White House, Democrats See Tax Cut Vote After Election

WASHINGTON — The White House and Democratic leaders in Congress said Sunday they would find a way to extend middle-class tax cuts after the November elections, unable to secure GOP backing before lawmakers break to campaign.

"One way or the other, we're going to get it done. And I believe the pressure is going to build among the American people" said David Axelrod, President Barack Obama's top political aide.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had suggested that a vote could be held this coming week before lawmakers leave town for the elections. But her deputy, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland, said Sunday that holding a vote wouldn't matter because the legislation is still languishing in the Senate under GOP objections.

Both parties are using the delay in a vote on the fate of these George W. Bush-era cuts at a time of record deficits as political ammunition this election season.

Democratic leaders have said they want to freeze tax rates for individuals making up to $200,000 and for families earning up to $250,000. Republicans, as well as some more conservative Democrats, want to extend all of Bush's income tax cuts permanently, even for the wealthiest of Americans.

Democrats think the climate for compromise will improve after the election. They will still need at least one Republican vote in the Senate to pass a bill.

"We are for making sure that the middle-class Americans do not get a tax increase. And we're going to make sure that happens," Hoyer said.

Republicans say they want a chance to debate extending the tax cuts beyond the middle class or else they will block the Democratic proposal.

"If she's not willing to have a fair and open debate, she should not count on our votes," House GOP Leader John Boehner said of Pelosi.

Axelrod said that kind of strong-arm tactic will hurt Republicans in this fall's election.

"They're going to have to explain to their constituents why they're holding up tax cuts for the middle class," Axelrod said. "And I think it's an untenable position to say, "We're going to allow your taxes to go up on January 1st unless the president agrees to give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires."

The Senate's second-ranking Democrat said he hoped the atmosphere will have changed after the election and the impassed ended. "Occasionally one Republican will break ranks and help us," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

Still, Republicans have seized on the impasse in Congress by alleging that Democrats are contributing to consumer uncertainty.

"The Democrats have failed to lead this," said Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. "They are going to want to leave the House without dealing with it. That uncertainty itself is keeping capital on the sidelines and keeping jobs from being created in America."

Boehner said that if the House leaves without blocking the tax increases, "it will be the most irresponsible thing that I've seen since I have been in Washington, D.C."

Axelrod spoke on ABC's "This Week." Hoyer, Boehner and McCarthy appeared "Fox News Sunday." Durbin was on CNN's "State of the Union."

Comments

[Alien Nation Refugee]

12:39 PM on 09/28/2010

Bush made the unfunded tax cuts (bizarrely) during a time of economic expansion with the American economy already at peak capacity (i.e., low unemployment) defying virtually all economic reason. I would agree that letting any of the tax cuts expire now is a form of tightening. However, Democrats never claimed to not want to address the budget and leaving the cuts in place on the bottom 97% seems more or less a consistent balance. Meanwhile back on Planet GOP, Republicans on the one hand advocate to leave an additional $700B in cuts for the top 3% in place AND swear on their kids dirty diapers that their will balance the budget. The bottom line is that most of the jobs created under Bush were tightly linked to construction, home furnishing and finance. These all evaporated with the FI deregulation bust. The remaining growth sectors for jobs such as IT, health care and financial services require significantly more skills. You would be better off taking that last $700B and pumping it into job retraining and private polytechnics than giving it to the rich who already have plenty of deployable capital on the sidelines expecting them to hire more people during a period of low demand.

[littleblackcat]

03:37 PM on 09/27/2010

They should have that vote now, and go on national television to explain to the public that legislation is bogged down because of rethug obstructionism masquerading as legitimate talking points. The rethugs (and those DINOs who try to disguise themselves as being part of the party of the people) want those obscene gifts to the very wealthy to go on giving.
All of their prattle about how bills are drawn up "in secret" and "behind closed doors" is just so much bull$#!t. NOW that the Democrats have put forth the rules that tell insurance companies they cannot drop someone just because they got sick, cannot cap "lifetime benefits", and cannot refuse to cover a child born with a "pre-existing condition", we are hearing the rethugs trumpeting that THEY have been for those provisions ALL ALONG!! Poppycock! If these ideas had been on the rethug boards all along, why didn't they say so in the beginning instead blocking, blocking, and blocking?
The rethug habit. Lessons learned from tricky dickie, pompous ass that he was. Speaking of himself in the third person, it was his wont to say "See how it flies before the president says it"; "See how it gets received before the president gives the O.K." Now that things are inplace that the people like, the thugs are claiming those were their ideas.
End welfare for the rich. Or let them face a revolution.

[NorthWoodsVoice]

01:10 PM on 09/27/2010

I think I'll leave "voting for Democrats" until after the election. Shameful cowardice or rampant corruption. Either way, I'm done with the party. Rewarding their rightward slide, only speeds the process. I'll be voting Green or independent from now on.

