Greg Sargent; "In the end, it’s all about the Bush tax cuts"

Greg Sargent:

When you step back and think about it, it’s kind of striking how central the Bush tax cuts have proven to our politics in recent years — and how central they will continue to be through at least next year, when the argument over them will help decide the Congressional elections and presidential race.

They are a defining issue at the heart of the broad ideological argument between the two parties. They were central during the 2010 elections, and they will again be central in 2012. They are a key cause of our current fiscal problems, and now they’re at the center of the supercommittee’s likely failure to do anything to solve those problems. MORE...

"June 7, 2011,.. the 10-year anniversary of the signing into law of the Bush tax cuts..."

Stephanie Mencimer (Mother Jones):

You probably didn't realize it, but June 7, 2011, is a momentous day in US history. It marks the 10-year anniversary of the signing into law of the Bush tax cuts, a day when President George W. Bush helped replace an unprecedented federal budget surplus with a mountain of debt in order to slash taxes for rich people (including dead ones). The anniversary of the cuts comes at a particularly fortuitous moment, with the political classes deep in debate over the increase in the federal deficit. Now is a good time to take a look back to see just how well those tax cuts have worked out for the country. Some highlights, with data from the Economic Policy Institute: MORE...

"Obama Won't Extend Bush Tax Cuts Again: Pledge To House Dems"

Sam Stein (HuffPo):

"'Whatever we agree on, we are still going to have plenty to argue about in 2012,'" a senior administration official said, paraphrasing the president. "'I've said I'm not going to renew the tax cuts for the top two percent. We might agree on tax reform or simplification, but on the upper-income tax cuts we are just going to have to agree to disagree.'" MORE...

Howie P.S.: Not exactly "on the record" but I'll take it.

"No, tax hikes won’t be part of “bipartisan” talks on deficit"

Greg Sargent:

The other day I asked whether Republicans would allow even the possibility of tax hikes on the rich to be part of the “bipartisan” discussions on how to rein in the deficit. Well, according to Grover Norquist, he has been assured by the GOP Congressional leadership that they won’t allow any such thing.

Which raises a question: In what sense are these discussions even bipartisan?

Ed Schultz: "Good thing we gave the Job Creators those tax breaks." (with video)

Ed Schultz with video from MSNBC (05:26):

...But "where are the Jobs?" In the video above, ED talks to leaders of the law enforcement labor community in Wisconsin.

(Updated with video ) "The Coming Shutdowns and Showdowns: What’s Really at Stake"

UPDATE: Richard Wolff looks at this issue from another angle: He asks does "stimulus" work and who should pay when it doesn't, truthout, video, (05:12)?

Robert Reich:

So the problem isn't that "we've" been spending too much. It's that most Americans have been getting a steadily smaller share of the nation's total income.

At the same time, the super-rich have been contributing a steadily-declining share of their own incomes in taxes to support what the nation needs -- both at the federal and at the state levels.

The coming showdowns and shutdowns must not mask what's going on. Democrats should make sure the public understands what's really at stake.

Yes, of course, wasteful and unnecessary spending should be cut. That means much of the defense budget, along with agricultural subsidies and other forms of corporate welfare. MORE...

"Obama reaches out to liberal groups to shore up Democratic base after tax deal"

Peter Wallsten (WaPo):

In the wake of President Obama's tax-cut deal with Republicans, the White House is moving quickly to mend its strained relationship with the Democratic base, reassuring liberal groups, black leaders and labor union officials who opposed the tax compromise that Obama has not abandoned them.

On Friday morning, hours before the president signed into law the $858 billion package extending George W. Bush-era tax cuts as well as jobless benefits, White House aides e-mailed leaders of the black community to hail the compromise as a "major victory for African Americans."

Friday afternoon, Obama hosted a group of union presidents in the Roosevelt Room for what participants described as a cordial meeting in which the two sides agreed to look beyond their differences.

One participant in the 90-minute session said the group asked Obama to help establish a "formalized structure" of communication between the White House staff and the labor movement. The tax deal came up only briefly when Obama explained the benefits of the deal to workers.

(SNIP)

Another liberal movement leader, Daily Kos blog founder Markos Moulitsas, said he "long ago" cut off contact with the White House. "It's clear that they want to double down on their capitulation strategy," he said in an e-mail. MORE...

Biden: 'We did go to the mat' on taxes

Wade Malcolm (The News Journal-DE):

VP defends deals on 'Meet the Press'---Vice President Joe Biden affirmed his expanded role as the president's key liaison to Congress and defended recent tax compromises he helped negotiate with Republicans during a wide-ranging interview aired on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday.He and President Barack Obama still disagree with the Bush tax cuts for the top income brackets, but they had to "save people that are drowning," he said. Without the compromise, taxes on all incomes would have risen.

