GOP Debate Shows Imperative of Allowing Bush Tax Cuts to Expire

By: David Dayen
http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/08/12/gop-debate-shows-imperative-of-allowing-bush-tax-cuts-to-expire/

There’s plenty to say about last night’s Presidential debate, I guess, and I made some of my snarkier comments on Twitter in real time. But the only moment of the debate you have to know about is this. Brett Baier asked all eight candidates if they would accept a deficit reduction package with a 10:1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases. And all of them raised their hands to say, “No.” So everyone on stage would turn down a package that cut long-term spending by $10 trillion – an unthinkable amount that would basically eliminate government in everything but name – if in exchange they had to accept $1 trillion in tax increases....

here will be only one way to change the revenue structure of this country in the foreseeable future, and that’s by letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Because of the minority veto in the Senate with the use of the filibuster, Democrats would need to either change the filibuster rules, work up the gumption to place tax changes in a reconciliation bill, or grab 60 votes in favor of tax fairness, in order to increase revenue. That’s provided they hold both houses of Congress and the Presidency, of course. And none of those options appear likely.

If a republican gets elected they will do whatever they have to to keep spending even if that means a slight uptick in taxes.

and the political memories of most Republicans only go back about six years. Reagan, to them, is as distant a memory as Lincoln or Washington. And surrounded by as much mythology.

could Pres. Obama just ignore it and let the deadline pass without acting on it? Could he veto at the last minute? I thought I had read something that said they could put forth a bill and if nothing was done by the President on it before a deadline, that it automagically becomes law. Maybe that was buried in Boehner's plan and had nothing to do with the charter for the 'Gang".

If a President doesn't sign a bill within 10 days it becomes law UNLESS Congress goes into recess during that time.

The thinking when the Constitution was written was that there needed to be a way to keep Congress from preventing a veto by not being in session to receive a veto message. So if the President doesn't sign it, Congress recesses, and 10 days pass, the bill is considered vetoed. Just as Congress can override a veto they can send the bill back to the President with a simple majority vote and force him to sign or veto it. Unless they recess again, in which case it all starts over.

It's called the "pocket veto" because it's the equivalent of the President stuffing the bill in his pocket and forgetting it's there.

:hi: