White House Says Democrats Partly To Blame For Tax-Cut Deal With GOP

[Purveyor]

By Michael O'Brien - 12/08/10 09:49 AM ET

The White House said Wednesday that Capitol Hill Democrats are partly to blame for the tax-cut deal they have criticized the president for negotiating.

The tax-cut package has been scorned by Democrats livid that it would extend for two years controversial tax cuts for the wealthy that were signed into law by President Bush nearly a decade ago.

But senior administration officials said their own party is at least party to blame for the deal. White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said President Obama wanted Congress to extend the tax cuts, but there was no consensus on how to do so in the Democratic caucus.

"He and the White House, frankly, urged the House and Senate to hold votes on this before the election," Pfeiffer said on the liberal Bill Press radio show. "But they didn't do that, in part because there's not unanimity in the Democratic Caucus on this."

Pfeiffer's remarks underscore the tensions between the White House and members of its own party on Capitol Hill, where Democrats have threatened to vote down the tax proposal.

MORE...

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/132581-white-house-blames-capitol-hill-dems-in-part-for-tax-deal

[TwilightGardener]

1. The Democratic Congress has to unify and stand behind the President

if they want the tax cuts for the wealthy to end, and the middle class cuts to continue. If they can't agree to that, then they need to get the compromise passed. There is no good alternative.

[niceypoo]

7. Yes there is

Let all the tax cuts expire. The CBO says doing so will balance the budget by 2014. It is an absolute no brainer.

[GOTV]

15. The president already delivered one "shellacking" to the Dems. Should they really back him ...

... as he prepares to walk them into another in two years?

[Rowdyboy]

2. The White House and senate Democrats share equally in this debacle....

What a spineless bunch. "There is not unanimity in the Democratic caucus". When has there ever been "unanimity in the Democratic caucus" other than pay raise votes and votes to adjourn?

[OHdem10]

3. On this the White House is absolutely correct.

For whatever reason the Dems on the Hill (IMHO, expect the
President alone to do all the TV pushing and Selling). They
do not seem to recognize times have changed. Too many
outlets with too many shows. The Dems have to do a better
of getting out and fighting for what they believe.

They did putsy around and not even try to pass it before
the election, knowing full well something so controversial
would be a mess in a Lame Duck Session.

This is what happen when Senators put their own re-election
over the good of the people and good of the party.

Frankly, I have not seen them out fighting yet.

Is this all because Conservative Democrats and Liberal Democrats
have as much trouble agreeing as Dems and Repubs.

Please get it together for the good of the people and
the good of the party.

[The_Counsel]

4. They're Probably Right: The Senate Dems Especially Brought This on Themselves.

When the Dems took over the Senate in '07, one of the first things they did was change the rules so that the majority couldn't run roughshod over the minority. Weird that a new majority would do this before trying to right even ONE of the wrongs done over the previous 12 years, but eh ... whatever...

Anyway, because of those new rules a you couldn't pass anything significant with a simple majority--everything now needed to be "filibuster-proof."

Lawrence O'Donnell said it best last night: "the President knew he had 41 votes in the Senate. He also knew he had 50 votes. The problem is he doesn't have 60 votes."

For the record, he had 53 votes in hand--and couldn't do a thing with them, thus this bastardization known as "compromise."

Sad, really...

[joe1991]

9. Lawrence O'Donnell was spot on

Although I love Keith and Rachel, O'Donnell had the best take on the spineless, backstabbing democrts in congress.

Watch him point out the disgusting, Lieberman-style antics of Senator Landrieu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPlCWNYzm1E

[vaberella]

13. Thanks for posting. I've been looking for this vid. n/t

[vaberella]

12. Senate Dems have been fucking Obama over from the start. n/t

[karynnj]

17. Remember that was a majority of 51

If we lost even one Senator - and it could have happened through some tragedy or Lieberman or someone else switching, they would be the minority. They had just experienced the Senate Republicans doing just that in the dysfunctional 109th Congress.

[The_Counsel]

22. RE:The Majority of 51

Okay, but you'd think that the one time you have the slimmest of majorities you wouldn't eff with the rules so that you couldn't use that advantage ... well ... to your advantage. :crazy:

[Hippo_Tron]

20. How did they change the rules?

[kjackson227]

5. Yep, place the blame where it belongs... with Blue Dogs and the Republicans...

it's ashame that many (congressional leaders and voters) refuse to acknowledge this very important fact. B

[MrTriumph]

6. More counterproductive WH leadership on display.

Leadership 101: Don't denigrate your team in public.

[Teaser]

8. nonsense.

public asskickings have their purpose.

Otherwise you have an Andy Reid/Donovan McNabb situation develop.

[MrTriumph]

10. Obama must be reading your "Rules for Defeat" handbook.

x

[vaberella]

11. Anyone with a brain knows that Obama's no.1 impediment is his own party in Congress. n/t

[harun]

14. Everyone has someone else to blame on this but somehow it happened.

Funny how things seem to work themselves out in Congress for Big Business and the top 1%.

[BeyondGeography]

16. A dismal ending for both sides

The D majority in Congress and the President.

[jeff47]

18. I wonder when Obama will realize he's President, and no longer a senator.

His job is to lead. Not wait for everyone else to do the work.

[Hello_Kitty]

19. What's to blame? I thought it's supposed to be a good plan.

They should make up their minds on that.

[Phx_Dem]

21. Congressional Dems are always failing to do their job and then

blaming Obama for it. HCR was passed in February. They have had all year to deal with this, and the White house repeatedly ask them to deal with it, but they refused because they were too chickenshit to do anything before the election.

They pulled the same shit with HCR. Refused to deal with it and it would have died if Obama and Rahm, yes Rahm!, hadn't FOUGHT to save it.

[Gin]

23. it's more powerful to be in the minority in the Senate than the

majority....wonder if the dems will use those tactics when they are in the minority again...