Lawrence O'Donnell says it is Republicans that are responsible for taxes going up..

[kentuck]

And he goes on to prove his point.

When the taxcuts were first passed in 2001, they were passed by the "reconciliation" process. In other words, by a simple majority.

But, and here is the kicker, when a bill is passed by "reconciliation", it automatically sunsets after 10 years. The Republicans knew when they passed the taxcuts in 2001 that they would go back up in 2011.
That is the law. Passed by Republicans.

The Democrats do not have to raise a finger or even comment on the "sunset" of the taxcuts. That was passed by the Republicans. They are responsible for passing the taxcuts by reconciliation. Therefore, they are the responsible Party if taxes go up on January, 2011.

So, when the Republicans argue that the Democrats are going to raise your taxes, they are talking out of their asses. And they are lying. They created this tax increase with the manner in which they passed their monstrous, deficit-born, taxcuts in 2001.

[OHdem10]

1. When the taxcuts were set for the ten years, GWB admitted

at that time the country might not be able to afford them.
They could be evaluated at that time.

[Motown_Johnny]

3. that clip should be in an add

[spanone]

2. ah, but watch the media beat the shit out of dems for 'repealing tax cuts & raising taxes'

it's already happening

[Make7]

4. Would that not apply to the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010?

kentuck wrote:

... when a bill is passed by "reconciliation", it automatically sunsets after 10 years.

The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 was passed by reconciliation. Do you believe it will automatically sunset after 10 years? So the provision in that bill to close the Medicare Part D "donut hole" by 2020 would revert back to how it was before the bill the same year it is scheduled to fully take effect?
 

[BlueIdaho]

6. Bills passed through reconciliation do not automatically sunset after 10 years.

The tax cuts had to sunset because after a few years they would increase the budget. Bills passed through reconciliation can not increase the budget. Or so said L.O. It was a typical W trick to give his "base" a fat little cherry and kick the can down the road... With HCR, the further out they project the more money it saves - if I'm remembering things right.

[kentuck]

8. That is correct.

They only sunset if they increase the deficit. And supposedly, the HCR is supposed to save money, unlike the Bush taxcuts.

[malaise]

14. They only sunset if they increase the deficit.

That should be in the ad -The Bush tax cuts increased the deficit.

[kentuck]

16. Yep.

The Bush taxcuts increased the deficit and the debt by over $2 trillion dollars. If they are as concerned about the deficit as they say they are, it would be insane to extend the taxcuts.
If the Democrats vote to increase the deficit, by voting to extend the taxcuts, they deserve to lose. The winning political issue is to bring down the deficits, not to increase them. They are shooting themselves in the foot if they go along with this propaganda blitzkrieg.

[upi402]

5. I saw that. Republicans need to be held to account

Often and loud. They do it that way because it works. Never forget how stupid and easy to fool Americans are. Bush was re-selected, if someone needs proof!

[gratuitous]

7. My recollection on the 10 year sunset clause

As I recall, the Republicans were making a great show in 2001 about their fiscal responsibility, and how their tax cuts wouldn't add to the deficit. However, in order to do that and satisfy auditors' concerns (Congressional Budget Office?), they had to let the cuts lapse after 10 years or the math wouldn't pencil out.

Of course, once the Republicans launched their two elective invasions and occupations of other countries, the notion of continuing to cut taxes while paying for greatly expanded military efforts seemed incongruous. But in the rockets' red glare, a lot of things seem to get obscured, and the Bush administration's record deficits were just a few among many things that the popular media are only now just beginning to notice again.

But yes, the expiration of the ill-considered tax cuts is wholly the result of Republican scheming, as is the yammering over it.

[kentuck]

9. The Democrats need to find a simple way to explain that...

that the average voter can understand. Although I do not think it is that complicated.

The Repubs passed the bill in 2001 and they voted to reinstate the taxes in 10 years if it drove up the deficits. And boy, did it ever drive up the deficits!

[BlueIdaho]

11. I think it can be explained.

Play the damn tape of W explaining that a surplus meant the federal government had too much money and he planned on giving it back (to the wealthy). Then play the tapes of ever single goddamn elected republican saying we need to keep the tax cut for the wealthy. While all this is going on, run a clock on the bottom of the ad showing the federal debt growing by the second. Intersperse that with shots of foreclosure signs, bank closure signs, banister perp walks, people holding need work signs, factories sitting empty and vacant, public health clinics, and bridges collapsed in rivers.

Maybe people will make the connection.

Edit = finish paragraph.

[BlueIdaho]

10. The Byrd Rule

One of it's "tests" states that a reconciliation may not contain provisions that change federal outlays or revenues. The judgment is based on a GAO report of a bill's revenue and outlay impact.

Bottom line, the fat cat tax cut was a disaster. It did exactly what W told everyone it would do. It gave Clinton's federal surplus on the wealthy. It must go.

[mzmolly]

12. "Republicans placed a ten year limit on their tax cuts for the wealthy."

My spin ala O'Donnell and his brilliant point. :hi:

[YvonneCa]

13. Isaw him It was good explanation of what we Democrats...

...know.

[BootinUp]

15. I think thats true, however

its not the type of technicality that will persuade average joe really. We need to justify not extending the cuts on the rich. This is a tough challenge still in this brainwashed society.

[wiggs]

17. Strong point. Should be an easy case to make for WH and dem leaders. Especially

if combined with the many OTHER reasons why taxes are allowed to increase for the wealthiest 2%:

Republicans are largely responsible for the Iraq war...direct costs plus a generation of indirect costs for care of the injured and support for a broken country

Republicans are the ones that created a historic imbalance of tax burden

Republicans are the ones gutting the middle class, leaving many more the remainder reliant on government services

Corporatist policies, such as deregulation and offshoring and outsourcing, have led to decreased government revenues

Driving the economy into a ditch has reduced tax revenues

Protection of imperialist and enriching activities around the world is expensive

Republican administrations are responsible historically for the lions share of deficit increases


So it should be easy. Let's see if they really want to do it. GOP politicians and pundits have been blaming dems for taxes and deficits for 30 years WITHOUT being right. Let's see if our leaders can use facts and put the blame where it belongs.