iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

House Democrats Rip Obama's Tax Cut Deal

First Posted: 12/07/10 09:04 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:15 PM ET

House Dems Tax Cuts

WASHINGTON -- House Democrats gathered in the Capitol Tuesday evening to debate the tax-cut deal President Barack Obama struck with Republicans, but as it turned out, they were already in agreement to an extent rarely seen on the left side of the lower chamber.

Across the board, Democrats who attended the meeting said, Obama's deal was deemed too costly, too tilted toward the rich and too much of a cave to Republicans.

"The wealthiest few in the country come out like gangbusters," said Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.), a Blue Dog who said he would oppose the deal. Many other Blue Dogs, Pomeroy said, would also vote down the package, on the grounds that it adds heavily to the debt. "My sense is that it would not carry most of the blue dog members, but that's just my sense. I haven't seen a poll. I was in a discussion with the Blue Dogs this afternoon about it."

Even if every House Republican signs on, Obama needs 39 Democrats to vote to extend the tax cuts for the wealthy. "I don't think the president should count on Democratic votes to get this passed," Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) said.

Told that Obama had compared liberal unrest with the deal with progressive anger at the dropping of the public health insurance option, Weiner said he also saw a similarity. "If you don't fight for something, you can't expect to get it," he said.

"I suspect he'd get 39 Democratic votes if our leadership brings it to the floor, which is not certain," said one member who was in the room.

House Democratic leaders huddled with Vice President Joe Biden over the weekend to discuss the strategy required to pass such an unpopular piece of legislation, HuffPost reported earlier this week. Of the 51 Blue Dogs, roughly half are lame ducks, having lost reelection or retired. Corralling those outgoing members will be key to Obama's success, but Pomeroy said the president has a steep hill to climb.

Biden met with Senate Democrats earlier Tuesday and found hostility to the deal, but only two members spoke out aggressively, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said.

The vice president is slated to try to persuade House Democrats Wednesday, but is unlikely to find a receptive audience given Tuesday night's meeting.

"Suffice it to say there was an awful lot of things expressed, pro and con, but at the core was a deep and abiding concern by a number of members that this was not a good deal," House Caucus Chair John Larson (D-Conn.) said. "We're fortunate that we have tomorrow to continue to listen to the White House."

In that time, Larson said, the House will also demand changes. "There was an awful lot of determination for the House to work its will" in Tuesday night's meeting, he said.

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said that opposition was coming "from all stripes" within the Democratic caucus.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), a former CPC co-chair, said she was also voting no. "It's not very popular with Democrats, I can tell you that," she said.

If the Senate manages to pass the Obama-McConnell deal, one of Nancy Pelosi's last acts as House Speaker of the 111th Congress will be to gather support for the package, but she doesn't seem happy about it.

"Republicans have held the middle class hostage for provisions that benefit only the wealthiest 3 percent, do not create jobs, and add tens of billions of dollars to the deficit," Pelosi (D-Calif.) has said regarding the deal. "To add insult to injury, the Republican estate tax proposal would help only 39,000 of America's richest families, while adding about $25 billion more to the deficit."

Leaving Tuesday night's meeting, Pelosi diplomatically acknowledged "unease" among her caucus.

Democrats are also concerned about the temporary 2-percent cut to Social Security taxes included as part of the deal. If the tax cut becomes permanent -- as tax cuts often do -- Social Security will be deprived of revenue at a time when it is under heavy assault from deficit hawks.


FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- House Democrats gathered in the Capitol Tuesday evening to debate the tax-cut deal President Barack Obama struck with Republicans, but as it turned out, they were already in agreement to...
WASHINGTON -- House Democrats gathered in the Capitol Tuesday evening to debate the tax-cut deal President Barack Obama struck with Republicans, but as it turned out, they were already in agreement to...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 12,188
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (206 total)
04:03 PM on 12/09/2010
If you have $500 million in the bank and are paying no tax on the income that money in generating, why would you put a dime at risk? The only reason any of that $500 million would be put at risk is to make it grow. For the last 10 years that same $500 million has been growing with little to no risk! Now if the tax on that same $500 million is significant enough to off set the healthily profit that exist today, the account holder is forced to look for investment opportunities that will give him a significant return, i.e., business investments that create jobs!

