Skip to main content

Just imagine Boehner's tears if President Obama
force Republicans to choose between the trigger
and repealing Bush high-income tax cuts.
 
Yesterday, President Obama said the Gang of 12 super committee created by the debt deal should come up with a deficit reduction package that relies on tax reform and Medicare "adjustments" to achieve budgetary savings. Meanwhile, Eric Cantor and John Boehner once again ruled out supporting tax increases from the Gang of 12.

Whatever ends up happening, it's important to recognize that this time around, President Obama has all the leverage he needs to get what he wants. The reason is simple: nothing the Gang of 12 proposes can become law without President Obama's signature. Even if it passes Congress, he can veto it. Yes, that would trigger automatic cuts, but those cuts don't begin until 2013 and they could be repealed.

At a minimum, President Obama should insist on repealing the Bush tax high-income tax cuts. There's a variety of ways this could happen: one way would be by extending the middle-income tax cuts permanently and allowing the high-income tax cuts to expire. Another would be tax reform that produces the same amount of revenue (with the same distribution) as would be generated by expiring the Bush high-income tax cuts. And yet another way would be to simply end the Bush tax cuts altogether, for everybody.

But while any of those proposals would be acceptable, they fall short of what President Obama proposed in April, when he embraced both tax reform and ending the Bush high-income tax cuts. His revenue plan would have generated about $2 trillion over the next decade, blowing far past the Gang of 12's deficit reduction target, even if there weren't any spending cuts at all.

Unfortunately, President Obama has all but abandoned that revenue plan. Instead, his opening bid is tax reform plus Medicare cuts. Based on what happened last time, there's a good chance it'll get worse from there.

Whatever ends up happening with the Gang of 12 super committee, let's be clear on one thing: this time, thanks to the power of the veto, President Obama has the leverage. How he chooses to use that leverage is up to him. Hopefully he uses it to take a principled stand for fairness and equity, and to fight for the people who sent him to the White House.

Originally posted to The Jed Report on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 08:54 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Tags

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  What Happens Oct 1, 2011 If Budget Not Passed? (0+ / 0-)

      From what I read here at dk initially, whatever was done in the BCA 2011 did not finalize anything nor would it prevent government shutdown.

      In fact, since the budget proposed by the President would lower revenue and increase the deficit for 2012, if it had been finalized, the baseline might change for the Dirty Dozen.  

      So before we get to the Dirty Dozen's identity or deliberations, isn't there something that needs to be done?

      And while it seems impossible to imagine that DC would operate this way, why not combine the two into one comprehensive package so there is some certainty and finality - not the constant confusion and threat of the next hostage crisis.

      We'd rather dream the American Dream than fight to live it or to give it to our kids. What a shame. What an awful, awful shame.

      by Into The Woods on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 10:43:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You are ignoring the obvious, Jed (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      little lion, bobdevo, splintersawry

      In your zeal to find fault with any legislation Obama signs ever, you have omitted some crucial facts. This analysis from Leo Soderman points out what you refuse to, most salient being that the CBO assumes the Bush cuts expire. So BIG defense cuts will need to be enacted to cover any extension of the Bush cuts. Which is, of course, suicidal for Blue Dog & GOP defense dolla ho's. Either the Bush cuts die or the Pentagon cries. And since we know what America's biggest export is (hint: rhymes with "poor"), the Defense industry that supplies our lovely carnage will not stand to be put on a diet.  Which means it's likely they'll expire. It's Tea Party Loonies vs. Country Club Cronies, and my bet is on Old Money.

  •  I would not count on that. (30+ / 0-)

    Our best outcome is a 6 to 6 tie.  Yes, many things will be cut like funding for the community clinics that Sanders got for his vote for health care refrom, but so too will  Pentagon spending.  

    Let Bush tax cuts expire in December 2012 after election.

    Obama will not veto a deal.  In fact, Reid is the key figure.  His appointees will determine the outcome.  

    The American people must wise up and rise up!

    by TomP on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 08:57:34 AM PDT

  •  As weird as it may sound (12+ / 0-)

    it's almost as important that he threaten such a veto as that he actually do it.

    Of course we're in uncharted waters here.  He doesn't do "make my day" so he never has any threats to back down from.  

    Of course if he did threaten it and then backed down that would be bad, but at this point, I'd settle for the threat and call it progress.

    sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

    by stivo on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:02:47 AM PDT

    •  Totally agree with this. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      satrap, rabel, Sherri in TX, m16eib, CenterLeft

      This is the time for ending Bush's high income tax cuts, and he has the leverage.  If it the president doesn't stand tall and make demands (via a veto threat) we'll certainly be deadlocked.

      The problem with compromise is that the other side wasn't interested and saw no value in doing so.  This time the other side HAS to do something otherwise the tax cuts expire.  Hopefully, president Obama will not trade tax cut extensions for some sort of agreement that is again another round of cuts for a ceiling increase.

      Do not ever look at my Twitter feed! @Ralpheelou

      by Ralpheelou on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:23:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But a threat to shoot the hostage is no good (5+ / 0-)

        if you think no one will call your bluff.

        I say, light the fuse of the explosive device, and hand it to Boehner and the GOP, and let them decide what to do with it.  They can let Obama blow it out, or hold on to it until it explodes.  And when they do they'll be to blame.

        Torture is Wrong! We live near W so you don't have to. Send love.

        by tom 47 on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:37:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I doubt this: we'll certainly be deadlocked. (0+ / 0-)

        No, Reid will appoint at least one or two squishy Dems, and that will be that. All bipartisanny.

        How far to the right do the Dems have to move before you stop calling them Dems?

        by Diebold Hacker on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 11:00:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  veto (12+ / 0-)
    Whatever ends up happening, it's important to recognize that this time around, President Obama has all the leverage he needs to get what he wants. The reason is simple: nothing the Gang of 12 proposes can become law without President Obama's signature. Even if it passes Congress, he can veto it.
    How does that differ from last time around?

    With every goddess a let down, every idol a bring down, it gets you down / but the search for perfection, your own predilection, goes on and on and on. . .

    by cardinal on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:03:18 AM PDT

    •  better case to be made... (6+ / 0-)

      ...that debt limit was a must raise situation, and that he wasn't willing to fail to raise it.

      but the consequences of a trigger, he can live with, and they are easier to fix.

      •  Ain't gonna happen unless he fires all of his (8+ / 0-)

        advisors and somehow embraces Keynesiasm.  He clearly wants these cuts.  He'll cut Medicare just to avoid defense cuts.  We already know that's his preference.

