Democrats Demand Changes In Obama-GOP Tax Deal

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

(12-07) 13:37 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --

Disappointed Democratic congressional leaders demanded changes in the White House's tax deal with Republicans on Tuesday despite a spirited argument by President Barack Obama that concessions were preferable to higher taxes for millions of Americans.

--SNIP
In a remarkable political role reversal, Republicans lined up to support the package, while lawmakers of the president's party said they were prepared to oppose it. Liberal Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., pledged to "do everything I can to defeat this," including a filibuster to prevent a final vote.

Democratic opposition focused chiefly on two parts of the deal that marked concessions to Republicans — the decision to let expiring tax cuts remain in effect for people in upper incomes, and a change in the estate tax that the GOP has long sought.

Pelosi called the estate tax provision "a bridge too far," and Reid also singled it out for criticism. It would allow $5 million per spouse to pass tax-free to heirs, and tax anything above that level at 35 percent.

The compromise is "something that's not done yet," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "We're going to have to do some more work," he said after a closed door meeting with Vice President Joe Biden and members of the Democratic rank-and-file.
The deal includes an extension of expiring Bush-era tax cuts for all income levels — not just for lower and middle-income taxpayers, as Democrats wanted. It also contains a renewal of jobless benefits due to expire in a few weeks, and a one-year cut in Social Security taxes paid by workers.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/12/05/national/w001847S26.DTL

[jefferson_dem]

1. I'm on board with this.

Whatever changes are achievable, without torpedoing the deal, let's do it. Make it as proggy as possible. My only concern, and it's not a huge one, is that the more time debating this means less time to deal with DADT repeal and START and DREAM ACT.

[Vincardog]

4. If the GOP wants this deal let them pass the UI, DADT repeal, START, the DREAM ACT NOW

then we can talk about taxes.

[AlinPA]

20. Now were talking! That's it. nt

[msongs]

30. there u go again demanding Obama aim high instead of negotiating from weakness nt

[ooglymoogly]

32. The mistake we are making is assuming 0 wants the honorable thing.

He does not. He is so transparently FOR the tax cuts for the rich it boggles the mind; that such duplicity and calumny exists this far outside the GOP and in a "Democrat" ha, ha, I laugh at my own joke.

[Iowa]

55. +1

[saigon68]

35. He will give in to his MASTERS

[martymar64]

31. Throw in EFCA and I'll join too

[gateley]

7. I wonder what changes they will ask for - and if they're achievable. nt

[NorthCarolina]

24. DADT, START, and Dream Act are already DOA with the GOP and Conservative Dems. nt

[Chan790]

33. Well then...

I hope they really don't want this deal too badly then and the President enjoys his eggface.

If they're not willing to negotiate on all grounds then they have no right to expect a solution. Welcome to the ascendancy of the pissed-off (and willing to throw the President under the bus when he goes to far bipartisan) Congressional Democratic caucus. Congress-critters may be self-serving but they're neither stupid or blind, they watched the most conciliatory and moderate among them get scalped less than a month ago...the lesson for Congressional Democrats, if not the White House, was clear:

Go left and break out the trench knives.

[Caretha]

45. I for one will

welcome the President under the bus, it's getting a little crowded, but there is always room for one more. :)

[Smashcut]

38. Well, I'm in favor of 'torpedoing the deal'

You're dreaming if you think DADT has any chance in hell now. Thanks, Obama, for making us all wait for your 'study.'

[GOTV]

66. It's like buying a car. If you're not willing to walk away you will never get a deal...

... So you are setting the American middle class and the unemployed up for some hard times.

[Vincardog]

2. cutting the tax on the FIRST $250,000 is a cut FOR ALL

[gateley]

5. They never once presented it that way - I wonder if it was because they felt

they'd do better ganging up on "the wealthy".

[Gore1FL]

36. they shouldn't extend those either, IMO. n/t

[gateley]

3. Well my hat's off to those standing strong. I, for one, was swayed by Obama's

press conference. He made a lot of statements that I couldn't disagree with even though in theory I'm against it. So I'm grateful to those who understand the ramifications far better than I do, to do what's right.

Thanks for this post - I was curious how Biden's meeting with the Senate would go and what the response would be. I'm surprised, frankly, that Reid is kind of bucking the deal.

Does anybody know what's next -- and when?

[polichick]

6. Chuck Todd just said on Hardball that the votes aren't there in the House...

...should be an interesting few days coming up.

