With 20/20 Hindsight, it hit me how the Democrats could have handled Bush Tax Cuts

[Armstead]

I realize this is 20/20 hindsight, or Monday Morning quarterbacking. But I'm just wondering why the Democratic leaders and the well-paid strategists or the 3D Chessmaster didn't think of this.

We all, know what happened. Despite previous promises by President Obama and other Democratic leaders, the budget-busting Bush Tax Cuts were extended for the rich.

The narrative that developed was the GOP won the 2010 elections, they refused to allow ANY extensions for the middle class unless tax cuts for the rich were included. And so, backed into a corner the Democrats had to cave. And now we have the bogeyman of budget cuts and "shared sacrifice" looming, while the wealthy get to keep enough money out out of the system through the tax cuts to buy themselves a fifth home or a new Lear jet or something.

But a possible alternative strategy just struck me. We didn't have to play catch-up on this at the last minute.

Everyone knew for years the extension was coming at the end of 2010. So why couldn't President Obama and Congressional Democrats have put an extension of the tax cuts for the middle class on the table immediately in early 2009?

In other words, propose and submit legislation during the initial months of the new administration and Democratic majorities in Congress that would extend the tax cuts on the first $250,000 (or whatever figure was most appropriate) when they were due to expire. Separate that from the tax cuts for the upper income brackets immediately.

The GOP would have respondded in one of two ways. Either they would have been pressured by political necessity to go along with the Democratic Middle-Class Tax Cuts, because they would have looked like shitheads if they had tried to oppose it -- especially in the wake of the Big Bank bailouts of the time.

Or, (probably more likely) they would have tried to block it just because they are Republicans. They'd come up with excuses, and potential filibusters, etc. Not as constructive for the country, and it might have led to a hard battle and/or stalemate.

But it would also have had the advantage of allowing the Democrats to cast them as the friends of the rich who were willing to hold the middle class hostage...So it would have been a fight between the tax-cutting Democrats defending the middle class while also being fiscally responsible Vs. the GOP who were willing to bust the budget and screw the middle class to protect tax cuts for the wealthy.

Either way, it could have been a win-win for the Democrats. If the GOP went along, the middle class would get tax breaks, and the issue of tax breaks for zillionaires would have been decoupled from that as a separate fight. If the GOP had lopposed it, the Democrats could have changed the frame, shown the GOP for who they are and perhaps made the Tea Party seem less relevant at the time. All of that could have turned tyhe election last year.

Sure this is now a lot of woulda, coulda, shoulda....But when it crossed my mind, I had to wonder why it hadn't crossed the minds of those smart folks in Washington who represent us.

[Blecht]

1. This scenario has one fatal flaw

There's no way the media would have represented this as "a fight between the tax-cutting Democrats defending the middle class while also being fiscally responsible Vs. the GOP who were willing to bust the budget and screw the middle class to protect tax cuts for the wealthy." Maybe here at DU, but on TV, or in newspapers, or on the radio. They would have twisted it into their usual pro-corporate propaganda.

There is no way to get the message out in the traditional media. The system is broken, the media are a big part of that mess.

The only way for change to occur is for pressure to come from other places, like what is happening in Wisconsin. A true grassroots movement that can grow through new media. And it seems that the only way that it can happen is as a response to a really dumb corporate tool like Walker.

[Armstead]

2. It would require agresssive and smart messaging -- but that's their job

I agree with you that the media is a lousy messenger. However, that just means the Democrats would have had to come out swinging more aggressdively to get the message out and through the media filters.

We can't always give up because of the big bad media.

[LiberalFighter]

3. There is no reason why it couldn't work. The problem are Democratic candidates

not having effective campaigns. Locally they could do it and win. On the campaign trail candidates can keep bringing it up and eventually the local media will have to cover it. Internet and mailing would also be necessary.

[Rageneau]

4. Maybe Democrats mishandled the tax issue on purpose?

Maybe the delay was on purpose. Maybe the fix was 'in' on tax-cuts-for-the-rich long before Congress 'officially' took up the issue. Maybe certain Dems knew ALL ALONG how the plot would develop and what the resolution would be. Maybe the stupidity and timidity of the Democratic Party on so many issues are actually qualities imposed on it -- instilled in it -- by the real string-pullers. And maybe I'm paranoid, but whenever I've been paranoid before, it turns out I was right.

