Senate Passes $70 Billion Tax Bill (18 Dems voted "Yes")

[Wordie]

Senate Passes $70 Billion Tax Bill
Senate Passes $70 Billion in Tax Cuts in 66-31 Vote Amid Partisan Wrangling
By MARY DALRYMPLE AP Tax Writer


WASHINGTON Feb 2, 2006 — The Senate passed $70 billion in tax cuts Thursday, one step in an effort that Republican leaders hope will preserve President Bush's tax reductions for capital gains and dividends.

Despite the bipartisan 66-31 vote, Republicans and Democrats showed they're ready to lock horns this election year. They spent most of the day wrangling over whether to use the tax bill to debate a long list of politically hot topics, refusing to skip formalities normally ignored by agreement among party leaders.

...The central feature of the tax bill, left over from last year's agenda, holds back the alternative minimum tax, which threatens millions of families with higher taxes this year unless lawmakers stop its growth.

Originally intended to prevent the wealthy from erasing their tax liabilities through deductions and credits, the alternative minimum tax encroaches further on the middle class each year. Inflation and recently passed tax cuts have fueled its growth.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1574520

[NoAmericanTaliban]

1. Sad day for the poor & middle class except for one thing

if you are an oil executive - as I'm sure most DUers are - the tax cuts will continue for now.

[saigon68]

22. Yes, My OIL Royalty check is in the mail Today

</sarcasm>

[Straight Shooter]

2. I guess bipartisan means 13 of 44 Dem Senators. *snort*

At least they're keeping the ALT at bay, which they need to do, considering the horrid bankruptcy law. I suppose that's why the Dems went for it.

Let me guess. Lieberman voted for it, enthusiastically for all provisions. :eyes:

[Wordie]

3. 18 Dem "Yes" votes - Lieberman voted "No"! Here's the vote tally:

There are some other suprises there too, though. :(

Senate RollVote Taxes

By The Associated Press
1 hour, 33 minutes ago

The 66-31 roll call Thursday by which the Senate passed $70 billion in tax cuts.

A "yes" vote is a vote to pass the measure.

Voting "yes" were 18 Democrats and 48 Republicans.

Voting "no" were 25 Democrats, 5 Republicans and 1 independent.

Democrats Yes

Baucus, Mont.; Cantwell, Wash.; Carper, Del.; Clinton, N.Y.; Dayton, Minn.; Feinstein, Calif.; Inouye, Hawaii; Johnson, S.D.; Landrieu, La.; Lincoln, Ark.; Menendez, N.J.; Nelson, Fla.; Nelson, Neb.; Pryor, Ark.; Rockefeller, W.Va.; Salazar, Colo.; Schumer, N.Y.; Stabenow, Mich.

Democrats No

Akaka, Hawaii; Bayh, Ind.; Biden, Del.; Boxer, Calif.; Byrd, W.Va.; Conrad, N.D.; Dodd, Conn.; Dorgan, N.D.; Durbin, Ill.; Feingold, Wis.; Harkin, Iowa; Kennedy, Mass.; Kerry, Mass.; Kohl, Wis.; Lautenberg, N.J.; Leahy, Vt.; Levin, Mich.; Lieberman, Conn.; Mikulski, Md.; Murray, Wash.; Obama, Ill.; Reed, R.I.; Reid, Nev.; Sarbanes, Md.; Wyden, Ore.

Democrats Not Voting

Bingaman, N.M.

Republicans Yes

Alexander, Tenn.; Allard, Colo.; Allen, Va.; Bennett, Utah; Bond, Mo.; Brownback, Kan.; Bunning, Ky.; Burns, Mont.; Chambliss, Ga.; Cochran, Miss.; Coleman, Minn.; Collins, Maine; Cornyn, Texas; Craig, Idaho; Crapo, Idaho; DeMint, S.C.; DeWine, Ohio; Dole, N.C.; Ensign, Nev.; Enzi, Wyo.; Frist, Tenn.; Graham, S.C.; Grassley, Iowa; Gregg, N.H.; Hagel, Neb.; Hatch, Utah; Hutchison, Texas; Isakson, Ga.; Kyl, Ariz.; Lott, Miss.; Lugar, Ind.; Martinez, Fla.; McCain, Ariz.; McConnell, Ky.; Murkowski, Alaska; Roberts, Kan.; Santorum, Pa.; Sessions, Ala.; Shelby, Ala.; Smith, Ore.; Snowe, Maine; Specter, Pa.; Stevens, Alaska; Sununu, N.H.; Talent, Mo.; Thune, S.D.; Vitter, La.; Warner, Va.

