Democrats have concluded from the payroll tax debate that Republicans are vulnerable over their opposition to any new taxes on the wealthy in a way they were not when Democrats proposed such taxes for deficit reduction. So they have reprised an old message — that Democrats fight for the middle class, Republicans for the rich — and are likely to sound it through 2012, in hopes of blunting the headwinds they face as unemployment remains high.[...]
Mr. Obama, in setting this debate in motion in September, when he introduced his job-creation plan, has tapped into the widespread sense of income inequality — fighting for “the 99 percent” — that gave rise to the Occupy Wall Street movement. But Democrats would not be in their current strong position but for the fact that Republicans, for the first time in memory, contested a tax cut and then insisted that the reductions be paid for.
“This would have been unheard of even six months ago,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York. “But we are changing the debate, and the public is with us.”
Yes. The debate is changing. Though there's perhaps some dispute about who's changing it. Why would it have been unheard of six months ago?
And wait a minute, was it unheard of six months ago? Is this the first time in memory that Republicans have contested a tax cut and then insisted that the reductions be paid for?
No, it's not. And you know that because you are a faithful Daily Kos reader:
Anyway, back to the point of the story. Did you notice that the Baucus amendment -- the one that didn't have the offset to pay for the repeal -- only got 44 votes? Do you know why? Well, part of the reason is... it wasn't paid for. And you know that Republicans hate stuff that's not paid for. Only Scott Brown (R-MA) and newly-minted Senator of the Year Mark Kirk (R-IL) voted for Baucus' amendment.Only here's the thing: Remember that this amendment would have repealed a provision of law requiring that businesses report more transactions, and pay $19 billion more in taxes. So the repeal is essentially a $19 billion tax cut.
And tax cuts, Republicans are constantly claiming (when the tax cuts are designed for bazillionaires), do not have to be "paid for."
But this one does, of course! Why? Because... uh... well, because F you, Kenya Muslim Obama Hitler Socialism, that's why.
So, what did we learn? We learned that Republicans almost universally will abandon their principles in pursuit of setting up a poison pill vote for Democrats. Every Republican present voted for the Johanns repeal plus offset package, and only two of them voted for the Baucus repeal, even though they swear every other day of the year that tax cuts don't need to be paid for, and the repeal could have passed with 82 votes had they adhered to that position and really been in favor of "working together to get something done." Here were Congressional Democrats and the White House, willing to meet them halfway on declaring a provision of the health insurance reform bill to be the mistake and misstep that Republicans said it was, and to do so on terms that Republicans demand every day with respect to tax cuts, and they walked away from it, just so Democrats wouldn't be able to participate in doing something Republicans said would be the right thing to do.
So it's not that Democrats in the Senate haven't succeeded in painting Republicans into procedural corners that forced them to abandon their otherwise unwavering support for tax cuts and their insistence that they need not be paid for. It's that nobody has ever noticed or given a shit before when they did.
But now, all of a sudden, in the midst of an extended 24/7 Occupy Wall Street news orgy (itself precipitated in part by the traditional media's ability to write endlessly about how they didn't understand it), the tactic actually worked and got noticed.
Probably because of how dumb and ineffective the stupid hippies are, and how awesome the people in suits are by comparison. Or something like that.
Comment Preferences