[gateley]

8. But did I just hear one of them say that they think he will get the vote? nt

[polichick]

9. I don't know about that, but Chuck said Biden is busy whipping. nt

[SugarShack]

10. I don't think workers worried about THEIR soc sec, expected to pay less for a year?

They'll have to raise the tax level or just remove cap altogether.

[JackintheGreen]

11. If my parents leave me $5 mil

Dammit I WANT $5 million! Not 3.25 million. How the fuck am I supposed to live on that? You can't expect me to WORK.

[polichick]

13. Actually, I don't like the estate tax because that's double taxation...

...which doesn't seem right to me.

[jeff47]

17. There's no such thing as "double taxation".

You buy a widget. The store owner is taxed on the income.

He pays his employees. They are taxed on the income.

An employee buys food at the grocery store. The grocer is taxed on the income.

The grocer buys stock with it. The guy selling the stock is taxed on the income.

He buys a house. The guy who sold the house is taxed on the income.

That guy suddenly dies, and leaves $5M to his kids.

You are objecting to only to that last one. You seem to be just fine on taxing all the other places.

[dbmk]

26. Not debate your actual point

But is the grocer/store owner taxed on the income that goes to wages/purchasing stock?

[jeff47]

58. Yes, all the examples aren't perfect

But brief, slightly inaccurate examples are better than a lengthy treatise no one will read.

(And the person paying the taxes on the stock purchase was the seller of the stock, not the grocer)

[karynnj]

18. Depends how you look at it

For the heir, they are receiving a huge amount of income that THEY never were taxed on.

Consider these two cases:

A person gets a job at McDonald's and starts to pay payroll taxes on the first dollar. The adult child of a wealthy parent, who was sent to all the finest schools, and had everything money could buy and all the ties of people in his class to get a high paying job, inherits over $5 million on the death of the parent. What is wrong with taxing that transfer before it goes to the next generation?

[DURHAM D]

21. It is not double taxation.

Several studies have been done on this. I remember reading one article about three years ago that indicated that in an estate valued at more than $5 Million there is zero chance that anything over that ($5M) had ever been taxed, and much in the first $5M had also not been taxed. It all depends on the types of holdings.

The idea it is double taxation is a Republican talking point - just like calling it a death tax is a Republican talking point.

[Scruffy1]

34. Yes, all large estates are unrealized capital gains.

There is no tax on capital gains until they are realized.

[ProudDad]

65. The genisis of the estate tax

is the Founding Father's hatred of the Aristocracy and their certain knowledge that entrenched wealth would deform and eventually destroy the political process and the Union...

(Citizens United anyone?)

Since they were unable to have their wish and prevent grossly over sized personal fortunes in the late 1800s they did at least try to get a piece of that entrenched wealth back into the hands of the (alleged) Commons, for the Common Good, by way of a fairly large tax.

There are SO many examples of multiple taxation up to and including the worst of them all "sales tax", most of which multiple layers of taxation fall on those of us at the bottom MUCH more than those on the top, this policy to try to even the playing field is a rare exception.

[GOTV]

67. It's not double taxation. If you receive an estate worth $10mil that's the first and last time ...

... you pay taxes on it.

[lunatica]

12. I expected this but it still gives me painful knots in my stomach

I'm more and more disappointed every day. And then to get lectured to by the President, well it doesn't help at all. It makes it all worse.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[floriduck]

15. Dear Mr. President

I now write to Obama every day to remind him of my dissatisfaction with his lack of leadership and caving into bad policies with the GOP. If nothing else, at least I can get it off my chest and I feel like I am trying to do something other than bitch on websites.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

16. Count me in Bernie!

[newspeak]

62. If Bernie Sanders ever decides to throw his hat in the presidential ring

I'd vote for him in a heartbeat!

[Dappleganger]

19. All the repukes were smiling in front of the cameras, which means that it sucks for US.

[PassingFair]

22. If we're going down, let's go down SWINGING.

Fuck the republicans, and fuck the enablers that
continue to enable.

[perdita9]

48. Get the GOP bloody

Dems have been push overs for too long.

If this monstrosity passes there should be progressives lining the walk to the Senate, waving signs and spitting on John Boehner.