[Armstead]

5. I'm not prepared to believe that.....But hope springs eternal

[PATRICK]

33. It usually goes like this regardless of motivation

Money and media talks. The closest thing possible to 50% gridlock and zero responsibility suddenly displays a DECISIVE policy air. Appealing to a minority of "swing" voters and big donors is preferable to even the simplest appeal to the real desires of the 80%. Caution- and utter silence- rears rears its head when the best solutions are obvious. There is no law in politics except some nearly quaint applications of overt corruption. Morality is enforced against Dems who do not get along with the bizarrely conceived WH political agenda. Their slightest fear is worth the lives of your children, the Constitution and the survival of the species. Their own political dominance comes last except for the inner world of Dem bickering.

Whatever bedazzled Reagan Dems still exist seem to have made it into government. Can't complain about crooked elections, fraudulent press, broken laws of the most serious kind. Can belittle with a hint of arrogance the real Dem majority which they know their snickering false friends in the media will love.

This was crazily evident many years ago, going strong on faux weakness, almost desperately trying to recreate the Republican Party as it never was.

Money corruption. Following the lead on never representing the best interest of people and nation. The consequential moral blindness, weird bipolar sense of party leadership. All this we have to admit(which I don't think the upper management can) was all known, consistent to a dismaying absurdity. As usual the elected top dogs have been worse than any cynic could have guessed, forestalling a nice rational real world process of growing the real roots of democracy whether that meant new parties or a very natural purge of the establishment mythos that will kill us all- the only democratic world scenario that is more certain than even token reform.

[AtomicKitten]

6. The taxcut deal shook loose repeal of DADT, the 9-11 First Responders Healthcare Bill,

and ratification of the START Treaty. In light of the consensus that the 2-year extension would not be catastrophic, I think a pretty good deal was struck.

[Armstead]

8. Face it....It was a defeat. Most Democrats will admit that (on or off the record)

Remember the divisions among Democrats over this in December? No one was saying it was a good thing that the GOP got what they wanted....The most positive spin put on it was that "at least we kept the middle class tax breaks alive."

Not a win when Democrats had to go back on a major campaign pledge, and something they theoretically stood for over the past two years.

The 9-11 bill should've been a no-brainer and also done with enough time earlier to avoid that particular stalemate. That one should not have been political, and the issue -- where the money should come from -- could have been negotiated previously. The GOP isn't stupid enough to have preferred to be seen as against the principle of aid to 911 responders.

DADT repeal was a side benefit, but it seems like a ridiculous situation when that has to be coupled with a basic economic issue like tax cuts.

[AtomicKitten]

9. Face it -- it was a deal struck between two fractious parties.

One that was holding up EVERYTHING that came down the pike, and another willing to hammer out a compromise to move some important legislation.

[Armstead]

11. Therein lies the problem

One party, the GOP, actually had a strategy based on their core beliefs (wrongheaded as they may be).

The other party is unable to organize a fire drill.

Compromise is one thing. Being forced to capitulate because of a lack of core beliefs is something else.

[AtomicKitten]

15. Compromise is not capitulation -- it brought about passage of three important bills.

1. Repeal of DADT.
2. 9-11 First Responders HealthCare Bill.
3. Ratification of the START treaty.

The above accomplishments are nothing to sneeze at (going from blocked to passed) and reflect Dem core beliefs, your efforts to marginalize them notwithstanding.

[Armstead]

17. It didn't bring about passage of those bills

They were separate issues.

If there were any connections, they were only because the GOP outfoxed the Democrats by claiming to be compromising.

THe only side that compromised (capitulated) on the tax breaks were the Democrats. The GOP was fine with the middle class aspect, and were in favor of them -- The only difference is that they also wanted to extend them to the rich, and were willing to hold the middle class breaks hostage to get that. They gave nothing up.

START was going to happen because there was support for it from both sides..The only reason it was a "compromise" is because the GOP outfoxed the Dems by raising some minor objections, and threatening to scuttle it if they didn't get their tax breaks.

LIkewise, rEgarding DADT, that passed because enough members of the GOP saw the handwriting on the wall and the fact that it had widespread support in the public and the military brass...Again they created an artificial linkage (which also allowed them to distance themselves to placate their homophobic base) by connecting it to the tax break extensions.

