Tax Vote: House Blinks Before Leaping Off Cliff With Obama on SocSecurity Plunder

Notice the curious case of passivity and resignation coming from the so – called “progressive” and “liberal” caucuses in the House of Congress lately on this Republican Wet Dream of extending the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthiest segment of our society during a Depression ?  And unfunded foreign occupation/wars causing an immense deficit?

There are a few faint sparks of realization in the Democratic caucus, that the President’s trade he cut with Republican Senators to gut Social Security (and hope nobody notices)  by decreasing the payroll tax for it 2%, in exchange for extending some unemployment benefits for millions, for a year,  maybe is going to get them in even bigger trouble down the road.     Even if their own President is willing to call them a bunch of “purist”  poopyheads in public, to get what he wants.  

The House Rules Committee vote on the rule to let this abomination go through was supposed to be this evening, and now it’s delayed.   Speaker Pelosi has decided on a curious tact of allowing a scootch of dissent on the whopping Estate Tax giveaway, while ignoring the rest of the Senate’s version of the tax bill as being worthy.  Extending the Bush – era tax cuts is going to add another trillion dollar hole to the deficit.  This pathetic Congress can’t even get it together to at least come up with a coherent narrative as to why the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthiest were part of a national policy disaster which caused our current problems, and should be repealed.


http://thehill.com/homenews/ho…

The House was set to vote on the rule governing debate on the broad tax bill, but the measure was withdrawn at the last minute when leaders realized it was likely to be rejected. Liberals opposed to the deal Obama struck with Republicans were upset that the procedure approved by the House Rules Committee on Wednesday did not allow them a clean opportunity to vote on the legislation the Senate passed on Wednesday. A final vote on the tax deal had been planned for Thursday evening.

Under the rule approved Wednesday, lawmakers would first vote on an amendment to the estate tax provision of the tax bill, which Democratic leaders want raised to a higher level. If that measure passed, the entire tax bill would return to the Senate, meaning lawmakers would have, in effect, approved the underlying measure with the single change to the estate tax. Liberals objected to that procedure, saying they wanted an opportunity to reject the entire bill, not just the estate tax provision.

If the estate tax amendment failed – which is expected – then the House would vote on the underlying Senate bill.

Notice how the above Hill story says they expect the estate tax amendment to fail also.    Yes, this is such a crappy deal that President Obama cut with the Senate Republicans, that we also are going to watch them make sure billionaires  like the Walton Family can pass on larger estates, while millions of regular Americans continue to lose their life savings and meager retirement funds to foreclosures, job losses, and medical bill bankruptcies, because that Health Care Bill has mostly NOT been implemented.

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D, NY 28, Rochester, Buffalo, Erie)  of the so – called Progressive Caucus, one of the most “Liberal” members of the House,  is the current head of the Rules committee that is working this charade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L…

http://www.rules.house.gov/bil…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said some Democrats criticized procedures that would only allow lawmakers to introduce one amendment to the bill, and which, if passed, would send the amended package immediately back to the Senate. The current rule allows each party one amendment and an hour and a half of debate time, with 45 minutes of the Democrats’ time being granted to those in opposition to the bill. The likely amendment would be a change to the bill’s estate-tax provision, presented by Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.).

“A lot of members are saying ‘I’d like to amend it, but I’d like to vote against it,’ ” Waxman said.

Catch 22 !  You vote against the Estate tax in the House, and this POS tax giveaway goes directly back to the Senate who then  gives it gift wrapped to the President to sign !  


Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), who led the charge against the tax deal, said he wants Democrats to be given a chance to make additional amendments to the bill, including changes to tax cuts that could threaten revenue for Social Security.

The leadership is not allowing debate over Social Security because “they don’t have the time,” Welch said. He said Democratic leaders were not “twisting arms” on the matter and would allow dissenting members to state their case.

Still, he said the momentum from the Senate would make it difficult to block the bill.

“I think the die was cast basically in the Senate,” Welch said. “Where we had an opportunity … was by making senators who were going to hold the middle-class tax cuts hostage to the tax cuts at the high end, make them debate that and vote that over and over again.”

They don’t have the time ?

Then why the **** is the Senate going to blow all that non existent time, taking 50 hours reading the budget bill in the Senate ?


12/16/10  GOP will paralyze Senate Floor with reading of 1,924 page spending bill.

http://thehill.com/homenews/se…

Republicans will paralyze the Senate floor for 50 hours by forcing clerks to read every single paragraph of the 1,924-page, $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill.

Senate clerks are expected to read the massive bill in rotating shifts around the clock – taking breaks to drink water and pop throat lozenges  – to keep legislative business on track, according to a Democratic leadership aide.

If Republicans follow through on their threat, legislative business couldn’t resume until late Saturday in order to give the staff enough time to read the bill aloud, according to a Democratic leadership estimate.