"We did go to the mat," he said about raising taxes for people making more than $250,000. "We got to the end, and we couldn't get it done, and we had to make a decision. ... Life is a matter of tough choices." MORE...

Howie P.S.: They may have 'hit the mat' in the Beltway, but they didn't take the show on the road. More on Biden: "Joe Biden's absurd Afghanistan promise."

"The political fights the president chooses"

Laurence Lewis (front page-Kos):

When a president tells Congressional members of his own party that his presidency depends on a bill's passage, said president is holding back nothing. He is laying himself bare. That President Obama reportedly did so for the extension of the Bush tax cuts, the first-ever reduction in Social Security funding, and but a year's worth of unemployment benefits, reveals his political desperation. It also puts the lie to the claim often made by some of the president's most ardent defenders that he is at the mercy of a broken Congress, that a president can't or shouldn't interpose in the process of legislating. A president can and should, and every president has. And this president does. As he just did. Now, for this bill.
(SNIP)
His more ardent defenders cannot credibly claim that it isn't his job to push legislation. He didn't fight for a public option, but he did fight for the final health insurance bill. He didn't fight for the stimulus we needed, but he is fighting for a bill that could spell the political doom of both him and his party. MORE...

"House Roll Call: Bill to extend tax cuts"

AP:

Washington state members---Democrats — Baird, N; Dicks, Y; Inslee, N; Larsen, Y; McDermott, N; Smith, N. MORE...

The Rude Pundit: "Don't worry. The tax cut extension will pass."

The Rude Pundit:

The unemployment benefits extension will pass, as it should. We will put off any hard decisions on our future again for two years. And then, don't worry, we'll put them off again. Because that's who we are. That's our learned behavior. We are Americans and we've forgotten how to sacrifice anything because no one for a generation has asked us to. We're like Nicholas Cage in Leaving Las Vegas: we've decided to drink ourselves to death while being cared for by whores. MORE...

"House Dems Prepare Tax Cut Counter-Offer" (video)

MSNBC-Maddow Show, video (14:32).

Howie P.S.: Jan Schakowsky joins Rachel Maddow.

Obama and The Tax Cuts (with video)

"Liberal Group Ad Recalls When Obama Said Bush Tax Cuts Offended His Conscience" (Sam Stein-HuffPo, with video (00:30):

Even as it gets members of its party in line on the Hill, the Obama White House continues to take veritable punches from some of its most vocal critics over the tax cut deal it cut with Republicans.

On Thursday, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee -- perhaps the biggest irritant this administration has -- put out the second straight ad accusing the president of capitulating on tax cuts for the wealthy.

Like the last one, the spot uses Obama's own campaign rhetoric (lofty even by 2008 standards) against him, with footage of the then-candidate proclaiming that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy -- as part of a larger economic philosophy -- "offend[ed]" his "conscience." MORE...

"How the Republicans fleeced President Obama in tax-cut poker" (Jacob Weisberg-SLATE):

During his days as an Illinois state legislator, Barack Obama was a regular poker player. Based on recent evidence, I suspect he wasn't a very good one. In trying to negotiate a tax deal, he has made a series of amateur mistakes. MORE...

"Don't primary Obama, change Congress" (Joan Walsh), with video (07:33):

The itch to change candidates reflects the left's inability to buckle down to long-term political organizing.---I'm disappointed in President Obama's tax-cut deal, as I've already explained. I'm glad the administration is framing it as a "stimulus bill" now -- let's hope tough progressive Democrats make it better, since there's little chance that it won't pass. But I think pondering a primary challenge to Obama is suicidal, and reflects a certain fecklessness on the left. First of all, Obama was a great gift to lefty Democrats in 2008, making them believe that a few years of online organizing and railing against George W. Bush had produced a true progressive hero and a coalition for dramatic change, which simply wasn't true. Too many anointed him the true candidate of the left too quickly and attacked Hillary Clinton -- and anyone who defended her -- as moderate sellouts, or even racists, even though Clinton was taking the more liberal line on healthcare reform, Social Security and the economy generally. I don't want to fight that old fight again; I really do understand that many progressives were tired of Clintonian centrism, which is what they thought they'd get under the wife of the former president, and thought it was worth taking a chance on the inspiring African-American from Chicago who had, significantly, opposed the Iraq war, unlike his leading Democratic rivals.

Still, the rush to proclaim Obama the one, true progressive in 2008 was foolish, and I'd suggest that those who wound up disappointed in Obama think more about what they can learn from that race, rather than plotting to bring him down in 2012. MORE...

