Breaking news: the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to concur in the House Amendment to Senate Amendment With Amendment No. 4727 to H.R. 4853, the Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2010, Part III, “To change the enactment date,” has failed by a vote of 53-36. Sixty votes were required.
In other words, Senate Republicans successfully filibustered the bill, recently passed by the House, that would have extended the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, but would have let them expire for couples earning more than $250,000, or individuals earning more than $200,000. As promised, our Junior Senator voted to increase the national debt in order to give an unneeded tax break to rich people.
Oh, what’s that you say? It’s all about small business? The NY Times – in its reporting, not its editorializing – begs to differ.
Republicans insisted that allowing the tax rates to expire for the top two income brackets would amount to a big tax hike on small businesses, which generate many of the nation’s jobs – an assertion that many economic and tax analysts say is largely baseless.
The Republican assertion is based on the number of taxpayers who report non-wage income on their tax returns, but most such income does not come from what are generally regarded as small businesses.
It’s a minor victory that big media is finally refusing to accept at face value some of the nonsense peddled by Republicans on this (and hopefully other) issues. It’s almost certainly too late in this case, but maybe it’s a harbinger of better things to come.
And in a less positive development,
The Senate on Saturday was also expected to reject an alternative proposal, championed by Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, to raise the threshold at which the tax breaks would expire to $1 million. Some Democrats said that the Republicans’ opposition to that plan showed them to be siding with “millionaires and billionaires” over the middle class…. In a sign of the deepening divisions between the administration and Congressional Democrats, White House officials had voiced their opposition to raising the threshold to $1 million, saying it would do little to reduce the deficit.
So the White House opposes Schumer’s millionaire’s amendment, but is willing to support extending tax cuts for everyone? Well I’m just plain confused.
Oh, and one more question: why did Russ Feingold vote against cloture? I know he’s all mavericky and everything, but what was this one about?
johnd says
then you are the only person I know who is surprised. We all knew this was a ceremonial vote to get people’s name on a vote. Unfortunately for House Democrats, their vote may hurt them and I doubt will help them.
<
p>The deal is in and the WH has shown their cards. The WH rejected the $1M+ tax hike since it probably doesn’t add up to enough money.
<
p>Republicans have won this fight and are already looking at the next battle.
<
p>Russ Feingold… challenger to Obama in 2012?
david says
johnk says
This is the headline we should be see in Sunday morning papers:
<
p>Republicans Block Middle Class Tax Cut
peter-porcupine says
“Democrats forced to allow Bush Tax Cuts for All to Renew”.
bob-neer says
And I think the White House’s accession to tax cuts for everyone, no matter what that does to the deficit, was decided a few weeks ago, based on interviews Axelrod gave at that time.
<
p>It is inconsistent for the administration to (a) say they want tax cuts only for those who make less than $250,000, (b) say they don’t want tax cuts only for those who make less than $1 million, and (c) accept tax cuts for everyone, so I think David is right about that minor point.
<
p>A more interesting question, perhaps, is whether this will help or hurt Obama’s re-election chances. Perversely, it may help him insofar as everyone will be pleased, in the short run, to pay lower taxes. I suspect, however, that prolonging these massive deficits will ultimately bring great pain. If that is correct, much will depend on whether the bill comes due before 2012 or not.
christopher says
Why oh why did the WH and their allies not make THIS case from the beginning? They could and should have sold this as a proposal to decrease everyone’s taxes on their first 250K of income rather than allow the soak the rich narrative to take hold. This is especially surprising considering the President’s inclination to bring people together.
johnd says
what is going to happen in the bond market. If the bond market crashes, the effects on our economy will be far worse than the last two years, far worse.
<
p>We need to get our house in order which will be quite difficult while we try to spend our way out of the economic mess we are in. We need some serious analysis and even more serious discussion on the President’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform’s report. We need to fix so many things and time is running out. By 2012 we could have some major problems!
peter-porcupine says
For years, you spoke as if the tax cuts helped ONLY the wealthy instead of the wealthy and everybody else too. Now – people realize they have benefitted all along, and will look askance at Democrat claims that they are the only ones who will help.
michaelbate says
what is obvious to every informed person: that they only care about the wealthiest 1%. This in a period where the gap between rich and poor in this country is at a record high. And please spare me the nonsense about how the most privileged will invest their tax cut to create jobs. Our economy is driven by consumer spending. No one is going to hire workers if the devastated middle and lower class has no money to spend to buy their products.
peter-porcupine says
davemb says
The story at Daily Kos speculates that Feingold actually cares about the deficit and wants all the 2001 tax cuts to expire.