This is why tax cut for the rich haven’t worked for the last 30 years and if this country is around as we know it for another 30 yrs, tax cuts will still not work. I can’t understand how American voters don’t understand that and fall for this bill of goods that’s been shoved down your throats all these years. A little common sense would go a long way, think!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:27 PM on 12/09/2010
I don't understand why estate taxes had to go up on lesser estates? So that they go down on larger estates. Wouldn't it be truly Republican to go conservative across the board?

Weirdos.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lost Rights
Wine Glass Wealth Distribution, 20% have 82%.
03:29 PM on 12/09/2010
Because of the Golden Rule; They that have the gold rule..
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:15 PM on 12/14/2010
This article hit more of the reactions than the facets: Is the tax rate for inheritances under a certain amount incrementing up? It seems to imply it with the whole wealthiest of 3% only benefitting... lots of regular people leave what's left of their estate to their children no? There needs to be more details in these things.

"Republicans have held the middle class hostage for provisions that benefit only the wealthiest 3 percent, do not create jobs, and add tens of billions of dollars to the deficit," Pelosi (D-Calif.) has said regarding the deal. "To add insult to injury, the Republican estate tax proposal would help only 39,000 of America's richest families, while adding about $25 billion more to the deficit."

Leaving Tuesday night's meeting, Pelosi diplomatically acknowledged "unease" among her caucus.

Democrats are also concerned about the temporary 2-percent cut to Social Security taxes included as part of the deal. If the tax cut becomes permanent -- as tax cuts often do -- Social Security will be deprived of revenue at a time when it is under heavy assault from deficit hawks."
07:05 AM on 12/09/2010
All this SO CALLED outrage from the left - yet I have NOT seen even ONE - RICH - Democrat say they will DONATE their taxcuts back to the Government -- NO ONE is forcing them to keep it! Just as they get it - they can easily SEND IT BACK!

YET I have seen NONE of the RICH people on the left, who claim they do not want a taxcut , NONE of them have said they will DONATE that taxcut back to the GOVERNMENT­­!
What are they waiting for?

I want to see the RICH phonies - who claim they DO NOT need a taxcut - PUT THEIR MONEY where their mouth is --- DONATE BACK the taxcuts to the GOVERNMENT­­!

The silence from he RICH on the left about DONATING back their taxcuts - says A whole lot about their phoniness on this issue!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Jim bob
Be the change you wish to see.
05:45 PM on 12/09/2010
I appreciate your intent, but giving anything back to the government is an exercise in futility; as is most individual action. the reason we have a collective effort is to leverage individual efforts into something that will, one, become amplified so it can be used by many, not just a few; and two. become institutionalized so it will happen again and again and again, regularly and normally and habitually, and legally as well.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Dangerous Dan
Because I can!
05:47 AM on 12/09/2010
Barrack Obama has broken more of a sweat at hoops than he has for ANY legislation he supposedly brought to the table.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
dwright
Religion is man-created.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Linda from Pahrump
Moderation in ALL things
01:23 AM on 12/09/2010
I find it very disturbing that the Republican, right-leaning "aficionado's" in this society, seem to find that it is OK to harp on reducing Social Security, Medicare, and Education as a way to cut government spending. I guess if you are old, sick, or young, you really don't count in their eyes.

Those who collect Social Security Retirement benefits have worked for 40 - 50 years, faithfully paying their taxes into the big communal pot all this time, in the belief that when they reached retirement age, all their hard work would be rewarded with a relatively worry-free retirement. It is not their fault that they got old. It happens to everyone. They also tend to get sick, at times. Their hope is that the doctors that help them are also educated enough to do their job well.

Be carefull wat you wish for, all you critics of these programs.

YOU TOO WILL GET OLD!

