Tax Cuts: The Real End Game Is In The House

[bigtree]

from HuffPo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/05/tax-cuts-house-senate-democrats-deal_n_792258.html


WASHINGTON -- While the public focus of the Great Tax Battle remains riveted on the U.S. Senate, top Democratic insiders are privately worried about the real lame-duck end game: a last-minute, potentially deal-breaking revolt by Democrats in the House.

That's why Vice-President Joe Biden and White House Interim Chief of Staff Pete Rouse invited House Democratic Leaders to the VP's mansion Saturday night for what turned out to be a two-hour meeting.

The existence of the meeting has been reported, but not the contents.

The topic, according to a source close to outgoing (but still in charge) House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was how to cajole liberal Democrats in the "lower chamber" into accepting the results of the deal President Barack Obama and Senate Republicans are trying to cut . . .

The participants talked in detail of what elements should or should not be in a Senate package so that it can win the requisite vote in the House. And they discussed specific members and blocs -- what they would need (in the bill or elsewhere) to be supportive . . .

. . . Many seem to have forgotten that it is the House, which must originate tax bills, that last week voted by a 234-188 margin to limit the extension of the Bush tax cuts to families making less than $250,000 -- Obama's original campaign pledge.


read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/05/tax-cuts-house-senate-democrats-deal_n_792258.html

[kentuck]

1. And they don't have enough Blue Dogs to go along with Repubs...

to pass it if the Democrats are solid in their opposition. I think this article sums it up well.

[bigtree]

3. best of luck to you there, kentuck

They may well be the equalizer needed to bring a better balance and direction to any compromise bill.

[kentuck]

5. Hopefully, they will be better negotiators...

than the White House or the Senate. If they say they are willing to let them all expire, that is a different negotiating point than what we have heard so far. The middle class tax cuts and the unemployment benefits may be where they would compromise. Otherwise, nothing.

[bigtree]

6. I think they may have been more pragmatic than that

I reading that almost everybody accepts that there's going to be an extension of the upper-class breaks in some form or fashion. What else is included in that deal is what will either placate House Democrats or cause them to reject any compromise. The best we can say from this, kentuck, is that at least the White House is listening to and soliciting advice from the folks who put out an acceptable bill. That may well not satisfy critics if they accede to an extension of all cuts, but I'd wager that they won't sign on to something that would alienate the majority of the progressive caucus that they'll likely need to reconcile and pass the thing.

Even outside the progressive caucus, there is a reorganization going on in the leadership at the lower levels that includes quite a few progressive members like the just-appointed #2 of the progressive caucus, Rep. Ellison. There's an announcement on the Speakers web page listing the members. I would think it should be a bit more encouraging to know that the House members are being respected and counseled in the White House's search for a compromise.

[kentuck]

9. Very interesting.

Thanks for the post!

[gateley]

2. Well that's discouraging. If it weren't for the Unemployment Insurance

I wonder if they'd be more willing to just let the current rates expire.

[bigtree]

4. I dunno

I think it's a bit better knowing that the House Democrats and their objections are being directly heard at the White House. That may produce a better product.

[gateley]

13. Well I (glass half empty) read it as the WH being aware, but

working to push it through anyway.

But we'll see~ God, it's one thing after another, isn't it? I don't know how they do it. :hi:

[Waiting For Everyman]

7. What if the House Dems who are against this all decided to ABSTAIN?

That would be a civil way of going on strike. There might not be enough votes to pass it without them, and they wouldn't be voting for it or against it. Seems to me that would be the best strategy.

[bigtree]

10. that would be something

. . . then we'd have the 'fight' that many folks here are aching for. All bets would be off then. Good to hear the WH is consulting them about coalitions and other issues related to what they'll support.

[knotwurstforware]

8. recommended

just curious what would be the tax bite for middle imcome people if they were to expire. Would it really be that big of a deal if they let them all expire. We have a 14 trillion dollar nation debt, which is almost an unbelievable sum of money

[kentuck]

11. 2% I believe?

From 34,000 up to then next rate, which may be an increase of 3%? In other words, $500 per week would cost another $10 dollars.

[knotwurstforware]

12. thanks

I dont think it really saved middle income people much to begin with. Certainly not compared to the highest cuts. Obama would be better off letting them all expire IMO

[bigtree]

14. I think there are other tax cuts at stake like reductions of child exemptions

. . . which could cause a family to loose hundreds per child. The marriage penalty would also kick back in, I believe. The Joint Committee on Taxation had said that the impact on some 80,000 Americans would be about $500.. Also, the threshold at which the alternative minimum tax applies was also increased.

The 2% figure is right on for many other wage earners.

[kentuck]

15. The estate tax, too.

I suppose?

[napi21]

16. I don't think it's only the % rate increase. here's some other things

in there like child care subsidies & something to do with a deduction if you have kids in college. To many it would be no big deal, but to some it would.

[BzaDem]

17. Not sure what the point is. If they wait till January, they will be in the minority, and the cuts

would easily pass (but now without any unemployment extension, any Obama tax credits, etc).

Seems like a lose-lose for them.

[bigtree]

18. so there's a lot of incentive for them to go along with the President

. . . and any deal he'll negotiate. The House, though, could prove difficult, regardless of the consequences of inaction. So many seem more than willing to gamble and play around with these bread and butter initiatives.

[kentuck]

19. How would they "easily pass"?

The Senate is still in Democratic control and the WH has a Democrat in it. I don't think it would be easy at all.

[BzaDem]

20. Because there are easily 13 moderate Democrats in the Senate that don't want all tax cuts to expire,

and probably more. 23 of them are up for reelection in 2012, and many are in deep red states.

[kentuck]

21. Do you have names?

Perhaps we should keep a closer watch on them? :-)

[BzaDem]

22. My guess is

Joe Lieberman
Joe Manchin
Tom Carper
Bill Nelson
Claire McCaskill
Jon Tester
Ben Nelson
Kent Conrad
Jim Webb
Mary Landrieu
Mark Pryor
Max Baucus
Mark Warner
Harry Reid
Michael Bennett

(and there are other possibilities, such as Begich, one or both of the Udalls, Jeff Bingamin, Bob Casey, Kay Hagan, more members of the Democratic leadership, etc.)

Time will tell how close this list is (if the House blocks a deal).

[kentuck]

23. All millionaires or better?

Not that it matters...of course.

[BzaDem]

24. Most probably are, since 2/3 of the Senate is a millionaire. n/t