White House Reminds Blue Dogs, Before Tax Cut Vote, That They're Deficit Hawks

The Obama administration is not budging from its position that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy should be allowed to expire this year and is taking subtle jabs at conservative Democrats who argue otherwise.

In a briefing with a small group of reporters on Friday, a senior administration official encouraged Blue Dog Democrats in the House to remember that they have been the ones barking about exploding deficits for the past three cycles.

"I don't think there is any Blue Dog Democrat that is coming out against extending tax cuts for people up to $250,000 a year," said the official, who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity. "And I would say to anyone, one of the things I appreciate about the Blue Dogs is that they have been so assiduous about reminding us about the dangers of this deficit. And so I would urge them to stand, and anyone to stand with us, for some fiscal responsibility here."

The remark was offered playfully, if not with a bit of chiding. In recent days a host of Blue Dogs have pushed the White House and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to pass at least a temporary extension of all Bush tax cuts until the economy finds stronger footing. The president hasn't budged, arguing that it would be fiscally irresponsible to extend the tax cuts for the wealthy, and morally wrong to allow the rates for those making under $250,000 to rise at year's end (they will by law).

Even a temporary extension has been viewed skeptically by the administration, which is wary that it would result in the can being kicked down the road in perpetuity. And in the briefing on Friday, the senior administration official predicted confidently that they will get the measure to a vote, either in this session or "after the election."

"It is a spurious argument to suggest that we should go ahead with budget-busting tax cuts because somehow it is better for our economy. It would be better for our economy if we moved forward with the middle class tax cuts and allow the others to expire," the official said. "The truth is, the Republican Party... they have made clear that their goal is to extend this permanently. And I think that they will encourage this as a means of biding time until the next vote."

Comments

[dhhh]

08:29 PM on 09/22/2010

Its better to have an enemy you know than a friend who is an enemy. Do not vote for blue dogs who support continued tax cuts for the wealthy. Let them be voted out of Congress.. They disgust me may they not prosper may they live lives of disappointments and sadness.

[changling]

04:35 PM on 09/19/2010

The Blue Dogs are Republicans that infiltrated the Democratic Party. You need to let some tax cuts expire to pay for other things that will stimulate our economy and therefore will help pay for the deficit. These guys are helping the Republicans stonewall the President's agenda just for their small group of wealthy friends. Shame on them. All the lies and propaganda they can buy will never cover their true colors.

[Glory2]

01:18 AM on 09/20/2010

The blue dogs are republican spies. That's how obama's agenda is always leaked. I think all blue dog traders should be fired this november, send them packing.

[lqw]

01:41 PM on 09/19/2010

When the Bush cuts expire a family making $50,000 will pay $2900 more in taxes.
Calculate yours.
http://www.mytaxburden.org/

[Wong23]

02:37 PM on 09/19/2010

The Teabagger solution is to continue down the road of deficits and borrowing until we can just hand the keys to the nation over to the Chinese.

Let them expire so we can start back on the road to solvency

[dhhh]

08:34 PM on 09/22/2010

The cuts for anyone making under $250,000 will remain in place. Lets have a big loss for the blue dogs... if they want to be in Congress they should run as Republicans...

[BocaMom]

11:51 AM on 09/19/2010

We need to get rid of ALL the Blue Dogs. They are a cancer to the Democratic Party.

[BUTCHER99]

03:13 PM on 09/19/2010

The democrats welcome all members. That is what makes them democrats. Can you find any liberal leaning republicans? That is what makes them republicans.
The party for all vs. The party for the right.
They may make things tougher but they deserve a voice. And yes, I do find them frustrating.

[dhhh]

08:35 PM on 09/22/2010

The Blue dogs are not Democrats. That why Obama and Clinton were essentially Republicans. The last Democrat was Carter.

[BJHenton]

08:56 AM on 09/19/2010

Why do the richest people in this country, who are able to take advantage of the most loopholes to avoid paying taxes, keep the tax cut that depleted the surplus. Wonder how many blue dogs are are trying to save this tax cut for themselves.

[dhhh]

08:37 PM on 09/22/2010

They are greedy greedy very bad people..The root of all evil is love of money. Let them walk the road to hell...

[cuniverse]

10:50 PM on 09/18/2010

what the Hell !! It is full time the press stop calling these Republican masquerading as Democrats Blue Dogs ,and call them what they really are Republican Democrats.

[rory talbot]

08:40 AM on 09/19/2010

Okay...I'll say it: Obama is a Republican.

[drwtsn]

02:25 PM on 09/19/2010

At best half-Republican, more probably 25% - 35%.

[Glory2]

01:21 AM on 09/20/2010

You must do your fact check on fox rorytalbot.

[BJHenton]

08:57 AM on 09/19/2010

Nope. They're not Democrats at all.

[ChuckChuckerson]

01:59 PM on 09/18/2010

The current economic crisis is the direct result of government failing to regulate business in any meaningful way. The expiration of the billionaire tax giveaway is barely a drop in the bucket, if it even happens.

We need to hold the wealthy elite accountable for all of the jobs they have shipped overseas and for all of the damage they have done to the working class in America by purchasing our government. Our country gets weaker every day as all of the money trickles (floods?) upwards to a select few.

[dhhh]

08:40 PM on 09/22/2010

Since we live in a fascist Country Government is run by Big Business....Suck up to it. We are in a very bad way.