Republicans No

Burr, N.C.; Chafee, R.I.; Coburn, Okla.; Inhofe, Okla.; Voinovich, Ohio.

Republicans Not Voting

Domenici, N.M.; Thomas, Wyo.

Others No

Jeffords, Vt.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060203/ap_on_go_co/senate_rollvote_taxes

[Lorien]

5. Ack! Clinton and my Senator; Nelson

I hope Dr. Phool can raise enough cash to pose a real threat to Nelson!

[Wordie]

6. Other surprises, too: Feinstein, Schumer, Stabenow. :(

[Strawman]

40. Stabenow also voted for that bankruptcy bill

She's very mediocre, IMO. To her credit, she came out against Alito early on after Kerry's filibuster push, and I'll vote for her, but she disappoints sometimes.

I don't trust her as much as Levin. She comes off as a little less of a "public servant" like Levin and a little more like a typical ambitious hack politician.

I'll be sad when Levin steps down. It's very unlikely that we'll get another Senator of his high quality from our state.

[wordpix2]

44. Schumer! I held him in such high esteem before this vote

[Strelnikov_]

8. Delete

[aquart]

20. the senate website is down. funny.

I wanted to ask my senators, Clinton and Schumer, for their canned justification for this vote.

[TechBear_Seattle]

29. Not at all surprised to see Cantwell on the "Aye" list. Typical n/t

[Straight Shooter]

31. Knock me over with a wet raggedy feather! Lieberman voted no.

But I also see the Alito boot-lickers on the "yes" list. DiFi has retreated to her ivory tower again.

[freefall]

38. Maybe he's actually worried about competition in the primary? n/t

[Wordie]

49. Welcome to DU, freefall!

:hi:

[JudyM]

41. A no vote from Chafee. Nice.

[genie_weenie]

64. Wisconsin and Illinois

Damn Guys we got you 4 no votes! and all the rest of you could only muster 27!

Time to vote out every incumbent who does not support removing the troops!


Of course, this will never happen...

[Up2Late]

4. Unbelievable!

Why isn't anyone screaming about the how the ReThugs are RAISING OUR TAXES!

Yes THEY ARE, buy not fixing this, they are RAISING THE TAXES of Middle Class Americans!

:grr:

[depakid]

7. Some opposition party

Let's go along with Republicans and legitimize their policies (while weaking our own ability to challenge them once the disasterous consequences of the deficit hit home hard). Brilliant.

Forget 2006- it ain't gonna happen. Even if the Dems did manage to gain the majority with this many DINO's you have to ask whether it would make much difference.

With "friends" like these, who needs enemies....

[deadparrot]

9. While it's frustrating, voting against tax cuts in an election year

isn't exactly the easiest decision to make.

Don't get me wrong; in our currect situation, tax cuts are the last thing we need. But you can understand why they did it, at least in part.

[Wordie]

11. I can understand the politics of it, but it's still disappointing. nt

[deadparrot]

12. I understand.

I feel screwed, too. Tax cuts are the opposite of what the country needs. However, Americans tend to think "cut taxes"="good". Until the Democrats learn to re-frame the debate (if it's at all possible), that's not gonna change. :(

[Wordie]

14. I don't know...there was a post citing a Pew Research poll around here...

Here's what was posted:

In recent polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic party:

1. 65 percent say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives").

3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."

8. 69 percent believe America is on the wrong track, with only 26 percent saying it's headed in the right direction…

The poster didn't offer a link, but here's the DU thread (it's post #26):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2430848#2432218

So if that's right, maybe the mood in the U.S. has changed, and the Congress just hasn't caught up yet. Maybe the conventional wisdom isn't true anymore.

[deadparrot]

18. I hope you're right.

Though in my experience, what Americans say and what they believe can be two very different things.

