DSCC chair: Dems open to temporarily extending Bush tax cuts for the rich

New Jersey Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez said Sunday that Democrats are open to temporarily extending the Bush-era tax cuts for Americans earning more than $250,000 per year, which are set to expire at the end of this year.

“I certainly believe that there may be some opportunity for a temporary approval of some of these cuts,” Menendez, who chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said during an appearance on ABC’s “This Week.” “But we’ll have to see what can be worked out.”

Menendez made clear that Democratic leaders were completely closed to the idea that the tax cuts for households earning more than $250,000 be made permanent, citing the $4 trillion impact on the national deficit.

“That’s not going to happen,” he said. “What we will not support, certainly what I will not support is a permanent extension.”

When the dust settles after Tuesday’s election, one of the most pressing concerns that Congress plans to address in the lame-duck session is whether to extend all or some of the tax cuts. Republicans have resoundingly said they will only support an extension for all Americans, while Democrats have argued for extending them to only households earning less than $250,000. The debate over whether to extend the tax cuts erupted before Congress adjourned to campaign for this year’s mid-term elections without putting it to a vote.

Ultimately, the fate of the tax cuts will come down to President Obama. The White House is reportedly considering a plan to de-couple the tax cuts, which would make them permanent for households earning less than $250,000 and extend them temporarily for those who earn more. In the worst-case scenario for taxpayers, neither party will compromise and the new Congress will have to address the issue in January after all the tax cuts expire.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/31/democratic-senate-campaign-chief-says-party-is-open-to-temporary-extension-of-bush-tax-cuts-for-wealthy/#ixzz142lGJney

this was a MAJOR win/win for them going into the election, and they should have had the god darned battle a month and a half ago ...

I am with most that I don't trust them to barter this out at this point ...

The Rs will threaten armed insurection if they don't get the upper tax cuts permanently passed, and the Ds will roll over and take it ...

:-(

Camels, eyes of needles, etc.

Tax the rich. If they don't like it, tell them I said they're going to Hell.

I will be convinced the Pugs and Dems are one and the same.

You may see me on HGTV's House Hunting International, or whatever they call that show.

“I certainly believe that there may be some opportunity for a temporary approval of some of these cuts...But we’ll have to see what can be worked out.”

"Democratic leaders were completely closed to the idea that the tax cuts for households earning more than $250,000 be made permanent"

“That’s not going to happen,” he said. “What we will not support, certainly what I will not support is a permanent extension.”

Democrats have a 59 maojority through the expiration date.

Then republicans can't have a tax cut be the first thing they pass in a new Congress.

It also lets us frame the timeline rather than fight for/against whatever the republicans craft.

laid out perfectly by Steve Benen:

I doubt there will be six democrats with the stones to do that after tomorrow.

We're handing them a win right out of the gate? Why?

...that they have enough votes to pass it absent a filibuster (even in the best-case scenario tomorrow).

They decide which bills come to the floor. Republicans filibuster to prevent that. Democrats' 59-seat majority remain intact through the expiration.

You're going around in circles. Democrats don't want it to expire because then republicans get credit for cutting taxes (and we were trying to call this the "Obama tax cut".

And expiration eventually happens and the new congress takes over. Then they get to decide what comes to the floor in the House AND they have majority support to extend the entire thing in the Senate.

Leaving the president to filibuster a popular bill right after getting his hand slapped by the electorate?

Doesn't sound wise.

Pass it now while we can a) take credit for it, and b) can influence timelines, expiration, maybe even "decouple". Wait for later and we have less leverage.

Also... keep in mind that withholding tables don't reprint themselves overnight. Even with a lame duck passing, there could be a couple months of higher withholding.

If they decide to send a compromise bill to the floor, then the decision is made. They don't need to filibuster.

The bill can't get to the floor unless Democrats present it.

"Leaving the president to filibuster a popular bill right after getting his hand slapped by the electorate?"

The President doesn't filibuster.

If Democrats present the tax cuts in two separate bills, Republicans have to decide to vote for each or filibuster each.

That's why they try something during the lame duck.

The President doesn't filibuster

Of course. Sorry... I realized that I was repeating my "veto of filibuster" comment from earlier and deleted the wrong one.