        And his veto threats are no longer taken seriously by anyone.

        Hey, Republicans, the whole world is watching.

        by TAH from SLC on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:24:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  That's not true. (10+ / 0-)

        It was not a must raise situation. Maybe in the media and maybe the narrative was long ago abdicated to the Tea Party.
        But subsequent events - events that many were aware of concerning the demand for U.S. Treasuries and the irony of S&P's ridiculous play on the downgrade, those events have proven that it was never a "must raise" situation. In fact anyone bothering to observe a pattern could only conclude that there are forces intent on busting the confidence of the U.S. Government no matter what decisions are made. And again this week the pattern held.  Downgrade despite capitulation to the tea party and Grover Norquist. Downgrade despite a "bipartisan" deal.

        Must we have submitted to Hank Paulson's three page ransom note in October of 2008. I, for one among many, are done with the "WE MUST DO ANYTHING!" shock doctrine reflex of the Democrats.  Enough.

        NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

        by Aeolos on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:31:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, the debt limit was a must raise situation (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TAH from SLC, splintersawry

        and everyone, Rs included, knew that was the ultimate outcome. The rest was all kabuki--why did POTUS give any ground at all when he knew that the outcome was that the debt ceiling had to be raised--as did all of the players. digby was very well likely completely right all along, as usual.

        There are moments when the body is as numinous as words, days that are the good flesh continuing. -- Robert Hass

        by srkp23 on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:43:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Question. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TAH from SLC

          What were the consequences if the debt limit wasn't raised?

          Careful here.  We could start a whole new thread in another diary comparing the projections of doom and gloom if it wasn't raised and what we are actually witnessing in the real world of the here and now.

          If you're ultimate claim is that confidence in government would've resulted apart from a run on Treasuries (never happens in a flight to security - gold and treasuries) then how do you explain the crisis in government post debt ceiling raise deal.

          NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

          by Aeolos on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:52:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  But I think he SHOULD have been (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sue B, splintersawry

        very willing to veto a bill he didn't like, even at the last minute.

        I think he should have made it painfully clear, in a joint session and on prime time TV, that if a debt ceiling bill had x, y, or z, HE WOULD VETO IT.

        And if it had those thing, he should have done just that.

        Of course, I think he should have been doing that all along, and not just now.

        He's trying to be the adult - well, be the adult. When the rowdy kids propose bringing the barbecue grill in the house because it's raining, you don't say it's a bad idea and then LET THEM. You put them and the damn grill out in the rain and lock the doors.

        If he tells Congress what he will and won't accept, and they send him something he's said he WILL NOT accept, he should veto the damn thing, tell them why, and tell them to do it over until they get it right.

        He doesn't have any other weapons. That's all he's got. Of course, they'll hold up any and all of his appointments - which is what they're ALREADY doing, so that's nothing different.

    •  The law of averages: (5+ / 0-)

      It is getting more and more in our favor.

      How does that differ from last time around?

      Eventually he has to fuck up in his own plans and do something right for us. Even if only accidentally or as collateral damage to his intended policy.

      See? I do have hope in something. lol

      ePluribus Media
      Collaboration is contagious!

      by m16eib on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:28:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  He won't. He will continue to capitulate to (7+ / 0-)

    the Republicans.  His fear of, or unwillingness to fight for, basic Democratic principles has paralyzed him into nothing but concession after concession, all in the name of bipartisanship, and all in support of his apparently recently acquired deficit reduction fetish.

    •  He needs to call congress back now! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hear Our Voices, Sue B

      We need a jobs bill and we need the budget brought into line in such a way that it doesn't wreck the middle class anymore then has already occurred. He has to stop being a politician and become a leader. People vote their pocket book and want some one that is willing to stand up to the tea party and give the people something they can hang their hat on. I am tired of defending him and will do no more until he shows me that he has what it takes. He needs a cabinet shake up as well.

      Greed, Capitalism's Achilles Heel

      by Bluescat1 on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:43:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Obama has No Basic Democratic Principles ... (0+ / 0-)

      or if he does he's never shown that he has them by his actions.

      He talks the Liberal talk, but he walks the Conservative walk. Again, and again and again.

  •  They need to immediately be repealed... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    m16eib, satrap

    it is bullshit to have to wait until next year when the country is in a crisis....of the GOP making.

    Can't he do a special super duper Presidential thing and shut them down today???

    Due to recent cutbacks, the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off.

    by cyeko on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:09:13 AM PDT

    •  That would be cool to see. National (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cyeko

      security directive 2011-1: Immediate repeal of the Bush tax cuts.

      A man can dream.

      From Neocon to sane- thanks to Obama- and Kos.

      by satrap on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:37:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The additional $2T that must be "found" in cuts (0+ / 0-)

      is AFTER the bush tax cuts expire and AFTER the Medicare Doc fix goes into effect.  

      Ending them right now doesn't change the $2T in additional cuts that the Gang of Twelve must find.

      "With great power, comes great responsibility" -Ben Parker

      by splintersawry on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 12:43:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'd like to see a diary about the constitutional (8+ / 0-)

    issues around forming such a committee.

    Any constitutional lawyers around? My instincts tell me this Super Congress does not square with the 14th Amendment, Section 2 which outlines proportional representation in Congress. Amendment 17 is also applied for the direct election of U.S. Senators base on a majority vote in the respective states.

    How can you water down proportional representation with a back room agreement that each of our current two mainstream parties will agree to a 50/50 share of appropriation and taxation powers?  There should be a legal challenge to force this as an amendment to the Constitution with 2/3 of the states ratification.

    Any wonkish discussion about how to make lemon-aid infuriates me when we have a de facto coup of the Peoples Congress by both Republicans and Democrats.

    NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

    by Aeolos on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:19:37 AM PDT

    •  I think the Independents should challenge (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aeolos

      Bernie Sanders whould find a way to get someone to challenge it on Consititutional grounds, to get a reading.  'Course, with this Supreme Court...

      Torture is Wrong! We live near W so you don't have to. Send love.

      by tom 47 on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:39:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm surprised we haven't heard from Kucinich. (0+ / 0-)

        He walks around with the Constitution in his breast pocket. He should be screaming bloody murder.
        But I agree, this should be part of an Independent platform issue.  The two majors are brokering a coup and an end run around our elections.

        NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

        by Aeolos on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:43:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Article I, section 5 (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ferg, jeopardydd, MPociask, mmacdDE

      says each house of congress can set rules for their own proceedings.  that means they can agree to an up and down vote and no amendments on what/if the supercommittee passes.  (it doesn't go straight to the president's desk from the supercommittee.)  If this is unconstitutional, than so are conference committees.

      "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

      by Loge on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:48:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Trigger Mechanism. (0+ / 0-)

        This is not just another conference committee.
        If it deadlocks - the hatchet falls apart from the intents of a representative democracy.
        We introduce a coded program to replace the will of the people.

        NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

        by Aeolos on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 10:04:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  because of a bill that passed congress (0+ / 0-)

          already, with all of the requirements of bicameralism and presentment.  

          it may or may not violate the will of the people, but that happens all the time.

          "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

          by Loge on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 10:09:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There have been statutes passed by Congress (0+ / 0-)

            before that violated the Constitution.

            NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

            by Aeolos on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 10:16:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  based on the substance, (0+ / 0-)

              not the manner in which they passed.  the only exceptions i can think of are issues like the legislative veto or provisions in Gramm-Rudman that resulted in congress usurping executive functions, but those are not really questions of how the statutes themselves were passed.  

              what's more, questions of budgeting aren't justiciable in court.  if the president thinks Congress didn't really pass him a bill, he should use the pocket veto.  Otherwise, no harm no foul, as far as procedure is concerned.  

              "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

              by Loge on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 10:20:54 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not arguing process. (0+ / 0-)

                The substance is the issue and the provision for the United States Congress Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction is unconstitutional if it takes away powers from our representatives no matter how it was passed.

                NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                by Aeolos on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 10:26:51 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  how are you not arguing process? (0+ / 0-)

                  the only power it takes away is the ability to amend legislation proposed by said joint committee, and that's a power given up by the elected representatives as part of a bill to raise the debt ceiling.  

                  In the senate, there's actually just a gentleman's agreement not to filibuster or have amendments, since it operates by unanimous consent.  in the house, to say this is unconstitutional requires declaring the rules committee unconstitutional, which may be keeping with the spirit of the law, but its flatly contradicted by the letter of the Constitution.

                  "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                  by Loge on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 10:34:21 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Ignoring the trigger mechanism (0+ / 0-)

                    That's what's different. It's more than just taking away the power to amend.  It forces cuts and consequences if the recommendation of a committee is ignored.
                    Rules committee is not at issue here. The law passed with the Super Congress (that's why the term's been coined to point out how far off the reservation the provision for the United States Congress Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction is).
                    The Supreme Court would not be asked about the process in this case but the substance of having a Super Congress spliced into our law making powers of Congress with respect to the Constitutional intent.

                    NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                    by Aeolos on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 10:41:31 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  the triggers are part of the underlying bill (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      ferg

                      there's a lot not to like about the supercommittee, even though it is the best bet at getting a tax increase thru, but it's not unconstitutional.  the supercongress can't do anything without a vote by the two houses, and if they don't do anything, a vote by the two houses of congress that has already happened is what takes effect.  calling it a supercongress does not in fact make it a supercongress.

                      "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                      by Loge on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 10:48:18 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I don't think it matters that (0+ / 0-)

                        a Super Congress or Super Committee or whatever you want to call it doesn't have direct powers to enact legislation.
                        Congress doesn't have the power to abdicate its powers of the purse in budget or revenue questions.
                        You can't necessarily kick the can down the road by passing one law that null and voids a process that always use to involve the whole Congress in final passage.

                        Put another way, because they couldn't pass a law involving defined cuts with an agreement on raising the debt ceiling doesn't mean they can then agree to force the Congress as a whole - with the minority who wouldn't go along with the blackmail - to watch the cuts happen automatically if they don't go along with Blackmail 2.0.

                        NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                        by Aeolos on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 12:10:30 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

            •  And this one introduces a predetermined (0+ / 0-)

              set of consequences apart from proportional representation.
              One more irony in the de-evolution of our politics: The tyranny of the Majority is used in the original bill to take away majority rule.  Even as we allowed a minority to hold this nation hostage.

              NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

              by Aeolos on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 10:22:13 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  It's a committee (0+ / 0-)

      Congress can, and does, form committees all the time. Their recommendations go to Congress as a whole, and both houses vote on them.

      Some committees, like BRAC, require that Congress override their recommendations rather than approve them.

      This isn't anything new.

      •  No other committee before had automatic (0+ / 0-)

        conditions attached.
        That is unconstitutional to predetermine consequences of not abiding a committees recommendations.  They've always been just that, recommendations to the FULL congress.
        That's the meaning of the word CONGRESS.  The full power has to ultimately rest as defined by the Constitution in the convening of the Peoples Congress.  Not the convening of committees.
        We are not a Government by the Committee For the Committee.

        NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

        by Aeolos on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 10:33:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Of course they had (0+ / 0-)

          The BRAC committee has had automatic conditions since day one. There are others.

          And these aren't 'automatic' UNLESS there's no agreement. The recommendations still have to go through Congress - but if Congress doesn't approve them, the 'automatic' part kicks in.

          The 'automatic' part has been approved by Congress and signed by the President, so it's just like any other law that's been passed.

          •  Wrong. (0+ / 0-)
            This panel evaluated the list by taking testimony from interested parties and paying visits to affected bases. The BRAC Commission had the opportunity to add bases to the list, and did so in a July 19, 2005 hearing. The Commission met their deadline of September 2005 to provide the evaluated list to the President, who approved the list with the condition that the list could only be approved or disapproved in its entirety - wikipedia.

            See my bold. Nothing "automatic" or predetermined cuts if the list was disapproved.

            See the critical and unconstitutional difference here?

            Not being automatic if Congress doesn't accede to the committee is hardly an argument for an advanced democracy.
            It's a case in the negative you're making to boot.

            You're third point about it being "just like any other law" in how it was passed is irrelevant in a Constitutional question. Many laws have been passed with the right process that have proven to be against the Constitution.

            NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

            by Aeolos on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 10:56:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'll add that most likely the provision in the (0+ / 0-)

              Health Insurance Reform bill forcing citizens to purchase private insurance will be one of those instances soon enough.

              Congress effs-up some times.

              NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

              by Aeolos on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 11:01:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  that one guy, as yet unnamed, will do us in (14+ / 0-)

    We don't know who'll be on that 12 person committee but I think we all suspect that one or two Democrats will be questionable. I think it will be two, for cover, otherwise it would be too obvious that the fix is in.