<
p>http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…
christopher says
Doesn’t seem to have much to do with airports and airways.
davemb says
There needed to be some shenanigans in the House in order to get the bill to a vote in the face of GOP interference — I don’t understand the details but the Kos diaries go into them pretty thoroughly. The idea was that this existing bill already had some property necessary for it to be voted on, and it was easier to “amend” the airport bill, by substituting the tax-rate bill for it in its entirely, than to bring up the tax-rate bill on its own.
davemb says
from David Weigel at Slate:
<
p>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blo…
johnk says
PricewaterhouseCoopers another small business. Corporations like these use loopholes in the tax code and set themselves up as “pass-through” entities, they avoid corporate taxes by reporting profits on the individual tax returns. Republicans falsely use these enormous corporations in their small business totals to skew their numbers.
<
p>Secondly, why would continuing this temporary tax break to the wealthy create jobs? How has it worked out for us so far? Why would a business hire someone if no one is buying their product. A business owner would hire additional staff if their sales warranted the hire. Providing tax breaks to those that will spend the money will move products and then in turn grow jobs. CBO detailed this simple fact, why is it so difficult for Republicans to understand.
sabutai says
No surprise that Republicans voted in lockstep for their millionaire owners. No surprise there.
<
p>Until I see something from Feingold’s office, I won’t say much about his no vote. Let’s face it — he’s out of a job in a month, so I have trouble seeing why he’d posture on this one.
<
p>A special eff-you to the supposed Democrats who sided against the people who put them in office — Ben Nelson (the modern-day Zell Miller) and Joe Lieberman (the modern-day Walter Smitty).
<
p>An extra-special eff-you to Joe Manchin and Jim Webb, who have demonstrated that they will talk a good game, but once in office will turn around and flush the country down the toilet rather than risking their sacred jobs and expense accounts.
<
p>If there’s more than a handful of worthwhile American politicians at the federal level outside the House of Representatives, I don’t know who they are.
johnd says
Joe Manchin was elected by telling people that he would do this exact kind of thing.
jconway says
JohnD is right, I doubt these two would have won had they not run as conservative democrats, and they never pretended to be otherwise, so I really don’t see the anger here. Id rather those two than George Allen or the zillionaire from Florida who ran against Manchin.
jconway says
he’s the one you should be mad at, he always votes for Wall Street over Main Street and he is in one of the safest seats in the country for a liberal democrat.
sabutai says
It’s a tough call. Schumer is also the reason that the chamber isn’t controlled by Republicans right now. His tenure as head of the DSCC got us some Democratic senators from red states.
<
p>Nelson undermines the party so regularly he’d be loathed but for the distraction of Lieberman. As for Manchin, I wonder at what point does the distinction between he and his opponent cease to matter?
stomv says
Only one is up in 2012: Kay Bailey Hutchison.
<
p>What does this mean? That’s a lot of folks no-showing, but it wasn’t folks ducking a vote. I think GOPers think that voting against this bill is good for their chances in 2012.
<
p>I don’t think it was good to vote against this bill from a getting elected perspective, but what do I know?
ryepower12 says
not like the Republican deficit peacocks.
<
p>That’s why he didn’t vote for cloture (even if I disagree with his choice). My guess is if this was actually going to be close and his vote would have mattered, he probably would have voted for cloture.
<
p>The democrats need to gut the filibuster, let the tax cuts expire, and come back next session with this bill…. pass it then, after the filibuster is gone. THEN let Boehner try to say it’s just ‘posturing.’ He said he’d vote for it if that’s all he could get…. well… let’s make sure that’s all he’s ever going to get.
johnd says
ryepower12 says
Let the thing die, reform the filibuster and come back next year was my advice.
<
p>JohnD Fail.
christopher says
Downrate if it makes you feel better and move on.
johnd says
it’s dead.
johnd says
Do you think the Republican House will move on a bill like this? The Senate? It’s done and I’m not taunting, just disagreeing with your premise/suggestion.
ryepower12 says
Do I really need to repeat myself again? Repeal/gut/bust the filibuster, and we will win on this… and many other issues. And there will be substantial effort brought to bear to get the filibuster repealed/gutted/busted this session. Expect at least some kind of filibuster reform — it only takes 50 votes.
johnd says
farnkoff says
It essentially provides for minority rule, with its combination of disproportionate representation and the power of the filibuster. But hell, Dems lost the House anyway, so we’re pretty much screwed either way come January.
ryepower12 says
then at least we a) have a competing legislative vision for 2012 and b) some sort of means to keep the House honest. Once the GOP is in power in the House, they can’t completely be the party of no if they hope to win anything in 2012… if we want anything that comes out of the next two years to have any resemblance of decent policy-making decisions, we need a Senate capable of passing Democratic bills — and we’re going to need to have that to have any real chance in 2012 ourselves.
jconway says
The filibuster should be reformed, not repealed. Remember we would have had Miguel Estrada and Janice Rogers Brown on the SCOTUS were it not for the filibuster. We would have privatized social security were it not for the filibuster. Remember when the shoe falls the other way, and it almost did in 10′ and might in 12′, you will be thankful the minority has it. Should and can it be applied to every single vote, including procedural ones? No. I would only allow it for budget matters, treaties, big social issues, and constitutional amendments and would only allow it for the final vote. Also it would not to be a true filibuster with a speaker holding the floor to delay. These automatic cloture votes are nonsensical and fairly modern ‘innovations’.
christopher says
…thuogh I’d be open to amending the Constitution to require a 2/3 vote on federal judges or at least SCOTUS nominees. Also, the 60 vote requirement is moot for treaties and constitutional amendments which per the Constitution already require 2/3 votes.
jconway says
Then we are in agreement except for the budget?
christopher says
I’m not sure how you categorize “big social issues”. The budget definitely needs to be majority as the supermajority requirement in CA routinely creates chaos in that state.
<
p>Keep in mind that if used properly I’m not opposed to requiring a supermajority to close debate. After all Robert’s Rules requires a higher 2/3 threshold to do that. However Robert’s also requires votes to extend debate, limits individual speeches to ten minutes, requires that people actually speak to the motion with germane remarks, and assumes that a vote can be taken immediately if nobody seeks recognition.
<
p>I think that if there are certain things that should require supermajorities on final passage that should be constitutionalized, otherwise up or down vote and let the chips fall where they may. If we don’t like it that’s all the more incentive to win the next election.
nopolitician says
I realize that without the filibuster, a lot of Republican legislation would have passed, hard-core judges would be installed. But that would have been the will of the people. Elections should have consequences.
<
p>A 2/3 vote is just too much for the nation, it sounds really good in theory but it is wide-open to the abuse that we have seen with this past Congress. Republicans had no intention of allowing anything to pass unless it was exactly what they wanted. There were no compromises. If we didn’t have political parties, and people truly voted their consciences, it might be workable, but the Republicans have demonstrated that the Senate can simply shut down all legislation even when one party controls all three branches.
<
p>Our country is a constitutional Republic that is based on representative majorities. The constitution protects the rights of the minority. The filibuster is an anachronism, and it has been refined to the point where it is too convenient to use. It needs to go.
<
p>If it doesn’t go, then the Democrats should not pass any legislation when the next Republican president gets elected. Invoke cloture for everything. If that’s how the game is played, then they need to learn how to play it.
seascraper says
The Dems are afraid to come off as the party of increased taxes.
jconway says
As soon as they get power they come up with ways into scaring themselves into not using it, looking weak and indecisive, and then handing power back to the Republicans who are never afraid to use it no matter how extreme and radical it makes them look. Someone once observed that the American people will vote for decisiveness over reasonableness any day of the week and it shows. The GOP leaders have horrible ideas about how to govern the country, but at least they have the fortitude to lead, the strength to govern, and the conviction that they are right no matter what the public opinion is. If only Democrats shared those traits they would be a potent force.
sabutai says
“Americans prefer strong and wrong over weak and right”. I’ve been thinking of that sentence a lot, the previous couple months.
somervilletom says
President Obama and the Democrats should kill any extension of the Bush tax cuts. They GOP blocked the only acceptable paths, so kill them.
