-
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
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid lost a pair tax votes on Saturday, with all Republicans and a handful of Democrats voting against proposals to extend current tax rates on lower incomes while raising them on higher incomes. The votes were a largely symbolic effort to portray Republicans as holding tax cuts for the middle class hostage on behalf of the rich.
The first vote on Sen. Max Baucus’s proposal to extend current tax rates for those earning under $250,000 failed 53 to 36. Sen. Chuck Schumer’s plan to maintain current rates for those earning under $1 million, the so-called “millionaire’s tax,” failed 53 to 37. The Senate requires 60 votes to invoke cloture and cut off debate.
The Democrats voting against the under $250,000 extension were: Sens. Russ Feingold, Joe Manchin, Ben Nelson, Jim Webb, and “independent” Joe Lieberman. The Democrats voting against the under $1 million extension were: Sens. Dick Durbin, Jay Rockefeller, Tom Harkin, Feingold, and Lieberman.
Clearly, the Democratic opposition to the first vote came from moderates, where the liberals were the ones who defected on the second vote.
Roll call for the under $250,000 extension here, and the “millionaire’s tax” here.
View all comments (17) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/12/04/harry-reid-loses-saturdays-two
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 12.4.10 @ 3:05PM
I'm kind of glad this happened to him today, because it's going to get him used to the feeling of being letdown this month. So when Christmas day rolls around in a few weeks, he won't be so upset to find only coal in his Christmas stocking. It turns out, Santa doesn't like class warfare either, he gives to the rich and poor equally, as long as they've been good. And Harry's been a bad boy this year!!
Oldefarte| 12.4.10 @ 3:23PM
You should have simply titled your editorial HARRY REID AND DEMOCRATS ARE ALL ......LOSERS!!!!!!!!
J Kelley| 12.4.10 @ 3:55PM
The Democrats and Main Stream Media spin this as tax cuts for the Middle Class. There are no tax cuts, taxes will stay the same if Bush tax cuts are extended. Taxes will go up if they expire. For years the Democrats and MSM have said there were no tax cuts for the middle class. Only tax cut for the rich.Too many busy folks out there believe this spin, if they only catch a little news. We need more real Republicans in 2012. Although RINO's are holding firm on this vote.
Neo-libertarian| 12.4.10 @ 4:32PM
Obama does not care. Now Reid and Pelosi will chuckle under their breath, orchestrate a “compromise” bill that will take up the remaining time in the session and then Obama will pocket veto it. Believe it or not the biggest losers will be the Republicans (your round up of the usual suspects) with egg on their face when they find out that they “worked across the aisle” for nothing.
Obama wins; he gets to tax the rich at a higher rate, he finds out who he can trust in the upcoming impeachment, and he puts the final nail in the coffins of the turncoat (beltway for compromise) Republicans.
What most of you here fail to realize is that progressives are just that. They progressively, inexorably, move toward socialism. They never back up, they never really compromise, they turn on anyone that wavers from their goals and the more they disrupt the system they were born to destroy the better off they are in achieving their goals.
Only lockstep partisan resistance with defections from the Democrats, a coalition cartoon caricature of those actually residing in the Senate, will sustain our system till 2012.
Ellis Wyatt| 12.4.10 @ 10:11PM
I disagree. What is Obama going to veto? He is in a no win situation here. All the current rates will be extended, today's votes were just political theatre. With the economy in shambles there is no way Obama will/can allow the largest tax increase in history to be passed on his watch. He loses everyone at that point when people start seeing the huge bite out of their paychecks the only ones he has left is the fringe left that is irrelevant politically speaking. No one believes the class warfare tactics anymore. People understand government spending is out of control and punishing job creators with 10% unemployment is the stupidest thought ever. Frankly, I don't think the republicans have to compromise at all.
Neo-libertarian| 12.5.10 @ 10:24AM
Wyatt,
The goals of the socialist are NINTY percent tax rates. He wants to the tax rates to increase, he want the power that affords him as caretaker, and your refusal to recognise that he does not want to "save" democracy he wants to "replace" it is what he counts on most.