[Wordie]

47. What they say to pollsters and what they DO seem different. eom

[McKenzie]

19. here is a link to those stats

as far as I can tell the article does not provide an authoritative source for the statistics, nor does the site on which the figures originally appeared. Presumably they came from some research/poll though.

http://tvnewslies.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=11163&sid=79d2a54e1f0c030eb8d3354dcf6b47a6

[EFerrari]

24. These votes reinforce unreality and this is a losing strategy.

I understand the thinking but it's a bad choice.

[deadparrot]

34. Again, I didn't say that I liked it.

Something needs to change. But until it does, expect this.

[EFerrari]

43. I agree. n/t

[pokercat999]

26. Let's be honest, they are whores, selling themselves;

with their only goal to stay in office so they can enrich themselves with both power and money.

[deadparrot]

35. Probably so.

I think some people at DU harbor this fantasy that only Republicans are capable of being money-grubbing, egocentric pigs. While I'm a died-in-the-wool liberal, I also believe that there are a fair number of Democrats who don't have the public interest at heart--this being one such demonstration.

[Warren Stupidity]

30. Oh bullshit.

These are extensions of tax cuts for the vastly wealthy. Democrats voting against this crap ought to be a no-brainer, especially in an election year.

When are we going to wake the heck up?

[deadparrot]

33. Please.

It's a reality. If you don't think the Republicans will jump on the "he voted against tax cuts" bandwagon, and if you don't think that some Democrats are spineless and scared and vote accordingly because they don't know how to frame the debate, you've ignored the past several election cycles.

Do I like it? Absolutely not. Is it a reality? You bet.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. It is a game they are playing with your head.

The kleptocracy paarty patiently explains to you that both halves of the kleptocracy party have to vote for more pillage and corruption otherwise the mythical anti fair tax voter will chuck them out of office, and you buy it. It is bullshit.

[deadparrot]

39. It's not the Republican Party.

It's experience. Until the Democrats get a coherent strategy in place, they're going to struggle. Republicans frame the debate in this country.

Until you show me otherwise, I'd appreciate you not insult my intelligence. The last 3 election cycles (at least) have illustrated my point.

[Telly Savalas]

55. A very easy decision.

Here's the line: "The so called 'tax cuts' are fake. That's $70 billion in government programs we've chosen not to pay for this year. But we gotta pay for them sometime. All the cowards who voted for the 'cuts' did was put us further in debt and deferred the taxes, placing the burden on future generations."

If the voting public can't get that, then we're pretty much screwed anyway.

[Pale Blue Dot]

58. Clinton has NO competition for her seat

No realistic competition, anyway.

[NoodleyAppendage]

60. LEADERSHIP means voting for what's right even in the face of adversity

NOT a one of the 18 Dems who voted for this tax cut bill has an once of COURAGE. Fuck'em. I'll remember their names when voting in 2006 and 2008.

JB

[Strelnikov_]

10. "One Item Has Drawn Heavy Criticism From The White House . .

and others. It changes an accounting practice used by oil companies and hits them with $4.3 billion in increased taxes."

Now who didn't see that coming.

[FlemingsGhost]

13. There needs to be a tax revolt in the U.S.

Alas, Americans are cowards. Too many deluded individuals who feel they still have something to lose, if they were to rebel beyond bold words and symbolic gestures.

That will change, soon enough...

[jackbourassa]

15. CLINTON???

What the hell is wrong with Hillary?

[LiberalGuy000]

16. She thinks she's running for President (n/t)

[Wordie]

17. That vote sure isn't going to keep her Dem base happy. n/t

[Cobalt Violet]

28. Shillery is triangulating again.

She best not be our nominee.

[lakeguy]

21. once again HALF the friggen dems are on the wrong side

of the fence! christ, even the polls back them and they STILL manage to vote the wrong way. sure will look good next election cycle when they voted AGAINST education, AGAINST health care, etc.:sarcasm: getting tired of that crap!@

[The Governor]

23. Actually, I believe that taxes on capital gains should be eliminated

entirely. The capital that is being invested has already been taxed.

I resent the fact the government takes 25% of what I earn when I put capital at risk. After all, they are not going to refund me if I lose money.

