"White House will use the failure to vote on the middle class tax cuts as a cudgel against the GOP"

[Clio the Leo]

White House acknowledges vote on middle class tax cuts may be dead -- squarely blames GOP

The White House is now acknowledging that the Congressional vote on the middle class tax cuts is unlikely to happen before the elections, effectively moving on to the next phase of this debate, now that Congressional Dems had already pretty much decided the vote was dead.

But the White House wasted no time in pouncing on the GOP for making it impossible, signaling that they will use the GOP's opposition to the vote -- and Obama's support for extending the middle class tax cuts -- as a weapon to pound Republicans from now until election day.

White House spokesperson Jen Psaki emails me a statement:

"If Republicans in Congress think that pledging to continue holding middle class tax cuts hostage in order to borrow 700 billion for tax breaks to the millionaires and billionaires at a time of record deficits is the way to connect with working American families they are more out of touch than we thought.

"The President would sign a bill tomorrow that would extend the tax cuts for the middle class to avoid saddling them with a crippling tax hike, but unfortunately Republicans in Congress have made it clear they would rather stall and obstruct instead of giving working families the assistance they need. The American people will be reminded of that every day."

That's basically saying that the bill Obama wants -- extending the middle class tax cuts -- will not be passed by Congress before the election. Republicans were likely to filibuster the bill in the Senate, but that didn't preclude Dems from at least trying in the Senate, and especially in the House, where it very well could have passed.

My understanding is that the White House signaled to the Dem Congressional leadership that they wanted this vote as a good political move in advance of the midterms. But the White House was reluctant to push for this publicly, because Obama advisers wanted to let Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid set the agenda, and public pressure might have backfired. At any rate, now that Dem leaders have apparently concluded it's a No Go, there's no percentage in taking a stand that could embarrass them.

Instead, as the above statement signals, the White House will use the failure to vote on the middle class tax cuts as a cudgel against the GOP, contrasting it with Obama's hard push for extending them.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/white_house_acknowledges_vote.html

[impik]

1. How can you say that the vote "failed", if there was never a vote?

[Cha]

3. Because they're saying "the failure To vote".. More Obstructionism..

"If Republicans in Congress think that pledging to continue holding middle class tax cuts hostage in order to borrow 700 billion for tax breaks to the millionaires and billionaires at a time of record deficits is the way to connect with working American families they are more out of touch than we thought."

[karynnj]

15. There are only 100 Senators and they know they do not have 60 - and the Republicans

said they would require a cloture vote. There are a finite number of possible Republicans - and most have made public statements that they would not vote for a just the middle class taxes bill. I do agree that they should have done it even if it would fail, but apparently some Democrats up for re-election prefer not voting before the election.

[leveymg]

2. Krugman's right. The Blue Dogs want to be the minority party.

Why else throw away a perfect way of defining themselves as opposed to what may well be the emerging Republican majority?

[DJ13]

4. The blue dogs will be in a better position in a GOP majority

They will finally be able to support the majority then instead of acting against the Democrats.

They get to claim the usual DLC excuse of 'bipartisanship' that the Dem conservatives always trot out when they are supporting conservative proposals.

It makes them look better to some foolish voters.

[leveymg]

7. Another reason: It makes them look like reliable yes votes by corporate lobbyists.

Which is their real base. We're just useful idiots who turn out the vote and don't even need to be paid to do it.

[DJ13]

8. Very true

:(

[Phx_Dem]

14. They won't be in a better position come 2012, but Obama will be.

Not that that makes it any better. God knows it will be a nightmare until the next election and the public realizes what they have brought upon themslves (and I don't think it will happen). But, if the GOP takes the majority in either or both houses, it will definitely help Obama's relection efforts in 2012.

[ClassWarrior]

6. For the record, I heard that Pelosi is ready to vote but Jellyfish Reid said no.

NGU.

[leveymg]

9. That seems to be the pattern ever since he became Majority Leader.

Best Majority Leader the Republicans ever had.

[Skink]

5. If they don't vote they all expire right?

sounds like a win win.

It was mostly the middle class speculation in the housing market that got us here. Now states are having a hard time paying for basic services and teachers,

[geek tragedy]

10. They'll get extended in December--including the ones for the rich. nt

[young but wise]

12. How do you know they're going to extend tax cuts for the rich?

[flpoljunkie]

13. R's will have upper hand cause all tax cuts will expire at end of 2010

Not just the tax cuts for their patrons, the top 2%.

[denverbill]

20. Yep, you got it.

Instead of 31 DLC/Blue Dogs supporting extending the breaks for the rich, it will be every defeated non-progressive Democrat.

I say if that happens, I hope Obama vetoes it. I'd rather pay more than let the rich get their way, again.

[karynnj]

16. Not middle class speculation in the housing market, but speculation

by much bigger players who turned mortgages into complicated derivatives that sold for prices that had little relation to the likely value.

[geek tragedy]

11. Nice try, but no. This is all on the Democrats. nt

[COLGATE4]

17. Let's hope that it's a real cudgel this time instead of the

usual limp, wet noodle (or the sternly worded letter).

[denimgirly]

18. Does extending any form of tax cut even help at all?

Obviously the worst tax cut is one for the wealthy but logic just says that any form of tax cut (even for the middle class) doesnt help much with the economy. Sure they spend it but doesnt really help much. Why not more real bang such as infrastructure

[Kweli4Real]

19. Call me naive or just plain uninformed, but ...

Where the hell is the Democrat's bill extending the tax cuts for less than $250K? I would far rather be in the position to force them to vote down or fillibuster our bill than have us refuse to vote on a republican/conservative democrat bill extending all the tax cuts.

In the former, we can legitimately make the "holding hostage/Siding with the rich" claim; but the latter can be spun as "Democrats' inaction raised everyone's taxes."

What am I missing?

[theothersnippywshrub]

22. A separate bill creating new tax brackets would be a good idea.

The lower brackets could be expanded, resulting in an even larger tax cut for people at those income levels than the Bush tax cut, and the highest rate could be increased on taxable income over some amount greater than $250K.

[budkin]

21. Poor excuse for a group a spineless cowards

[ShadowLiberal]

23. Won't work, we need to have a vote on it to fail/be filibustered first