« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Will House Republicans Grow a Pair And Oppose The Tax “Deal?”

By: hogan (Diary)  |  December 16th, 2010 at 01:33 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

In the wake of yesterday’s indefensible 81-19 vote in the Senate to spend hundreds of billions of dollars that we do not have in exchange for temporary tax rate extensions we could have achieved anyway or the lapsing of which could have been plopped in the lap of the President, we are left hoping that Republicans in the House of Representatives will stand up and be counted.

After all, we have come to expect Republican Senators to be spineless and incapable of standing up on principle. It is who they are. The “club.” A group of self-promoting, power-hungry fools who are more concerned with maintaining camaraderie with turncoats like Lisa Murkowski, pushing earmarks and getting re-elected than in doing what’s best for the country. Save one or two exceptions, they repeatedly violate their oath to defend the Constitution and forsake even the slightest bit of devotion to fiscal responsibility or respect for their constituents.

But now – especially with rumors that the tax bill has stalled in the House – the House Republicans have a chance to do the right thing and prove they are better than those in the Senate. They can demonstrate that they actually “get it,” even before the 60-odd new members arrive in a few weeks. They can demonstrate they are not liars – that they actually do want to limit spending and defend the Constitution. They can demonstrate that they understand that “bipartisan compromise” is code for “Democrats win, America loses.”

And there’s a bonus, too. President Obama is calling around telling fellow democrats that he must pass this to “save his presidency.” As if there was not a bigger signal that this is a ridiculous “deal.”

How hard is this? You have a bill that unarguably spends bucket-loads of money being jammed through right before Christmas, on the heels of an election when the American people said “quit spending our money.” You have a massive majority coming to the House in 3 weeks and significantly more Senate Republicans, too (for whatever that’s worth). Meanwhile, you have a weak president who is calling around to members of his own party begging for them to sign on.

Hmmm… what to do? Lemme think… Um… VOTE NO, YOU IDIOTS.

But noooo… what do Republicans say? Well that stalwart of nothingness, John Thune, criticizes Mitt Romney for daring to oppose the bill by saying opposition is the same as support for tax increases. And that is the mantra being peddled by every “leadership” staff flack in DC – “you’re going to hurt people by voting to raise taxes!”

What? So, if I am to understand these paragons of fiscal responsibility and devotees to principle correctly, if a Republican opposes any bill that contains a 2 year extension of current rates, no matter what else is in the bill – then that Republican is in favor of tax increases. What if it had been 2 years or 4 years of unemployment insurance? What if it had included Don’t Ask Don’t Tell? What if it spent twice as much money? 4x as much? What if it included a bunch of earmarks? (oh, wait… never mind…)

If House Republicans cannot fight for constraint and reduced spending on something as straight-forward as this, then the new members coming to town should demand new leadership, and we should be readying primary challengers for those who get it wrong.

Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Paul Seale

    The whole basis of your article begins with the base that keeping the tax rates the same “costs” us something. It does not.

    What “costs” us is the budget.

    If we say no to extending the tax cuts, then we say yes to tax increases and giving the government a higher base revenue stream.

    The pressure should be on beating back government spending, not on keeping taxes low.

    If you think we can pass tax cut extension in the next congress, you are thinking pretty arrogantly and have another thing coming because Democrats still control the Senate and Presidency.

    • hogan

      1. what does cost us is continued spending for unemployment insurance.
      2. we will have the votes to cut taxes in the House if they are allowed to go up in the first place. If the Senate rejects it or if the President rejects it, then that is the political reality – and will be dealt with at the earliest possible opportunity.
      3. you apparently subscribe to the view that Republicans must vote for this bill no matter what lest there be an increase in taxes
      4. The pressure SHOULD be on beating back governments spending, and that is why this bill should be opposed. (see point #1)

      • Paul Seale

        Nice red herring there bud, but the reality is this. If the current tax rate is extended then my taxes go up. Not only on my family but my business. I am fairly sure this applies to a lot of other people who run businesses and it could very well be a game changer and close businesses or put people out of work.

        Saying that keeping the current tax rate is “costing” us somthing is completely wrong. It is a lie.

        What does “cost” us something is the over spending we are seeing in the budget resolution and there is where our efforts should be focused, not on trying to kill a deal because it is exactly that a deal – and less than perfect.

        Having faith that we can “go back” and “fix” something is nuts from my point of view.

        Then again, I run a business and try to provide for my family – not score political points for the next election.

        Rest assured while there are some people who are very happy with your stance, there are also many of us out here who are praying to God every night that our taxes are not raised so we can provide.

      • Paul Seale

        We both have number 4 in common – and it should be a hill we die on.

        The major disagreement I have with your piece is that we should say no to keeping the tax rate the same just because it is a compromise piece with Obama.

