Why a Handful of Progressive Lawmakers Opposed the Deal by John Nichols
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/01/02-1Most progressives in the U.S. Senate and House voted in favor of the "Fiscal Cliff" deal worked out between Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky. They did this despite the fact that the agreement compromised on what was supposed to be a hard-and-fast principle: that tax rates on Americans making $250,000 or more must go up to at least the rates that were in place when Bill Clinton was president. Instead, the deal only ends Bush-era tax cuts on those with incomes above $400,000. That rate, thoughtful progressives argue, "does not generate the revenue necessary for the country to meet its needs for everything from education for our children, to job training, to other critical supports for the middle class."
True, there will be some restoration of tax fairness -- not to mention an extension of unemployment benefits and a delay in across-the-board cuts proposed as part of the so-called "sequester" scheme. That was enough for most congressional progressives, from Senators Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, and Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, to Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chairs Keith Ellison, D-Minnesota, and Raul Grijalva, D-Arizona, in the House. They voiced their concerns but ultimately voted "yes." Many, like Senator Jeff Merkley, D-Oregon, did so with considearble concern. “Although it does not do as much as I want, this bill does ensure that the wealthy will be contributing more as we work to bring our deficits under control. I far prefer that choice to further cuts to education, law enforcement, and investments in the infrastructure our economy depends on," Merkley said of the measure. “But let’s be clear: this deal carries great risks as well. This deal sets up more cliffs in the near future, including the expiring debt ceiling and the sequestration, pre-planned cuts to programs essential to working families. And as before, there will be some who use these cliffs to launch renewed attacks on Medicare and Social Security. We cannot let those attacks succeed."
For a handful of progressives, however, the risks were too great to secure their support.
A few House stalwarts refused to go along with the 257-167 vote on New Year's Day. Among the objectors were Congressman Jim McDermott, D-Washington, and Congressman Peter DeFazio, an Oregon Democrat who has a history of breaking with his party's leadership when he deels it has compromised on tax fairness, economic justice and infrastructure investment. Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat who chaired the party's platform drafting committee in 2004, said she voted "no" because the bill did not do enough to benefit working families. “I was hopeful that we would be voting on legislation that prioritized working families and the middle class over the wealthiest Americans in taking a balanced approach to the challenges we face as a nation," she explained. "However, the bill before the House of Representatives tonight is not that."
= new reply since forum marked as read
Clinton rates are a far cry of what the rates were in the 50's, remember? The days when you could actually raise a family and feed them with one breadwinner in the family? Can't do that today with two...
Agree that NOTHING in Congress is "permanent" except maybe a Constitutional amendment and even that can be revoked by another amendment that repeals the previous one (although doing so is much harder than Congress simply changing the law to something else). The "permanency" for the Bush tax cuts was merely taking something that sunsetted after 10 years and taking away the sunset. A different example is the AMT, which was something that has had to be patched every year at some point after its original passage in something like 1969, due to the lack of an inflation adjustment provision, and the fix was finally changed (and "made permanent"
so that the yearly patches are now unnecessary.
But next week, Congress could theoretically pass a new law that changes the tax rate yet again to the lower threshold. However, the chances of that happening with teabaggers still infesting the House is low but anytime in the future changes can and will be made. Loopholes that the wealthy routinely used, definitely should be on the table.
The DU meme about something (notably tax things) being "permanent" (in a negative sense) is one of the biggest BS RW-style talking points around here.
very reason, it should have been the dealBREAKER, but it wasn't. And the GOP is screaming they got nothing?
Shock Doctrine is hugely playing out, day in and day out. While the cliff may have sucked, it was reversible.
A big game of chicken has been lost IMHO, something that should've played out to better, WE THE PEOPLE.
It truly speaks volumes. But somehow, there's a victory parade?
This country is going down the drain because of WAR, GREED, and HATE. Once the current VIET NAM war is over there will be less of a drain of money. The RICH should pay their fair share and the idea that the rich pay more taxes should be killed since the rich can AFFORD to pay more taxes.
The Congress of NO is still alive to terrorize this country and half the people in this country do not even know this fact. Not until progress is made to bring this country together will any progress be made to have a good place to live.
I think the home made terrorists are more evil than the foreign terrorists.
significant to the biggest money pit of death and destruction, bar none. Leverage lost, wave the flag & celebrate some more.