Fortunately, several other Democrats (the smart ones) agree with me.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. No but you can of course apply your losses against your gains

and reduce your taxes that way.

Lots of 'money' is repeatedly taxed. Your argument would apply equally to sales taxes, or just about any taxes for that matter. So you inherit 1,000,000 tax free from your uncle and invest it and get 100,000 in capital gains - just how have you paid any taxes at all on this money?

Your capital gains are secure because of the nation's security, paid for by taxes. Your investments are even more secure because of federal agencies dedicated to regulating the investment and securities industry - you think I should pay for that out of my salary tax while you pay nothing from the direct benefit you receive?

[The Governor]

51. Yes, that is true. However all of the things that you mentioned

are paid for with my salary taxes as well. Those "securities" are no doubt a good thing, but good things come from capital investment too. And the lower the tax, the more likely I am to put my capital at risk.

[VegasWolf]

54. Well, you are hardly alone on this board in investing capital. I invest

not because capital gains taxes are low, but to make more and more money. The taxes are simply part of the algorithm. Regardless of whether Bush's tax breaks are rolled back, I will continue to put capital to risk because there's money in those peaks and valleys of the markets.

[Telly Savalas]

56. The capital may have been taxed, but your gains sure haven't

any more than the income I get from actually working.

[davekriss]

57. That is such a cannard Reddest of red herring

We can, as a democracy, decide to tax every conceivable transaction, including the exchange of seashells for baseball cards. You're looking for some kind of "moral justice" for taxation, claiming "once is enough".

You know, I put my capital at risk every day. My sweat and strain, my labor -- it is all the capital I've got. It gets taxed once for FIT, again for FICA, again for state taxes, and yet again for local taxes. Than what I have left is taxed everytime I buy something. I'm taxed every way from which way. But I don't complain.

Instead, I ask what do I get from our collective democracy that we all benefit from. Not much, really. As D.A. Levy wrote,

Really
The police try to protect
the banks -- and everything else
is secondary

However, if I earned, say, $500,000 in salary and bonus, and another $500,000 per year "unearned" (a telling description), I inordinately benefit from this social arrangement that ensures enforcement of contracts, relative order in our neighborhoods, absorbs many costs as "social" and off the books of my business, upkeeps paved roads, educates my children, and on and on and on.

Those with nothing to lose, who earn little more than minimum wage, what do they gain from this arrangement? Thus the progressive income tax, rendered more flat by Republithug success with propaganda, and probably net effect regressive when all forms of tax and user fees are considered.

So I really don't care about your "resentment" that the gubermint' takes 25% of what you earn. Your ability to earn is in great part enabled by the social arrangements we all pay for. That you don't see that indicates a certain lack of vision in your world view.

Now, if you wanted to argue about a government that spends 50% more than it takes in as revenue, and note that that 50% would be greatly closed if we just held to the tax rates of the prosperous nineties; if you wanted to debate the wisdom of spending $400+ billion on our security apparatus and the "morality" of lying us into an illegal, immoral, pre-emptive war -- well, then you'd be talking!

[salin]

25. The Senate bill seems to be different than many of the previous ones

And since bush can't bring himself to veto - I would bet the conference committee will strip out that which makes it not nearly as bad as previous bills and leave in what bushco wants.

If I am reading this correctly, the main part of this is changing the alternative minimum tax - which is the one that was aimed at making sure the very wealthy (back in the late sixties) paid their share of taxes, but was never indexed for inflation - and now reaches further and further down into middle class incomes and somehow misses the really wealthy (I think because the really wealthy have been compensated by all sorts of other tax cuts.) Overall if we are cutting taxes, at least this one gives some treatment to those beyond the bushcronies.

Other provisions are interesting - esp due to the implication that things that reach more everyday folks are in the senate bill - but not in the House (I remember when the senate was viewed the chamber of the elite - but a decade of power in the house has changed all that):

from the article:

Much of the Senate bill extends tax breaks popular with taxpayers, and therefore popular with their elected leaders. They include deductions for college tuition and teachers' expenses, as well as a credit for low-income savers.

--snip

One item has drawn heavy criticism from the White House and others. It changes an accounting practice used by oil companies and hits them with $4.3 billion in increased taxes.

Senators agreed to tack one extra item to the bill: tax breaks for coal companies that spend more on safety equipment and training.