In other words, the only side that really gave up much in the "compromise" on the tax breaks was the Democrats, while the GOP ran the table, only seeming to "give" in on things they would have ultimately supported anyway.

[AtomicKitten]

18. They were bills that had piled up because the GOP blocked everything.

The logistics of this played out the day the taxcut deal was reached ... the same day DADT repeal, the 9-11 bill, and START passed - bam - bam - bam.

Clear as can be, well, to those not participating in the daily harangue against the president and the Dem party.

[Armstead]

19. You miss my point

Underlying question is not mindless bashing. Simply batting around ideas on a discussion board.

My OP was admittedly after the fact speculation about a strategy that might have forced the hand of the GOP on the tax cut issue as an alternative to Democrats being backed into a corner.

Whatever linkage there may or may not have been created on those issues in December, my thought was focused on ways Democrats could have more successes by being more proactive earlier -- rather than the distressingly familiar pattern allowing the GOP to control the agenda so much, even when they are in the minority.

[AtomicKitten]

20. I don't think anybody here misses your point.

The deal on the taxcuts included a quasi-stimulus that included a much-needed extension of Unemployment Insurance. The only bill that fell by the wayside in the negotiations was the Dream Act which Pres Obama has pledged not to abandon. What Pres Obama got in the deal was substantial regardless of your attempts to minimize and marginalize the deal.

Ideally, the Congress should have followed Pres Obama's lead and gone after the GOP re: extension of the taxcuts for the wealthy BEFORE the midterms. But they declined to do so and missed a hell of an opportunity.

[Armstead]

21. Well let's just leave it at where we partially agree on then...

"Ideally, the Congress should have followed Pres Obama's lead and gone after the GOP re: extension of the taxcuts for the wealthy BEFORE the midterms. But they declined to do so and missed a hell of an opportunity. "

[Exilednight]

26. Out of the three things you mentioned, only one can be considred a compromise for the tax cuts.

DADT was going to go away one way or another. There was too much pressure, both internally and externally from both sides to get rid of it.

Republicans were shamed into the 9-11 bill by the media. For once they proved useful.

START was the only real compromise to come out of the tax cuts. Eventually, Republicans would of given up on defeating START, tea partiers would of gone along with it.

[Avant Guardian]

24. It added two years to the recession

And it makes it impossible to balance the Budget before Obama leaves office.

Obama should have immediately ended the Bush tax cuts retroactively upon taking office. Had he done so, we would be in primary balance by next year.

[ProSense]

7. Here's the flaw in this scenario:

that all Democrats were on board. The same case was made for doing it before the election. Given that the Democratic caucus included 56 blue dogs in the House, and 15 Democratic Senators voted against Sanders' amendment, the bills would have likely gone down to defeat with Democratic support. That would have exposed those Democrats and strengthened the GOP's hand. The media would have been happy to point out that Democrats supported the GOPs's position. That wouldn't have helped the 2010 outcome.

Maybe a vote a month before the election could have been better. That wouldn't have given the media spin enough time to sink in. Democrats could have focused on the GOP at that point.

[Armstead]

10. To be honest -- I say any Democrat who opposed MC tax cuts should have been exposed...

...and thrown to the wolves. Many of the House Blue Dogs got tossed out by voters anyway. Any Dem senators who opposed it on some legitimate basis would have had a lot of explaining to do, or could have worked their objections into it if it had not been handled on a last-minute take-it-or-leave-it basis.

However one felt about the upper-income extensions, the concept of giving a tax cut to the middle class is potential political gold.

My point was that if done in advance, the REAL Democrats would have had more time to actually fight the tax cuts for the rich battle on its own terms. (And when I say REAL democrats, I include moderates, not just progressives.)

[Avant Guardian]

25. Obama and all of the Democrats should have pushed to get rid of all the Bush tax cuts

Tax cuts got us here, tax cuts wont get us out of this mess.

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

[Armstead]

28. Eventually maybe......But it's been hard enlough just to try to get partial change

[Armstead]

14. Let me rephrase that response above

Tax cuts for the middle/working class have been like Apple Pie and Motherhood.

If the Democrats had brought Apple Pie and Motherhood to a vote early on, thge message would have been: "We all agree that the middle class should get an extension of the tax cuts. So let's do that now, and get it out of the way. Then we can have a separate fight over whether the wealthy should also get the same break."

