4 Dem's that voted against the end of the tax extension to Millionaires and Billionaires are..

[1776Forever]

The Dem's that voted against the end of the tax extension to Millionaires and Billionaires are:

Senate Republicans Block Tax Cut Plan that Leaves Out High Earners
Patricia Murphy
Politics Daily

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/04/senate-republicans-block-tax-cut-plan-that-leaves-out-high-earner/

Four Democrats-- Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Jim Webb of Virginia, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin-- voted with the Republicans to block action on the bill, as did Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut.

.............

:argh:

[Capn Sunshine]

1. doesn't Russ Feingold get mentioned arpund here as a Presidential candidate?

yet the nuance of voting in DC escapes most of those in the room. Yeah, primary Obama with Feingold.

[stray cat]

2. Watch and see - Feingold will vote against any tax cut for anyone

he is fiscally responsible

[PeaceNikki]

5. I think Feingold wants ALL the tax cuts to expire

[Overseas]

8. That makes sense. Bush tax cuts led to Bush Crash. And were a GOP trap.

But in Washington, where anything beyond last week’s news cycle is considered ancient history, the jury-rigged nature of the Bush plan—and the fiscal sleight-of-hand involved—have been all but forgotten.

“We knew that, politically, once you get it into law, it becomes almost impossible to remove it,” says Dan Bartlett, Bush’s former communications director. “That’s not a bad legacy. The fact that we were able to lay the trap does feel pretty good, to tell you the truth.”

As the vote approached in the summer of 2001, the Senate had just flipped to Democratic control when Jim Jeffords defected from the GOP. Had the tax breaks been made permanent—or even extended beyond Sept. 30, 2011—the fledgling Bush administration would have had to muster a 60-vote Senate majority under the so-called Byrd Rule, named for master parliamentarian Robert Byrd. (The final version, cutting taxes by $1.35 trillion, garnered 58 votes.) And by moving up the expiration date by nine months, the Bush team saved $100 billion and made the bill’s deficit-busting impact appear smaller.

As an added bonus, the “sunset” provision, in Beltway-speak, was a political time bomb: At some point in the way distant future, Democrats could be accused of raising taxes if they tried to undo the Bush breaks and return to Clinton-era levels of taxation.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/bush-aides-admit-the-tax-cuts-were-a-trap-for-obama-2010-12#ixzz17AWv6Pfa

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. And that is exactly why many are looking for a two-year extension on the

top 2% - so they can play the 'raising taxes' game again at the next presidential election.

[Overseas]

15. That's what it looks like to me too. //nt

[PeaceNikki]

11. That's exactly it

I think.

Russ has been very quiet and had ZERO press releases since the election. Which is odd and terribly sad. :(

[Aramchek]

3. wow, Russ sure is taking his loss badly.

[1776Forever]

4. I wasn't surprised to see Webb & Lieberman but I didn't know that Russ had these leanings. n/t

[Gin]

6. Webb is up for re-election....he is pandering...and was a rethug

before he became a democrat...see what it got Nye...Senator Webb...Nye is history.

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. What leanings is that?

The so-called 'middle class tax cut' that so many want to preserve are relatively inconsequential. I, for one, would have no problem with paying an extra couple hundred dollars in income taxes - you know, going back to the Clinton rates - to ensure that the uber rich pays hundreds of thousands more.

He's simply turing the Repug stand on its ear - instead of extending for some but not all, which the repugs say is unfair and anti-democratic, let them expire for all. Those at the bottom tier will no virtually no rise in taxes - between $1 and $50 for incomes under 20k. Once they are ALL expired, let the House GOP try to enact tax cuts for the uber-wealthy.

Feingold is simply standing by his Democratic principles - progressive taxation, and fiscal responsibility.

[PeaceNikki]

14. This ^

[1776Forever]

16. Just asking why he is in the same "boat" with Lieberman on this? n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. He isn't. As I just explained.

He's a REAL progressive, which also puts him in a differnt boat from most Democrats as well.

[1776Forever]

22. He Voted YES on increasing tax rate for people earning over $1 mil in 2008...

http://www.ontheissues.org/economic/Russell_Feingold_Tax_Reform.htm

Russell Feingold on Tax Reform
Democratic Jr Senator (WI)

Voted YES on increasing tax rate for people earning over $1 million.

CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To put children ahead of millionaires and billionaires by restoring the pre-2001 top income tax rate for people earning over $1 million, and use this revenue to invest in LIHEAP; IDEA; Head Start; Child Care; nutrition; school construction and deficit reduction.
SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. SANDERS: The wealthiest people in the country have not had it so good since the 1920s. Their incomes are soaring, while at the same time the middle class is shrinking, and we have by far the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country. The time is now to begin changing our national priorities and moving this country in a different direction.

This amendment restores the top income tax bracket for households earning more than $1 million a year, it raises $32.5 billion over 3 years, and invests that in our kids, including $10 billion for special education. OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:Sen. KYL: The problem is we are spending the same dollar 3 or 4 times, it appears. The Sanders amendment is paid for by raising taxes another $32.5 billion, ostensibly from the rich; that is to say, by raising taxes on people who make over $1 million a year. Here is the problem with that. The budget on the floor already assumes the expiration of the current tax rates; that is to say, the rates on the highest level go from 35% to 39.6%, and that money is spent. If you took all the top-rate income, you would come up with $25 billion a year, not even enough to meet what is here, and that money has already been spent. The reality is somewhere or other, somehow, more taxes would have to be raised. I don't think the American people want to do that, particularly in the current environment. LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment rejected, 43-55

Reference: Bill S.Amdt.4218 to S.Con.Res.70 ; vote number 08-S064 on Mar 13, 2008

[BrklynLiberal]

7. Wonder what Feingold's thinking is on this??

[1776Forever]

17. I found this - He voted YES in 2008 for increasing tax rate for those earning over $1 Mil - ????

Russell Feingold on Tax Reform
Democratic Jr Senator (WI)

Voted YES on increasing tax rate for people earning over $1 million.

http://www.ontheissues.org/economic/Russell_Feingold_Tax_Reform.htm

CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To put children ahead of millionaires and billionaires by restoring the pre-2001 top income tax rate for people earning over $1 million, and use this revenue to invest in LIHEAP; IDEA; Head Start; Child Care; nutrition; school construction and deficit reduction.

SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. SANDERS: The wealthiest people in the country have not had it so good since the 1920s. Their incomes are soaring, while at the same time the middle class is shrinking, and we have by far the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country. The time is now to begin changing our national priorities and moving this country in a different direction.

This amendment restores the top income tax bracket for households earning more than $1 million a year, it raises $32.5 billion over 3 years, and invests that in our kids, including $10 billion for special education. OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:Sen. KYL: The problem is we are spending the same dollar 3 or 4 times, it appears. The Sanders amendment is paid for by raising taxes another $32.5 billion, ostensibly from the rich; that is to say, by raising taxes on people who make over $1 million a year. Here is the problem with that. The budget on the floor already assumes the expiration of the current tax rates; that is to say, the rates on the highest level go from 35% to 39.6%, and that money is spent. If you took all the top-rate income, you would come up with $25 billion a year, not even enough to meet what is here, and that money has already been spent. The reality is somewhere or other, somehow, more taxes would have to be raised. I don't think the American people want to do that, particularly in the current environment. LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment rejected, 43-55 Reference: Bill S.Amdt.4218 to S.Con.Res.70 ; vote number 08-S064 on Mar 13, 2008

[cal04]

9. opposing the million dollar threshold

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-12-04/senate-rejects-tax-cut-measures-as-compromise-talks-continue.html

(snip)
Lieberman and Feingold also voted with three other Democrats in opposing the $1 million threshold. They included Tom Harkin of Iowa, Richard Durbin of Illinois, and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia.

[RoseMead]

12. Yep

And I fought tooth and nail with several of my progressive friends who refused to vote for Manchin because they thought he would be a useless Blue Dog. Thanks for wasting no time proving those people were right, Joe!

For now, I'm giving Jay the benefit of the doubt that he voted against the million-dollar limit because it's too high, not because he's insisting on pushing the cap even higher. He *did* vote for the $250,000 limit. But Joe Manchin has no damn excuse, imo.

:banghead:

[Imajika]

19. 3 of those will be defacto Republicans in the next Congress...

Manchin, Nelson and Webb will effectively give the Republicans 50 votes much of the time. Lieberman will give them 51 quite often.

[pansypoo53219]

20. giving the republikkklans ANYTHING they want on tax cuts

ONLY HURTS AMERICA. 40 fucking years of tax cuts GOT US TO THIS ECONOMY. THE BILL HAS COME DUE.


NOT ONE DOLLAR MORE TO THE RICH.

[sarcasmo]

21. 4 more Corporate WHORES!