    But I'll predict now that one of Reid's choices will vote with the Republicans.

    "Things are never so bad they can't get worse" - Dallasdoc

    by Shahryar on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:22:58 AM PDT

  •  Well said Jed. nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis
  •  This is the key quote for me.... (4+ / 0-)
    Even if it passes Congress, he can veto it. Yes, that would trigger automatic cuts, but those cuts don't begin until 2013 and they could be repealed.

    Which also means, we need to get control back to Pelosi in large numbers and give Reid more Senators too.  If we can give the President more and better Dems, for his 2nd term, things won't get stalled, weakened or stopped.

    Yep, I'm hopeful optimist, I know.  

    http://www.thehamandlegsshow.com

    •  Yup. The first two years of his term... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis

      was not stalled, weakened or stopped at all.

      We need more and better Democrats in the White House.

      I agree that it's not particularly courageous to solve a problem on the backs of people who are poor, or people who are powerless, or don't have lobbyists, or don't have clout.

      by teknofyl on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 10:02:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I wish, BUT not holding my breath (0+ / 0-)
  •  Yes, your title (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mightymouse, wishingwell

    YES!!

    Whether that will happen is, of course, an entirely different matter.

    Repeal those damn Bush tax cuts. They've cost us more than both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

    In dollars, that is, not in casualties or lives ruined or communities destroyed. Those are all on Bush's head, forever and ever.

    I still think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were and are unnecessary, the whole "war on terror" is just a reaction to self-induced fear. I still think there is a war on women. -- from LaFeminista

    by Mnemosyne on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:33:36 AM PDT

  •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

    If he doesn't, he will definitely lose my support and many more.

  •  Bush Tax Cuts (5+ / 0-)

    The nice part about the Bush tax cuts is that they will be sunsetted at the end of 2012 unless reenacted by Congress and signed into law by the President. So, if the Gang of 12 doesn't repeal them, they can be sunsetted with no congressional action needed.

    •  Plus if the Committee is a tie then (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wishingwell, jds1978, benheeha

      it automatically gets cut arbitrarily.

      I honestly don't think people (including me) really really understand the Machiavellian ramifications of this deal.

      I am eagerly following it as it unfolds with great admiration for the built in traps and triggers it appears to contain.

      I certainly don't look to DK anymore for enlightenment!

      Everyone has a personal agenda!

    •  Same applied last December. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bryduck

      I'm not expecting a different outcome in 2012 unless the election is unusually good for dems and we have a super majority in the Senate and a majority in the house.  Ponies would be nice too.  You never know, it could happen.

      Hey, Republicans, the whole world is watching.

      by TAH from SLC on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:40:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  They are the Obama tax cuts now (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      limpidglass, blueoasis, cdembrey

      his signature is on the extension, and his signature will be on in it in 2012.

    •  Yes a reason to reelect Obama (0+ / 0-)

      There really not an issue any more.

    •  democrats should run on letting taxcuts (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ferg

      expire and creating new Obama taxcuts, which would be smaller and  gradually return all to the Clinton rates over a 4-5 years time span, with a few loophole closings for BIg Oil and hedgefund managers, etc. thrown in.

      Get the heck out of Dodge in Iraq and Afganistan and alot of the debt problem would be resolved, and absolve the necessity of the "super congress".

      That only leaves healthcare, which will eventully go single payer as it becomes evident it is the only solution. But, I don't think that will happen in the next 5 years.

      Today's problems are yesterday's solutions. Don Beck

      by Sherri in TX on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:54:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Restoring 2% of the taxes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis

    ..sounds more bipartisany and compromisy.

    An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics - Plutarch

    by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:34:09 AM PDT

  •  He should...but he won't. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Diebold Hacker
  •  This new "veto" power he has is awesome! If (8+ / 0-)

    he had that power back when the Bush Tax Cuts were extended, boy, things woulda been different.  And if he had it when the debt ceiling cuts were pushed through, he woulda showed them how the cow ate the cabbage.

    I don't remember - when was this whole "veto" power thing given to the President?

    Join us at the Amateur Radio Group. Serving the Left Side of the Dial since 2011.

    by briefer on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:35:58 AM PDT

  •  The President should veto (0+ / 0-)

    But we know he won't

  •  So how long will it be (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TAH from SLC, jds1978

    until he announces he won't use the veto, and than complains he was powerless to do anything?

    Battleground Wisconsin: Fascism has come to America

    by jhecht on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:37:11 AM PDT

  •  maybe update this with an action (0+ / 0-)

    call the White House and tell them this is what you want the President to do?

    rather than the somewhat passive aggressive Obama has all the leverage and we'll just see what he chooses to do with it?

    maybe we can organize around this?

  •  Obama stand up to republicans...LOLZ (0+ / 0-)

    Look Obama will not stand up. Obama is one of the 2 things a pussy or he has been getting what he wants. You pick the one that makes you the happiest.

    •  Obama will stand up... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cdembrey

      stand up with Republicans, just like he has been doing.

      He is the "Me Too" president when it comes to conservative policies.

      I agree that it's not particularly courageous to solve a problem on the backs of people who are poor, or people who are powerless, or don't have lobbyists, or don't have clout.

      by teknofyl on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 10:05:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  the public wants tax increases (4+ / 0-)

    S&P cited the failure to discuss revenue as part of the reason for the downgrade.

    Obama has plenty of ammunition to force the Republicans to back down on revenues.  He needs to start using it now, and keep up a public campaign.  The only problem is, he seems to lack the will to do what is right for the American people.

  •  Should and won't. eom. (0+ / 0-)

    It really is time to put the "Obama should do this" narrative to rest in light of the fact he has done none of it.  

    It's time to facts.  If you want a different outcome of what Obama "should do" you'll need a different president to do it.  

  •  This is a Joke Right? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jds1978, teknofyl, cdembrey

    Of course Obama will sign a law which does not eliminate the Bush Tax cuts. Are you kidding me? I be you that this President will ask for more tax cuts like the moderate Republican his has turned out to become. How much do you want to bet on that?

    Unfortunately, President Obama has all but abandoned that revenue plan. Instead, his opening bid is tax reform plus Medicare cuts. Based on what happened last time, there's a good chance it'll get worse from there
    .

    Absolutely, it's because we don't have a leader---We have a tool.

