Ouch! Rangel: Preserve Millionaire Tax Cuts, Consider Soc. Security Cuts, Pass More Free Trade Pacts

[IndyOp]

Rangel: Preserve Millionaire Tax Cuts, Consider Soc. Security Cuts, Pass More Free Trade Pacts
David Sirota on Charlie Rangel

Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) represents one of the poorest congressional districts in New York City. He also chairs the House Ways and Means Committee - the panel that oversees taxes and entitlements. This combination would lead the casual observer to think that Rangel, trying to represent his district, would be aggressively using his chairmanship to redirect President Bush’s tax cuts to lower-income people, strengthen and even expand Social Security and renegotiate trade deals to protect American jobs. But, no. That’s not what appears to be happening. In the weeks after the congressional election, Rangel has expressed interest in doing the exact opposite: preserving President Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy; considering Social Security benefit cuts and retirement age hikes; and supporting lobbyist-written trade pacts that have no wage, environmental or human rights protections in them. He has, in other words, moved to side firmly with the Money Party against the People Party.

Think this is hyperbole? Let’s let Rangel speak for himself. At the same time leading conservative Republican commentators like Ben Stein are saying it’s time to raise taxes on the rich to pay for the war and the deficit, here’s Rangel in the New York Observer yesterday, defending tax cuts to millionaires and falsely claiming Democrats never talked about repealing those tax cuts:

“Here he is, suggesting to a business-minded audience that no Democrat ever campaigned in 2006 on the issue of rolling back Bush’s tax cuts. ‘How many people heard the Democrats say they were going to roll back the tax cuts for the rich? I didn’t hear it, and I listen very carefully…I personally believe that repealing tax cuts that are locked into place, that people have depended on these tax cuts, invested in these tax cuts, not only is it bad tax policy to repeal it retroactively, but it’s dumb politics to do it especially when it’s going to get vetoed. Forget about it.’”

David Sirota on Charlie Rangel

[rfranklin]

1. As they said to the tuna, "Sorry Charlie..."

What a fucking asshole!

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Not Looking Good

He's on my watch list now.

[seabeyond]

3. kerry ran on it in 2004, didnt dean too? there are two charlie n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. That position certainly didn't help Dean or Kerry get elected

[mom cat]

19. Kerry DID get elected.

[Freddie Stubbs]

33. How is his Presidency going?

:shrug:

[Morgana LaFey]

21. You may be forgetting

that when these tax cuts were first proposed and promised (by Bush and his GOP thugs), the American people did NOT particularly want them, by over 50%. I don't remember the exact figures but I vividly remember people polled saying that they'd rather spend the money on such things as a Rainy Day fund, and on variouis human needs (including Education, IIRC).

It's only the very greedy who are not willing to pay their fair share for the privilege of living and working in this amazing country.

[Zhade]

27. He didn't forget.

Remember, elephants never forget.

[Freddie Stubbs]

34. What percentage of people NOW want to get rid of them?

:shrug:

[SammyWinstonJack]

4. !!

:wtf:

[OneBlueSky]

5. how to win friends and influence people . . . sounds like Rangel's target . . .

constituencies are, well, the BushCo constituencies -- the extremely wealthy and corporations . . . the only reason I can think of is the reason for everything in DC -- money . . .

shame on ya, Charlie . . . shame, shame, shame . . .

[dmosh42]

6. I think it's how you interpret it.

Maybe he's saying that to make the effort to repeal the tax cut when you know you can't over ride Bush's veto is a waste of time. I didn't see any quote of him wanting to cut the SS benefits, so maybe this guy is full of shit.

[Zhade]

25. It's impossible to misinterpret "no one ran on it".

He's lying one way or the other - either he did hear them say it (Kerry did, in fact, repeat that a number of times while running), or he isn't listening. At all.

This is either a bald-faced lie, or he's completely out to lunch.

Unacceptable.

[KoKo]

26. I think (it remains to be seen) that Sirota over-reacted on Rangel right now

.but, I can understand where Sirota is coming from. Rangel knows Bushies "Tax Cuts for the Rich...expire in 2010 and he's said that rather than mess with that and start a Repug War ...he wants to TAX OIL Company PROFITS to pay for what he wants.

It's a good ploy...but I understand that Sirota like the rest of us have to keep Rangel and our other Dems "feet to the fire" on what's important to do.

Just remember...Rangel can't do much with Bushie as P-Resident another two years but Sirota is looking forward to the candidates for 2008.

Much like the Religious Right managed to control the Repugs...the Liberal/Populist/Labor Left is trying to emerge as an INFLUENCE over the Dem Candidate for '08.

I'm one of those Liberal/Populist/Labor Left who can applaud both Rangel and Sirota. Maybe there's a NEW BREED of DEM on the scene. :shrug:

[warrens]

8. He's wrong

Let Bush protect billionaires

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. They don't have to repeal them

they can just let them expire and I think that was their tack from word go

There are some battles not worth fighting... since bush will repeal them. They are not renewed, they will be rolled back. There is no need to move a finger

That said if he is after them as consitutennts and introduceds a bill to rewnw them, then we have a problem

[Nite Owl]

11. That's basically what I heard

that they won't (can't) repeal the tax cuts, they just don't have the votes to overturn a veto but they would not renew when time comes. I don't know when that time is though, somehow 2010 rings a bell so it could be quite a while. Didn't hear anything about SS except definitely not privitized.

