Dems' Tax Cut Punt Doesn't Make Any Sense

Despite the fact that just about all extant polling indicates that the American people are solidly on board with the idea that the Bush tax cuts for the middle class should be extended, while simultaneously rolling them back on the wealthy, Senate Democrats decided that they were going to punt the vote on the matter until after the election. Huh? What? Aren't the Democrats running for office this year? And can they not read opinion polls?

Oh, but this is super-duper strategy afoot, well beyond the grasp of us normals. According to a "senior Democratic aide" -- who went unnamed lest we all start clamoring to press our flesh upon the body of this political genius, to absorb his wisdom -- Democrats, by not voting on something that everyone wants, actually scored a massive checkmate-yahtzee-touchdown against the GOP:

The aide said it's already a winning message without a vote since Obama and Democrats have framed the debate as the Republicans being for the rich and Democrats wanting to help the middle class. Others have made similar arguments, but several lawmakers have said they think a vote is the only way to score a political victory. The senior aide doesn't think so.

"We have a winning message now, why muddy it up with a failed vote, because, of course, Republicans are going to block everything," the aide said.

You hear that, GOP? By obstructing the passage of the tax cut plan using only the power of your stern glances, y'all actually got your rims rocked! DIDN'T SEE THAT COMING, DID YOU?

Well, as it turns out, the reality was quite different. As Greg Sargent reports today, Democratic Congressional leaders were actually pushing -- and pushing hard -- to vote on the tax cuts:

Here's a depressing postscript to yesterday's decision by Senate Dems to postpone the vote on extending the middle class tax cuts: The most politically savvy Senators, the ones who are most involved in the politics of holding the Senate, wanted the vote and urged colleagues to go for it, all to no avail.

Several sources tell me that Chuck Schumer was among the Senators pushing for the vote, on the grounds that it would have been good politics for Dems overall, and Politico reports that Robert Menendez wanted the vote, too. Menendez, of course, is the chair of the DSCC, and Schumer is the former DSCC chair -- and remains heavily involved in plotting political strategy.

So, the "politically savvy" Democrats wanted the vote pretty badly. Meanwhile, Sargent talks to a slightly more honest unnamed Senate aide of his own:

According to a very plugged in Senate aide, Senators debating the issue were very aware that the polling was on their side. Yet, paradoxically, this ended up tipping the balance against holding the vote. Senate Dems felt they were alreadly winning on the issue, and in the end they thought a vote risked upsetting a dynamic that was already playing in their favor.

"People felt like, Why rock the boat on a good situation?" the aide tells me. "People weren't sure how how having a vote would effect that dynamic. We would have lost Democrats on certain aspects of the vote. Who knows if the media would cover that as Democrats being splintered? In a way the good polling gave people faith that we dont need to do anything on the issue because we're already winning."

So, let's get it straight. The American people broadly support the Democrats' plans for these tax cuts. But if the Democrats were to hold a vote on them, members of their own caucus, who are either too stupid or too scared to know what to do, would not vote for it. The media would report this, and it would expose that it was actually Democrats who blocked the passage. But if you don't hold a vote, you can blame the GOP instead, even though they technically didn't do anything. So now, the voters who support this tax cut plan will go to the polls in November uncertain of what's going to happen to middle class tax relief.

Which all seems pretty stupid, to me. But what do I know? I hear that Democrats "don't need to do anything on the issue because they're already winning."

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Comments

[chinshihtang]

07:42 PM on 09/27/2010

Screw the Senators--they're a bunch of stubborn prima donnas, anyway, and control of the Senate does not appear to be in doubt (though they better not count on Lieberman to get to 50!)
What about the House--are they willing to take a vote, or are they willing to surrender meekly to the Orange Menace?

[Tao Monkey]

09:33 AM on 09/26/2010

The Democrats should push the vote pre-election but compromise and raise the $250k to 1M. This would remedy the Repubs "concern" over small businesses and give the tax cut to 99.7% of Americans (Only .3% of Americans make over 1M per year) Then the blue dogs would be back in the fold and the Repugs would not have any plausible recourse to defend a mere .3% of Americans (Well, except for the fact that they are being bankrolled by those in that .3%)

[Greywolf Borealis]

08:26 AM on 09/26/2010

Democrats are, once again, showing that they cannot govern. They talk the talk, but don't have the spine, willpower or balls to walk the walk. While republicans ramrodded their Bush agenda down our throats through reconciliation, democrats are satisfied with playing twiddly-winks and name games. We have the party of “NO” and the party of “CAN'T.” We truly need a viable third party in this country. Neither democrats nor republicans have this county's best interest at heart. They have only their own pocket books in mind.