    "The people have only as much liberty as they have the intelligence to want and the courage to take." - Emma Goldman

    by jvackert on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:41:30 AM PDT

  •  Obama supports Medicare reform not cuts (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jerry056, edwardssl, benheeha

    Let's not mix up Medicare reform with cutting benefits. As Obama's has always supported Medicare reform. He has never supported cutting benefits.

    •  Beg to disagree with reports on the debt ceiling (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      limpidglass

      discussion with Boehner saying that Obama proposed raising the age of eligibility to 67.

      Hey, Republicans, the whole world is watching.

      by TAH from SLC on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:45:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Prez gave a speech in April, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sherri in TX, mmacdDE, benheeha

      outlining his proposal to run Medicare Part D the same way they run the VA drug prescription program, which saves 53% over Medicare Part D.  This is due, of course, to the ability of the government to negotiate drug prices, which they are currently prohibited from doing.  This would translate into many billions saved each year.

      That's the reason why Medicare providers are still on the "cut" list.  Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to touch the drug companies for years.

      "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" - MLK

      by edwardssl on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:54:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  oh, by the most puissant and merciful gods (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TAH from SLC, bryduck, ferg, BirthTax

    that ever were--why does anyone still believe that Obama wants to repeal those tax cuts?

    Obama signed legislation extending the Bush tax cuts past their original expiration date. He was the one who attempted a "grand bargain" on the issue and traded them away for an extension of unemployment benefits--which should have been completely routine, just like raising the debt ceiling, until Obama decided to put them on the table in the (futile) hopes that the Republicans would give him something for it.

    They are not the Bush tax cuts, they are the Obama tax cuts--however politically convenient it may be for the administration to pretend otherwise.

    The Republicans are fundamentalists on taxes. They don't want any tax raises. Obama's overriding political goal--if it's not clear after last week--is to not get in the way of what the opposition wants. He is only minimally interested in what his own base wants, and even that, it seems, is becoming less important to him by the day.

    "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

    by limpidglass on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:42:23 AM PDT

  •  Anyone have a spine they can spare? ...n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    trekguy66

    An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it at the moment. It stands or falls on its own merits.

    by don mikulecky on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:43:15 AM PDT

  •  Obama has the power to veto (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TAH from SLC

    but if past is prologue, history shows he'll never use it.

    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. -Jimi Hendrix -6.0 -5.33

    by Cali Techie on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:43:15 AM PDT

  •  Bernie Sanders for Super Congress! (4+ / 0-)

    That's the only way we're gonna get something done.

    "What is essential is invisible to the eye." www.thefoxfoot.com

    by greywolfe359 on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:44:01 AM PDT

    •  we'll need 2 more (0+ / 0-)

      along with Bernie Sanders who will stand firm and not cross the line and vote with the 6 lock-step Republicans.  If we get Mark Warner, Baucus, Conrad, etc it won't matter if Bernie's on the committee or not as it only takes 1 DEM to cross the line.

    •  the whole point of the "super congress" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TAH from SLC, maryabein

      is to nullify what little influence Sanders and those like him might have.

      This way Sanders only has one vote: yes or no on the whole package. And there will be some minor promise of a sweetener in the final deal that will be used to browbeat liberal senators into going along--giving free balloon animals to handicapped kids, or something like that.

      If you vote no that means you must be a heartless Scrooge who hates kids. Because who else would possibly be against giving balloon animals to handicapped kids? The attack ads practically write themselves.

      Then once this bill is passed, the funding for balloon animals will be stripped in an obscure rider in the next bill. The sweetener for that bill will be a federal program to give pony rides to orphans. And there's no way anyone can vote against that without looking like a heartless Scrooge...well, you get the picture.

      "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

      by limpidglass on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 10:01:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's been reported that the baseline figures (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jerry056, benheeha

    provided by the CBO in the debt deal assumes the tax cuts will expire.

    So that the tax cuts will expire at the end of 2012 is a given.  Otherwise, they'll have to come up with an additional $4 trillion in cuts.  The repubs won't let those deep cuts happen in defense, and the Dems won't let those deep cuts happen in entitlements.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" - MLK

    by edwardssl on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:44:56 AM PDT

  •  As of a1/1/11 (6+ / 0-)

    These Bush Tax Cuts should have been history - thrown into the ash bin of history.  Obama blew this - period.  

    The middle class would have found a way to pay the $6.75 benefits they got out of the Bush Tax Cuts and would now have got fully used to the new withholding tables.

    The unemployed would have found ways to survive - quietly.

    The Rich though - they would be screaming bloody murder about being forced to pay their fair share.  It would have been worth the $6.75 a week just to turn on Fox Business and watch everybody's heads explode.

    We are paying the price of electing someone who continues to give away the store.  

    •  Repeal the Bush tax cuts (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hockeyray

      and give everybody a $1000 credit towards their taxes.

      The middle class and poor get a break, equal to or greater than what they got before. The rich get a break too - but it doesn't come close to what they got before.

      •  Excellent Idea (0+ / 0-)

        Actually McCain back in 2001 wanted to give everyone a rebate of $300 which was the 5% of the first $6,000 of income representing the insertion of the 10% bracket.  That would be and should have been the ONLY tax cut.

        This would have cost $40 Billion and if you are running a $250 Billion Surplus you could have given this back and still made plenty of debt payments.

         

  •  Obama will cave eom (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    trekguy66
  •  Its hard to for me to believe (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    naus, Thomas Twinnings

    President Obama is suddenly going to change his approach from preemptive capitulation. Whats the catalyst for him to try something different?

    Remember to kick it over.

    by sprogga on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:45:25 AM PDT

  •  Obama won't change, that you can believe in. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    naus, tb mare
  •  Oh please. This is pathetic. He could have done it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    trekguy66

    in December 2010.

    You think he's going to veto it now?

  •  He should indeed. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    trekguy66

    But he won't. Because he has an election to win. And Democrats lost the battle over taxes a long time ago.

    ~Doc~

    -7.88 -8,77 Just a wine sipping, brie eating, $6 coffee drinking, Prius driving, over educated, liberal, white, activist, male New Englander for Barack Obama.

    by EquationDoc on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:49:15 AM PDT

    •  No, the Democrats have won the battle on taxes (0+ / 0-)

      But the conservative ruling junta of the once great Democratic Party didn't want this win, and won't do the people's will.

