Sane tax policy vs. President Class War
by fairleft, Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 05:09:28 PM EST
and the Blue Dog Losers**
Of course the fix is already in, but let’s suppose President Obama actually wanted to get his purported tax agenda passed — preserve the Bush middle-class tax breaks and let the upper-class tax breaks expire. Why hasn’t anyone in ‘responsible punditry land’ suggested the following blatantly obvious scenario: incorporate the middle-class tax breaks that the Democrats supposedly want to preserve into a new law, and then pass that law during the lame duck session. Anyone opposing such a law is opposing middle-class tax breaks, right, political suicide, so such a measure passes with ease? Where in the preceding is the lame duck session gridlock that punditland assumes?
Then, after the Republicans supposedly take over (we’re pretending their agenda isn’t already running Washington right now) in January and try to pass bills renewing Bush’s tax breaks for the wealthy, Obama vetoes them. (If, say, he were President Don’t Compromise on Giveaways to the Wealthy.)
But no, we get the usual President Obama surreality of ’a need for compromise’ (and that other surreality, that people making $250,000 up to $1,000,000 are ‘middle class’) when there is no need at all for that. In fact, there is the usual desperate need to move money away from the well-to-do (including everyone making more than about $100,000) and toward the middle and working classes, which the ostensibly ‘easy to do’ scenario I’ve described above would do. But just describing that desperate need tells us why it won’t happen: Obama, most of the Democrats, and all of the Republicans are on the wrong side of the class war.
**Despite its lack of necessity, Democrats (surprise, surprise!) are now everywhere talking ‘compromise’ for the sake of wealthy; here are a few of the more recent: Bill Pascrell (D-NJ-8), Michael Capuano (D-MA-8), Brian Higgins (D-NY-27), Bill Owens (D-NY-23), and Sen. Michael Bennett (CO).
P.S. Congressman Peter Welch (VT) is an honorable holdout against the rush to comfort the rich:
So why do we borrow money in order to fund a $700 billion tax cut for the very well off ? It makes no sense to me economically. It won't help the economy, but it will aggravate the deficit, and since it didn't make sense to me before the election it doesn't make sense to me after the election. So I would urge the Obama Administration to hold firm on this.