"White House officials gave in on the last issue...yielding to GOP wishes" (updated)

[ProSense]

White House, Senate leaders reach deal

Posted by Paul Kane

President Obama and Senate Republicans reached a sweeping deal late Monday that would let income taxes rise significantly for the first time in more than 20 years, fulfilling Obama’s promise to raise taxes on the rich and averting the worst effects of the “fiscal cliff.”

According to Democratic aides, Vice President Biden is on his way to the Capitol to explain the details of the pact he negotiated with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and a vote on the package could be held by 10:30 p.m., beating a midnight deadline. White House officials gave in on the last issue, how to handle estate taxes, yielding to GOP wishes, aides said. The House will begin considering the bill Tuesday, with final passage possible in the next day or two.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2012/12/31/biden-to-meet-with-senate-dems-at-915-p-m/

Good grief.

Updated to add:

<...>

The late night caucus meeting will begin at 9:15 p.m., according to the office of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Many of the details of the agreement were finalized earlier Monday.

But in a development that displeases Senate Democrats, the White House has agreed to two key demands -- to delay the sequester for a brief two months (Democrats wanted a full year delay) and to index the $5 million threshold for the estate tax to inflation.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/breaking-white-house-senate-republicans-agree-on-deal

Ugh!

[annabanana]

1. Well, as long as they let those massive fortunes change generations

unmolested then that's ok

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

20. 5 million is not a massive fortune.

Granted it's more money than I have but $5 million is a pittance compared to most of the well to do.

[RoverSuswade]

2. Der Mittens will be overjoyed.

He wont have to sell his car elevators to pay the estate taxes when he transfers his "new" home to one of the boys.

[bluestate10]

18. Romney already has big tax breaks that are built in the tax code.

A long, hard fight is going to be required to get rid of the type of tax breaks that Romney gets. By the time Romney's children get his money, they will already have tens of millions of their own due to the beneficial features in the tax code that allows backhanded transfer of wealth while Romney is alive.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

22. According to the linked article $5 million is the level the inheritence tax starts at.

Romney's worth 50 times that.

[ellisonz]

3. Booooo!

[Panasonic]

4. But would it even pass the House crazies?

[kentuck]

6. If Boehner lets it come up for a vote...

It should get enough Democratic and Republican votes to barely pass. It cannot pass on Republican votes alone. It sounds like the deal has been made.

[ProudProgressiveNow]

17. +1 nt

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

23. I doubt it.

[Blaukraut]

5. So when will this thing be voted on?

Didn't Boehner say the House would not reconvene before the midnight deadline? It doesn't matter anyway. Whatever shitty deal they agreed on can always be done retroactively. It looks like President Obama has successfully negotiated with himself again. I really thought he'd stay firm this time.

[russspeakeasy]

7. WTF ? NOT AGAIN !

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

8. Good grief? Ugh?

Not happy? There's a deal in the works!

[2naSalit]

9. !!!

[unblock]

10. i really don't mind that we gave them indexing the estate tax threshold.

in fact in principle all tax thresholds and brackets should increase with inflation, so i don't really have a problem with that aspect of it.

what i have a problem is the level. $5 million is so far above where it should be that indexing it is just noise. eventually a more rational congress can make it something more reasonable, like $2 million or better yet $1 million.

and at some point, you don't want it to become the next generation's amt problem.


and giving them a 2-month extension instead of a full year? again, i'm not sure that matters because they were going to hold the nation hostage anyway over the debt limit, and whether it was a 2-month or a full year extension, it was going to have to be solved.

yes it's not good for our side and might work in their favor, but i don't see it making all that much of a difference in terms of negotiating.

remember that this means that defense gets cut in 2 months as well, which is something republicans really don't like.

[theaocp]

12. A more reasonable congress

that won't be bought and paid for like the clown-show we have now?

[unblock]

14. yeah, my hopes are not great until perhaps the next redistricting but still, hope springs eternal.