        I cannot afford to be politically “pure” when it comes to the welfare of my family and business.

        I hope you can understand this.

        • hogan

          My primary problem with the bill is the cost of unemployment insurance. It is massive and expensive. And Republicans shouldn’t vote for it.

          I appreciate that you run a business. Great. As if tax rate changes don’t effect all of us or our families. I will be worse off if the rates expire. I am not advocating scoring political points – I am talking about making Dems own this.

          I don’t think they’d let most or even any of the rates go up. But if they did, then it’s on their head. That isn’t for political points – it’s the reality. Republicans should not support an expensive (spending) bill that offers a weak 2 year extension as the “prize.”

          As for the omnibus – if any of us have to cajole any Republican to oppose it, that Republican should be tossed. Period.

          • Paul Seale

            >I appreciate that you run a business. Great. As if tax rate changes don

          • NHConservative0227

            Wouldn’t it hurt you to only have the current tax rates stay the same for 2 more years?

            Wouldn’t it also make it more difficult to hire more employees or make investments with the uncertainty that your taxes could go up in just 2 years?

          • wonkish1

            Our firm will be making choices based on those rates being the same for a long, long time. Its the safest bet in the world to expect the rates to be continued again in the middle of a presidential election cycle.

            Are you trying to tell me you think they wont be extended again in the middle of a presidential election?

          • NHConservative0227

            I think he’ll play the old predictable game once again. He will keep the same tax rates for the middle class while seeking to soak the rich.

            I’m not a small business owner, but don’t about half of them make over $250,000?

          • wonkish1

            If he gives in now what is he going to say in 2 years?

            That he was stupid back then, but now he has seen the light(in Dem speak)? Yeah that’s a winner excuse me if I don’t burst out laughing.

            And I have confidence in the American people to not go for tax increases at that time. I suggest you also have confidence in them as well.

          • JSobieski

            Temporarily lower rates are better than temporarily higher rates.

            If the cost of keeping the current rates is Stimulus 2, then the hurt of stimulus 2 outweighs the hurt of higher taxes

            There are a lot of different but interelated variables

          • NHConservative0227

            My dad supports the tax compromise because it saves him $360 annually over the next two years.

            The problem is how does this affect his grandchildren by adding $200B to the deficit? The last thing we need is increased spending and continuing aspects of the stimulus bills. Long term, this bill sucks and only speeds up our path to insolvency.

          • wonkish1

            Larger reductions in spending in the budget. Watch!

            Also $200 billion isn’t what it adds to the deficit in year 1. That is another falsehood that spin doctors play. Spending is scored based on the cost over 10 years. Now granted since most of this occurs over the next 13 months and 2 years, most of that $200 billion occurs in those 2 years, but not all of it. Also, since unemployment insurance was apart of the 2010 budget than the estimate of last years deficit will basically be the exact same in the 2011 deficit except a budget battle will ensue(likely in February) forcing a lot more spending cuts and net on net it is my prediction that total spending will fall in 2011 relative to 2010 regardless if the Unemployment Insurance gets extended or not.

            That all said obviously I would rather see Unemployment Insurance not apart of the deal, but I just wanted to point out that basically none of this deal minus the ethanol part, the payroll tax holiday(a good thing like any tax cut), and 100% expensing(also good) is really all that different than 2010 spending levels.

            Again the fight over spending isn’t so much in this deal its in the Omnibus bill and the future budget battle.

          • NHConservative0227

            So you so that most but not all of the spending occurs over the next two years. It’s still too much for me.

            I can’t stand the stimulus garbage either. The ethanol subsidies, the handouts to Puerto Rican rum makers, race car tracks, and tax breaks to Hollywood! And this is only the stuff we know about!

            Also, what about the death tax increase? Sure, this doesn’t affect most of us, but its despicable and morally wrong.

            The GOP has alot more leverage than they think they have. There’s no way Obama and the Dems were going to get blamed for letting taxes increase on the middle class. If the GOP had a spine, they would’ve held their ground and demand that this be about keeping the tax rates and making them permanent while eliminating the rest of the garbage.

          • wonkish1

            That the omnibus bill and the future budget battle have more to do with spending than this tax cut compromise?

          • NHConservative0227

            Bipartisan makes me sick, especially when making deals with Obama.

            3 years of benefits to sit at home. Makes me wonder why I’m bustin mine everyday!

          • wonkish1

            Your preaching to the choir. I’m totally with you on that.

          • NHConservative0227

            Like Collins and Snowe who are going to vote for the omnibus?

            I told Snowe’s office that even though I’m in NH I will do everything I can to primary her to ensure she’s not reelected. Enough is enough!

