
The frustration with President Barack Obama over his tax cut compromise was palpable and even profane at Thursday’s House Democratic Caucus meeting.
One unidentified lawmaker went so far as to mutter “f— the president” while Rep. Shelley Berkley was defending the package the president negotiated with Republicans. Berkley confirmed the incident, although she declined to name the specific lawmaker.~~~Rep. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.) was also overheard saying that “we can’t trust him” not to cave to Republicans and extend the tax cuts again in two years, according to a Democratic source.
The anger aimed at the bill was widespread. As Democrats moved to block the bill from coming up on the floor, chants of “Just say no!” could be heard by reporters outside the room.
But I ain’t buying the faux outrage. This is all theater so that the class warfare nutjobs can go back to their nutjob constituents and say that they were against it.
What really has their panties in a bunch?
The change Democratic critics most want to make involves the tax treatment of inheritances. The federal tax on estates expired at the end of 2009 and is set to be reinstated from 2011 at a rate of 55% charged on estates over $1 million.
The new tax package would renew the tax at a rate of 35% on estates over $5 million. House Democrats want a higher tax rate, applied to additional estates.
What a great example of the Democrats desire for government control. Your money, already taxed, should be taxed some more because you died. In their wormy minds that money belongs to the government anyways. They were just letting you keep it for a little while. As Hugh Hewitt wrote, Republicans spent years working to get that “vampire” tax off the books and now it’s back:
“The deal” revives the death tax, an immoral “vampire tax” that sucks the blood from the dead, ruins family businesses and double taxes savings that were accumulated over a lifetime. It took ten years of gradual step downs to eliminate the tax, and now “the deal” revives it at 35% with a $5 million dollar exemption, a rate that looks and feels permanent and which will immediately impact tens of thousands of families in 2011 and when inflation works its way into the system, thousands more over time. The GOP has spent years making the case against the death tax on moral and economic grounds, and in the course of a weekend of secret meetings, it gave that issue away.
A great example here of what the Democrats want: (h/t Protein Wisdom)
Here’s an example. Say you inherited your mother’s home this year. She bought it for $200,000 and today it’s worth $4 million. If you had inherited it last year, you would’ve had to pay estate taxes on half a million (the value of the house, minus the estate-tax exclusion). But since you inherited it this year, you pay no estate tax and instead get taxed on a whopping $2.5 million gain (the $3.8 million gain on the house, minus your $1.3 million exclusion). The irony, of course, is that some people who never would’ve owed estate taxes now might take a capital-gains hit. See why you don’t want to kill off mom this year?
Hugh Hewitt also makes a great point, and why we should feel betrayed by the Republicans making this deal with the devil:
On September 23, all of the House GOP leadership agreed to the “Pledge to America .” A photo op was arranged at the Tart Lumber store in Sterling, Virginia, and the senior leaders of the would-be majority, with their shirt sleeves rolled up, took the pledge and asked America for the majority back. There are at least five provisions of the Pledge that are breached by “the deal.” In September the House GOP promised to:
“Permanently Stop All Job-Killing Tax Hikes” (p. 16)
“Act immediately to Reduce Spending” (p. 21)
“Cut Government Spending to Pre-Stimulus, Pre-Bailout Levels” (p. 21)
“Read the Bill” (p. 33)
“Advance Legislative Issues One at a Time” (p. 33)
“The deal’s” assault on “The Pledge” will make the latter a joke, and instantly impacts the credibility of all future efforts to propose agendas to the electorate.
This is just a bad bad deal and those up for re-election should take heed. If you vote for this deal you’re voting to resurrect the death tax.
Ten Republican senators are up for re-election in 2012: John Barrasso of Wyoming, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Bob Corker of Tennessee, John Ensign of Nevada, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, Jon Kyl of Arizona, Richard Lugar of Indiana, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Roger Wicker of Mississippi.
Of these 10, Senators Kyl and Wicker are safe bets for re-election, but the other eight cannot afford to begin their campaigns for re-election with a vote for this compromise. On the House side the damage will be even deeper. Every narrow victor begins their first day in office with this “deal” on their backs.