<
p>When the next congress brings in a tax bill that extends tax cuts to high-income taxpayers, veto it.
<
p>Meanwhile, attach the extension of tax cuts to low- and middle-income taxpayers to every bill that comes before the House. Every last one.
<
p>It’s time to make sure that the public hears, over and over again, “The GOP today blocked an attempt by House Democrats to provide tax cuts to low- and middle-income taxpayers”. Over and over again.
<
p>Similarly, the public needs to hear “President Obama today vetoed a GOP measure to extend tax cuts to America’s highest income earners. House Democrats are expected to uphold that veto.”
<
p>President Obama and the Democrats should do precisely the same thing with unemployment extensions. It’s time for American voters to hear — over and over again — “The GOP again blocked unemployment extensions today.”
<
p>The mainstream media needs to be filled with pieces personalizing the human suffering of these draconian GOP measures. FILLED! Voters need to see the soup kitchens, the boarded-up storefronts, the crying children, the faces and tears that are the consequences of right-wing greed.
<
p>By November of 2012, voters need to see — clearly — exactly who is pandering to the handful of America’s wealthiest individuals, and who is tirelessly working on behalf of the rest of us.
johnd says
<
p>But the Republican controlled narritive will sound liek this…
<
p>
somervilletom says
What happened to the “liberal media”, John? How will the GOP control the narrative in that liberal media? Or are you perhaps agreeing that the mainstream media is now dominated by Rupert Murdoch and Fox?
<
p>The Democrats should be attaching tax cuts for everyone except those families whose income exceeds $250K to every bill that comes before the House. President Obama and the Democrats have passed legislation in the House to reduce taxes for all except the highest income earners; the GOP has blocked that legislation. President Obama and the Democrats have put forward legislation to provide tax relief to small businesses; the GOP has blocked that legislation.
<
p>I think America will see who is working for the wealthy and who is working for everyone else.
<
p>I hope that the Democrats, President Obama, and MSNBC continue to keep a laser-focus on the GOP promises to reduce the deficit. While they held power, the GOP exploded the deficit. Now that they hold a majority in the House, the Democrats and President Obama should remind voters of that fact and pointedly ask what the current GOP proposals will do to the deficit. What specific spending cuts will the GOP offer?
<
p>The only way to reduce the deficit is to grow the economy. The most effective way to grow the economy, according to the CBO, is to extend unemployment benefits. The GOP just finished blocking that extension.
johnd says
MSM is still as liberal as it ever was. You think they would have learned something by now but they continue to start the message from the standpoint of a liberal. FOX and Murdoch are more popular now than ever with nothing in their way to become even more popular. MSNBC has become a joke, both from a rating standpoint and from their continued stance that they are a news organization. They are the left equivalent of FOX. Watch the Maddow/Stewart interview, I thought it was great.
<
p>We should get a definitive answer over the next 2 weeks about the Obama Tax increases.
david says
That’s probably accurate, in the sense that it’s “not especially liberal, now or ever.” Why you guys persist in these borderline paranoid fantasies about the librul media, even though there’s exactly zero evidence of it, baffles me.
johnd says
and the MSM does as well. They swing between very liberally biased to moderately liberal biased. They were all on the Obama bandwagon from pre-election through coronation, chills going down legs and all. Now that Obama and the Dems were handed a butt-kicking and the majority of the country (outside MA) has decided that Obama is going in the wrong direction, the MSM will swing towards the center but will never make it there before they swing back left.
<
p>I really do wish there were some sources of unbiased news reporting (please don’t suggest NPR).
somervilletom says
The MSM coverage of this campaign season — Fox, ABC, CBS and CNN in particular — was flagrantly biased towards enhancing the GOP, presumably because hotly-contested horse races sell more advertising than runaways. The fact that Sarah Palin is anything more than a laughing-stock is a case in point. The same is true for the various TeaParty personalities. The entire “birther” controversy could have and should have been put down in about fifteen minutes.
<
p>I suggest that it is no accident that our recent elections have been nail-biting cliffhangers, replete with charges, countercharges, recounts, legal battles, and all the rest. This is the stuff that sells soap.