[ArbitorA]

01:07 PM on 09/18/2010

The Bush Tax Cuts have been in place for 10 years and as a result the economy lost a net 600K private sector jobs over that same period. Why would they work now. How long does it take?

Yet, in less than 2 years and less than half the cost, the Obama Administration has created millions of jobs; and yet, his programs are not working?

Ok, no populace can be just that stupid. Something else is motivating Tea Baggers and Faux to blow up the economy. What is it???

[pasko]

01:39 PM on 09/18/2010

Please explain how tax cuts lead to job loss.  I'd love to hear the theory.  Then explain how raising taxes will create jobs.  Hold on, let me get my popcorn.

[SonofDragula]

02:25 PM on 09/18/2010

Crickets!!!!

[hellinahandcart]

02:42 PM on 09/18/2010

Tax cuts don't necessarily lead to job loss, but they most definitely lead to a higher deficit.

ArbitorA isn't trying to say that keeping the tax cuts in place would lead to job loss, he's saying that it won't CREATE jobs anymore than it has created any jobs over the last nine years that they've been in place.

Read more carefully, then try to think about what you've just read.

[dhhh]

08:44 PM on 09/22/2010

The only bottom line a Corporation ever has is its stock holders...The wealthiest international stock holders in this world. Therefore stock markets mean nothing with regards to what is happening in this Country or any Country. All that matters is what the wealthiest want for themselves. The rest of us dont matter at all.

[afgail]

01:07 PM on 09/18/2010

Some one needs to check to the financial disclosure statements of all members of congress and determine which ones would benefit from not letting the tax cut for the richest 2% of the population expire. Then correlate the benefits to their position on the expiration of the tax cut. I think the nation would be shocked at how many self serving senators are in the 2% . Or maybe not. But at least we'd know who the creeps are.

[drwtsn]

02:54 PM on 09/19/2010

Most members of Congress are not in the top 2% now, but if they vote the way their corporate overlords want them to, they WILL be there when they retire from "public service" to spend more time with their "families."

[Anym]

12:46 PM on 09/18/2010

Democrats pay for stuff using taxes.
Republicans pay for stuff using their Chinese credit card.

[pasko]

01:39 PM on 09/18/2010

Correction:  democrats pay for stuff using other people's taxes.

[totallynext]

02:28 PM on 09/18/2010

Correction the majoritybof tax revenue comes from blue states....and the majority of sucking at the government tit is from re states..so the statement is true. Democrats pay for stuff with THEIR taxes.

[DIAGUY]

02:35 PM on 09/18/2010

THANK YOU !!

[henrypapillon]

11:51 AM on 09/18/2010

Oh, yes, Blue Dogs, that doesn't mean our faces are supposed to be blue from being embarrasssed. It means we're supposed to be against the deficit  , Heh, heh. yeah, right.

[rosiebond007]

10:46 AM on 09/18/2010

Are these Blue Dogs really Democrats working for the good of the general public?
Or are they working for their bank balance and taxes?

Makes you wonder .............

[drwtsn]

03:09 PM on 09/19/2010

They are working for their future (guaranteed) jobs in the private sector, paying much more than anyone would ever be able to get working in a government job.

[HCMon]

09:58 AM on 09/18/2010

The attached link has some illuminating information from the 1990s during the period before and just after the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act. Before it was inacted (with all Dem votes, no GOP votes) Republican leaders were howling that it was going to crash the economy and it would not balance the budget. They were wrong on both accounts. We hear the same howling coming from the right (and some Blue Dogs) today and it is still wrong.

Another myth that is being propagated by the GOP to support their takeover of the Congress this fall is that it was only the election of Newt Gingrich and the Republican majority in the House in 1994 that responsible for balancing the budget in the late 1990s. This is nonsense, too. As the attached articles point out, the overwhelming contribution to deficit reduction was the higher tax rates on the highest tax brackets, and the contribution of Congressional cost controls was minor.

http://www.kellysite.net/taxes.html

[Steve13133]

08:53 AM on 09/18/2010

Blue Dog Dems are respectable. They mostly have their heads screwed on right. They'll make a good compliment to the the Republican House come November. Come January, its time for work. They'll block every left wing liberal and progressive bill that comes down the pipe. In 2014, when we get a Republican president (not NEOCON), then the country will begin to purge itself of the last 60 years of entitlements (look at what entitlements did to Greece) and regulations that are driving our jobs overseas at lightening pace. As for jobs, its not the wages that send our jobs overseas, its the cost of regulations (at a ratio of at least 2:1 when compared to wages).

[rougebaisers]

08:57 AM on 09/18/2010

They are plaid republicans.

[HCMon]

09:37 AM on 09/18/2010

So, you have real data to support your 2:1 claim? I bet not.

[TClaudiusDrusus]

08:52 AM on 09/18/2010

The Bush tax cuts for the most affluent are in fact the largest share of federal deficit, as illustrated below:
http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//12-16-09bud-rev6-28-10-f1.jpg

In addition, even the "middle class" reductions that are part of the Bush cuts are skewed disproportionately toward those with already high incomes:
http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/8-13-10tax-f11.jpg

And marginal tax rates were in fact at the highest levels during the great period of postwar expansion in the United States:
http://live.thenation.com/special/images/extreme_inequalitychart.jpg

CIA World Factbook figures locate the US, in terms of income inequality, at the levels of Ivory Coast and Uruguay.

These tax cuts are terrible policy and frankly should be left to expire altogether; with any offsetting relief at the payroll tax level (since those taxes are regressive and relief would be skewed toward the least affluent).