"Why House Dems are in major bind over tax deal"

[Clio the Leo]

Why House Dems are in major bind over tax deal

By Greg Sargent

With many House Democrats still furious about Obama's tax cut deal, they are now debating internally how to mount a last stand of sorts against the compromise -- a last ditch effort to block it or at least put their own stamp on it in some way.

But House Dems now face a major problem on this front, and yesterday's Senate vote passing the cloture motion is the reason why. The Senate vote was so overwhelming in support of the tax deal that House Dems realize that they have no allies for changing the measure in the Senate -- making them less likely to risk altering it in any substantial way.

Here's the situation, in a nutshell. Despite their own dislike of the tax cut compromise, House Dem leaders want it to pass the House. Period, full stop. They want the middle class tax cuts and unemployment benefits to continue, and they don't want to thwart an initiative upon which President Obama has staked so much.

At the same time, Dem leaders need to do something about the anger and near-despair among the House Dem rank and file. The idea has been to change the bill in some way to make it more palatable to Dems and to feel that they've had a role in the process -- perhaps via an amendment on the hated estate tax provision.

But here's the problem. The tax deal passed the Senate yesterday by a huge number, 83-15. Worse for House Dems, a number of notable liberals voted for it, including Barbara Boxer, Chris Dodd, Sheldon Whitehouse and John Kerry.

The overwhelming support for the tax deal -- even among Senate liberals -- gives House Dem leaders less maneuvering room to make any substantial changes to the bill. They don't want to risk making changes that wouldn't have support if the bill were kicked back to the Senate, because they don't want to risk imperiling the deal.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/12/why_house_dems_are_in_major_bi.html

[ProSense]

1. A major problem with some of the arguments against this deal:

they mostly rely on little to no economic improvement.

The President and Democrats who support the deal have addressed their opposition to the tax cuts for the rich, stating that they will have no impact on the economy. They made it clear that this was the deal they have to go with because Republicans are holding the middle-class tax cuts hostage to tax cuts for the rich.

Is there an upside to portraying the President's policies and the deal as Reaganomics, a win for Bush and the Republicans?

The majority of the Democratic Senators who voted for this are up for re-election in 2012. It's hard to believe that they see this vote as a huge risk. They have argued that extending the middle-class tax cuts and the stimulus initiatives will keep the economy from slipping backward and help to strengthen the recovery. They have not said that this is all that needs to be done.

The counter narrative has set up an improving economy to be attributable to Reaganomics, a win for Bush and the Republicans. If the economy show no significant sign of improving by 2012, then Reaganomics/Republicans policies will have failed.

An improving economy will prove those who supported the deal accurate in their assessment, but which narrative will drive perception: The President's or his critics?

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hello_Kitty]

6. I'll try again. What critics of the President are you referring to? eom

[fatbuckel]

3. The compromise was to extend the middle-class tax cuts.

What people forget is the tax cuts were going to expire completely.

[Hello_Kitty]

4. How can we forget when we are constantly reminded of that here?

Seriously not a thread about this compromise goes by without some Captain Obvious pointing out the dire perils of letting all the tax cuts expire. Which was never a remote possibility in reality but don't let that dissuade you from bringing up ad nauseum.

[Robbins]

5. Well

They should have had a vote on before the election.Now after losing 63 seats they get all worried and pure.

As I keep saying I don't like tax Cuts for the rich but getting middle class Tax Cuts,continuing breaks from the stimulas and expansion of unemployment benefits Is good things to have gotten.

[craigmatic]

7. I'm against the deal but the house might as well pass it at least the unemployed get benefits

and the estate tax is being raised from nothing. Obama is trying to stimulate the economy even though is is a bad way to do it I guess it's better than nothing... sort of.

[Supersedeas]

8. these things do gather momentum