Bush Tax Cuts to Save Democrats in November?

Well, well, well! Democrats may keep George W. Bush's tax cuts in a desperate move to keep their seats in November.  How will the Marxist Propaganda Squad (once known as the mainstream media) spin this? Whether Democrats dare to do it or not, it's on the table. We have the quotes. We won't forget.

Tax Cuts - The Rich Pay More

The irony of trying to use President Bush's tax cuts by Democrats who have maligned them as a way to make the rich richer, is sweet. Three months before the elections, we have some Democrats on record saying the Bush Tax Cuts, which expire at the end of this year, worked and will continue to work.

Some Democrats want to postpone the sunset - obviously until after November 2010 and maybe until after November 2012.  Sen Byron Dorgon (D-ND) believes the spending of the rich doesn't amount to much...they need to be taxed more, and taxed now. In the graphic above, you can see that the rich in either category are taxed at a rate almost double the proportion of the income received.

To set the scene, a chief economist with Moody's said a drop in spending by the rich has slowed the economy. The highest income earners in the U.S. are credited with 30 percent of spending. They stopped spending, and the "recovery" they're trying to sell was affected negatively.

Allowing income tax rates to reset to pre-Bush levels for individuals earning more than $200,000 and families earning more than $250,000 could generate close to $700 billion over the next 10 years.

From The Hill:

Obama promised that families earning less than $250,000 would not see their taxes increase.

But vulnerable Democrats in Congress are worried about talk of raising taxes, even on the wealthiest families, when the national economic recovery has slowed.

[Rep. Gerry Connolly D-VA]  said Democrats should not allow the 2001 Bush tax cuts to expire for anybody. “People in the upper tax brackets have a huge impact, a disproportionate impact on consumer spending,” he said.  Gerry Connolly is defending the Virginia District 11 House seat in 2010.

Connolly is up for reelection in November. His Republican opponent is Keith Fimian.

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), a senior Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said he could support a short-term extension of the Bush tax cuts for the highest income earners. “My reaction would be don’t cut spending, don’t raise taxes and that would mean on anyone,” he said.

Rep. Bobby Bright, a Democrat facing a tough reelection race in Alabama, said tax increases, even if limited to the wealthiest families, could imperil the recovery. “I don’t care if it’s the wealthiest of the wealthy, you don’t raise their taxes,” he said. “In a recession, you don’t tax, burden and restrict. The economy is like a ship, and if you sink the ship, all the good you might do goes down with it.”

Bright is up for reelection in November. His Republican opponent is Martha Roby. 

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) would like to see the Bush tax cuts expire for families earning $200,000 a year, or even less.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) (paraphrased) wants some tax adjustments to reflect the regional cost of living. Nadler represents Manhattan. 

From Tax Cuts Increase Revenue "the way to soak the rich is with low tax rates...":

If Mr. Obama does succeed in raising tax rates on the rich, we'd also wager that the rich share of tax payments would fall. The last time tax rates were as high as the Senator wants them -- the Carter years -- the rich paid only 19% of all income taxes, half of the 40% share they pay today. Why? Because they either worked less, earned less, or they found ways to shelter income from taxes so it was never reported to the IRS as income.

It's not pleasant being a Democrat in 2010, and its downright terrifying to be a Democrat up for reelection in 2010.

Senate Parliamentarian Rules Obama Must Sign Health Care before Rule Changes or Reconciliation

The Senate Parliamentarian has a new ruling out today and it's an important one. President Obama must sign a health care bill before the Senate can act on a reconciliation package to fix the problems the House has with the Senate legislation. Once Obama signs the bill, it is law, and the House no longer has assurance that the items they want reconciled, will be reconciled.

Kent Conrad

The word from the Senate Parliamentarian, Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND), was reportedly passed to Republicans verbally, and what if Republicans are lying, muses one online site:

Now, it's certainly possible that Senate Republicans are lying about this -- they're not exactly a truth-oriented bunch... Source: Washington Monthly

Senator Conrad's advice, to Republicans, if true, is consistent with his previous statements, and it is not good news for House Democrats who had had devised two incredible machinations - and who would think either could be legal?

(1) In the House, a process called Hold-plus-reconciliation, which meant the House would pass the Christmas Eve Senate bill but hold the bill, without sending it to the President for his signature, thus holding the Senate hostage to accepting changes the House needed to make the legislation palatable to its members.

(2) The Slaughter process: The House would create their own package of changes to the Senate bill, then skip a roll call vote to approve the Senate bill, attach their own package and call it a piece of legislation - without ever passing the Senate bill. Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the Chair of the House Rules Committee is reportedly creating this new rule, which essentially says the unpassed Senate bill is "deemed passed."

If the Senate Parliamentarian holds that the Senate bill must be passed as a piece of legislation, and first signed by the president, before changes can be made, then neither of the two options above would be valid, as well they should not be.

Another stumbling block to those opposed to the bill is Joe Biden, who has the power to overrule the Senate parliamentarian, although that has not been done since Hubert Humphrey. If Biden should overrule the parliamentarian, the ruling can be appealed and the appeal is decided by majority vote (which doesn't offer much hope for the opposition).

This does not mean that reconciliation cannot be managed after the Senate bill is signed into law, but it's an uphill climb to get House members specifically opposed to federal funding of abortion, to trust that the Senate will actually make the changes. It's not over, but the Conrade ruling is a positive turn.

Others talking about the Senate Parliamentarian:
Hot Air 
Bloomberg

Democrat Kent Conrad: Byrd Rule Disqualifies Reconciliation of Health Care

Refreshing. A rule actually matters to one Democrat. Senator Kent Conrad (ND) says he is the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, and he understands how reconciliation works, and under the Byrd Rule, reconciliation cannot be used to pass the health care bill. See video below.

Kent Conrad was elected to the Senate in January, 1987. He became President of the Senate Budget Committee in January 4, 2007, replacing Republican Judd Gregg. Conrad was profiled by The American for his knowledge of economic issues. He is a member of the Gang of 10, which is now a Gang of 20 and advocates for more offshore drilling, and other energy measures. He endorsed Barack Obama in 2008, but is considered a somewhat conservative Democrat. He voted with Republicans against a health care bill that included a public option, and voted for the Stupak amendment which denies public-funded abortion. He has consistently voted against partial-birth abortion.

Senator Kent Conrad - No Reconciliation for Health Care Bill (video)

"The major package would not be done through reconciliation." 

Asked by CBS host Bob Schieffer to elaborate, given that the White House suggested earlier Sunday that they could pass the main bill with a simple majority of 51 votes, Conrad said that reconciliation was not, in fact, an option. 

"I am the chairman of the committee in the Senate, and I think I understand how reconciliation works and can't work," he said, arguing that the so-called Byrd Rule would prevent the use of reconciliation for the main health care bill. "The only possible role I can see for reconciliation would be to make modest changes in the major package."