[carlosgriffin]

12:52 PM on 09/26/2010

I agree, but with a twist. Its too late for a 3rd party to make major in-roads for this upcoming election, so it puts everyone in a position, that uses logic, to vote for the Republicans. Although it may be too late for this election but 2012 may be possible. A slate of good candidates, and the structure needed to insure a succesful 3rd party run can be put together by then, and the Tea-Party is working hard, as I write, to make it happen.

In the meantime... when the Republicans take back the house and senate in November, they have an opportunity of a lifetime laid out in front of them. If they can govern as they should (their pledge to America is a good start), they "may" win over the Tea-Party, but if they fall back to their bad habits and acting like liberals this will be their last hurrah.

Everyday that goes by I see more and more realistic hope for America, and its solely due to the people coming to their senses and joining the Tea-Party movement.

[BlueSkyPilot]

06:49 AM on 09/26/2010

The problem is that there is no central leadership with the Dems as there used to be with the Repubs. The Tea Baggers are changing things. For decades the dems were best described by this quote:

I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat! Will Rogers

They have always been good at one thing: snatching defeat from the jaws of victory

[Cave Fatuis]

03:32 PM on 09/27/2010

You forget the other great Will Rogers quote: "I can remember way back when a liberal was one who was generous with his own money."

The real issue on "how are we going to pay for this tax cut" is to remember that the money doesn't belong to the government. It belongs to the taxpayers that earned it and we are paying it to the government, not the other way around. And many people are looking at the current government and deficits and thinking it is the taxpayers that can't afford this expanding government.

[impostor]

01:46 AM on 09/26/2010

The Dems are pretty good at policy but TERRIBLE at politics! For the life of me, I can't understand why they (and all you smart progressive bloggers) have missed one very important way of looking at this, which is:
When the Bush tax cuts were passed, they were passed with a mandated expiration date of Dec 31, 2010. Therefore, what follows that date is, logically: THE BUSH TAX INCREASE! If they would have started framing the issue THIS way about a year ago, the mainstream media would have had to pick it up. Consequently, an alternate media narrative could go something like this:
In 2001, the Republicans passed a TEMPORARY tax cut that mostly benefitted the rich, but they had to JAM IT THROUGH the Senate using arcane rules (reconciliation) that would limit the amount it would INCREASE THE DEFICIT by letting the law expire by 2011 ... thus creating a future "tax time bomb" -- a 2011 tax increase on ALL AMERICANS.
Now it is 2011, and because of the hardships caused by the economic meltdown that occurred UNDER BUSH, the Democrats want to pass a NEW TAX CUT on the first $200,000 of income FOR EVERYONE, rich or poor! And the Republicans, for some inconceivable reason, DON'T WANT THAT! They are insistent on voting against a NEW TAX CUT for everyone's first $200,000 of income!
My point is that by framing the situation in this way, the whole game would have changed. Now it is probably too late.

[BrentW1]

03:30 AM on 09/26/2010

Your strategizing only proves that it's all about power and not about principle and accountability to constituents.

I hope that you weren't really serious and that I have been trolled.

[carlosgriffin]

12:55 PM on 09/26/2010

Amen.

[sarabono]

12:00 AM on 09/26/2010

By not holding a vote, the Dem's have shown that they want Federal Taxes to go up on ALL working Americans.

[wayoutleft]

09:42 PM on 09/25/2010

Ok. I give up- you win, republicans and democrats. I'll let you extend my tax cut if you absolutely insist. You can pay ruinous premiums, copays and deductibles for medical care if you absolutely won't have it any other way. You can even go to Whereeverstan and get blown to pieces. I'm exhausted from trying to stop you. And if you assume debt to drive your stinky funky ride on a polluting two hour, twenty-five mile commute instead of enjoying community transportation; there's nothing I can do.Oh, and go ahead on retiring with Goldman-Sachs instead of the Social Security Administration. Who am I to argue with Newt that everyone will be a billionaire if the government is abolished?
I'm kind of sick of the middle class, to tell you the truth- Good riddance. Republican or Democrat, people in Washington are just people going to work to provide for themselves and their families. They don't owe anybody anything. I've changed my mind. I'll keep my tax cut and low capital gains rates. The people have spoken. Let them vote Republican and let their social institutions die. It's their loss. Just remember, tea-baggers: Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and Harry Reid don't owe you a thing. They are perfectly entitled to shut you out and take care of their constituencies. Vote them out if you can- but they will surprise you- you being so wildly overestimated.