[havocmom]

10. Well, he is getting folks to talk/THINK about the issues

;)

[bowens43]

12. Once again Rangel shows us that he's mentally unstable.

[PeaceProgProsp]

13. He's against about repealing cuts "RETROACTIVELY"!!!!

I've never EVER heard anyone, Dem or otherwise, advocate repealing tax cuts retroactively.

I'm not even sure that that would survive a federal court review.

Who here believes that we should go back one or more years and charge people back taxes when they thought they were following the law?

And what's with the OP'ers poor reading skills? Did you not realize what Rangel's talking about or are you intentionally spinning this story? Or do you believe we should retroactively change tax laws?

[PVnRT]

14. Of course you can't

But if you do actually read the entire quote, it sure as hell sounds like he's against repealing the tax cuts that "people depend on." Sounds more to me olike he just misused a word.

Of course, to the True Believers at DU, people mean EXACTLY what they say except when they don't.

[formercia]

15. Will the real Charles Rangle please stand up.

Now that he is going into a position where his true views of the World will emerge.


He is only trying to foment a discussion of the issues, right?

[Zavulon]

16. As of late he's way more trouble than he's worth.

He's coming up with dumbass ideas and making a laughingstock out of himself. His remarks on the draft were bad enough, but Social Security and now this?

Did he take a header off of some pier or something? I don't even recognize him anymore.

[Zhade]

17. What. The. Fuck.

Haven't we been told again and again that this is NOT what Dems stand for?

Getting tired of being lied to. The rest of the party better not back up this madness.

[Selatius]

18. You can't pass laws with retroactive provisions. Rangel is attacking a strawman of the rightwing.

This is illegal for a reason. If robbing banks was legal yesterday and I robbed a banked yesterday, you can't pass a law today outlawing bank robbing and then trying to criminalize my behavior at a time when it was legal.

I believe the doctrine in legal parlance is "ex post facto."

[WCGreen]

20. Nothing in that snippet says anything about making the temporary

tax cuts permanent...

Remember, a lot of the tax cuts put into place by Bush were temporary in nature, set to expire...

I have confidence that Charlie will let those expire without letting bills out of committee to make them permanent...

I also fell Rangle will leave credits for investments, real investments, assets and such, to be left alone...

[quiet.american]

22. So a sliver of the super-wealthy is depending on these tax cuts. Rangel is an ass.

A relative of mine receives just about $700 per month in Social Security benefits. After not being able to find another job because of blatant age discrimination, they were essentially forced to take their Social Security benefits now, and there is not even enough there to pay a month's rent, let alone actually live.

Rangel is a ##$%^% idiot.

[roguevalley]

23. cut the fucker's taxes, go after their offshore accounts and shut the

fuck up, Charlie. they invested that money all right. In yachts, third and fourth houses and cocaine. fuckers. either repeal it or we'll all get out our pitchforks.

[Straight Shooter]

24. "Dumb politics to do it especially when it's going to get vetoed."

Well, that's true, can't argue with that. But how about framing the issue with a bit more clarity, Charlie? :shrug:

[Zhade]

28. Why is he reinforcing the b*s* LIE that SS is in crisis?

From the article (it's a quote, so unless Sirota is risking being sued, I'm going to assume this is real):

“Raising retirement age or reducing benefits can’t be ruled out if the Social Security system is to be saved from going bust, Rep. Charles Rangel said yesterday. ‘All of these things are on the table to find some way to make certain that Social Security is solvent,’ said Rangel, who is poised to take control of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee.”

Why is he propping up this lie?

[screembloodymurder]

29. They have something on him

and it must be real juicy.

[Freddie Stubbs]

35. Rangel is going to have to convince a majority in the House to

pass anything. Do 'they' have something on a majority of House memebers?

[phiddle]

30. I hope that there's more to this than meets the eye.

As Rangel's call for a draft highlights the absurdity of a war (which he voted against) without sacrifice, I hope that his reassurance on tax cuts is a feint.
He knows full well that there is a bill before his committee written by Rahm Emanuel (Senate version by Ron Wyden) which would keep the highest tax rate the same (35%), but which would include investment and dividend income (taxed currently at 15%) in the definition of "income", effectively taxing the wealthy at much higher rates than currently.
see http://www.house.gov/emanuel/taxlegislation.shtml
and http://wyden.senate.gov/

[bbgrunt]

31. that is pretty damned scary. We have a

brief window of hope for this new congress. I will continue to hope until Jan., but if this is the tack they take, it is will be time to take a new tack for ourselves.

[porkrind]

32. Rangel is starting to piss me off

What is it with this guy? First the stupid draft issue and now this. It's like he's trying to make dems look bad or else he's going rightwing. WTF?