-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 38 comments
-
DeMint’s Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant…And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
House Minority Leader John Boehner caused a stir over the weekend saying that if it came down to it, he’d vote for a stand alone bill that extended the Bush tax cuts only on those earning less than $250,000. I think that ultimately, he has it right. If Republicans were to hold firm and refuse to vote for any measure that did not maintain current tax rates at all income levels, then they risk a scenario under which all tax rates go up, and which Democrats can argue that they tried to cut taxes for the middle class, but Republicans stood in the way to protect the wealthy. Yet if Republicans were to vote for extending the Bush era tax rates at the lower income levels while arguing for a full extension, it pulls the rug out from under the Democrats. They can no longer accuse Republicans of being the party of the rich or being intransigent, and yet Republicans can still accuse Democrats of allowing a massive tax hike during a deep recession.
Siegfried X| 9.13.10 @ 3:38PM
He is totally wrong to ANNOUNCE it. No one can win negotiations by announcing, before negotiations start, that they will cave in on all the issues. Boehner's approach is totally wrong, showing why he is unfit to be leader or speaker.
By announcing that he will cave in, Boehner has given sanction to the Democrats who vote for it. Because of his concession, the Democratic base will now believe that, since the Republicans will cave in, that Democratic politicians are totally responsible if the full tax cut doesn't pass. But if instead Boehner had kept his mouth shut then the Democratic politicians could have told their base that Republicans stopped the bill. They can now say "Well, even the Republican leader said it was no big deal to vote against this".
Boehner's action doesn't even make any sense because the Democrats have a 60% majority in the House, which is strictly majority rule. So Boehner's vote isn't even needed. He could never be in the hypothetical position which he talked about.
Another leadership mistake was that Boehner didn't clear this with his team first. Instead his #2 and #3 men have publicly disagreed with him.
Boehner is also unprincipled, which makes his arguments so weak. He should be opposing tax cuts on principle, and saying that it is wrong for Obama to divide Americans against each other, whether rich vs. poor or any other way.
Boehner also fails in letting the Democrats totally define the situation, and in not having additional bargaining chips. Boehner should be asking for additional tax cuts, and arguing that the economy needs them to recover. So he can appear "bipartisan" and reasonable by suggesting a compromise expanded solution that follows Republican principles (lower taxes). Instead Boehner is just twisting in the wind, letting the White House use the debate and use him as a politicial punching bag.
How did someone so incompetent ever become the top Republican leader.
Siegfried X| 9.13.10 @ 4:07PM
Boehner voted for it before he voted against it?
Absolutely the wrong approach. The Republican leader should simply have said "No new taxes. Republicans don't raise taxes, especially during a recession."
Tim*| 9.13.10 @ 8:34PM
Another Take : Boehner shifts Tax Cuts Issue to The Senate Races :
" So wasn't that a major concession to Obama? Actually, no. It was just shrewd political gamesmanship.
Boehner was merely trying to defuse one of Obama's midterm campaign issues; he figures that the GOP's status in the polls, seven weeks from election day, is strong enough to allow him to play this particular card.
The president spent much of last week trying to make Boehner the face of an implacable Republican opposition that, in his view, toadies to the rich even if it means holding "hostage" any extension of the Bush cuts for less affluent Americans. Boehner's statement yesterday was a chessboard move, designed to undercut Obama's rhetoric by demonstrating that he's willing to be flexible after all. It was also designed to take some steam out of a Democratic party TV ad, slated for airing tomorrow, which paints Boehner as a staunch defender of tax cuts for the rich.
Boehner loses nothing right now by portraying himself as reasonable, at least rhetorically – because he can sit back and watch the Democratic divisiveness on this very issue. Roughly half a dozen Democratic senators favor the extension of tax cuts for the rich, and they could wind up foiling Obama anyway. If that were to happen, Boehner could say, in effect, "Well, at least I was on record with my willingness to be flexible."
So Boehner didn't offer his Sunday "concession" from a position of weakness. Quite the opposite."
http://whyy.org/cms/news/natio.....ests/45429