it will work out for them in the end. To me it’s telling that they didn’t take this course, even though I’m sure some of them were smart enough to have thought of it. I’m sure that some Dem supporters think this is yet another instance of the Dems being spineless or whatever insults their own base is tossing at them these days, but myself I’m less sure that’s the actual reason.
-XT
Quoth xtisme:
Would this be the same party that’s taking the official tack that the most important order of business is opposing the President at all costs?
Quoth jtgain:
What would happen is Bush would raise their taxes back up to what they were before, and then Obama would lower them again, just not as low as they were under Bush. It’s the Republicans who are behind the scheduled tax increase this January, not the Democrats.
Yep, exactly. Obama needs to pull them out of that shell and get them to engage or nothing will get done. That means compromise. The Dems pretty much pushed through the health care reforms with almost complete Pub resistance, but that’s just not going to be a viable option for them in the future. So…it’s either going to be finding a carrot that will cause the Pubs to loosen up their knee jerk opposition, or resign himself to the fact that nothing substantial is going to get done in the foreseeable future, and hope that the backlash from that comes down on the Pubs instead of the Dems. It’s a crap shoot if that happens…it would depend on how the public views what’s going on. I’d say that if Obama seems to be offering compromise and the Pubs turn it down that the public will probably see that as a negative to the Pubs (except for the lefties who have a zero tolerance for any sort of compromise with the Republicans). If Obama et al try to do what the OP is proposing, then I’d guess the public is going to be more sympathetic to the Pubs than the Dems.
I think Obama is doing the right thing and setting up the Pubs to either have to work with him and the Dems or to be put in the spot light as being completely obstructionists. Of course, this move will cause Obama’s base to eat him alive, so perhaps it will be a wash for him.
-XT
Basically because the GOP would likely still refuse to approve new partial cuts in January - particularly in the House where the “tax cuts for every bracket but the top one” would never even be introduced (the GOP controls all legislative action in the House starting in January).
So then, when everybody’s tax withholding goes up, and the economy suffers a bit, Obama and his fellow Democrats are in a rather weak position.
As he said in his press conference, the GOP was willing to hold the other 98% hostage so that the 2% got their cuts. In particular, the estate tax seemed to be a point of large contention for the GOP negotiators.
It also rather nicely belies the notion that the GOP gives a shit about deficit reduction (save DeMint, I suppose). In order to increase the deficit with tax cuts they agreed to increase the deficit with unemployment benefits…
Obama’s gambit is that the stimulus included in this package will boost the economy enough that the “can’t raise taxes in a recession” argument will be moot in 2012, and his “raise the top rates back to Clinton levels” position (which is generally popular) will be the winning one at that time.
It’s also possible that much of the tax structure will be re-examined during any deficit reduction action, making this whole thing somewhat irrelevant.
The other side has, so far, successfully painted the President, a moderate Democrat, as a Socialist, a Nazi, a Muslim, and a Facist.
And yes. If they let the tax cuts expire, the Democrats then just “raised your taxes”. The Republicans could then vote, as a bloc, to not vote for anything the Democrats do, instead, daring the Dems to keep all of their ducks in a row, as they’ve so far, been unable to do. Both ways favor the Republicans.
That, coupled with the President, saying literally days ago that he was “not going to raise taxes on the American people”, makes for easy political cannon fodder for the Republicans.