          • Scope

            I posted that I would not vote for him again if he supported Cash for Clunkers, on his website, my comment was “removed.” I called his office to beg that he not support Fred Upton for the Energy committee, his staff person simply said he would pass the message along. I got a letter this week from his office that said, thank you for contacting this office, we are happy to hear from out constituients. That was it. Cantor could care less what his voters think. He and his wife own the district. No chance of getting rid of him. NONE.

    • Marcus_Traianus

      What costs us is using the same ridiculous approach, perpetrated by the same tired-old leadership that sent us packing in the first place.

      Republican “leaders” continually deal from what they automatically assume to be a position of weakness, violate base principles they alleged to agree with when it is politically expedient and almost always let Democrats co-opt our message. Honestly, it takes fairly gross incompetence to make this President and Congress look like they have our fiscal soundness at heart and are the real bipartisan promulgators. And yet, somehow McConnell and Boehner have now accomplished that and turned into the invisible twins.

      So metaphorically, they have no stones and are ultimately two empty suits. Do you really think Democrats believe they would go to the wire and shut down the government in opposition to the omnibus? Hell no! Please, they are all chortling in their loafers.

      This tax deal stinks to high Heaven if only for the inarticulate messaging and dog rollover submission. If Republicans can’t cut a better deal in the next session with our majority, their poor approval ratings, the public’s mood and facts far in our favor (not based on class warfare) we should just hang it up now and stop wasting time.

      • Paul Seale

        Political message and scoring points, or what is best for the country?

        Fight the omnibus spending bill yes.

        Increase taxes just to score political points? Hell no.

        • gamechange11two

          It’s fascinating to hear every talking headline go on about how failure to pass this bill will result in higher taxes. It won’t.

          By the same token, does anybody seriously believe Pelosi will leave this issue hanging for the republicans to swing at in the next session? Let’s see. That would make the dems tax hikers, and the republicans heroes to the middle class. Won’t happen.

          Enough mystery. After preening for the base, the dems will finally pass H. R. Fluffnstuff and the republicans will not have to reinstate the current rates.

          And the wheels on the bus go round and round….

          I’m also predicting a lot more TEA Party events on next year’s calender.

          • JSobieski

            If you mean would they agree to the same deal? Sure.

            The question is, how much more can you get that they would take. Its always easier to stay united when you are a 1 person branch of government.

            Remember, all 42 Republicans in the Senate signed a letter saying that nothing would be allowed to go through until the tax issue was addressed.

            People like Paul Ryan only week ago were saying “either the tax deal is passed as is, or its no deal”. Now he is urging everyone to sign on to the ethanol-ported tax deal.

            If your side isn’t really capable of negotiating well due to people splintering off, I am doubtful that we will get a materially improved deal.

          • Paul Seale

            I am discussing a reality I see.

            Remember, Democrats still hold the presidency and Senate. If you think they will go along with any such policy, you are dreaming.

            We need to spend our time and energy on the larger budge and cuts that should be made, not on knifing each other in the back over political points on a bill that is a compromise when we arent even in power of any sort.

          • JSobieski

            All of the highly principled “Congress should get a pair” comments will lead to a shutdown if followed.

            I am in favor of some brinksmanship, but we should be smart about it.

            We need to pick the right pathway to shutdown. Otherwise, you will lose the RINOs, the coalition breaks down, and everyone ends up running for the tall grass.

            You fight wars with the army that you have.

            You engage in budgetary brinksmanship with the Congress that you have. To say that we should have a better team is not a prudent solution, and to assume that we have a better team than we actually have is not a prudent plan.

          • wonkish1

            I take the exact opposite position as the tax cut deal. There we stand to gain huge if we can negotiate with our numbers in January.

            Like almost everything else this situation has to be handled on the media front. We need the narrative to be, “Dems want big spending bill, we want cut to spending, but we are willing to pass a bill to keep spending the same until early next year. If a shutdown occurs its because the Dems wanted one so they could get big spending.”

            That is the only way out of this because we can’t give into this hunk of crap.

        • Marcus_Traianus

          No use the looming return of the Clinton Tax Increases as an effective negotiating tool to ensure that;

          - Fiscal principles which will said were our “hill to die on” and which we promised to pursue for the American people come 4th Jan. are taken as a serious approach, not some two-faced campaign rhetoric from the lawn chairs currently occupying the Republican leadership.

          This deal is based on deficit spending and creates more blank check red ink. Will the real fiscal conservatives please stand up. I can’t seem to find them in this sea of beltway denizens.

          Heck, it would have been palatable if they pushed the Coburn Amendment with his proposed spending cuts/offsets. That at least screams “we mean what we said”- but our leadership didn’t have the stones, competence or good sense to support that.