And in this economy, which you so vehemently defend, you will find it difficult to save up enough money to fund your retirement, especially at the 0.1% interest that the banks give these days....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lost Rights
Wine Glass Wealth Distribution, 20% have 82%.
03:23 PM on 12/09/2010
But you don't contribute much to them, whereas the rich do. Thats what is meant by bought and paid for politicians.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ampdem
10:27 PM on 12/08/2010
The party that votes (NO) against estate tax,+(NO) top 3% earners tax increase,+(NO) in social security gets my vote in 2012.......if bill is modified and passes with adjustments to reflect chanhes in favor of middle class not the top earners.......1yr unemployment for 2yr tax cuts for top earners (NO deal.)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lost Rights
Wine Glass Wealth Distribution, 20% have 82%.
03:24 PM on 12/09/2010
These are not increases, but rather the sunsetting of temporary tax cuts.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ampdem
03:26 AM on 12/12/2010
Let me rephrase that tax-cut extentions that the Republicans do not want the sun to set on. Ahhh, I get it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Zwaan
THINK! It pisses off conservatives.
08:21 PM on 12/08/2010
FWIW, The more signatures the better.

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/activities/419?t=e1
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TMMA
your micro-bio did not meet our guidelines
10:25 PM on 12/08/2010
Signed.
07:41 PM on 12/08/2010
No, he could have kept the tax cuts for the under $250,000 earner.

And I want them to leave Social Security alone. Seriously.
07:34 PM on 12/08/2010
I am so sick and tired of the left claiming the tax cuts are for the rich. For the last 9 years I've made around $100k per year and I was getting a $2000 tax cut, equalling $18,000. So if they allow them to expire, I lose that and my taxes go up. The propaganda from the left is in full disclosure and if you thought nov 2010 was bad, it'll be much worse in 2012.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ASMom
08:59 PM on 12/08/2010
Bring on the violins.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dave Thinkster Paulson
A concerned American moderate
09:25 PM on 12/08/2010
And the left isn't supporting that your taxes go up. The right is holding your cuts hostage so that those who make over $250K can get additional cuts. Is there some part of that you don't understand? I'm personally in the $200K income range, and I'd definitely be willing to have the cuts expire now and then be renegotiated from a blank slate starting in January. This government by blackmail will bring the entire economy down around all of our necks, except those very rich who already have their loot.
07:30 PM on 12/08/2010
It is sad but Obama would rather please the rich than the people who put him in office. He wants them to think he is the can do macho man. He is not.

Your are supposed to dance with the one who takes you to the dance. But Obama has no loyality.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TMMA
your micro-bio did not meet our guidelines
10:25 PM on 12/08/2010
Well put.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
vippy
Carpe Diem!
07:16 PM on 12/08/2010
I can't believe there are people among us who think the unemployed are lazy, sitting home collecting a check!  How stupid can one get?  25% can't find work because there simply is no work.  Congress bowed to the corporations and passed laws that they can send jobs overseas and we won't ever get them back as is.  What is wrong with these people?  If there are few who abuse the system, that leaves a whole lot of people, even people with degrees and who had a terrific career, out in the cold and we know we can't fend for ourselves anymore.  Life is not the 1800s anymore!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
dwright
Religion is man-created.
06:58 PM on 12/08/2010
Interesting - I am losing more and more fans because I am asking people to blame the Senate who couldn't pass unemployment and only middle class tax cuts. LOL
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
weebils
I like jalapenos and hot sauce
07:29 PM on 12/08/2010
Join the club. It happened to me too. Pretty childish of them and an indication of the type of people the president has to deal with.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Zwaan
THINK! It pisses off conservatives.
08:26 PM on 12/08/2010
U2.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dave Thinkster Paulson
A concerned American moderate
09:35 PM on 12/08/2010
What's pretty childish is accepting this slow cook of the middle class. President "Punt on 2nd Down" Obama is the Republican's best legislative tool.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Zwaan
THINK! It pisses off conservatives.
08:26 PM on 12/08/2010
You just got an other one.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
dimplesmile7
06:19 PM on 12/08/2010
I sent an email to Senator Bernie Sanders supporting his efforts in reject the Obama-Republican deal. I just received an email back from him along with a link. It is a petition for stopping the deal. Please sign and let him know that we support him:

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/activities/419?t=e1
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
dwright
Religion is man-created.
07:08 PM on 12/08/2010
IF the Senate had been able to pass unemployme­­nt extension - we would not be here

If the Senate had been able to pass tax cuts to only the middle class - we would not be here

If the Senate had been able to pass all of the other attached goodies - we would not be here.