[Kassandra]

10:54 AM on 09/27/2010

The Dems are sure leaving alot until "After the election", aren't they. Social Security cuts; tax cuts for the rich; wiretapping the internet; the new free trade agreement in the pipes with South Korea; escalation into Yemen; announcing THIS:
http://www.alternet.org/rights/148307/obama_administration_asserts_%22state_secret%22_privilege_to_thwart_lawsuit_against_targeted_killings/

[OliverTwist]

09:08 AM on 09/27/2010

The only votes that we should credit as reflecting the intentions of representatives are the ones that win and not even all of them.

Deciding to wait until later when defeat is certain is vote of its own and tells us alot about real intentions.

[Elkanah]

09:00 AM on 09/27/2010

It doesn't seem to me that the Democrats will take control of both the House and the Senate. Therefore we can expect that the Bush tax cuts will be extended for the wealthiest Americans with some Democrats voting in favor of it (for political reasons) as they have done for the Medicare Bill etc.

It is hoped that the Republicans do not water down the tax cuts for the majority of Americans.

The Democratic Congress in power have dodged their responsibilities by passing on the decision of tax cuts to the new Congress hoping that extending the Bush tax cuts will not reflect on themselves.

[Kassandra]

10:55 AM on 09/27/2010

Called "kicking the can"

[Waltereg0]

08:28 AM on 09/27/2010

Another deliberately misleading headline from Huffpaux. This is not a tax cut, it is clearly raising taxes. The Dems plan to keep taxes for people under $200K the same but they are raising taxes on families above that. There is no way that can accurately be called a tax cut.

[NorthWoodsVoice]

01:13 PM on 09/27/2010

No, the law that Bush pushed thru sets next year's tax rates at a certain level. Passing a law that would lower that level for some, is a cut from that preset level.

[littleblackcat]

03:43 PM on 09/27/2010

You have missed the point. The tax cuts were given to the very rich YEARS ago. bushit then proceeded to involve the country in two wars which were not paid for because the rich were not only not sending their sons and daughters to fight and die, they weren't paying their share toward funding their corporate-friendly buddy's folly.
Taxes REALLY need to go back to the Eisenhower years' level. It still leaves the rich more money than they know what to do with even when they spend it on stupid stuff like camels' milk baths.

[Believein2012]

08:25 AM on 09/27/2010

Total control of the Senate, House & WH, but no guts. What a joke these "Changers" are!

[Realbluesky]

08:07 AM on 09/27/2010

Axelrod is a disgrace. The President should be condemned for keeping this weak-minded, milquetoast, behind-the-times fool on the White House payroll. The same could be said for Rahm.
HOWEVER, as much as I would like to sit out this election and not support the democrats, the American people do not deserve what the repubs are planning to do. I wish we had progressive candidates to choose from, but that is not the case. It really comes down to a lesser of two evils. If you think the dems are bad, take a look back at the 8 years of bush II. I am depressed, disillusioned, and angry that, as a whole, the dems are such a weak, spineless, wimpy group of do-nothings. But, I would rather have them than the corporate stooges that would be their replacements.

[littleblackcat]

03:46 PM on 09/27/2010

I'd like the Dems to show a little more spine myself, Realblue. As you said though, the alternative is allowing the thieves who got us into these messes come back and do more damage.

[orbs]

08:05 AM on 09/27/2010

What a horrible adviser.

[journey80]

08:02 AM on 09/27/2010

Ah, a hostage situation. And we should believe what these corporate hit men are telling us?

[kgdavid]

07:34 AM on 09/27/2010

neither side wants to compromise. the republicans want to protect the higher brackets and the democrats know that if nothing is done by jan. then the whole law is null and void and everyone loses the breaks. wa-la, everyone's taxes go up.

[Kassandra]

10:57 AM on 09/27/2010

Yeah, but in that case, they could just....pass a new law; which I think would be preferable to dicing up the old one.

[jammerbirdi]

07:22 AM on 09/27/2010

Axelrod is SO two years ago. What about Elizabeth Warren? Where is she?

Besides on my blog.

We now finally have someone to worry about OUR money.

Real change, the change we've been waiting for that was us. IT has a name.

Betsy.

Betsy from Oklahoma. Or, if you must, Elizabeth Warren.

ON Morning Joe. Last Thursday. The coming out party that seems to have never happened. That might be your perspective if you happened to think, as I did, that Warren’s every public utterance since taking the job as President Obama’s Special Advisor for the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would be Breaking News across the political airwaves.

What did she say? Lots of stuff like this. "For 30 years, we have watched a financial services industry that has figured out new ways to squeeze money out of middle-class American families."

There's a LOT more on my blog. With THREE audio files.

http://jammerbirdi.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/betsy-from-oklahoma/

[Kassandra]

10:58 AM on 09/27/2010

We will never hear from Warren again. she got an office in the white house basement and has been ordered to stay there./s

[Dave Bee]

05:47 AM on 09/27/2010

its a bribe. And I personally am insulted. Just because the dems couldnt do their jobs accordingly, they pull this sad crap. I cant believe ive been in this party this long. is there a progressive party?

[Lorindol]

03:00 AM on 09/27/2010

I guess they're thinking this is a good debate for Democrats to be having at election time.