          - Set the tone for 4th Jan. on all other matters and convey your seriousness and absolute, unquestionable willingness to defend our principles, which are the principals Americans voted for in the last election, no matter what the costs. And in this case the costs will ultimately be that our proposal becomes worse for Democrats come a new Congress.

          When you negotiate as if you are the weak party this is the type of deal that results. A half-measure which continues to support liberals return to a tactic of incrementalism as a means of perpetrating their policy goals. Overall, that is not good or sound for anyone and I would have gladly traded the “uncertainty” (which is a misnomer with the new Congress majorities/alliances) of taxes come next year for the certainty and complete faith we would actually stand by the principles our party feigned to support in November. That my friend would lead to sane fiscal policy in the form of lower taxes and spending cuts. Now that Democrats know McConnell will continue to wheel-n-deal, then apologize hat in hand to party supporters; get ready for more frustration and a two term Obama. It’s going to feel like old times all over again.

          • Paul Seale

            It isnt a matter of who is conservative and who isnt. If you want to buy into that rhetoric, fine, but thats not the case.

            I believe the issue is who is willing to gamble that you can pass something next year which would do everything we want it to.

            I have never been a betting man and I am not going to begin to be with the welfare of my family and business.

            Score political points later and lock down on the budget omnibus bill.

          • JSobieski

            I am not far from your position, but an unwillingess to gamble simply guarantees failure.

            The key is to gamble at the best time on the best issue and to not give in. If you take the position of no gambling, we will always give in.

            We need some smart brinksmanship—but we need to be prepared to go to the mat when we do it. Nothing is worse than drawing a line in the sand, and then crossing it.

          • wonkish1

            We do need to gamble on a lot more stuff. And we should use more brinkmanship. But, we also need to know when to ring the register and cash in. To many are thinking like many in my profession that continue to ride on a stock higher and higher and never willing to just cash in and take there profit. Its like the show lets make a deal, you can’t always just let it ride at some point the risk becomes higher than the reward.

            Tax Cut Compromise: Bad brinkmanship. Anybody that thinks that the our base has given more than their base has needs their head examined.
            Omnibus Spending Bill: Good brinkmanship. Anybody that thinks a single piece of this bill is what anybody on the right wants needs to have their head examined.

          • IJB

            If the GOP caved as easily as it did on the Tax Deal, there’s no reason to think that they (or, at least, a half a dozen of them…) won’t also cave just as easily on the Omnibus.

            We’re likely to get the worst of both worlds – a bad Tax Deal *AND* the Omnibus passing (with enough GOP support to call it bipartisan). This will totally cut out our legs on “fiscal responsibility”.

            The clear message to the masses will be – the GOP has learned *nothing* from 2000-2006 *or* from 2006-2010.

            I hope I’m wrong about this. But nothing I’ve seen in any of this leads me to think that anyone in Washington is getting the message…

          • wonkish1

            The whip counts I’m reading right now show that we obviously are going to be getting the tax cut compromise and we are also going to defeat the omnibus spending bill because we are getting Dem senators to vote against cloture.

            So no your thesis doesn’t appear to be coming true.

          • IJB

            Maybe two if Nelson of NE flips too.

            But there are, at current count, about half-a-dozen GOP Senators at least mulling over voting ‘Yes’.

            Our only chance on the Omnibus is to string it out over weeks, and hope that it becomes so toxic that no Republican, outside of Murkowski, can actually vote in favor of it.

  • Scope

    I couldn’t agree more. The only bit of hope I have is in the new incoming members of the House. I’ve given up completely and totally on the Senate. Either you are on our side, or you are not. The Senate has proven again and again they are not.

    I’m hearing that the Tax bill is stalled in the House because of some kind of rules. I hope it stays stuck.

  • wonkish1

    **The issue of “saving Obama’s presidency”:
    —–Obviously we all know that Obama doesn’t have a clue as to what is or isn’t good for his presidency. So him saying that means nothing. He is most likely wrong.
    —–As to whether or not this deal benefits him politically comes down to the traditional argument of whether respective bases or middle is the most important during elections. And since most on here correctly agree that it is a passionate base that is the first priority in an election, we should realize that passing this deal is the most damaging to Obama’s and Dem’s electoral chances because the democrat base is turning on them hard. If the Dem base doesn’t show up in 2012 we win.

    **The cost of the tax cut deal:
    —–Most have this number way off. And it is important that we don’t tolerate bogus cost numbers like this from our media and ourselves
    —–Besides the fact that the CBO and other scoring groups always overestimate the “cost” and overestimate the “revenue” in changes in tax rates there is a more important bogus lie floating
    —–That the entire “cost” is added to the deficit. In respect to what? 80% of this bill is keeping things the same, so that portion adds 0 to the deficit in comparison to this year. It only adds(under their bogus scoring models) to the deficit if you compare to the hypothetical of tax increases next year. This is fundamentally misleading. The actual cost is about $200 billion spread out over several years. A sizeable amount no question, but definitely not the $900 billion every liar and spin artist on the left is touting.