Added note: here is Rush Limbaugh’s take on the tax cut deal…and it ain’t pretty:
Obama has not had a come-to-Jesus meeting or event here. He has not changed who he is. There’s something else going on. Now all of a sudden this enthusiasm to extend the Bush tax cuts. And I think I’ve got this figured out. The key here is that there is nothing stimulative about them, and yet Obama is portraying them as stimulative. Why? ‘Cause he knows it’s gonna fail to stimulate. This is not a tax cut. And even if it were, two years is not enough for a tax cut to really indicate economic growth. It took four years for Reagan’s to kick in, three to four years. We’re looking here at just continuing tax rates. If there’s any tax stimulus here — and you tell me how big of one it is — it’s the 2% cut in the payroll tax for one year. At the end of the day that’s not stimulus, either.
Now, we were talking yesterday that the worst thing that could happen for Obama is if this worked. But maybe not. If it works, what does he get to say? He gets to say he crossed the aisle, he put the country first, he put aside things, he worked with the Republicans, and it’s working out, and he happens to be running for reelection. If it doesn’t work, in other words, if there is no economic stimulus tied to the extension of these tax rates, he can say, “You know, I went against my better judgment. I knew this wouldn’t work, but I thought for the sake of working with the other side to give it a try. Tax cuts don’t work, supply-side doesn’t work. I proved it in two years here. Supply-side doesn’t work.” Well, he’s taking positions on both sides so that he can say that he wins no matter what happens.
~~~This is all about how the table’s been set. How can it be said that the current tax rates that have been in place for ten years are gonna be a stimulus in the next two? It doesn’t make sense logically. The way the table’s been set people think they’re tax cuts. Why? Because they were gonna go up, they were gonna expire. It’s kind of like baseline budgeting.
Let me give you a better example. You go in to buy a car. You tell yourself when you go to the dealership that you’re not gonna spend anything more than $50,000 on your car. You go in there and you see a car you fall in love with for $75,000. But you don’t buy it. You buy the one for 50, and you tell your wife you just saved 25 grand. Even though you never intended to spend 75, you tell her you just saved 25 grand. Well, this tax business table has been set the same way. For whatever length of time the threat has been that these rates will expire, and everybody’s will go up. Now, that would happen if nothing was done on January 31st. But nobody’s taxes are going down. Nobody’s income taxes are going down, and nobody has ever contemplated anybody’s income taxes going down. And it is marginal income tax rates that are stimulative, lowering them, but they aren’t going to be lowered. Yet the table has been set to say tax increases are coming, but now since there aren’t tax increases coming, we’re being told tax cuts are coming, and then those tax cuts, which are not really tax cuts, and therefore will not stimulate the economy, two years from now, Obama will say, “Well, in the spirit of cooperation, I’m doing what I thought best. I wanted to try the Republicans’ idea, but it just hasn’t worked.”
This way they don’t have to do revisionist history of the Reagan years to say supply-side or whatever doesn’t work. They just have to tell the American people who have lived through these next two years, “They said tax cuts would stimulate the economy, and we clearly see that they haven’t.” And then, of course, the Republicans, conservatives have to point out two years from now, “Well, there weren’t any tax cuts.” And then you’re into a situation where you have to convince voters after the fact what went on instead of saying what I’m saying to them now, before this happens. The reason economists are saying that a payroll tax cut would be stimulative is because for one year it is gonna result in people’s paychecks being larger. But it’s not a perpetual stimulus because after one year the tax rate goes back up. By the same token, two years of the same tax rates, if they haven’t been a stimulus up till now why are they all of a sudden gonna become a stimulus? The fact is, not raising them is the thing that needs to be pointed out.
~~~Now, do you believe that all of a sudden a lifetime of belief has just been thrown down the sewer and Obama all of a sudden has now become a true believer, a supply-sider? “Every economist that I’ve talked to or that I’ve read over the last couple of days acknowledges that this agreement would boost economic growth in the coming years”? Folks, if he really believes that, this is time for the Republicans to make this a tax cut! This is time for them to propose an actual marginal income tax rate cut. Put him on the spot. He does not believe this — and furthermore he’s got a ton of economists, Democrat economists, who don’t believe this.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, this deal is not a good thing. The Republican leadership buckled under instead of allowing the new Republican Congress to pass a permanent tax cut. Then it would of been up to the Senate Democrats to block the bill as the country clamors for relief from the increased taxes. A little over a month after the election and current Republicans are giving away the farm.

Yes that’s the ‘reality’, but how is the issue being framed in the MSM? It’s almost only about Tax Cuts! Everything else is collateral, if it is even acknowledged!
So when it comes time for needed spending cuts, the Dems (with the help of the MSM) are going to frame the reason as the extra money GOP required for the Tax Cuts for the rich
I am so upset. Why did the GOP negotiate from weakness with the Dem!?
