'A Staggeringly Bad Idea': Outrage as Pelosi Pushes Tax Rule .....

[guillaumeb]

Last edited Sat Nov 17, 2018, 08:36 PM - Edit history (1)

'A Staggeringly Bad Idea': Outrage as Pelosi Pushes Tax Rule That Would 'Kneecap the Progressive Agenda'

From the article:

According to a list of Democratic proposals obtained by the Washington Post, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)—who is currently fighting back against efforts to prevent her from becoming House Speaker—is pushing for a rule that would "require a three-fifths supermajority to raise individual income taxes on the lowest-earning 80 percent of taxpayers."
In response, MoveOn.org called the proposal "a staggeringly bad idea."...

"A bill that required those households to pay a new, smaller monthly sum to the government—so as to fund a single-payer system that would actually reduce their cost of living by delivering radically cheaper healthcare services—could hardly be called regressive," Levitz notes. "And the same can be said for legislation establishing universal child care, paid family leave, or any other program aimed at easing the middle class's financial burdens."
"Equating support for middle-class families—with opposition to increasing their tax rates—is a conservative project, which Democrats have no business advancing," Levitz added. "If the party wishes to establish structural barriers to policies that would hurt the middle class, why not require a three-fifths majority to cut Medicaid, Medicare, or Social Security?"

To read more:

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/11/16/staggeringly-bad-idea-outrage-pelosi-pushes-tax-rule-would-kneecap-progressive?cd-

The GOP has run on the idea that taxes are bad, and this idea, if pursued, would validate that concept. Taxes are too low on the rich, and have been since the 1980s. If wages had kept pace with productivity, and the cost of living, average wages would be much higher.


Edited to add:

This post from Hortensis explains why the Democrats pushed for this rule:

21. This fixes a bad GOP law. "The GOP rule requires a 3/5 supermajority

vote in the House to approve any income tax increase.

Democratic leaders would replace it with a rule requiring a supermajority vote to approve tax increases for most taxpayers — but only a simple majority vote to raise taxes for the wealthiest 20 percent or for corporations."


“Right now, the House is governed by a Republican rule rigged to permanently lock in the massive tax giveaways the GOP has handed the wealthiest 1 percent and big corporations,” Henry Connelly, a Pelosi spokesman, said in a statement Friday.

“The proposal would rewrite that rule to end the supermajority protection for the GOP’s tax giveaways for the wealthiest, while affirming Democrats’ commitment to protect hard-working Americans,” the statement said.


House Democratic aides noted that the rule would not preclude House Democrats from advancing policies they favor, because it could always be waived by the House Rules Committee.


WaPo.

Thank you Hortensis, for clarifying.

[dem4decades]

1. Didn't Moveon endorse Pelosi?

[Caliman73]

11. They can endorse, then disagree with a specific policy.

Life is not binary. I really like and respect Nancy Pelosi, but I disagreed vehemently with her decision not to pursue charges against the Bush administration for lying to manufacture the war in Iraq.

I think President Obama is one of the best Presidents in the last 50 years easily and high up on the all time list. I disagreed strongly with his lack of support for a public option for the ACA.

I also understand that my position on the two policy questions may not be correct given all of the variables.

I think that Pelosi is trying to make it so that it is more difficult to raise taxes on the bottom 80% of income earners, not engage in anything nefarious. The Republican co-signer not so much. I liken it to trying to impose term limits to reduce the power of lobbyists in government or to keep people from "staying in government too long". It does not take into account the complexities of tax laws and the ability of the rich to capitalize on them. It also does not take into account the ability of Republican to use use rules to protect the rich and scuttle legislation.

Prop 13 in California was supposedly meant to protect seniors from arbitrary tax hikes in their property taxes, which fair to say, many communities routinely raised to fund projects, sometimes at rates that priced people out of their communities. Two poison pills were included in that proposition, the inclusion of non-residential properties (I.E. Disneyland still paying 1980's rates on their land, which they probably pay more because of reassessment on improvements, but you get the idea) AND the rule that requires a 2/3 majority of the legislature to pass any legislation that results in a tax hike. That one crippled California for decades, until Dems were able to get that supermajorities back in both houses.

[manor321]

2. Dumbest idea I ever heard of

If I wanted dumbass tax ideas like this, I'd vote Republican.

[guillaumeb]

3. Both sides are not the same.

But this obsession with cutting taxes could prevent nearly any progressive agenda from being passed.

Unless the Democrats want to find the money by cutting the totally obscene levels of war spending and redirect that money.

[shanny]

26. True. Only one side could get away with this

without being excoriated by everyone on this side of the aisle.

[mr_lebowski]

4. Seems like one could carve out exemptions for healthcare and other related taxes (nt)

[guillaumeb]

8. Agreed.

And if that is the plan, they should state that. Unless this is merely the opening position in the debate.

[Hortensis]

21. This fixes a bad GOP law. "The GOP rule requires a 3/5 supermajority

vote in the House to approve any income tax increase.

Democratic leaders would replace it with a rule requiring a supermajority vote to approve tax increases for most taxpayers — but only a simple majority vote to raise taxes for the wealthiest 20 percent or for corporations."

“Right now, the House is governed by a Republican rule rigged to permanently lock in the massive tax giveaways the GOP has handed the wealthiest 1 percent and big corporations,” Henry Connelly, a Pelosi spokesman, said in a statement Friday.

“The proposal would rewrite that rule to end the supermajority protection for the GOP’s tax giveaways for the wealthiest, while affirming Democrats’ commitment to protect hard-working Americans,” the statement said.

House Democratic aides noted that the rule would not preclude House Democrats from advancing policies they favor, because it could always be waived by the House Rules Committee.