But - why isn't anyone blaming them? I fail to see the logic.
09:28 PM on 12/08/2010
Niether my congressperson nor either of my senators (CA) replied to my request to vote no. Have to give a thumbs up to Sanders.
03:04 PM on 12/08/2010
The 99’ers, those people unemployed more than 99 weeks, get nothing out of this deal. The 13 months only applies to those that have yet to hit 99 weeks or recently unemployed. We have 5 million 99’ers and we add more each week. The Great Compromise of 2010 is so bad that politicians on both sides hate it.

The Bush Tax Cuts have not provided ANY jobs over the last 10 years, none. Continuing the Bush Tax Cuts for the rich will NOT produce any new jobs either. Warren Buffett is NOT going to hire me, and neither is Jimmy Buffett even though I’m a Parrothead and have all of his albums.

There needs to be a Tax INCREASE for people making more than 250k in order to help pay down our deficet. There needs to be a Tax INCREASE to compensate for the millions of out of work Amercians that NO LONGER PAY INCOME TAX because they have no income.

I admire the President for trying to help the unemployed and help the middle class get out of the hole that they are in. But you don’t help by making the hole DEEPER.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
edlindaspy
God Bless America
04:12 PM on 12/08/2010
I admire the President for trying to help the unemployed and help the middle class get out of the hole that they are in. But you don’t help by making the hole DEEPER.

I agree wholeheartedly F&F...and the 2% from social security is an outrage! Buffett thinks the tax rate should be raised for the wealthiest 2%. So do I. So do the majority of Americans. We no longer live in a reasonable and democratic society. It's become plutocracy for the rich. Americans continue to fall for lies that are getting more and more outrageous and implausible. (ie. Healthcare Death Panels).

The only way to stop this obscene tax cut and evil laughter of the war criminals is for the people, (millions like 2 million people in France), to storm the Congress, force their way into the floor. The time for action is NOW.

No man-made law or policy is impossible to change. There's no political will to change it only but by a few.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
dwright
Religion is man-created.
07:08 PM on 12/08/2010
IF the Senate had been able to pass unemployme­­nt extension - we would not be here

If the Senate had been able to pass tax cuts to only the middle class - we would not be here

If the Senate had been able to pass all of the other attached goodies - we would not be here.

But - why isn't anyone blaming them? I fail to see the logic.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Bronxdude
Integrity has no need of rules
01:53 PM on 12/08/2010
Eisenhower was the last republican president to balance the budget, and since 1945, republican administrations have created 31.2 million jobs, while democrats have created 57.6 million. Under Bush 43, payroll expansion for the middleclass increased 2.3%, while under Clinton it increased 21.2%. Conversely, economic policies under Reagan and Bush 41 resulted in 718,000 small business failures, and from 1980-to-1988, Reagan’s non-stimulative trickle-down policies gave huge tax cuts to the wealthy, accounted for outsourcing 10 million manufacturing jobs, and expanded the job market a paltry 2%. Collectively, from 1960-to-2000, republicans expanded the job market by 5.3%, while democrats managed 11.6%. Just as long as republicans are in power, they support big government, as evidenced by Bush 43 expanding the federal government 57% and Reagan a whopping 66%. It took Reagan only 8 years to increase the national debt from $1 trillion to $3.5 trillion. From 2001 to 2008, an era of record debt, Boehner led the charge to give $1.4 trillion in tax cuts to the wealthy via borrowed money from China, and now he wants to erase the deficit by taxing working-class Americans. Boehner wants to again borrow money and grow the deficit so tax cuts can be extended for the wealthy. Obama wants to end tax cuts for the wealthy, but keep tax cuts for the middleclass. So, when republicans say they want to cut taxes, they mean for the wealthy, not the middleclass.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
edlindaspy
God Bless America
04:14 PM on 12/08/2010
F&F Great post
10:48 PM on 12/08/2010
Repubs think middle class tax cuts are a joke and they are. They want an obedient and suffering working class. They don't care if a middle class even exists. What is it to them? My wealthy friend's parents didn't want her to sell her stocks because '...the money would just go to the [worthless] poor, dear." Obama has sold us out. I don't think he even knows it. He lets his mind get persuaded by the peripheral. " Oh, I had to help the unemployed!" How many? After all that effort too damn few.