[Jackpine Radical]

23. Here's the line that says it all:

"In a remarkable political role reversal, Republicans lined up to support the package, while lawmakers of the president's party said they were prepared to oppose it. Liberal Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., pledged to "do everything I can to defeat this," including a filibuster to prevent a final vote."

[bemildred]

28. Boy, this really takes me back to the 60s. nt

[sweetapogee]

39. my theory

is this, the President doesn't really want to deal with DADT and DREAM etc. because it will not help him with his poll numbers. So to buy time they wrestle with the tax bill, run out the clock on this lame duck session and both of these issues die. Then, a vote is taken on the TAX bill, it passes and he looks like a hero. Really, does anyone really think that President Obama out of the clear blue sky made the decision to work with pukes without including dems?

[Jackpine Radical]

43. I may have entirely the wrong take on this. but

I should thing that DREAM would solidify him with hispanics, whom he is really going to need, and DADT would not only reel in the LBGT vote, not all of which is "naturally" Dem (Log Cabiners, for example), but would also help his credentials with straight social liberals like me who deplore homophobia wherever it exists.

[sweetapogee]

49. ok

If President Obama were a republican then what you are saying makes sense. However, he is a democrat, i know some here would argue that point but he is a democrat. As such, he already has the bulk of the hispanic and the LBGT vote.

But Jackpile Radical, you do offer some food for thought. One of my underlying political rules is that any democrat running for President must have certain voting blocks in his pocket. So as not to offer a contradiction to myself, all the candidate has to do is avoid pissing off these blocks of voters. By letting congress bicker over the Tax bill and running out the clock, the President and congressional dems avoid blame for DADT and DREAM Act failures, pinning the blame on congressional republicans. If those bills come up for a vote and fail, well then this spells trouble for the liberal wing of the democratic party. If either one or both pass, then the pukes will spend the next two years pounding away at President Obama to please their conservative base. So really, from the Presidents and the congressional dem perspective, allowing DADT and DREAM die before a vote helps them more than it hurts them, it keeps the issue alive for future and deprives the pukes of an issue to excite their base.

A tax bill in one form or another must pass this session. If nothing happens and the tax rate rises for the middle then every democratic candidate in 2012 will be on the ropes. So forget that, a tax bill will happen. I think the outrage we are seeing by dems in the house and senate with respect to the tax agreement the President has worked out with the pukes is largely theater. I don't believe the President did this deal without letting the dems know before hand. Just my theory mind you.

I know it is fashionable on DU to doubt that the pukes will move next session to have some of the legislation passed in this session at least modified, such as HCR. I take the repunks a their word. They, the pukes, don't have to be successful in repealing anything, they just have to keep trying and their base will reward them at the polls. Right now it is also fashionable to say that we are going to sit out the next election. I don't believe this will happen to many here on DU but if Obama is not on the ballot at least one very important block of voters will stay home depriving us of a win in 2012. Good discussion Jackpile Radical.

[Jackpine Radical]

50. An interesting and thoughtful response.

I don't know that Obama has a lock on the Hispanics; Social conservatism (anti-gay, anti-abortion) appeals to many of them. DREAM would bring him 90% of the (non-Miami Cuban) Hispanics rather than maybe 65 or 70%, and would be likely to bring them out to vote in very large numbers despite Reptilian voter-suppression tactics; that is, Hispanic community leaders would get people out for him in a way that they wouldn't without DREAM.

The same thing with LBGT people. Not all of them are natural liberals--they tend to be economically upscale and many, for example, are libertarians. DADT would reel them in.

I think Obama is committed to rather conservative economic policies, and believes he needs to keep Wall Street and certain multinationals sufficiently happy that they will finance him. Since he is therefore blocked from doing things that would redistribute wealth downward, about all he has to give the liberals are some strokes on social issues. Wall Street as a whole really doesn't give a damn about gay rights one way or the other, and they may even favor DREAM to the extent that it could lower labor costs (not to mention legalizing their personal servants and reducing potential embarrassment), so these social issues are things Obama could do without disturbing the incomes of the super-wealthy.

[sweetapogee]

57. I

will think about what you have said. By the way, in reviewing my postings I noticed that I misspelled your screen name, sorry it was not intentional.

[Jackpine Radical]

59. I didn't notice the misspelling.

[closeupready]

63. Sorry. He's not that smart.

Sometimes, weak is as weak does.

[and-justice-for-all]

25. If the rich do not lose those tax cuts, then the never will...

and every one else will have to eat shit and die.