Robert Bell| 12.5.10 @ 10:27AM
"No one believes the class warfare tactics anymore. "
Actually, everyone does. Transfer payments to the poor, tax cuts for the middle class, and tax expenditures (mortgage interest, health insurance deductibility, carried interest tax treatment, section 179, oil and gas limited partnership treatment, etc) for the well off.
Oldefarte| 12.5.10 @ 10:58AM
You are sadly and typically naive. Obama/Democrats KNEW on 11/4/08 that they could dramatically increase government spending on social services legislation [healthcare, stimulus] and they propagandize this TAX INCREASES FOR MILLIONAIRES/BILLIONAIRES/WEALTHY crap to try and same/humiate income earners into paying for their spending. They don't give a rat's youknowwhat about the political consequences for having taxes increase on anyone earning income. Their favored class is not the MIDDLE CLASS but the INDIGENT CLASS who vote for them and demand their governmental benefits manta. They do not care about punishing income producers, and that is exactly what they desire to do. They intentially knew that these tax cuts would expire and that they/government would thereafter recieve trillions in additional government revenue from same. That is what they want, in order to reduce their previously exploded defecit/debt from their social legislation. They are simply LYING when they claim they want to maintain tax cuts for the middle class.....they want all taxes to increase so that they get more of taxpayers' income in order to partially pay for what they have previously spent and for what they want to additionally spendi in the future. Wise up, please!!!
tonypal| 12.4.10 @ 11:29PM
Don't assume that most here don't understand Progressives and their incrementalist, long term approach. I get all that; I just disagree with your analysis.
Take what you said about how they "never really compromise" or "turn on anyone that wavers...." You seem to see that as something to respect or even fear, whereas I see it as incredible opportunity, which is presenting itself right now. They are beginning to turn inward with their anger.
Once they start going after each other, it could be a virtual bloodbath. Consider the venom they unleash against conservatives; that's not due to ideological differences but to what they see as a threat to their power. Leftist ideology is merely the path to attain power. So they will unleash that same venom on anyone, even each other, as they attempt to defend their turf.
So while I agree that republicans must stand firm on every issue, I believe the democrats will make it easy for them. They are collectively unhinged and it's there for everyone to see. So enjoy the spectacle to come.
Neo-libertarian| 12.5.10 @ 10:58AM
Tonypal,
Your analysis only works on those concerned with the democratic process. Republicans can turn on Republicans with the assuredness that they will be replaced with Republicans. The number of republicans will remain the same and each will still retain representation. Marxists simply destroy any existing system from within and their factions only concentrate power at the top. They do not care if their ranks are decimated as long as they are destroying what they are trying to replace.
I will not to want to watch any “spectacle” that involves the mayhem being perpetrated by Americas’s blunder of electing this man. Divide and conquer is the rule guiding the destroyers of democracy. There are many here who deride the constituents that currently compose the Tea Party. Republicans berate Democrats, SoCon’s berate Libertarians, isolationist’s are characterized as “unworldly,” all are unknowing duplicitous dupes, all are failing to see the danger of not preserving the one thing they all have in common, Democracy. Even when given the small victory of gaining the house they immediately attribute this coalition success as verification of their personal agenda.
What ever happened in the 2010 election is attributable to the uncomfortable awareness that there is a Marxist/progressive/socialist in the Whitehouse. Whatever was stated as an election mandate is to stop or reverse the course he has plotted. As our representatives become cloaked in the robes of power they must learn to listen to the people, not give an inch. The theme of the new legislator has always been to carve out of the influence available a "cut". The point has been reached where this power is being doled out from above, not earned from below. The next two years will not be pretty, be careful what you wish for.
Oldefarte| 12.5.10 @ 11:06AM
While I agree with most of your comments, I disagree with those indicating their turning on each other and that they will self destruct. I've watched D's my entire life and they will somehow regroup out of desperation. Their indigent class of constituents will demand it [and they, unlike the income producing class, have all the time in the world to organize and protest]. The D's simply foster class warfare of the indigents versus income producers. and their desire is to increasingly tax the latter in order to pay for government services to the former. They will not retreat [as exemplified by their reelecting Reid and Pilosi as leaders] and they will not change. It is up to the rest of us to organize and to elect/support conservatives [mainly R's] who will fight these D's in congress!!!!
hsr0601| 12.4.10 @ 11:13PM
The reps don't care about anyone but themselves
1. The reps campaigned on their ability to cut spending and balance the budget, so they should be required to make good on that pledge.