      A majority of Americans want to shore up Social Security by raising the cap on earnings. And they certainly want the Bush/Obama tax cuts for the wealthy repealed. But the illegitimate rulers of the party fumble about trying ignore not only the base but the majority of the country.

      If these DLC/3rd Way dems really believe that they can be Progressive and centrist, why don't they ever do anything Progressive on trade, finances, and taxes?

      Throwing the game isn't the same as losing.

  •  Stop with the TRIGGERS", already! (0+ / 0-)

    Triggers are on guns. Guns do nothing but destroy.
    This is the trigger-happiest bunch I've ever seen.

  •  I suspect that what is more likely (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mmacdDE

    is that you will see a revision of the tax brackets, with lower marginal rates and elimination of deductions/exemptions, resulting in more revenue.  (You might see elimination of the exemption for employer provided health insurance, lower limits on the mortgage deduction, in addition to the elimination of corporate exemptions/deductions, which are smaller dollars.)  

    Boehner and the President were almost there on the last go round. The big question is how low do marginal rates go when they are coupled with elimination of exemptions and deductions.  You can set them low enough so that the tax code revision is revenue neutral (the Republican view last time) or you can set them a bit higher so that you get an increase in revenue (the President's view last time).  Cantor said last Sunday on one of the talk shows that he'd be open to this latter view if the cuts were big enough to assure that overall spending was going down and the increase in revenue was not used to perpetuate federal spending a roughly the same projected level.  It seems to me that this will be the compromise on individual and corporate income taxes -- elimination of deductions/exemptions (which greatly simplifies the tax code), and a linked lowering of marginal rates for an overall increase in revenue of somewhere between $400 - $800 billion over ten years. If you couple that with significant spending cuts -- say, $2 trillion over 10 years -- I'd suspect that you can find a deal.  

    That would be somewhere in the neighborhood of what repeal of the Bush tax Cuts on households over $250,000 would generate -- about $700 billion over ten years, or $70 billion a year.

    There is no way -- none -- that the Republicans on the Committee are going to agree to de-link the Bush Tax Cuts on 2-income households over $250,000 with the other Bush Tax Cuts.  And, with his concern over re-election, there is no way, I think, that President Obama will support simply allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to go away.  With all the times he promised, last campaign, not to raise taxes on households under $250,000 -- "not one dime" -- agreeing to raise taxes on these households would give his Republican opponent a big, big target.  

    That's how I see it playing out, anyway.  

    •  mortage interst rates lowered in 2006 for big loan (0+ / 0-)

      The mortgage interest rates was already lowered in 2006 on mortgage loans over 1 million. In many areas in CA and New York mortgages are over 1 million, because you cannot buy a decent house in a good neighborhood for less than a million. However home owners who have a mortgage over 1 million can only deduct a % of their interest up to 1 million.

      •  I know that. I suspect it will be lowered to a (0+ / 0-)

        $500,000 mortgage.  Yes, it's bad for CA and NY, but in CA and NY (especially NYC) the cost of living means that a two-income household, comprised of a working professional couple each making $150,000 are not "rich" either -- yet the tax code (and most people here) consider them "rich."

        Frankly (and this is a different issue) I don't consider anyone who needs to get up and go to work every day to pay the mortgage, their kids' college tuition, and other bills "rich," and they are certainly not the "millionaires and billionaires" that the President and some in Congress keep referring to. The problem is that there aren't enough "millionaires and billionaires" to raise the kind of revenue that they want to see.

    •  I can't see the deduction reform raising revenue (0+ / 0-)

      because I can't see the House voting for any tax changes that raise revenue. I'd be concerned about the deduction reform anyway, because those tend to creep back into the tax code, while the lower marginal rates are kept low.

      Agree entirely with the final analysis on the Bush tax cuts. But campaign promise or no promise, keeping the Bush tax cuts is a policy nightmare, even if it does buy election votes.

    •  And lose any hope of job creation and economic (0+ / 0-)

      growth.  But that's okay, as long as we get a deal.  Geez, here's an idea:  let's have this administration single-handedly host "Let's Make a Deal" and use the ad revenues to create jobs.  Sigh.

      Hey, Republicans, the whole world is watching.

      by TAH from SLC on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 10:13:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  if he (0+ / 0-)

    vetoes any gang of 12 plan, then we get huge cuts to Medicare, as well as other programs people need.

    that's why the "deal" was so bad....it's a no-win situation.

  •  republcians not Obama abandoned revenue (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jerry056

    Obama has not abandoned revenue.

  •  The boldest part of the Obama administration is (0+ / 0-)

    the assertion that bold thinking is generally a bad idea.

  •  let them all expire (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ferg, mmacdDE

    my family is of good, but modest income (gross is less than $75k/yr) and I'd be more than happy to kick in another $1k or so annually that my taxes would go up by letting ALL the Bush tax cuts expire.  I also want a new tax bracket, 50% marginal at ~$700k/individual & ~$1M/joint, the SS payroll cap lifted, and a unicorn please.

  •  He'd cave on that, too (0+ / 0-)

    That is all he has been really successful at, giving the GOP 98% of what they want.  I have no faith in our President anymore.  It is a damn shame, too.  I really liked him.  

    I have cheese in my veins. Wisconsin cheese!

    by trekguy66 on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:56:14 AM PDT

  •  President Obama has no leverage. The GOP (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jerry056

    remains united while we Democrats are fractured (see this blog).  The business community has to put pressure on the "sane" Republicans (if there are any) to bring some resolution to this deficit debate, but that would require the Republican Party to admit defeat in their no tax increase pledge (and accept responsibility for the downgrade and crash) so I don't see it happening.  We are likely stuck in this period of uncertainty which will have negative effects for the economy and President Obama's 2012 bid for re-election.

    "Because I am a river to my people."

    by lordcopper on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:56:26 AM PDT

    •  personally I think we are ALL taking ourselves and (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lordcopper

      our power to change anything way too seriously.

      The probably outcome will be another House wave election which will create another tsunmai and the Senate will go Repub and it will start all over again.!

      I doubt if it it will make much difference whether it is President Obama or Romney in the WH. Except of course to what kind of nation we have   chosen to have for the next four years.

      That's the way the US politcal system works, majority ruled by tyranny of the minority.

      Permanent Gridlock!  Its called Balance of Power1

  •  I have two words for you on your analysis... (0+ / 0-)
    Whatever ends up happening with the Gang of 12 super committee, let's be clear on one thing: this time, thanks to the power of the veto, President Obama has the leverage. How he chooses to use that leverage is up to him. Hopefully he uses it to take a principled stand for fairness and equity, and to fight for the people who sent him to the White House.