[Gin]

27. I agree...if this passes as is....the tax cuts will be PERMANENT

Heard that the president cut the deal BEFORE he met with the dems...how generous of him to keep them in the loop.

[rasputin1952]

29. I think of this as a "windfall" for heirs, They didn't have access before

the death of the the bequestor, once they receive the cash, it's "income", tax the hell out of it.

Another aspect of this is that there about 50 loopholes where the individual, while still alive can give a lot of cash to heirs and avoid taxation. It's not a double tax and it's not a death tax...the individual is dead, they are not being taxed, the recipients are.

One more thing, if you have millions and don't have a good accountant and tax lawyer, you deserve to pay a "stupidity tax" anyway.

[madrchsod]

37. rich people buy life insurance policies....

when they die their benifiaries pay 0 taxes...

[rasputin1952]

41. Only on the policy...

if they leave items of value, houses, cash, land or other property, they should be taxable.

[madrchsod]

44. yup!

[24601]

40. No doubt a stern letter is coming. But to be realistic, deal with us

now or deal with them in January.

[customerserviceguy]

42. The part about this 'compromise' that really frosts me

is the payroll tax holiday. Cutting 30% of the employee's share of the FICA tax is not going to help shore up Social Security finances. Where are all the people who protested the Cat Food Commission on this issue?

Besides, if we go along with cutting FICA, even a little bit, we lose the high moral ground when the Rethugs want to do the same thing in the name of privatization.

[defendandprotect]

53. Hadn't heard that one ... wow!! Agree with you --

[James48]

46. SOLD OUT!

NINE HUNDRED BILLION IN MORE DEBT GIVEN AWAY

while the richest in America fleece the poor.

Republicans make me throw up, but I now know there is something even worse.


I never thought I would be the one saying it...but we need to



for selling everything out.

I'm getting the distinct feeling there is a complete and utter lack of testosterone there someplace.

Hillary has more testosterone than my President, and I wasn't a big Hillary fan before.

[Optimistic]

47. Here is my idea

1--Impeach Obama--He is totally bought and paid for by Fox News and the Republican Right,
2-End all the Tax Cuts for the Rich over $250.000 a year now
3---Go back to the JFK rates for all those over $1,000,000 a year
4--200% tax on all imports
5--99% tax rate on all businesses with jobs outside the USA
6--Raise the Minimum wage to $12.50 an hour
7--Gov't paid Health Care for all Americans
8--Ban Fox News
9--Pull out all troops overseas and thel those countries that they are on their own unless they pay us full retail value for all the expenses
10--Tell all the countries we have defended they owe us for everything we have done for them
11--All Countries will be made to buy all their goods from us made by Americans

[McCamy Taylor]

51. Democrats found their spine.

[defendandprotect]

52. PLUS Obama accomplished ZIP for the unemployed whose benefits expired...!!!

Wasn't it lucky for GOP that they're no longer under that pressure!!!

:eyes:

[bertman]

54. NO DEAL. NO COMPROMISE. Good for Bernie Sanders. REC. nt

[andym]

56. If they're not going to stop them now, they need to make the taxcuts for the wealthy end earlier

otherwise we'll likeley never get rid of them, as the GOP will link the two tax cute together forever, playing the game over and over.

[Democat]

60. Obama is not the leader of Democrats anymore.

He appears to be on the Republican side, Democrats in the House and Senate should fight him every step of the way.

[newspeak]

61. as one DUer mentioned

the extension of unemployment benefits shouldn't even been in this deal. Repugs got everything that benefited the rich-tax break, inheritance tax break. We already have such a disparity between the "have nots" and "have mores", it seems their goal is taking it all. Which won't be too hard now, since there are many americans jobless. This is a lopsided compromise, and again the unemployment benefits should have been kept separate from this nightmare!

Just wait until the sociopathic repugs scream that they need to curb the deficit (the deficit they largely created under Little Boots) by cutting any form of social programs to aid the people. And, while they "drown it in the tub" while millions of Americans are hurting, they'll make sure that their filthy wealthy friends not paying their share won't be blamed. It will be all of those lazy americans who won't get a job, or the disabled who are dragging down society or the elderly who are spending too much to live. You want to know what fascism is, look at today's repugs (and, I'll include some "new democrats" too).

[ProudDad]

64. "Republicans lined up to support the package"

and WHAT does this tell you?

Geez...