Jim DeMint Would Accept Compromise On Bush Tax Cuts

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), the Pied Piper of the incoming congressional class of Tea Party pols, said on Sunday that he would be open to a compromise proposal on the expiring Bush tax cuts.

Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," the South Carolina Republican was asked if he could feasibly vote for a package that saw the current rates extended across the board for a two-to-three year period.

"I hope we can get a permanent extension," he replied. "But if the president wants to compromise on a two or three year extension, what's important here is that businesses know what their tax rates are going to be over the next few years so they can plan growth and plan to add people. If we keep things in a state of flux then I'm afraid we are going to continue to have a jobs problem.

"If that is all we can get out of the president well, then he is president, so we will work with him on that, but I hope he doesn't come back with the idea of 'oh we are going to raise taxes on 750,000 small businesses,' as he's been talking about. I think if he can work on our side of the ledger, I think we can worth together."

DeMint's openness to negotiation suggests that there is, in fact, an end game to the high-stakes tax debate. He is, after all, the senator who led the charge for strict opposition to the president's health care plan.

That said, the compromise he is proposing is one written largely on Republican terms. Even the White House, which has signaled its willingness to negotiate on the matter, has refused to budge from its belief that the middle class rates should be extended permanently while the rates of the wealthy should revert to previous levels or be extended for a temporary period of time.

Comments

[robertwriter]

03:11 PM on 11/17/2010

The right Dem strategy, with Obama’s veto pen and the ability to prevent cloture on filibusters with more than 40 seats in the Senate, is -- look, we will extend the tax cuts for the middle income for a year or two, if you want to compromise, or better yet, make them permanent, because you want to cut taxes, or otherwise all the increases go in. Now that the G.O.P. has made the entire game obstruction, and now that they now want something only Dems can deliver (because you can obstruct it in the Senate and if they do reconciliation, you can veto it. Thus, in a turnabout is fair game, and stroke of irony, you CAN get what you want, playing their game, but it is also where the real power is, given that damn 60-vot threshold. But now use it to your advantage, on what they want, only “compromising” – like they do, offering only your terms, and you’re bound to win where it is something they need passed. And really, cut all the niave crap about let’s compromise, be real – while in some things you can (and have with some results) – this is not true for the big issues that they have made their bywords. Give up on compromise on the these, because that is where they refuse to give in). Haven’t you learned that by now, Obama and Reid, or are you too thick? Do I have to write the damn playbook?

[BigBadMikey47]

12:05 AM on 11/17/2010

The "My Way or the Highway" method of "compromise" is unacceptable. This clown is about as contemptible as they come.

[Helloise]

08:18 AM on 11/16/2010

He will also accept a bow and curtsy, thank you very much.

[eddw88]

05:31 PM on 11/15/2010

Who the TELL is jim demint? And who the TELL elected him to run the senate??

[AJH]

04:56 PM on 11/15/2010

The tax rates are currently in effect and we have a jobs problem. If you serve a community tax policy is simply how much profit you get to keep it does not impact investment strategy. They would be creating jobs already if there were consumers spending for their service/product.

Therefore it is not an income tax policy issue.

[blukazoo]

04:49 PM on 11/15/2010

More BS and doublespeak. If the tax cuts are really needed to stimulate the economy, why is it not stimulated right now while they are still in place? Answer: the market is being manipulated to ensure that the rich get to keep more money--otherwise known as extortion.

[Jerseymike40]

04:15 PM on 11/15/2010

I wish someone would broadly advertise the definition of "Small Business." I recommend reading the author David Cay Johnston. He's got 2 books entitled, "Free Lunch" & "Perfectly Legal." These are terrific books and definitely eye openers. I did a google search and found an article written here in the Huffington Post. It's well worth reading!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/23/olbermann-small-business_n_736418.html

[Clearing-Brush]

03:27 PM on 11/15/2010

We have had these tax cuts for 10 years now.

Have they produced any jobs? NO! In fact we lost a pant-load of jobs.

Have they strengthened the middle class? NO! The middle class has been virtually whipped out. It has been wealth distribution from the bottom up. This rich got richer and the poor got poorer.

(This one is easy): Has it improved the economy? You all know the answer......... and has increased the deficit and nearly bankrupted the country.

Why should we keep doing the same thing that didn't work? Get rid of the tax cuts for the upper 2%. THEY DON'T NEED IT!

[Clearing-Brush]

03:29 PM on 11/15/2010

Sorry. 7 years. same diference........

[Clearing-Brush]

03:15 PM on 11/15/2010

What compromise?

The left doesn't want to extend the tax cuts and the right does. We extend the tax cuts and the right gets what they want. SO, WHAT COMPROMISE? This is CAVING!

[bmike]

02:44 PM on 11/15/2010

Tea bags voted out compromises and now their leader wants to compromise.That's good politics for a bagger

[JavaSavant]

02:07 PM on 11/15/2010

This is ridiculous. They are not going to "plan to add people" until there is demand, and there cannot be demand when no one has any money to buy things.

Put money into the hands of the people, and let them buy stuff from companies that produce items they want. THAT is capitalism. Giving money to companies is corporatocracy, a form of oligarchy (not only can Beck not spell it, he cannot recognize it).

[ThatsTheTheWayItIs]

01:17 PM on 11/15/2010

A hedge fund manager on CNBC said "investment tax rates have varied between 15% and 38% during my 30 years in the investment business. At no time have I ever invested based on tax rates, or advised my clients to do so." Larry Kudlow's draw dropped, you should have seen it :-)

All Wall St analysts will tell you, don't make investment decisions based on tax implications.
Investment tax cuts do not encourage investments.

[ThatsTheTheWayItIs]

01:12 PM on 11/15/2010

Since Reagan first cut taxes, the greatest economic growth and least deficit growth came in the '90s, between tax increases by Bush I and Clinton, before tax cuts by Bush II.

The greatest growth in the last 25 years came during the period of highest taxes.
Tax cuts do not create economic growth, just deficit growth.

[ThatsTheTheWayItIs]

01:02 PM on 11/15/2010

DeMint says "what's important here is that businesses know what their tax rates are going to be over the next few years".

Then an extension is the worst thing possible, permanent change removes all doubt.

[NotImpressed]

12:51 PM on 11/15/2010

The key battle line at this point is whether the tax cuts for the super-rich can be separated from those for the common people, or remain packaged together as Bush designed them. As long as they're tied together, it's easy to confuse people into supporting the continued siphoning of dollars to the top. Once they're de-coupled, it becomes relatively easy to let the cuts for the rich expire and not raise taxes for everyone. The Republicans and some Dems) will fight tooth an nail to keep them all together, so they can manipulate working people to identify with the interests of the elite.

[pindiva]

02:00 PM on 11/15/2010

If the decreases on the rates of taxes on the lower income brackets are maintained, they are maintained across the boards, and the benefit accrues to all taxpayers. Even Bill Gates would be paying the lowered rate for the first $250K or so he earns.

Saying that we are not giving tax breaks to the "rich" is a mischaracterization. If the tax rates return pre-Bush levels for the highest income brackets, they are raised for everyone. There are just so few of us who manage to reach them.