Liberal Leader Suggests GOP House Should Handle Tax Cuts, Unemployment Benefits

[Purveyor]

By Jordan Fabian - 12/08/10 10:10 AM ET

A leader of an 80-plus member bloc of House liberals suggested Wednesday that Democrats should let the GOP-led House handle the expiring Bush-era tax cuts and unemployment benefits next year.

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), a co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said such a move would force Republicans into deciding whether or not they want to take two potentially unpopular stances during their first month in power.

"Let them tell the unemployed they won't get benefits. Let them tell ," he said on MSNBC.

Grijalva's comments are the latest salvo from House Democrats, who have sparred with the White House over the tax-cut deal it struck with Republicans in Congress.

Liberals are upset the accord contains a two-year extension of the high-end tax cuts as well as the middle-class provisions. In exchange, the White House would receive a 13-month extension of unemployment benefits and a 2 percent cut in the payroll tax next year.

MORE...

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/132619-liberal-leader-let-gop-house-handle-tax-cuts-unemployment-benefits

[tyne]

1. I don't really see his point...

"Let them tell the unemployed they won't get benefits. Let them tell ," he said on MSNBC.

That's pretty easy...

Republicans: "No unemployment extensions...next!"

[cottonseed]

2. +1

[DrToast]

8. Yeah, does he really think they won't do that?

Republicans masturbate to thoughts of denying unemployment benefits.

[niceypoo]

43. Until the blowback starts

Then they capitulate.

[DrToast]

48. The President always gets the blame and the credit for the economy.*

*

[young but wise]

47. +1

[jaxx]

3. Looks like Grijalva is telling the unemployed they won't get benefits.

He has a job, what does he care.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. He has a sinecure, what does he care.

FIXED

[bluestateguy]

4. That's a dangerous game

They would pass a permanent extension, no help for the unemployed, no payroll tax cut and none of the Obama tax cuts would b kept.

Anything that Bayner's House would come up with could make the Obama tax deal look good by comparison.

[TwilightGardener]

Oops, delete

[TwilightGardener]

5. That's fucking pathetic--DO YOUR JOB...THE JOB YOU GET PAID FOR!!

The more I hear, the more I realize that Obama has an impossible situation and no allies.

[ProSense]

6. Who gets blamed for taxes going up in this scenario?

Do members of Congress believe that allowing taxes to go up will be good for the Democratic Party?

So when the the Republican-designed bill with tax cuts for the rich go to the President, does he veto it along with the middle-class tax cuts in this scenario?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. He Should Share His Salary With An Unemployed/Homeless Person

He comes from a solidly blue district that a dead dog could win if it had a (D) after his name.

[jefferson_dem]

18. No joke. "Liberal" "Leader"? This is neither.

Democrats = Fighting for ... nothing! "No Soup For You!" as the new motto.

[polichick]

10. This is Obama's deal, not the deal of liberal House members...

I wouldn't blame them for not bringing it to the floor - Grijalva's right; let Republicans own this shit.

[TwilightGardener]

12. You are suggesting it's Obama's fault if House Democrats

would like to abdicate their responsibility to act on behalf of the American people and leave it to the Republicans in January. :crazy:

[polichick]

13. Whose bill is this? The House didn't write it...

Why should they bring a deal to the floor that was "negotiated" without them?

[TwilightGardener]

14. The House is certainly going to write it. They can change whatever they don't like

about the compromise, and send it to a vote. Obama cannot write or pass legislation. Grijalva is suggesting simply giving up and curling into fetal position. I am disgusted and appalled.

[polichick]

16. It's up to the House whether or not they decide to write up Obama's deal...

I am "disgusted and appalled" too - but not because of liberal House members.

[TwilightGardener]

20. You cannot read Grijalva's statement as anything other than refusing

to do his job. And if you acknowledge that it's up to the House to come up with a compromise that's acceptable, then why be upset about Obama's deal? He suggested the deal because DEMOCRATS in the Senate want to keep tax cuts for the wealthy. The only question is whether or not Obama should allow an impasse, or try to deal.

[polichick]

22. It's about checks and balances - the House may decide to "check"...

...the bad negotiation tendencies of this prez - good for them!

[TwilightGardener]

23. The Senate. The Senate. The Senate. The Senate. The Senate.

[polichick]

24. Grijalva is in the House. nt

[ProSense]

26. Yes, and in four weeks, he'll be in the minority. n/t

[polichick]

27. Right - so let the Republican House own this shit. nt

[ProSense]

29. Own what?

The tax cuts for the rich that they're going to pass and the President signs? Or the bill that the President vetos continuing the tax increase on the middle class?