Howie P.S.: The most troubling aspect of "The Deal" is the financial hole it digs for our federal government. It will severely impact other programs, including Social Security and will give fuel to Republican noise about "deficits" when they oppose domestic spending. Of course, they are mostly silent when it comes to our massive military expenditures.

Keith's Rant on "The Deal" (video)

MSNBC-Countdown, video (11:51).

"A liberal revolt over the tax cut deal?"

Adam Serwer:

To riff off a point often made by Jonathan Chait, liberals aren't as ideologically committed to taxing the rich as Republicans are to making sure the rich don't get taxed. The reason most liberals are disappointed about the deal isn't simply because the government isn't soaking the rich. It's because, as Mike Konczal writes, tax cuts for the rich don't significantly stimulate the economy, and because, as Dave Weigel notes, looking back at the president's now meaningless pledges over the past few years, liberals wanted to use the money from the top-tier tax cuts for a progressive domestic agenda. It's a dramatic reversal, but owing to ideological differences between the parties, I'm not sure it will ultimately be as damaging as Larison believes. MORE..

Howie P.S.: One thing you can say for sure: the liberal camp rarely speaks with one voice so the answer to the headline's question is "yes and no."

Hightower: "Bleeding-Heart Republicans"

Jim Hightower:

Who says that Republican congress-critters don't care about minorities in our society? Why, at this very moment, they are pushing hard to pass a $372 billion federal program to lift the economic fortunes of just one minority group -- a far more generous proposal than Barack Obama has even dared to contemplate.

The focus of the GOP's generosity is a true American minority: the richest one-tenth of one percent of our people. Living in penthouse ghettos like Manhattan's Upper East Side, this tiny minority of about 120,000 people (who have an average annual income of $8 million) would get some $3 million each over the next decade from the Republican proposal. Doesn't that just make your heart bleed with empathy? MORE...

Digby on the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy: "Constituent Service"

Digby:

"The people who own the country ought to govern it" John Jay

According to the polls, a majority of the American people are in favor of letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire. Obviously, the Republicans are not in favor of this. But Greg Sargent reports that increasing numbers of Democrats are coming out against it too.

I think that may be the saddest comment on Democratic Party failure yet, even including the advancement of the Cheney torture regime. Not because it's worse morally, but because the opportunity to educate people and obtain their support for progressive economics was practically laid at their feet and they whiffed.

But then, big Democratic donors don't want their taxes raised either, I suppose.

I'll just quote this excellent post by Kevin Drum again (click the link for the data points that back up his conclusion) and move on:

If your income is low — and probably a fair number of the 56% who want Bush's tax cuts for the rich repealed are low-income voters — politicians simply don't care. If you're middle class they care a little more. But if you're rich, then they really, really care. And it's safe to say that most high earners are opposed to repealing tax cuts on high earners. That goes for all Republicans and a growing number of Democrats too. So what seems like a no-brainer isn't as simple as it looks. Economically it makes sense to repeal Bush's tax cuts for the rich, and a majority of American citizens are in favor of it. Unfortunately for them, they belong to the wrong majority. They're not rich themselves, and increasingly in America, that means their votes just don't count.

Howie P.S.: Here's hoping Obama follows Joe Conason's advice today and stands up for his "base" at his press conference. And more advice for Obama from Brent Budowsky: "If Obama names Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic base erupts like a volcano and votes." I'm not sure about the volcano, but it wouldn't hurt.

"Comparing Democratic and Republican tax plans" (with graphic)

(CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE)

WaPo, with graphic:

A Republican plan to extend tax cuts for the rich would add more than $36 billion to the federal deficit next year -- and transfer the bulk of that cash into the pockets of the nation's millionaires, according to a congressional analysis released Wednesday.

H/t to Greg Sargent.

ED Show: "Battle Over Bush Tax Cuts" (video)

MSNBC-ED Show, video (13:59).

The same four senators who want to slow down health care reform voted for 1.35 billion Bush tax cuts

David Kurtz:

Remember this?

President George W. Bush signed into law Thursday the first major piece of legislation of his presidency, a $1.35 trillion tax cut over 10 years.

Of the six senators begging President Obama to slow down health care reform, four of them -- Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Susan Collins (R-ME) -- voted for those huge Bush tax cuts.

Their votes were cast on May 26, 2001. Bush signed the tax cuts into law on June 7, 2001. Here we are in mid-July, eight years later, struggling to get health care reform passed by the end of the year.

So whatever these four foot-draggers are saying about why they want health care reform slowed down (and Nelson, for one, was all over the place yesterday warning against "rushing into this"), it's not really about wanting to be more deliberative or avoid ballooning the deficit. All you have to do is look back to 2001. Their records speak for themselves.