Sen. DeMint (R, SC)  :  “Again, We’re trying to run out the clock.”

Sen. Kyl (R, AZ)  :  “”To suggest that we can dual-track an issue as important as the funding of the government with this almost 2,000-page, $1 trillion-plus bill at the same time that we are seriously debating the START treaty is a fantasy.”

So called Liberal bloggers, paraphrased: “We’re trying to ignore this latest betrayal because it makes it awkward on the Holiday Cocktail Circuit.”

My personal interactions with my real friends –  I don’t know of anyone who actually supports this continued capitulation routine, nor the crappy Republican policies being put forth as “compromises,” with a Dem supermajority which refuses to govern with it.    

9 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. …. and I intend to keep track of it.

    My Tea Party Republican Congressperson is ecstatic about the current tax bill.

  2. This bill is an abomination!  It’s a horrendously expensive bill, which, in essence, does what’s been done right down the line, offering crumbs to already “hurt”  Americans, so the wealthy can profit at our expense once again.

    I was reading the rules/laws concerning Unemployment Insurance the other night.  I knew that it was employers who pay into the UI to the State, but I wanted to understand the relationship of the government and States over UI.  At any rate, it says clearly in the government’s role, Unemployment Insurance will be extended to those still in need, after expiration of various extensions in bad economic times. (Not verbatim!)  The consideration of UIE for those who have run out of normal extensions should  never have been ruled on with a competing issue in the midst, such as extensions of the Bush tax cuts.  The FICA tax break is a “scam” which will come back to bite wage-earners.  By paying into FICA Funds by 2% less, sure, a wage earner would have a little more in their pockets, but, at the end of the tax year, the wage-earner would be taxed on his/her total income.  But worse, Social Security Trust Funds will have been reduced by 2% from wage earners, what’s left of them, all across the country.  Imagine, as the propaganda has been right down the line —  “there’s not enough money in the Social Security Trust Funds.”  Then, of course, reducing estate taxes for the wealthy. . . . then . . . . . !!!!!!

    So, we’re to spend some $700 billion for the wealthy, alone (amount of Bush tax cuts for them) at the worst economic time in this country since the 1920’s??????

  3. …. and taking the first vote, so this is going to go on for a while.  On C span.  

  4. …. quite ready yet to rollover in the belly up position.

    Louise Slaughter, whom I showed above as the mistress (or the fall guy, er, fall lady) in this “compromise,”  just posted a note on the GOS that she was not going to vote for this tonight.


    Thurs Dec 16, 2010

    This evening, I will vote against extension of the Bush Tax Cuts of 2001 due to expire December 31 of this year. The bill, for the first time since Social Security was signed in 1935, interferes with the revenue stream that funds Social Security. The example being set by not allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire convinces me that this ‘temporary’ disruption will also not be allowed to expire in an election year.

    Secondly, the addition of $858 billion to the debt to provide tax cuts to the top 2 percent of Americans, and an estate tax that costs $25 billion to benefit 6,600 families, is an atrocious giveaway in a nation riddled with debt and unemployment.

    Okay, madame Committee Chair, that’s good, but let’s not see this POS tax giveaway – Social Security killer bill somehow get passed anyway by some sort of technicality.  People need their unemployment checks.  The rich do NOT need their Bush era tax cuts –  they aren’t going to create any more jobs with that 3% cut.  

    I have also seen Garamendi (CA) urge a no vote, as well as Pete de Fazio of OR,  and Lynn Woolsey (CA) say they are opposed, plus Sheila J Lee of TX says send it back.

  5. The deceitful travesty of this bill, and those lawcrackers who are playing with it, is astonishing beyond my former wildest dreams.

    • sharon on December 17, 2010 at 6:25 am

    my rep voted no, but it was essentially meaningless in the end.

    • RUKind on December 17, 2010 at 8:11 am

    Once the camel has his nose under the tent then the whole camel follows bringing down tent, belongings and chaos. It’s an old Bedouin proverb.

    The 2012 candidates will have to run on a 50% SS tax rate hike. Best of luck.

    It’s amazing how much you gan get done when you have no conscience, morals, ethics or compassion.  Be the change and one day we win.

  6. …. from the blogs which during the period from 1999 to 2006 were portraying themselves and the Democratic Party as the True Protectors of the poor, working, and middle classes, the minorities, the women, and the children – all of whom depend upon Social Security a [i]lot more than the wealthy who are demanding their tax cuts so they can continue to outsource jobs to other countries. [/i]

    What madness.

    Dec 16th, 2010. Roll call #647. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201…  277 to 148.  Only 112 Democrats voted against this, with 36 Republicans.    Mark the date as a historical one for the battle over the safety net – this was a betrayal.

    Pelosi did not vote.  Anyone want to ask Kucinich why he voted for it ?

    Now the rest of them should be able to figure out what they are dealing with in the Executive branch.  

Comments have been disabled.