    **The issue of targeting Republicans
    —–It is definitely a reasonable position that we could score a better tax cut deal in January. Honestly, I am just as okay with those that support as those that oppose
    —–What I don’t appreciate is those that act as though this deal is somehow a way to tell those that are truly conservative from those that aren’t, and then use it as a way to target Republicans that have solid conservative voting records. It is wrong. Don’t let this deal cloud you from the real fight, the omnibus spending bill where no GOP congressman or senator should grant cloture. If that bill passes we have no ability to defund Healthcare for a year(and likely longer).
    —–The real lines on the tax cut deal are being drawn between those that are gamblers and those that aren’t. Those that are coming down on the side of willing to gamble are probably right, but don’t take it out on a bunch of conservative congressman that don’t believe they will gain much when every deal has still has to be signed off by a Dem senate and Obama next year anyway.

    • wonkish1

      –Obviously subjective, but: this deal is roughly 80% of what we want and 20% of what they want.
      —Any deal that is passed in January still has to be signed off by Obama and garner almost 20 Dem senators
      —Dem senators tend to vote as a block so what separates gaining 20 Dem senators and 4 Dem senators and 30 Dem senators is not traditionally a lot.
      —There is inherent damage to the economy if tax rates rise in January even if we secure a deal in January
      —GOP rejection of a deal now could give Dem senators and Obama cover to block a deal in January and them deciding that they will just see tax rates rise(also if a deal collapses and not a lot of economic damage occurs then they could be emboldened to claim that rising tax rates don’t really make much difference to the economy)
      —We are using time, energy, and political capital in crafting a new deal in January that could better be used on a new budget, passing a house bill repealing Obamacare, etc.

      The obvious argument is that with more GOP congressman and senators, obviously we will get a better deal. That argument has merit, but lets look deeper.
      It comes down to a few questions
      –Do you think Obama and the democrats will grant a permanent extension in January?
      –Do you think they will even grant another 10 year extension?
      –Do you think they will do a deal that doesn’t include any goodies for them what so ever(such as unemployment insurance, ethanol, etc.)?
      –Realistically, what do we stand to gain that Obama and at least 20 Dem senators will agree to?

      • hogan

        Unemployment Insurance. Republicans are voting for a massive, expensive extension of it.

        Taxes – yeah, I am willing to bet that rates won’t go up, and I am not all that worried about the sky falling if they do. They will be reduced again if they do. If we can’t win that battle – then give up on the real fight over spending.

        If Republicans will take any “deal” in order to maintain a 2 year extension of tax rates – God help us. It is not 80% a Republican deal – it is far from it. The total package is heavily weighted toward Dem priorities.

        And, yes, those who vote for this “deal” or voting for the same old nonsense that continues to drive our fiscal situation into the ditch… and they should be tossed.

        • wonkish1

          First, lets assume that the deal falls apart and in January Obama and the Dem senate isn’t willing to budge on the deal.

          Are you saying that:
          —You would rather see tax rates go up then agree to an extension of unemployment benefits for 13 months?
          or
          —Are you saying that we stand to gain politically more politically from no deal than a deal?
          —Given the fact that the entire Dem base would be happy to see it collapse and be ticked to see it pass. And the majority of the GOP base would be pissed that rates increased if it collapses and bothered that Unemployment Insurance got extended if it passes. You think that is a good political strategy?

          • IJB
          • wonkish1

            nt

      • IJB

        With Republicans writing up a budget, the tax rates could be extended under ‘Reconciliation’ rules (granted, that means the extension couldn’t be permanent, again, but it’s better than nothing).

        Under ‘Reconciliation’, we’d only need 4 Dem votes (more likely: more like half-a-dozen, to counteract the likely loss of people like Collins and Murkowski on a vote like this).

        So, no, we won’t need “20 Dem votes” to extend them in January.

        • wonkish1

          And I believe you first have to actually write in a piece of language into the budget allowing you to then use reconciliation to pass. Correct if I’m wrong here.

          If that is the case:
          A: You subject tax cuts to the horse trading of the budget itself which isn’t smart because you want all of you’re priorities passed in pieces before the physical budget occurs so that the Dems have nothing to negotiate with.
          B: It will take to much time to pull it off and it could likely run right up until tax time in April before a deal gets done.

          • IJB
          • wonkish1

            I was referencing the length of time it could take and the fact that we want our priorities voted on separately from the budget itself.