If Democrats present the tax cuts in two separate bills, Republicans have to decide to vote for each or filibuster each.

And they don't have that option unless they take action in a lame duck session.

The tax cuts expire in December.

Thus we no longer get to decide what comes to the floor.


If you're going to present two bills and force republicans to act... you have to do it while you retain control... IOW, lame duck.

Any bill (and it would have to be a new bill) that offers tax cuts for the rich, if it can even pass in the House, will die in the Senate.

Sure... they have "input"... and they're telling you that their current input expectation is to bend over.

See the OP... the head of the DSCC says that they're willing to give republicans everything they want in exchange for making the renewall temporary.

We'll have Coons and probably Manchin there for the lame duck session... and both have said that they're ok with an extension at all levels.

will still decide which bills come to the floor.

You are are assuming that the issue doesn't get resolved in the lame duck session, and it will be easy to address after the tax cuts expire. Once they expire, tax cuts for the rich are not going to be an easy sell.

Up until the tax cuts expire, Democrats control this issue.

You are are assuming that the issue doesn't get resolved in the lame duck session,

No... you're the one that said that's "not gonna happen"... I said that the lame duck session was where we would try to get it taken care of (while we still have solid majorities and before republicans can take credit for it).

and it will be easy to address after the tax cuts expire

No. It will be easier for republicans to "address" it perhaps... but our ability to keep it from passing will then rely on filibuster/veto (again, as I said already) because, regardless of how bad tomorrow is, there are more than 50 senators next year who would vote to extend the entire package.

Once they expire, tax cuts for the rich are not going to be an easy sell.

But tax cuts for everyone IS an easy sell... particularly when those "cuts" are really just "leave things the way they were until a few days ago".

Once again... if we want language in there that splits rich from "everyone else" in the bill... by far our best opportunity is to do it before we lose dozens of seats.

Up until the tax cuts expire, Democrats control this issue.

Right... which is why I said to handle it then... which you replied wouldn't happen.

Did you change your mind somewhere through this thread and not realize it? :)

I didn't. It will be addressed, but the outcome will likely be an expansion of the middle-class tax cuts or both tax cuts expiring.

"No. It will be easier for republicans to "address" it perhaps... but our ability to keep it from passing will then rely on filibuster/veto (again, as I said already) because, regardless of how bad tomorrow is, there are more than 50 senators next year who would vote to extend the entire package."

That's inaccurate because in the Senate, Democrats will decide which bills go to a floor vote.


No, here is what I said and your response

Me: If Democrats present the tax cuts in two separate bills, Republicans have to decide to vote for each or filibuster each.

You: "And they don't have that option unless they take action in a lame duck session."

I did conclude, as Benen pointed out, that Republicans are likely not to go for that deal, at which point, the tax cuts will likely expire.

but the outcome will likely be an expansion of the middle-class tax cuts or both tax cuts expiring.

The first won't happen, the second isn't "adressing" it.

You seem to think that addressing it means passing.

If Democrats offer two bills and Republicans fail to support either, that's addressing it.

Now, if they expire, the likelihood of tax cuts for the rich being passed, even on a temporary basis, decreases significantly.

If you think that Democrats suddenly grow a spine after a bad beating when they weren't willing to force this issue before the beating... you haven't watched our party for very long.

Once again... the OP is about the DSCC willing to give away the things that you claim they'll force. How can you reconcile the two?

One on the tax cuts... one on the careers of 30-50+ Democrats. Then there are the half-dozen democrats who see themselves as "next" until the memory of this election fades.

That is a fact. The rest of your comment, as it relates to the tax cuts, is speculation.

"Then there are the half-dozen democrats who see themselves as "next" until the memory of this election fades."

Oh my.

Democrats were shellshocked and took months to try to grow a spine.

It's going to get ugly around here if we don't pull off a big beat.

we'll look back on '94 fondly.

No, it's not '94 in terms of causes or in the strategy to recover from it... but the shell-shock is the same. The impact on other senators who watch their team go down hard is the same.

I still haven't gotten an answer on the basic question. Surely you agree that Democrats in the Senate displayed little gumption when the issue came up earlier this year, right? What makes you think that they get MORE unified after tomorrow? And WHY would the DSCC be publicly agreeing that they're willing to allow an extension for everyone if you think they might actually pull together and keep it from coming to a vote?