<
p>Yes, I am suggesting that corporate America intentionally uses the MSM to manipulate public opinion for its own gain.
<
p>A particularly egregious example is in climate change — the facts and science of anthropogenic global warming are compelling and the scientific community has long since embraced it as fact (much like evolution). The MSM perpetuate the “controversy” and “dispute” in the face of all the facts and science. The MSM eagerly ran with the “climategate” scandal story, where private emails were literally stolen and published, until it became clear that there was no “there” there. There were precious few MSM complaints about how the material was obtained. There were precious few banner headlines about how the theft threatened to destroy the free exchange of ideas needed to perform good science. It looked like another notch on the right-wing belt, and stayed on prime time until it began to be clear that in fact the private communications reflected the public communications, and all confirmed the facts of AGW — and then suddenly vanished from sight.
<
p>The web is, in my opinion, the best source of unbiased news reporting — but only if one rigorously seeks it. I find Google news quite helpful in this regard. It isn’t that any particular source is necessarily unbiased (most are not), it is instead that the web makes it easier to identify the bias and therefore better understand the reality.
<
p>Importantly, the web demands far more of its audience than broadcast television (I don’t consider talk radio as anything but a different kind of soap-opera). Too many Americans are utterly unable to accomplish the reading, analysis, and critical thinking needed to sift the chaff from the wheat of the web.
<
p>At least it’s possible on the web. The most horrifying aspect of the MSM is the utter impossibility of getting the actual facts of any story worthy of attention.
<
p>This, in fact, is the real issue about WikiLeaks IMHO. Corporate America, in apparent collusion with a government that seems all eager to join, appears to be using this issue to display the weapons available to punish those who dare tell too much truth. Rape charges against Mr. Assange? Come on.
<
p>We should also pay careful attention to the net neutrality battle currently being waged (and currently being kept in the background by the WikiLeaks controversy) between Comcast and Level3 and in the halls and closets of the Capital and K Street.
<
p>Yes, there IS a strong and pervasive bias in the MSM — and it is a strong and pervasive corporate, and therefore right-leaning, bias.
johnd says
One of the struggles which I believe the News Media is confounded with is… how do you deal with a public which has an extremely short attention span and doesn’t really care about the most important issues in our lives? Have you seen people react when they are made aware of truly important events (like a hair styling place burning down)… their first reaction is something like, “Does this mean I can’t get my hair cut tomorrow?” Or you talk about the current Bush Tax cuts going away and the implications and their eyes gloss over and they gasp… “TMW… too many words!” The successful news media has learned to discuss subjects which only appeal to the masses and when they do, they do it in a manner that skips important facts to get a headline, “Scott Brown hates unemployed people”!
<
p>The hard part is, who can stay in business to present the news as you/I may want it? I’d like to think NPR for one, but they have an agenda too so I guess the answer is nobody (BTW, the web may suffice but it would take far too long for the average person).
<
p>Sarah Palin is a phenom. Maybe being such a lefty you could explain to me why she is hated so viscerally by the left. To me she is so unimportant and yet every time she opens her mouth, the left MSM puts it in the headlines and everyone has a laugh over Palin shooting a moose or chopping off a fish’s head. Who cares about Sarah Palin, I don’t! Katie Couric is unbiased? Matt Lauer?
<
p>Have you heard much talk about the potential crash of the bond market due to our ballooning deficit? Don’t you think it should be “in the news”? Too many words…
nopolitician says
Maybe I’m showing my hand too early, but if the tax cuts on the richest Americans are permanently extended, I will not vote for Barack Obama, even if it means Sarah Palin being elected.
<
p>How the heck can he flub this issue with a majority in both the House and Senate? How can he be so unprincipled that he’s willing to cave on this campaign promise?
<
p>The tax cuts on the wealthy are have not helped the economy since they were instituted. Increasing them will not harm “small business” because businesses are taxed on profits to their owners, and a $250k profit is pretty good for a business owner. Businesses are not employing people for charitable reasons — they will hire or fire people if it increases their profits.
<
p>Obama is negotiating with people who are behaving like terrorists. He should not be president if he can’t see this. If, as some have speculated (and which I tend to believe), he is mainly a conservative Democrat who believes in supply-side economics, then he deserves to go before he brings down the brand of the Democratic party.