WaPo.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

22. thank you for cutting through the noise

We need to eliminate the greenback ceiling that protects the super-rich.

[guillaumeb]

23. And that modifies this story.

The GOP, of course, will frame this as attacking the job creators.

Thank you.

[Hortensis]

24. +100. That's reportedly a reason we're not going

with repealing the entire law. If we were to do that, the Republicans would mount a big campaign pointing to that as "proof" that Democrats intend to raise everyone's taxes.

[guillaumeb]

25. If it is acceptable, I will paste your reply into the body of my post. eom

[Hortensis]

27. Sure.

[Afromania]

5. Maybe I'm in the worng here but it sounds to me like she wants to prevent simple majority bullshit

like what the republicans pushed out of the house from happening again. I get that and think its a good idea. However, right off the bat is not a good idea because republicans aren't going to help us do jack shit in the immediate future.

What she needs to do is keep that in her pocket until 2022. Then if we lose the house in 2022 (god forbid, ugh, ugh ) because stupid people have decided to be stupid again. That's when they go ahead push through something like this to keep republicans from fucking everything up like they did this time

I mean, damn, right off the bat is the sort of dumb shit we'd do to ourselves back when "bipartisanship" was a thing that actually happened.


Edit:partially disregard this response because I read too fast and disregarded the most important bits.

[guillaumeb]

9. A fixation on tax rates could prevent any progressive Bills being passed.

Unless the Democrats want to cut the war budget and reprioritize spending.

[Afromania]

19. Ah, k. In my haste I managed to skim too quickly and lost the tax bit.

[brush]

6. Wait, this is calling for lower taxes on low income people for better healthcare?

And that's a staggeringly bad idea? How so?

[guillaumeb]

7. Countries with single payer pay for it with payroll taxes.

So this fixation on tax rates could mean that single payer would require a super-majority. A bad idea.

[brush]

10. Ok, sound like it needs some tinkering.

[guillaumeb]

13. And why not outline the basics of a New Deal for the 21st Century?

And open the debate to every Democratic House member, instead of a top down pronouncement?

[brush]

15. Needs serious study from other single payer system around the world...

and then adaptation and adoption of their best ideas for this country. Certainly no need to rush such an important issue.

[guillaumeb]

18. And no need for Democrats to paint themselves into a corner either.

[Caliman73]

16. Same way that Prop 13 crippled social services in California

Prop 13 required a 2/3 majority for any spending requiring income tax raises in CA. Republicans have not held a majority in the legislature (I'm not sure, ever) but were able to gum up the budget process ferociously for decades causing us to borrow and do all kinds of funky stuff to avoid "tax hikes" to provide necessary services.


It sounds like a good idea, the same way term limits sometimes sounds like a good idea when the likes of Mitch McConnell or recently ousted Dana Rohrabacher are considered for their next term in office. Term limits aren't the way to rid the government of corruption. Requiring super majorities is not a good way to deal with financial policy.

[guillaumeb]

17. Exactly.

And one of the foundational ideas of modern Libertarian thought is that all taxes are a taking.

Taxes are the admission price for living in a civilized country. This idea buys into that Libertarian nonsense and allows the GOP to define the debate.

[still_one]

28. Prop. 13 came at a time when seniors were losing homes due to increasing property taxes.

Proposition 13 was widely supported by Californians, and based on the soaring property values here it probably has more support today.

While I believe they could do some fine tuning with Proposition 13 that could be accepted by the majority of Californians, there is no way the voters of California will vote to repeal Proposition 13

[Caliman73]

30. No doubt. The point is that legislation can have unintended consequences.

Although with Howard Jarvis Taxpayers, the consequence is always to deprive the State tax revenue for social services.

Prop 13, had it been written only for Seniors for residential properties, would have been great legislation. Instead, they included commercial property AND they put in the 2/3 majority rule.

There doesn't appear to be a need at this time to repeal 13 as Dems have basically cornered power in California to move on a progressive agenda.

[still_one]

33. Very true

[Tarheel_Dem]

12. Pfft. I stopped reading when I noticed the article was from commondreams.

Rest assured, Nancy knows what she's doing.

[guillaumeb]

14. OK.

I cannot rest assured. But rest easy, if you wish.

[Bfd]

20. The RW Conservative Washington Examiner also reported it. !

Nancy Pelosi pushing rules change that would kneecap liberals
by Philip Klein
| November 16, 2018 04:31 PM
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/nancy-pelosi-pushing-rules-change-that-would-kneecap-liberals%3f_amp=true

Kinda weird huh. Look at all those fingers pointing at Pelosi again.

Until we hear just what Pelosi says about this, in her words & not snippets from her naysayers then its a good idea to leave this hanging in mid air, there for the picking.

I'll wait with you.

[still_one]

29. I agree. The timing is too much of a coincidene. I want confirmation from Pelosi directly herself

[KayF]

37. here

p. 5

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5130338/DRAFTRULESPROPOSALNov15.pdf

[DarthDem]

31. Ah, Silly Season Is Here!

The Democrats must have won control of a house of the federal legislature. Time for bunch of misleading articles about Nancy Pelosi!

[guillaumeb]

32. And Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. eom

[Hotler]

34. kicking nt

[lindysalsagal]

35. The tax cap in NY state is a failure: Cuomo just throws discretionary $$ to the schools so they don'

don't have to close their doors.

It's a lie: Taxpayers think their taxes are not increasing, but somehow, the money is coming from somewhere, I'm not sure how, but it is .

[guillaumeb]

36. And the idea that taxes are bad is a Libertarian lie.

And Democrats need to push back on that lie.