Oh please.

You seem giddy.

"The impact on other senators who watch their team go down hard is the same."

Democrats are going to control the Senate.

"WHY would the DSCC be publicly agreeing"

Senator Menendez is one Senator and can speak for himself. He does not issue official Democratic positions on legislation in Congress.

You seem to be confusing the title of the OP with his comment as a single Democratic Senator.

Just right.

And wishing I wasn't.

The public will associate tax cuts with the Republican victory in this election. Even if Democrats created the tax cut, they would still credit the Republican victory with having forced our hand.

If they even go that far. More likely they will simply "remember" that the Republicans passed this after they took control of congress. FNC and RW radio will be repeating this lie ad nauseum in 2012 and beyond.


Gore in 2000: "The threat of attack on the US by Islamic terrorists is the number one national security concern facing this country today."

Bush/Cheney in 2000: "Gore is such an idiot that he actually believes a bunch of nomads in the desert are a graver threat than Communist China."

9/11: "Allah akbar!"

9/12: "Bet you're glad Gore isn't president now!"


You think the American Idiots on 9/12 are suddenly going to get a brain? The same people who believe that we increased taxes last year when we actually decreased them? Good luck with that.

:thumbsup:

In order to extend ours the repugs and cowardly dems will demand those of the rich be extended too.

they could have repealed them the second Obama took office, and should have done that, in my opinion. But now they're about to expire of course they can let them expire.

That is the issue. Dems want to keep some of the cuts in place. Now if Dems reach an agreement to permanently give those tax cuts to those that they want and temporarily keep the tax cuts for the rich for another year or two at the max I won't be upset.

Impeachment of lying, murderous traitors Bush and Cheney is "off the table," but tax cuts for the richest to the determent of the working and middle classes is back "on the table?"

Do I have this right? :shrug:

the Primary in the Party don't be surprise if Cynthia McKinney challenges him for the nomination.You heard it hear first. BUT it depends on the President on if he wants to continue this get along with the rethugs

at what is on the horizon, they still roll over! Guess I should JUST GIVE UP.

from the GOP and neither do they. If we want to get anything permanent done on this both sides have to compromise. If an agreement can't be reached then the tax cuts will expire for everyone. I don't get the kneejerk responses from people who should know better.

if they are trying to impact the goddamn elections tomorrow, well, that cake is baked. There is no media strategy at this point that's going to change whatever is going to happen.

And getting rid of these tax cuts is good policy. We're about to go into a lame duck session where many Dem's will have lost their jobs and can vote their conscience without fear and do the RIGHT THING.

Why telegraph this strategy now? Maybe 6 months ago it would work, but what they really should have done then is fought harder on the middle class extensions.

Morons.

soon as they find a way to blame it one someone else they WILL extend the tax cuts for the highest earners.

Might as well just rubber stamp anything Bushie. After all, Obama has rehired some of Bush`s people, might as well extend torture, the war in Afghanistan, help for banksters and corporations...wait....

Let them ALL expire!
What's a few more $$ for the middle-class anyway?
Hell, we'll all be broke pretty soon anyway. Let the rich take care of things for a while.
Then, when we're all unemployed or working for peanuts, we can come up with some other way to
take back our country. It's pretty apparent that voting won't work when all the propaganda is against us.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

No more Democratic party no more Republican party- just the

Corporate party

Obama (C)

soooo sick of this shit.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Mr. Menendez I salute you and your incredible political savvy. I mean how is giving up on a winning issue a day before a major election NOT a genius move?

These rich fools and big business have too big of a strangle hold on the Senate, Congress and yes the President too.
Not enough of them will stand up to them. Far too many of the dems always cave and they get their way.

How do tax cuts for the rich fit into deficit reduction?

when our Dem politicians are doing everything possible to keep the policies of the old regime in place.

Why is it so hard for the wealthiest of this country to pay their fair share, especially when our economy is sliding off a cliff?

:grr:

Funny how they started rolling-over months ago... sigh

repukes and Democrats. :argh:

Bad policy, bad politics. Worse yet he's my Senator.

make them. It will be a huge difference in Republican controlled Congress and Democratic controlled.