            I guess I’m confused.

          • IJB

            Only the final spending bills do.

            So Obama’s signature on this is beside the point.

            The script would be: Pass the budget outline, and then immediately (and retroactively) pass the Tax Rate extender under Reconciliation so it takes immediately (upon Obama’s signature). This can be done long before the separate appropriations bills are passed.

            It would probably mean several months of withholding under the higher rates. But I’d rather see that then the torrent debt-busting of unnecessary spending that goes along with the current “deal”.

            Having said all that, it’s a moot point – every indication is that the Tax Deal will pass. Followed in 2 weeks by the Omnibus…

          • wonkish1

            Thanks for explaining that.

          • wonkish1

            the Omnibus will pass?

            My current numbers are showing that Bennett is voting yes, but McCaskill no. And more Dems are debating whether to vote for or against than GOP are.

            Do the math and it looks like the Omnibus will just barely not pass.

          • IJB

            …According to the media:

            Collins
            Snowe
            Brown
            Bennett
            Shelby
            Murkowski
            (Kirk? – not listed, but he probably should be)

            In the end, I’m sure Murkowski will vote ‘Yes’. Collins and Bennett are more likely ‘Yes’ than not.

            The others can be pressured to vote ‘No’, but only if we string this out long enough.

          • IJB

            I just saw that he’s a “No”.

            That means the Dems can’t lose more than McCaskill and Nelson of NE, and have to hold some combination of Murkowski, Bennett, Collins, and Snowe (and Kirk?). (I’m thinking if Brown’s a “No”, then Shelby will end up being a “No” too…)

          • wonkish1

            I haven’t seen anybody mention Shelby, your the first. Murkowski is being said as unlikely.

            the Dems are putting all their hope in Bennett, Collins, Bond(unlikely), and Voinovich.

            The GOP has already sewed up McCaskill and if we get McCaskill we should likely get Nelson, Manchin, and Webb. And maybe the other Nelson and Tester. I know a coordinated campaign when I see one. It was key to the dem strategy to create rumors of GOPers potentially voting for it at its unveiling to help it pass. The dirty little secret is that they actually don’t have comments from any of the people that they supposedly are saying “they are thinking about it.” Mentioning folks like Bond is designed to make people like Collins feel like they are okay to vote yes.

            The truth is that this bill is a political loser, that no sane democrat really wants to be tied to come 2012. So while the Dem media isn’t reporting it, some Dem senators are debating voting against it and GOP is getting pretty steadfast in its opposition.

            I put the odds at 55-60% defeat which is still to close for comfort, but at least in our favor.

          • JSobieski

            and we only have a few R’s we can lose.

            Not assuming it will pass, but Obamacare passed when that looked to be impossible.

          • wonkish1

            The question of what is likely vs. not likely is a different story.

            McCaskill is not the most conservative Dem in the Senate.

            Nelson and Manchin are. So while we can’t count on them, if McCaskill is a solid no than it is more likely than not that Nelson and Manchin will be no votes.

            I agree that the example of the votes on Obamacare should make us cautious and we should continue to push hard on our Senators and their’s but right now we hold the odds not them..

          • JSobieski

            The Obamacare and stimulus bills prove that.

            When the leadership ratcheted up the pressure, they got the votes they needed.

            No democrat is ever solid.

            Stupak threw away a lifetime of NRL endorsements.

            Has McCaskill even been endorsed by a fiscally conservative organization.

          • wonkish1

            Is that Obama isn’t coming out in support of this thing. I’ve actually heard rumors that he is actually opposed to it, and is instead wanting the continuation.

            So there isn’t the pressure coming down from leadership like those other bills had.

            Again I agree keep up the pressure, don’t count on them, prepare for the worst. But as a strict objective handicapper the odds are on our side not theirs.

          • IJB

            The only way Nelson votes for it is if he decides to retire rather than run again in 2012.

            But assuming Nelson intends to run in 2012, he *has* to vote against the Omnibus, or he’ll be lucky to get 30% of the vote in NE in 2012…

          • froster

            He’ll support the omnibus (he’s a huge earmarker). And he’s already done in 2012 … his support of this bill won’t have any impact on the 35% he’s going to get.

          • wonkish1

            Is whether he believes he is toast or not. I bet if he wasn’t running for reelection he would already be announcing his intentions to retire to give the Dems enough time to muster a decent candidate.

            He believes he can win, so he is going to vote very politically over the next 2 years. Good point on him being an appropriator, but I don’t think he knows that he is done in 2012.

          • wonkish1

            There are only 14 Senators on both GOP and Dem side that have less earmarks in this than Nelson. 5 of which had 0 earmarks(1 of those with 0 was McCaskill).