    FAT CHANCE!

  •  Let's be realistic here (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    teknofyl

    We all know that the Republican Super 6 will run roughshod over the Democratic Shy 6 and the President will appease his way into some god-awful "compromise" with the hostage takers to save his beloved defense budget.

  •  If this post doesn't draw a line in the sand, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jerry056

    I don't know what does.  Excellent analysis and dairy, Jed.

    Alan Grayson: "In 2010, my district and everywhere else in Florida, Republican turnout was in the sixties. Democratic turnout was in the forties." Think about it.

    by alliedoc on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:58:15 AM PDT

  •  How do we get that Bank started? (0+ / 0-)

    the bank which the president suggested in February?

  •  LOL you said "Obama... veto" (0+ / 0-)

    Like he would veto a Republican idea!

    That's some knee-slappin' humor right there, guys.

    I agree that it's not particularly courageous to solve a problem on the backs of people who are poor, or people who are powerless, or don't have lobbyists, or don't have clout.

    by teknofyl on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 10:00:53 AM PDT

  •  Obama is the GOP's bitch (0+ / 0-)

    ...to use "street" parlance.

  •  I have supported this president (0+ / 0-)

    and will vote for him because of he opposition..I think if he doesn't help repeal the tax cuts, all of them, he will feel the wrath..

    The Repugs have to pay a price and so far I have seen nothing to show me they are..

  •  There's a third option: repeal the tax cuts (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ferg, Diebold Hacker

    and ALL of them, including the middle class tax cuts, if Republicans try to hold it hostage. Then introduce a bill in Congress for a brand new middle class tax cut. Allow Republicans to fight it and vote against it in the middle of an election season.

    •  This is so obvious! (0+ / 0-)

      And therefore will never see the light of day. At a certain point we can't keep believing that the WH and Dem leadership are incompetent or clueless.

      They are boxers taking dive after dive.

      How far to the right do the Dems have to move before you stop calling them Dems?

      by Diebold Hacker on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 11:40:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Presidents tend to get what they want. (0+ / 0-)
  •  Since the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    More Questions Than Answers

    anyway, how, given Democratic control of the Senate, could any bill pass which would extend them?

    Unless, of course, the Democrats have just decided to drop the pretense and admit they are merely an adjunct of the Tea Party . . .

    I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

    by bobdevo on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 10:25:35 AM PDT

  •  But that's sooooo uncivil (0+ / 0-)

    Drawing lines in the sand is so "politics of the past." We need to change how Washington works! Obama needs to be the adult, the "better man" who is willing to compromise with anyone, even the most extreme opponents. Don't you see how his shining example has changed the way Washington works? How people are flocking to his side thanks to his even-keeled approach to negotiating?

    I wish Obama had a principle he was unwilling to compromise, other than the principle of compromise itself.

  •  Let's be careful what we wish for. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    soccergrandmom

    I rarely disagree with Jed as profoundly as I do over his proposal to include the Bush/Obama tax rate cuts in the Gang of 12/Uber-Committee process this fall:

    At a minimum, President Obama should insist on repealing the Bush tax high-income tax cuts. There's a variety of ways this could happen: one way would be by extending the middle-income tax cuts permanently and allowing the high-income tax cuts to expire. Another would be tax reform that produces the same amount of revenue (with the same distribution) as would be generated by expiring the Bush high-income tax cuts. And yet another way would be to simply end the Bush tax cuts altogether, for everybody.

    First, why do it as part of the debt ceiling compromise camel? The Bush/Obama tax cuts expire in 2012. Unless we want to have a contest on this now between those tribes of rival skunks - a predictable process with a very unpredictable outcome - let's wait for the cuts to expire automatically. Consider the next election, when taxes on the wealthiest of us are one of the Democrats' top campaign issues. We've already seen the Medicare issue get undermined by useless bipartisanship, why fritter this one away now?

    But OK, if we want to bargain with the cuts, a sure veto of further extensions is a huge bargaining chip for this President, one of his few levers. (Why, it's the Democratic equivalent to the GOP holding the debt ceiling hostage!) Could we really get something good enough for it in 2011? I ain't seen a whisper of a program from this White House that would be worth giving up that lever to get.

    [I could fantasize that a big jobs/infrastructure/economy-boosting stimulus right now might be worth it, but that is pure fantasy.]

    Second, the linkage between cuts for the wealthy and cuts for the rest of us is sacred for the GOP. They will risk sinking their ship to keep it. Knowing that, why save them from themselves? We want a campaign issue in 2012; in 2012, darn it, not in the fall of 2011!

    Third, tax reform. The odds of meaningful, substantive and substantial tax reform coming out of the Uber-Committee? Zero. Negative if you believe the McConnell/Boehner/Cantor statements about who they'll appoint to the Uber-Committee. Please forgive my blatant diary pimping, but check out Tax Reform: The Fig Leaf That's DOA. While I may - may - have overstated the unlikelihood of reform, I did not understate the contentiousness that will surround it at every turn from now until November 23 when the Uber-Committee reports.

    Let the Uber-Group hassle over tax reform, sure, but getting the rate cuts that will expire in 2012 into this mix now is just not good strategy.

    Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

    by TRPChicago on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 10:28:39 AM PDT

    •  it is also proof of how far DK has fallen (0+ / 0-)

      from a reality based political site.

      •  I can guess what your 'reality' looks like. (0+ / 0-)

        I bet it features a president doing all he can for the common people. But, darn it, those pesky Republicans keep messing him up. Right?

        How far to the right do the Dems have to move before you stop calling them Dems?

        by Diebold Hacker on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 11:44:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'll give Jed credit for wanting to address taxes (0+ / 0-)

        ... now, and tax reform is part of the Uber-Committee's agenda. Respectfully, I don't agree that DK has fallen from reality. I just think that this particular proposal is not a good idea for now.

        In a better world with a little more time and more generous spirits on both sides of the table, we might put expiring tax cuts on the table in advance so as to package like things with like and get a coherent approach to reform.

        But given the atmosphere during the debt ceiling talks and immediately following the passage of the so-called compromise - and the rock-solid pledges of the House GOP not to deal with raising rates period! - I wouldn't advance the rate cut extension. It's on its own course.

        Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

        by TRPChicago on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 01:41:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I wouldn't count on that. (0+ / 0-)

    He disappointed us before and nothing is going to change in the near future for him to take our side.