--snip

In an unusual move, senators used the tax bill to authorize more spending for military equipment, along with more money for veterans health care, disability compensation and hospitals. Using a tax bill to increase spending violates budget rules, and the money probably will not survive later negotiations, said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H.



Some points - first the house wants the tax cuts to primarily be on investment/capital gains (really wealthy) and it is implied that deductions for college tuition, low-income savers, etc. are not in the House Bill.

Second, is the implication of higher taxes on oil companies - back in the fall there was an attempt to revive the Wind Fall taxes against Oil cos - a movement strongly resisted by the WH; looks like in some form (no details in this story) the senate has returned to the issue of the obscene profits of oil/gas while consumers are being crushed.

Third, isn't bush pushing another military spending bill? The inclusion of items related to the military - more equipment, more $ for vets health care and disiabilities fudning and VA hosipitals - suggests that these things are NOT being talked about for bush's mega request.

All that said - if I were a senator and were going to vote for just one tax cut bill over all of the ones offered by Bushco in the past five years - this would be the *only* one I would vote for. But given that it (the bill and vote) comes so late into the debt ridden administration - the cost to the deficit (esp in light of the cuts to medicare/medicaid and college aid programs) I still couldn't bring myself to vote for it.

But the sad reality for those that did vote for it (and I don't view them as allies of bushco - for the reasons above - this one does have provisions that are good) - is that they are being naive, and are enabling a much, much worse bill to come out of conference committee - one that will strip out anything decent (increased taxes on the profits of gouging oil companies, for example) and leave just the provisions enriching certain corporations and enriching the very wealthy.

[Cobalt Violet]

27. Shillery better not be the Democrat nominee in 2008!

I will not vote for her no matter what!

[CountAllVotes]

36. yeah to hell w/her!

I with ya!

:kick:

[savemefromdumbya]

42. Who were the 18?

[Wordie]

48. It's posted upthread...post #3. (There are some surprises.) eom

[madmark]

45. was there pork in it for ny? i noticed that it was the typical dino

group voting for it with the exception of clinton/schumer that surprised me.

[mvd]

53. Hmmm.. that was strange

In my opinion, what the Democrats THINK will make them popular and what WILL are different. We'll never frame the debate unless we start now.

I also noticed that Menendez voted yes. Being a Corzine appointee, I'm surprised. I know Stabenow is good on social issues, but not so good on fiscal ones.

[Idioteque]

46. The Senate bill isn't as bad as the House one...

...I woudln't have voted for it personally but you can't blame a lot of the Democratic Senators who voted for it. From what I've read, it helps out folks affected by the AMT, which really hurts a lot of middle class people in certain states.

[Zodiak]

50. So let me get his straight

Bill Clinton has said time and time again that he is wealthy and should not be the one getting the tax cut, and then his wife goes on the Senate floor and votes precisely for just that.

Interesting...and proof positive that the two have different politics. She is more conservative than he, and that is saying something. Her voting record has become far more right wing over the last five months.

Disappointing.

Feinstein is no surprise....she loves tax cuts of all stripes.

Of course, the DLC bloc was there to vote for this one. They have never seen a tax cut they didn't like, either. I have no idea why Kerry remains a member...his voting record is so diametrically different than the DLC. *shrug*

[Joanne98]

52. Traitor Dems strike again............

[nolabels]

61. Should they really be called Democrats?

I like the philosophical implications here :shrug:

Things that happen like this could even make one think about the implications of voting sometimes

[NoodleyAppendage]

59. DINOS = Dumbass Inglorious Nabobs Of Shiftlessness

I so FUCKING sick of reading about Dems voting for dictator Chimp's party efforts. As far as my 2006 and 2008 votes are concerned, I will be writing in "TRAITOR" next to any of these Dems (if I'm forcefed their candidacy by the DLC or the like).

JB

[leesa]

62. The corporate whores strike again.

[AbbyR]

63. There go my senators again...

Lincoln and Pryor. Doggone it, I really wish I had a name and money. I'd love to run against one of them - preferably Pryor, as I still kind of like Lincoln for her stand for farmers in my area. What on earth can they be thinking? Yeah, I know. They're not thinking.