Republicans Eye 2008 and Ratchet Up the Rhetoric on Rangel’s Tax Plan

Republicans Eye 2008 and Ratchet Up the Rhetoric on Rangel’s Tax Plan
By CQ Staff | 7:04 AM; Oct. 26, 2007
By Richard Rubin


House Minority Whip Roy Blunt received what he considered a gift on Thursday morning: a ready-made GOP talking point, courtesy of Ways and Means Chairman Charles B. Rangel.

And Blunt was grateful.

“Very seldom in politics do your opponents give you this kind of gift,” said Blunt, R-Mo., who proceeded to attack Rangel’s $1.3 trillion tax package (HR 3970), offering a preview of a GOP campaign theme about tax-and-spend Democrats.

The proposal embodies Democratic tax priorities but is complex and unlikely to become law. Democrats constructed the bill to bolster their philosophy of tax fairness: to repeal the alternative minimum tax (AMT) and add provisions to ensure that more than 90 million taxpayers benefit while fewer than 2 million receive tax increases.

“Just don’t say it’s a dramatic tax increase, if I’m running around saying that 90 million people are going to get a tax cut,” said Rangel, D-N.Y. “And if you believe that, tell me, who are the people that are getting this tremendous tax increase? And I can count, and 90 million people are not included in that number.”

Washington Arithmetic

That’s the simple part of tax overhaul math. Yet part of the Democratic defense of the plan rests on how they explain the details of the country’s finances. The winner in the 2007-08 tax debate may be the party that best translates the Washington-speak of budgets, baselines and revenue neutrality for voters.

more...

http://www.cqpolitics.com/2007/10/republicans_eye_2008_and_ratch_1.html#more

>The winner in the 2007-08 tax debate may be the party that best translates the Washington-speak of budgets, baselines and revenue neutrality for voters.

translation: "The winner will be the one who can frame the debate, make the other side argue THEIR terms and control the media to their advantage."

propaganda mouth-piece. I saw Rangel on CNN this morning and the "reporter/regurgitater" kept calling it a "tax increase." He said it so much that Rangel even commented on his framing of the issue. It was not unbiased, it was evident that he received his faxed talking points and was following them correctly.

With the exception of the 25%'er, i think most americans understand we're going to have to pay for the Bu$h admin, and what they've done to our country.

Let's see if the Democrats can explain it to the rest of the country, my thinking is yes they can!

Peace!

They have painted us as the tax and spend party for decades. With an historic opportunity in our hands, our party leadership, including Rangel, have made no attempt to restrain spending and restore common sense to our national budget. Rather than reign in the drunken sailor in the White House, our party leaders have joined him at the bar for another round on our tab.

Its foolish to advocate anything that even looks like a huge tax increase without first making a real effort to restrain this out-of-control spending. Doing the right thing could also further crush the GOP's electoral hopes in 2008. What could they run on if we did the right thing and fixed their budget mess?

There is no way on earth it will get past the current Senate and frankly, it shouldn't be introduced in the House because OF COURSE THE R's WILL SPIN IT as a huge tax increase. That's one of the few things they have left. Every damned Democratic House Member in a swing district who votes for it will be smeared as a big "tax and spender" throughout the campaign and even Dems who don't vote for it and Dem challengers to R incumbents will be tarred with the same brush. Brilliant! Sure, we know it's bullshit, but it's bullshit that's proven to work. It won't matter that it cuts most taxes and only increases taxes on the absolute top. People only know what they hear in the media -- and they'll be hearing that it's big a tax increase. And IT CAN NEVER PASS IN THIS CONGRESS! It may be defeated in the House and will definitely be filibustered in the Senate.