    Democrats, including the president, will cave once again and agree to all the Republican demands

  •  Outlaw the T-Party, send their Reps to Gitmo (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bobdevo

    Since the T-Party has no problem taking down the US economy along with the world economy it is time to see the danger to America in these actions.  By Executive order and Homeland Security outlaw actions leading to taking the economy hostage, arrest Reps in Congress for their actions, outlaw proponents of T-Party.

    •  I like your style, Kevin! (0+ / 0-)

      I personally thought the on January 20, 2009, Obama should have declared the Wingtard faction of the Supreme Court to be enemy combatants, slipped black burlap sacks over their heads, shipped them to Gitmo, and then advised them that thanks to their own decisions and their colleagues in Congress they would not be able to avail themselves of habeas corpus or due process.

      I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

      by bobdevo on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 11:47:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Let the committee fail (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    soccergrandmom

    If it does, we get $600B in defense cuts, cuts to the most highly paid medical providers on earth, and the automatic expiration of the Bush tax cuts.

  •  Your Headline Sounds a Lot Like (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Diebold Hacker

    "Obama Should Find His Spine and Keep his Campaign Promise"

    Readers & Book Lovers Pull up a chair! You're never too old to be a Meta Groupie

    by Limelite on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 10:44:37 AM PDT

  •  That's what he should have done last year (0+ / 0-)

    But I've come to believe that he believes that using the veto is an impeachable offense.

  •  Comprehensive Jobs/Budget Bill and Some Advice (0+ / 0-)

    Here's a few suggestions from the Progressive Caucus:  

    Individual Income Tax Policies
    • Allow the Bush-era tax cuts to expire at the end of 2012, but extend marriage relief, credits, and
    incentives for children, families, and education
    • Immediately rescind the upper-income tax cuts in December’s tax deal
    • Index the AMT for inflation for a decade (the AMT patch is fully paid for)
    • Schakowsky millionaire tax rates proposal (adding 45%, 46%, 47%, 48%, and 49% top rates)
    • Tax all capital gains and qualified dividends as ordinary income
    • Progressive estate tax (Sanders’ estate tax, repeal of Kyl-Lincoln)
    • Limit the rate at which itemized deductions can reduce tax liability to 28%for high earners
    • Replace the tax exclusion for interest on state and local bonds with a subsidy for the issuer

    Corporate Tax Reform
    • Tax U.S. corporate foreign income as it is earned
    • Eliminate corporate welfare for oil, gas, and coal companies
    • Enact a financial crisis responsibility fee
    • Financial speculation tax (derivatives, foreign exchange)
    • Reinstate Superfund taxes

    Health Care
    • Enact a public option
    • Negotiate Rx payments with pharmaceutical companies
    • CMS program integrity and other Medicare and Medicaid savings in the president’s budget
    • Prevent a cut in Medicare physician payments for a decade (maintain doc fix)

    Social Security
    • Raise the taxable maximum on the employee side to 90% of earnings and eliminate the taxable
    maximum on the employer side
    • Increase benefits based on higher contributions on the employee side

    Defense Savings
    • End overseas contingency operations emergency supplementals starting in Fiscal Year 2013,
    providing $170 billion in FY2012 to fund redeployment, while saving more than $1.8 trillion
    from current law spending levels over ten years.
    • Reduce baseline defense spending by reducing strategic capabilities, conventional forces,
    procurement, and R&D programs

    Comprehensive Jobs Program
    • Invest $1.45 trillion in job creation, education, clean energy and broadband infrastructure,
    housing, and R&D
    • Infrastructure bank
    • Surface transportation reauthorization bill ($213 billion)

    From the People's Budget (more detail available in this pdf) proposed by the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

    Here's the numbers on the People's Budget from the Economic Policy Institute.

    This is the Jobs/Budget proposal our President should propose.

    This is the Jobs/Budget proposal we should ask our members of Congress to push for.

    This is the Jobs/Budget proposal our side of the Dirty Dozen should set as its initial ask.

    A couple of suggestions to both Obama and the Democratic members of the Dirty Dozen:

    1.  Don't compromise with yourself before you begin negotiations.
    2.  Give yourself some room to negotiate.  
    3.  Just because a proposal would not pass the current Congress, don't let that deter you from making it your opening position.  (You can start limiting your opening position to what is reasonable and has a chance to pass right after the Repbulicans adopt and abide by that same standard.)
    4.  Remember that the proposal, the debate and the negotiations are not just about the deal that results, they represent what our Party stands for, who we stand for and whether we are willing to take a stand.  The people will understand those messages even if they never learn one detail from the final bill and they'll remember those messages long after they forget and of the details from any part of the process.

    That last one applies to us all.  
    That's why we need to be pushing not just who sits at the table, but what we expect them to bring home.

    We'd rather dream the American Dream than fight to live it or to give it to our kids. What a shame. What an awful, awful shame.

    by Into The Woods on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 11:05:59 AM PDT

  •  What a joke. He should have vowed to veto an (0+ / 0-)

    extension of the tax cuts for the rich last year, but refused to threaten it.  You think he'll do so now and I've a public option to sell you.

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

    by accumbens on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 11:53:26 AM PDT

  •  Obama has leverage? The automatic cuts are (0+ / 0-)

    "unacceptable" according to the WH, sooooo, hostage anyone?

    "With great power, comes great responsibility" -Ben Parker

    by splintersawry on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 12:25:06 PM PDT

  •  I have an idea (0+ / 0-)

    Why doesn't Obama insist on not only letting the cuts expire, but raising the rate on the wealthy to, say 42%.

    Insist.  Demand.  Don't blink.

    "Mediocrity cannot know excellence." -- Sherlock Holmes

    by La Gitane on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 12:38:29 PM PDT

  •  Let me end your suspense. Obama will cave...again (0+ / 0-)
  •  The last thing anyone on dKos should do (0+ / 0-)

    is advocate for ANY policy or veto Obama should pursue.  Nothing seems to close the White House's mind than a reasoned argument, and I'll be damned if I can see any motivation to Obama's policy choices other than hippie-punching.

    All together now: the hippies hate taxes on the wealthy.  We love Bush's economic policy.  We want Obama to appoint MORE of Bush's economic officers, in addition to the ones he's appointed so far.

    The two things Teabaggers hate most are: being called racists; and black people.

    by Punditus Maximus on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 01:19:09 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site