          • wonkish1

            It appears that you are saying that you would love Obama vetoing a tax cut bill.

            Probably on a political standpoint. Actually I would argue that Obama vetoing a tax cut bill benefits him more politically than him signing one. If he signs it the first remnants of the uncompromising left will sit home in 2012 because they didn’t get the perfection they dreamed of. He continues to sign compromise legislation and a ton of his base will if not sit home at least not volunteer and contribute which is really where elections are won and lost(more the volunteer part instead of the contribute part). And if he vetoes a tax cut bill most likely the middle(who are the most apathetic and have the shortest memories) will forget about it by election time. So no I don’t think Obama makes a political mistake vetoing a tax cut bill, just like how I don’t think any GOP congressman voting for the omnibus bill will benefit his or her politically.

          • IJB

            …Especially if a number of them lose jobs over it, and the unemployment rate skyrockets. He’ll lose Indies forever.

            Were you even paying attention in 2010? – That election showed that Democrats can’t win simply by “exciting” their Base.

            So, you’re dead wrong – Obama will lose politically *horribly* if he vetoes that tax bill.

          • wonkish1

            My point wasn’t that Dems win by exciting their base.

            My point is that having your base turn on you is a more surefire way to lose than having indies turn on you. I’m doubt you would disagree with that.

          • IJB

            You’re dead either way – if the choice is either “excite your Base while turning off Indies” or “appeal to Indies while turning off your Base”, I’d argue it doesn’t matter which you choose: you’re dead either way. So neither choice is “better” or “worse” than the other.

            And I challenge your assertion that the Dem base didn’t come out in 2010 – all available evidence is that the Dem base *did* mostly turn up: they wouldn’t have won CO and WA (and NV? – I still think that one was stolen) SEN, and they would have lost a lot more D+3 House districts (which, in fact, they did not), and places like GA-02, if the Dem base hadn’t turned out in 2010. They lost as badly as they did because they lost Indies – not because the Left-Wing Base “deserted” them…

          • wonkish1

            all the way to election day. Regardless, if they did or didn’t vote they definitely didn’t volunteer and they definitely didn’t donate. Nor did they try to get any of their neighbors excited about voting.

            The other case is 2006 where the GOP base definitely didn’t show up. We didn’t show up because of our politicians turned against are principals. Right now Obama is agreeing to a deal that the Dem base considers as selling out. His approval ratings amongst Dems are falling like a rock. Trust me this deal he agreed to is doing a lot more damage to him than it is to anybody else. And when it gets signed into law it will do more damage.

            You heard it here first. Obama approval will be 35% overall and 65% amongst Dems after he signs that deal. He signs it and he’s dead man walking.

          • JSobieski

            No 2011 tax bill that Obama would veto would get past a fillibuster

          • IJB

            The Tax Bill can be included in Reconciliation, so a Filibuster is quite beside the point.

          • JSobieski

            and that passed budget can be fillibustered.

            If you are saying that a tax bill can be added after the Senate passes the initial bill, you are correct, but even that torturous path requires a majority of votes to implement.

            Its one thing to initiate reconciliation when your party has the majority leader spot.

            It is another thing to initiate that procedure when you are in the minority.

          • IJB

            That’s the whole point of the 1974 Budget Act.

            The House can pass it’s budget plan, and I believe that sets up Reconciliation as a process, even if the Senate doesn’t go along – I’m actually not sure about what happens with the budget when the chambers are split like this: split chambers like this doesn’t happen often, so we’re about to find out the specifics of how things operate in these conditions.

            Bottom line: I reject your contention that we’ll somehow be *worse* off if the Tax Deal doesn’t get done until next year. (Which is a moot point, anyway, as it *will* pass. Unfortunately.)

          • JSobieski

            I think we need to choose the hill on which we are prepared to make a stand. I don’t think the tax deal is that hill.

            If you can point to one example where a minority party in the Senate was able to successfully get something through on Reconciliation, I will be very surprised.

          • IJB

            They’ll be the “minority party” in *one-half* of Congress! ;)

            My point is, picking up 4 Dem Senate votes on the tax bill (via Reconciliation) is not that outlandish a prospect…

  • LittleL1954

    who voted Yes yesterday. You left out Liars, Cheats and Promise Breakers!

    Remember this is the same bunch that lost the House and Senate for us just 4 years ago and this is Exactly Why?

    They voted to Raise Taxes. Yes Raise–Remember Inheritance is currently Zero but no longer thanks to Repubs–it will now go to 35%–the start point does not matter they voted to Raise Taxes!
    They voted to Raise the Deficit
    They vote to Raise Spending
    They voted for Unemployment extensions that are NOT paid for!
    They voted for Earmarks and Pork
    With only 6 Repubs voting No yesterdaythey still DO NOT GET IT!