[polichick]

32. This deal is between Obama and the Republicans - let them own it...

...in January if they're so keen on it.

[ProSense]

38. Yes, screw people to make a point. n/t

[polichick]

42. This "deal" screws our children and grandchildren. nt

[ProSense]

45. Deficit hawk? n/t

[polichick]

46. You bet - close HALF of the 800 overseas bases the mic runs today. nt

[ProSense]

50. So you have no issues with

the President pursuing deficit reduction?

- In June 2009, U.S. Forces occupied 357 bases. U.S. Forces currently occupy 121 bases, and are expected to reduce that number to 94 bases by the end of August.

link

...He canceled a weapons program that was bloated, unnecessary and totally irrelevant to either of our current wars, the F-22. Why even mention the cancellation of a single weapons system? Because that never happens. Weapons systems never get canceled. The F-22 did, which is itself a miracle.

link

[polichick]

51. You keep citing this stuff about Iraq bases, which aren't even included...

...in the count of overseas bases yet, because the conflict is ongoing.

I say end our fake wars NOW - AND close HALF (at least) of the 800 bases we maintain around the world.

No problem with ending some weapon systems either - but I certainly don't support the recommendations of Simpson and Bowles that would dump deficit reduction on the middle class, and I think it's disgusting that the president chose this pair.

[TwilightGardener]

31. OK, now we're down to the core of it. Do you think we are going to like

what the Republicans come up with in a few weeks, more than we like the compromise now?

[polichick]

33. I think it's SHIT now - immoral and irresponsible. I'm with Grijalva on this. nt

[TwilightGardener]

35. OK. I think it's immoral and irresponsible to refuse to act on behalf of

the American people when you are in fact getting paid by taxes to do so.

[polichick]

37. Like I said below, it's up to the House. nt

[TwilightGardener]

28. Right--and the bill is BACK in the House because the Senate wouldn't pass it.

It is Grijalva's JOB to find an acceptable compromise bill that WILL pass the House and hopefully Senate. He is saying "let's give up and do nothing, let's see what Republicans do in January".

[polichick]

30. Sorry, I don't blame him. Obama blindsided them with this shitty deal...

...instead of including them - let Obama and the Republicans own it.

[TwilightGardener]

34. He didn't blindside them. He told Dem leaders specifically that the terms

of the compromise weren't "frozen" and knows that they will work on it. They all knew this was coming--nobody blindsided anybody. So much of this is Dem posturing.

[polichick]

36. So much for your complaints - it's up to the House to do what it wants. nt

[TwilightGardener]

39. I don't have complaints--I am offering fact.

[polichick]

40. You're complaining about Grijalva's position - it's his call. nt

[TwilightGardener]

41. Yes, I am complaining about that. He needs to do his fucking job.

[BluegrassDem]

11. Grijalva doesn't get it....OBAMA WOULD GET THE BLAME

Repugs don't give a shit. Unemployed people aren't a part of their base. But the Repugs won't get blamed cause the president always gets the blame for the economy...good or bad. This kinda tactic is admirable, but in reality, it doesn't work out like that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. I Tried To Point That Out

Unemployment is highest in the following demographics-African Americans, Hispanics, workers without college degrees. Those are our constituents. It's lowest among college educated whites-their constituents...

[polichick]

25. Maybe Obama shouldn't have left them out of the dealmaking then. nt

[jefferson_dem]

15. So he's prosing the Dems "lead" by doing nothing?

Meh. That's weak as hell. And politically dense, to say the least.

[Cali_Democrat]

19. And what happens to the unemployed when the rethugs block the extension?

Obama should not let that happen. People are suffering and there are no jobs in this shitty economy.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. They Can Starve To Death And The Republicans

They can starve to death and the Republicans and their usful idiot allies can turn them into composte.

[Uzybone]

Empty bluster

too much hot air in Congress. No wonder we are in the position we are in now.

[Uzybone]

44. Empty bluster

too much hot air in Congress. No wonder we are in the position we are in now.

[Laelth]

49. k&r for the Honorable Raul Grijalva. n/t

-Laelth

[flpoljunkie]

52. The House had their chance to vote on extending the Bush tax cuts before the mid-terms; they punted.

Nancy Pelosi wanted a vote, but her members, mostly Blue Dogs, did not.