[Chris1962]

11:23 PM on 09/25/2010

>>>Vote them out if you can- but they will surprise you- you being so wildly overestimated.>>>

It's not the number of Tea Partiers, themselves, that Dems have to be concerned about; it's the number of voters out there who agree with them.

[carlosgriffin]

12:57 PM on 09/26/2010

And we are many.

[kcinpa]

09:22 PM on 09/25/2010

Why do Dems always seem to give in to their inner wussiness?

[Chris1962]

08:45 PM on 09/25/2010

>>>Despite the fact that just about all extant polling indicates that the American people are solidly on board with the idea that the Bush tax cuts for the middle class should be extended, while simultaneously rolling them back on the wealthy, Senate Democrats decided that they were going to punt the vote on the matter until after the election. Huh? What? Aren't the Democrats running for office this year? And can they not read opinion polls?>>>

No, while they've got you busy reading Registerd Voters polls, they're reading the real ones: Likely Voters.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/taxes/september_2010/51_favor_extending_bush_tax_cuts_for_the_wealthy

And while you're looking at Dems and Republicans, they're looking at the ones who decide elections: Independents. Like so: "If the tax cuts are continued, however, 63% of Democrats say they should be extended for all but the wealthy. Seventy-one percent (71%) of GOP voters and 52% of unaffiliateds think the tax cuts should include the wealthy."

That's nationally. Then there are other polls for the separate states. Examples:

- Most voters in Colorado (60%) feel the so-called Bush tax cuts that are scheduled to end December 31 should be extended, and they believe that extension should apply to everyone.

- Given the choice, 52% of Ohio voters would prefer the government extend the tax cuts for all Americans, rather than excluding the wealthy. Thirty-eight percent (38%) would rather the government extend the cuts for everyone except the wealthy.

- Fifty-seven percent (57%) of voters in Texas favor extending the Bush tax cuts for all Americans, while 32% prefer continuing the tax cuts for everyone except wealthy Americans.  

[Eykis]

07:00 PM on 09/25/2010

Since Reid is so cowardly - we must push Speaker Pelosi - she has already indicated a willingness to make the House VOTE BEFORE NOVEMBER.


GO, NANCY, GO. 


Make the Blue Dogs show they hate the middle class along with the Rethugs.

[Eykis]

06:48 PM on 09/25/2010

Hopefully, in January, the Democrats in the Senate will get rid of the namby-bamby Leader Reid and get a REAL LEADER -- we need a PROGRESSIVE to lead the Senate.  Maybe in January when the Rethugs realize they are still the MINORITY, some will get the gumption to vote for bills that actually work for America's middle class.

[DrJykell]

06:05 PM on 09/25/2010

Our elections have come down to cowards vs kooks!
What's happening to our representative govt?
Is this how a captured govt looks with a dem majority, a far right minority,, and a president trapped by the military and captured by wall st ?

Is there any way we can just change the leadership with out voting in the religious right freaks of freedom, fear,, and more pay raises for the richest among us?
Me thinks the politicians have all turned on the ppl,,,,,,, and the right and left are just taking turns on us..
I believe progressives need to start their own party...

[globality]

04:00 PM on 09/25/2010

Get rid of Reid he is poison.

[DrJykell]

04:42 PM on 09/25/2010

republicrat!!!!!!!!!!!!
I feel for those in Nevada looking for an actual choice..

[Bushwhacked]

05:41 PM on 09/25/2010

I find it shockingly bizzare that weak-kneed Harry Reid and cuckoo Sharron Angle are the two choices voters have for U.S. Senator in the year 2010.

[kirazmazzone]

03:17 PM on 09/25/2010

Fire a Conservative by voting for a Progressive!

[Bushwhacked]

05:41 PM on 09/25/2010

They may not get anything done for fear of what the conservatives think, but it's better than what the conservatives surely would do.

[Eykis]

06:49 PM on 09/25/2010

Bush, you are correct.  Faved.

[Eykis]

06:55 PM on 09/25/2010

Fanned & faved.

[OliverTwist]

02:20 PM on 09/25/2010

The main message here is that politicians from both parties are more interested in making safe points in an election campaign than in benefiting the people.

This may explain why change - whether proposed by Democrats or by Republicans is always somewhere on the horizon - after the next election.