    Ironically, I got an E-Mail from my own Senator, John Cornyn, asking for money for the RNSC so they can “Stop the Spending” by the Dems.
    They get and deserve Nothing after their vote to Spend Spend Spend yesterday–and I did call and tell them what I think!

    Call them all and Blast them for their Vote yesterday!!

  • d_lamar

    It would seem logical to me that the best way to go about dealing with the Bush Tax Rates is for the new GOP controlled house in January to merely propose a clean permanent extension of the present rates.

    If either the Democrat controlled Senate or Obama defeat that bill, then so be it. Let that be the issue in 2012. All the pain that would be caused to the country could rightfully be laid at the democrats feet. It might just set back the cause of marxism a few years.

    • wonkish1

      It stands a better chance of being an issue in 2012 than if the deal collapses. It also makes it more likely to get a permanent deal because it will be easier in 12 than in January.

      Really you sure it would be laid at the Dems feat? I’m not saying it wouldn’t, but I’m not so sure you can definitively say it would. Explain!

    • wonkish1

      That if lets say Obama and the Dems agreed to that, you wouldn’t start having thoughts that you could have gotten more. I mean hey if they agree to that bill maybe we should demand healthcare repeal as a condition to signing all the tax cuts permanently. Actually if they agree to extend all the tax cuts permanently, and repeal healthcare(so they can have the privilege of extending tax cuts) maybe we should then demand that private accounts for social security, too.

      And then when they only agree to permanent tax cuts and repealing healthcare, but not private accounts for social security we should immediately demand that all GOP senators and congressman vote against the bill so that the Dems can be blamed for not extending tax cuts permanently and repealing healthcare. I think that is an excellent plan, lets do that.

      • d_lamar

        without any extraneous matters, such as you’ve mentioned, would in my opinion, make it impossible for the Dems to refuse to vote for it. Even if the mainstream media wanted to excuse the dems and blame it on the GOP house for the resulting increase in the tax rates, I think that would not succeed. People would know which party blocked the bill from passing.

        Tying the bill to repealing Obamacare, or any other measure would be a big mistake, because then the dems and the media could definitely persuade the public that it’s the GOP house that caused tax rates to increase. The repeal of Obamacare, and all the other liberal programs, should be defunded by votes on individual bills.

        For instance, a vote on defunding Planned Parenthood, NPR, or the FTC should be by separate vote. Let’s don’t emulate the dems with those omnibus bills.

        • wonkish1

          If you think they will go for a permanent deal right now. In the 2012 election cycle the odds are much higher, but right now definitely no.

          And I think you know that the post I made was to illustrate a point that when we get something we want. We have the tendency to always feel like we could have gotten more, and that will be true regardless of how good of deal we get.

          • d_lamar

            High tax rates will then be the main campaign issue in 2012. I don’t think the dems will allow that to happen.

          • wonkish1

            How that is different from passing a 2 year extension that sunsets right in the during the campaign.

            Why should everybody pay higher taxes for the next 2 years when the end result of forcing a vote to make tax cuts permanent still is just as likely if not more likely to happen then as it is now?

  • http://www.buckforcolorado.com bjwilson83

    The simple fact of the matter is that as long as 50% of the country shares 0% of the tax burden, they will never ever ever vote to reduce spending. Why should they? It’s other people’s money. I say let taxes go up on them. Let’s raise taxes so freaking high that every last person in America votes to kill every government program they can get their hands on. Will higher taxes hurt the economy? Yes, in the short run. But people need to be taught a lesson about the effects of government spending – there won’t even be an economy left to save if we continue to perpetuate the lie that government can spend unlimited amounts of money without severe consequences. More pain now, less pain later.

    • http://www.buckforcolorado.com bjwilson83

      especially as Dems will (rightly) be blamed for the tax hikes.

    • d_lamar

      I think a flat tax, with no exemptions or exceptions, of 10% is much preferable to a vat. VAT taxes are great at hiding the true amount of tax that people are paying. An across the board flat tax, which everybody pays, is the only fair tax.

      Also, let’s support an end to employer automatic withholding, and make people write their own check to the IRS each week, months, quarter, or whatever. It wouldn’t take long for a tax rebellion to get started.

  • itrytobenice

    as the shenanigans these people have pulled since the election. I get so angry I could spit, and there’s no outlet for the anger.

    We’re not allowed to shoot them, or tar and feather them. We don’t have an election coming. They won’t answer questions about their votes and they totally disregard the voters who put them there and the country the owe allegiance to.

    What a revolting development. Our Congresscritters are evil and corrupt and they are remarkable resilient in elections.

    What will it take before Americans revolt and throw them all out on their ears?