[FLyellowdog]

11. Too many Obama haters posting tonight. nt

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

25. Yep.

[SidDithers]

31. Too many Obama haters, period...nt

Sid

[Lone_Star_Dem]

32. I hope you don't mean Prosense.

They've been a strong supporter.

[markpkessinger]

33. If you really are suggesting that Prosense is an "Obama Hater" . . .

. . . I suggest you read through his posts of the last 4 years. ProSense and I have had our differences from time to time -- usually they have arisen when I have posted things critical of the President, and ProSense has typically been one of the first to jump to the President's defense.

But really folks -- and here I'm not just addressing FLyellowdog, but all of us -- can we leave off flinging out this sort of ridiculous, emotionally-laden name calling any time anybody expresses any criticism of or disagreement with the President? If you want to challenge the substance of an argument someone is making, by all means do so. (And if you find you can't challenge the substantive argument, maybe you should consider whether your own position is grounded in reality.) Rational, intelligent adults -- even those who are loyal Democrats -- can and will have disagreements on policy discussions and even on candidates and elected politicians. That is, of course, unless we want to become like the Tea Party and take hits from the Democratic Conformity bong so that we will no longer be troubled by that pesky little thing known as "cognitive dissonance." But do we really want to go down that particular path?

And God help us, both as a nation and as a political party, if we are ever so in thrall of ANY President that we are unable to have an honest airing of grievances concerning his/her performance in office, that we are unable and unwilling to look at a President's warts along with his or her virtues -- and they ALL have warts!

[FLyellowdog]

40. Let me get this straight...

you're criticizing me....for criticizing others...for criticizing the President because we ARE or ARE NOT encouraged to post differing opinions here. Which is it?

I don't think for one minute that supporting President Obama during these difficult times implies taking a hit from "the Democratic Conformity bong", whatever that may be (I'll take a wild guess and say it's something about smoking dope. I've never heard of such a thing. But then I don't get out that much.)

This president has always portrayed himself as a compromiser and that's exactly what's he's done. To the contrary, if we march in lockstep and refuse to negotiate and/or compromise, we are doing PRECISELY what the Tea Party does and what the GOP in general is prone to do.

Being an "all or nothing" political party will do a huge disservice to this country. Working together, and yes, agreeing to compromise, is the only way we can solve our problems. I applaud President Obama for seeing the bigger picture.

And just so you'll know, my reponse did not imply anything specific towards Prosense...that was what you inferred. If I had wanted to call him out, I would have. My post was merely an observation that the President was seemingly getting a lot of flack on DU for doing what he believes is the greater good. But that's why I support him...I truly believe he has our best interests at heart. If that means it appears that I'm so enthralled with him that I can't see his warts, then so be it.

I sort of think his warts are sexy.

[markpkessinger]

41. I'm not criticizing you for criticizing others for criticizing the President. . .

. . . I'm taking issue with the use of needlessly inflammatory rhetoric -- calling someone who has a long track record of staunchly supporting the President an "Obama hater" merely because he dared to express an opinion critical of the President in this one instance.

[FLyellowdog]

44. Again, you're inference is inaccurate.

I did not call the poster an Obama Hater. I merely stated my observation that there were a lot of Obama Haters posting here at the time. Build a bridge and get over it.

[bluestate10]

13. I have held a lukewarm position on estate taxes.

Part of that comes from a feeling that if a parent accumulates wealth fairly and plays by the rules, that parent should be allowed to pass most of that wealth on to children. So, I don't care about the inheritance tax concession.

[WCGreen]

26. But the accumulation of wealth in assets are not taxed.

Because of the bumped up basis, all the gain in wealth from the appreciation of that asset is never taxed.

Here is why I hate this.

Say you are walking to your broker to sell some stock you bought way back in the 1970's. The value of that stock has increased ten times since you first bought it. Now if you go into the brokers office and sell the asset, you would owe Capital Gains tax on the difference between the original cost of the asset and the amount you get from that sale.

Now think about this. If you are walking to the brokers office and get hit by a car and end up in the morgue, when your spouse goes to sell that same stock the day after your funeral, your spouse would only pay for the gain from the point of impact and not from the day you bought it.