But, the Bush tax cut for the big U.S. corporations sitting on record profits, approximately $2.3 trillion in reserves, and refusing to re-invest domestically. will add an additional $700 billion to the deficit over a decade.
As for the Democrats, sound investments = deficit hike.
As for the reps, failed tax giveaway = job creation. Cut your spending for our failed spending!
There is no evidence that these tax cuts created even a single job.
"Back when Bush was pushing his tax cut packages through Congress in 2001 and 2003, supporters said the cuts (which weren't balanced with spending reductions) would initiate an era in which the American economy would grow so robustly the nation would be running a surplus of more than $5 trillion at the scheduled expiration date. U.S. now runs a deficit of about $1.3 trillion.
"
In fact, the available evidence is the exact opposite:
Former President Bill Clinton left a record surplus and created 20 million jobs, despite the warning of potential economic disaster over tax increase for the wealthiest.
2. On the one hand they want to provide $700 billion in tax cuts for the wealthiest, but not pay for them. On the other hand they demand that unemployment benefits for the middle class be paid for. It’s kind of like someone on a diet ordering a Diet Coke and a Big Mac simultaneously.
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said, "I'm trying to figure out how anyone can keep a straight face and say they're for deficit reduction while they insist on a permanent tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, completely unpaid for,"
3. The rich have HAD their tax cuts the whole time, where are those jobs they supposedly are going to create with their extra wealth they have been sitting on?
A business hires the right number of employees to meet demand. Having extra cash does not cause a business to hire, but a business that has a demand for what it does will find the money to hire. Businesses want customers, not tax cuts.
4. The reps & jobs : Are they Pro-business ?
(a). Even when the economy was on the cusp of entire collapse just like Lehman Brothers ahead of the roll-out of stimulus package, it was held hostage by Audacity of Nope, and the time was running out.
Power first then said : Nope ! How do we pay for it ?, Just let it go under exactly like Lehman Brothers.
(b). It is also important to remember a small business bill that was blocked for weeks by a republican filibuster in the Senate.
beebop| 12.5.10 @ 5:53AM
Are you intentionally interchanging corporate taxes with the individual tax rates that are the subject of the article here? Doing that is craven and convoluted. Is that your intent?
Oldefarte| 12.5.10 @ 11:17AM
You're obviously a Obama/Holder plant in the Justice Dept counterarguing conservatives' points. Do you expect anyone with average intelligence to believe that the economy was not immencely better under Bush or Reagan than under Obama? Do you not understand that the WEALTHY that you describe are composed of large and small businesses that hire people and pay them benefits and salaries. Do you not comprehend that Wall Street created huge amount of jobs and income that filtered down to those on Main Street through stock/bond investments? Are you that ignorant that you don't realize that increasing taxes upon these businesses will cause them to have to decrease their employee rolls [and that their fired employees will no longer have paychecks]? Are you truely opining STUPIDLY?????????
Occam's Tool| 12.5.10 @ 5:34PM
"The Rich" were doing a fine job keeping unemplyment around 5% until Barney Frank and his group of hooligans took over both houses of Congress in 2006. Subverting our financial system started the recession, and constantly threatening to raise tax rates will tend to diminish investment. Obama thinks he's more important than America, or Americans. Sorry. Nice response, beebop.
tonypal| 12.4.10 @ 11:32PM
Are you by any chance Mister Teeny from The Simpsons?
Tenn Slim| 12.5.10 @ 8:37AM
" They progressively, inexorably, move toward socialism. They never back up, they never really compromise, they turn on anyone that wavers from their goals and the more they disrupt the system they were born to destroy the better off they are in achieving their goals".
Read "Masters of Deceit" Circa 1954. J. Edgar Hoover, FBI Director. Truth Rules here, as the above statement says.
Semper FI