Then there’s the issue of rightfully being opposed to more massive debt and negotiating to massively increase the debt. Clearly the GOP hasn’t got the message we don’t want more debt
If you notice Obama’s comments since the “deal” was made, he is advocating any number of positions so that come ’12, he can say, “I told you so” no matter how the economy turns out.
Don’t fret. All they have is the frame work for this bill. Much can be changed in the interim.
Lots of regressive progressive pork stuffed into the framework.
But obama went to see his wife to go to a Christmas party while Bill Clinton acted as president with the press corp.
Hardly anyone sees obama as a real president. Everyone knows he is ineligible in many ways.
When you have to have help from an impeached former president it’s time to resign.
Oh and this is NOT a TAX CUT
This stops the death tax from increasing beyond 35%.
This stops my taxes from being raised.
You can always tell who doesn’t pay taxes.
They are for the tax bill to expire and taxes to be raised.
Looks like MSNBC is spewing a meme that this is a tax cut. IT’S NOT.
But then again MSNBC just got their payoff for getting slowbama voted into office.
They got nearly a trillion dollar bribe from stimulous funds. That’s where our money went.
Banks too……20% minimum base unemployment and stimulous money never really intended to fix the economy. It all went for bribes.
Try getting a commercial RE or business loan with perfect credit. It won’t happen. There is no money for loans….
Good Luck boosting the economy when the credit market is frozen.
Mata #46,
You won’t be running out of ammo anytime soon!
Hang no, @another vet… the joy of barrel shooting is that the shells are easy to retrieve and reload.
I sent an email to the Tea Party Patriots long before the elections suggesting that they ask any politicians they intend to support to sign a contract saying what they will and won’t do with a date to do certain things. The contract would state that if the politician doesn’t do what they said they would do (introduce a certain bill for example) by a certain date, that date would be their notice of leaving office, effective on that date. They would also have to guarantee that if someone else introduces such a bill, and it doesn’t have too much attached to it, then they would vote for the bill. Just because the politician says they will INTRODUCE the bill doesn’t mean they will VOTE for the bill.
I knew that once the politicians got in office that most of the promises they made wouldn’t be kept. After all, they are politicians. How many politicians can you think of who kept their promises, republican, democrat, or independent?
Mata –
I just don’t get you sometimes
This coming from the woman who refuses to acknowledge that DECREASING revenues makes the deficit worse?! What big hairy stones you have, Mata!
Not to be outdone, “Communist Red” Rage chimes it with
Again, cons refuse to take any responsibility for their own undoing. Under current law, the taxes for everyone were set to increase on January 1. Obama and the Dems arbitrarily set $250,000 as the “rich person” cutoff. Where they got that figure from, I don’t know. Maybe it was chosen because it is about five times the median household income, and thus unfathomable for the vast majority of America. But what did the GOPers do in response to this artificial cutoff? They declared that NO ONE will get an income tax cut in 2011 unless the “rich” got a tax cut! How dumb was that?
See, you cannot blame Obama for saying you cons were holding middle tax cuts hostage if you, in fact, condition middle class getting tax cuts on the rich wetting their beaks, too. Cons then compounded that problem by declaring that “the rich” were “the most productive Americans” (read “most valuable”). So not only did the GOPer cons declared that “the rich much get their taxes cut or nobody gets a tax cut”, the GOPer cons then made it worse by implying that the rich were just oh so much more special than everyone else and deserved that extra special attention. Great.
And the final straw? That letter of last week that basically said “No tax cuts for the rich? Then nothing else is getting voted on this year.” Think about that: if there is no extension of the Bush tax cuts, there would be no unemployment comp extension, no vote on the military budget, no continuing resolution on operating the government, no vote on Obama judicial nominations, no vote on the DREAM Act . . . nothing.
In that sense, Obama was right: everything was being held hostage to your con “holy grail” of tax cuts for “millionaires and billionaires.” You cannot blame “the media” for framing the question this way, because the cons did to themselves.
@Braindead Silly Bob: You blathered:
Um, hey Einstein. No one was talking about tax cuts. What is being debated is an extension of the current tax rates.
Why do you hate people who are successful and make over $250,000.00 a year? That bracket is the backbone of our economy, they run the small businesses, they do the hiring and job creating. Yet you and the liberal far left seem intent on penalizing them for their success.
Amazing.