The result, all that gain is rolled over and no taxes are paid on that gain.

That is why I am against loosening the treatment of Estates.

[PragmaticLiberal]

36. I don't think your position will be popular on DU.

But fwiw, it's one I happen to share.

[NYC Liberal]

15. The nut jobs control half of Congress. NO deal was going to have 100% of what we wanted

and anyone expecting that has been living in fantasy land.

The Republicans have lost big time if they agree to this. The estate taxes will be even more of a reason to GOTV in 2014 and make sure we take back the House.

[bigtree]

16. are you averse to context now?

EVERYTHING is a concession if you pretend that republicans would get nothing in exchange for their votes.

Don't pay any attention to the republican concessions.

[ProSense]

21. Context?

Here's the context: The WH could have gotten all of that and more with fewer concessions, and the fact that the debt ceiling isn't included, sequestration will be kicked down the road two months is bizarre.

The big leaps toward the GOP was simply unnecessary desperation. Actually, it appears the GOP was simply cover to allow Democrats to appease their rich constituents.

[bigtree]

24. that's not context, it's speculation

The 'big leap' is in your imagination.

[ProSense]

27. No, it's not speculation.

That was a fact from the start.

Senate Democrats like Schumer were constantly trying to increase the threshold, and the estate tax and other provisions were always a sticking point.

1) Accept the President's proposal with "dividends to be taxed as ordinary income" and the "estate tax to be levied at 45 percent on inheritances over $3.5 million."

2) Pass the Senate bill, "which currently taxes inheritances over $5 million at 35 percent," but excludes Obama's dividend proposal.

3) Go over the cliff when "the estate tax is scheduled to rise to 55 percent beginning with inheritances exceeding $1 million."

G.O.P. Balks at White House Plan on Fiscal Crisis
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us/politics/fiscal-talks-in-congress-seem-to-reach-impasse.html

[bigtree]

34. hey if Schumer and the Democrats have a problem with the deal then they should negotiate a new one

for fuck sakes! It's THEIR job!

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

28. I guess the things on the table were acceptable to the GOP.

Like I said before, "Never gamble with something you are not prepared to lose."

You should be happy at least that SS was not up for sale.

[Tutonic]

19. Unemployment benefits extended for one year.

Is that a good thing or bad thing?

[DMacTX]

30. Without question, it is an imperative thing.

[BlueStreak]

35. But the Bush tax cuts are made permanent?

That is terrible. That gives Norquist 95% of his "shrink government so small it will fit in a bathtub."

Sure the Republicans will cry a lot of alligator tears about how hard this is on the billionaires, but the fact is making the Bush tax cuts permanent for $400K incomes GUARANTEES we can't come close to balancing the budget. So the Republicans will be in a position to keep goring our social programs.

[W_HAMILTON]

29. Oh, the White House isn't done giving in yet.

Wait for that two-month delay in sequestration to end.

Wait till it's time to raise the debt ceiling.

There's gonna be a lot more "yielding to GOP wishes" in our near future.

[Jackpine Radical]

37. Don't worry. They still have that chained CPI thing for SS

and Veterans Benefits to use as bait for more Republican votes in 2 months.

[kentuck]

38. By this time tomorrow night...

...they may be saying that the leftist, progressive Democrats in the House are just like the Tea Baggers for not going along with the deal? Who knows?

[Coyotl]

39. Meanwhile, Boehner is where?

Out to lunch?

[Jefferson23]

42. Pitiful, truly pitiful. n/t

K&R

[Warren DeMontague]

43. If we're talking about the level of the exemption, there is a logical reason for that, that some may

Nevertheless find unpalatable.

Two words. Two states. New York, and California.

States with real estate values that- rightly or wrongly- can easily put many estates, of non "wealthy" individuals even, over the old 1 Mil. Threshold. Leading to descendants having to sell the family home to pay the estate taxes on it, for instance.

You can be damn certain that Senators Boxer, and Feinstein, and Schumer, and Gillibrand, are aware of this- and advocating for their constituents accordingly.