That would have called the bluff both of the GOP and forced Blue Dog/Conservadems to explain themselves.

[dionysus]

12. the administration wanted it voted on before the midterms but the senate and house balked.

[Armstead]

13. I';m talking about wayyy before the midterms, to take away their "balking room"

[dionysus]

16. it would have been wise to do it the way you suggest.

[JoePhilly]

22. It did not happen earlier because the blue dogs would not do it, ever.

It is not as if the blue dogs might have been willing earlier. They were NEVER willing to do it.

That is why it fell to Obama.

Just reality.

[Armstead]

27. Fuk 'em...They got their asses booted out anyway

At least a lot of them did.

[JoePhilly]

30. That is true ...

The Dems (and blue Dogs) should have made the tax cuts an election issue. They decided not to.

And they got their assess kicked.

[karynnj]

23. One guess - they likely did not see the end of their supermajority

in the Senate coming - and they bought the idea (in the case of health care) that hurrying and having Kirk cast a deciding vote - that Brown would disagree with was wrong. (Tell me the Republicans would not have done that?)

One reason might have been that there were some Democrats against it - in fall 2010, Bayh and some of the usual suspects were saying they were only for a bill that raised taxes on no one. I wonder if tested, by having a bill before them that simply extended the tax costs on income under $250,000 if they - and maybe some vulnerable Repoublicans would have voted for it.

They should have at least tried it before the election - as some in the Senate (Kerry and Durbin were the two publicly named) for such a vote. Given the recent polling on tax cuts for the wealthy, this would likely have helped much more than hurt - though it was the blue dogs in vulnerable seats against it - and I think that in many cases, they signed the ends of their careers with that stand.

[Armstead]

29. If they didn't they should go back to college and take Poly Sci 101

[karynnj]

31. Did anyone predict in mid December that Coakley, who was originally polled

as 20 points ahead would lose to a former centerfold? You are from MA, so you might know of concerns that I never heard of. The Senate was in session non stop on Health care in December as the Republicans required every procedural vote there was - even on the week ends.

I agree that they should have taken the vote - even if they knew it would be filibustered. I also think they needed to make the choice of the drastic cuts in almost everything vs allowing the top tier of the Bush tax cuts to expire. This was a popular issue for us in both 2004 and 2008. From what was reported there were only 5 Senators arguing with Reid to have the vote before the election - and only Kerry and Durbin were public about it. (That mightsuggest that Obama was for it. Obama did speak of it, but not with the strength needed to make people demand it - and it does not look like he pushed Congress. That likely made it easier for the blue dogs - possibly including Reid - to win the argument that it could hurt in the election. (I still don't get that because whether there was a vote or not, that was seen as the Democratic position and in addition, it NOT being resolved was seen as "adding uncertainty" to the market - as if the market EVER has certainty on what the future really holds.

[Armstead]

32. Coakley ran a very bad campaign -- But also by Poly Sci 101, I meant....

...always expect the unexpected and be ready for it. Even if Coakley had won, though, that would have simply reinforced the benefits of putting the middle class cuts on the table and separating it from those for the wealthy.

I was thinking if they had pushed for the Middle Class cuts from the get-go, and I mean pushed as with a bill, going to the public etc. is because they would have had something tangible to point to early on. In other words put the middle class cuts on the table and force the GOP's hand to reveal their cards. If the GOP stalled it, there would be a clear selling point for Democrats. If the GOP went along with that part of it, the middle class tax cuts would have been extended.

Part of the problem is something you pointed out:"Obama did speak of it, but not with the strength needed to make people demand it - and it does not look like he pushed Congress." It's a pattern we've seen in many things.

[karynnj]

34. I agee with you completely

I vaguely remember that the reason they gave for not addressing it immediately is that doing nothing, they would expire at the end of 2010. In fairness, I don't remember a huge demand that they immediately make permanent the middle class tax cuts. In truth, I know I didn't think of how hard it would be to do just that. Had anyone asked, I would have thought the bill - simply extending some tax cuts would face little resistance - because who would want to vote to raise everyone's taxes before the election.

My excuse is that I never took Poly Sci 101 - I was a Math/Economics major - with few electives. But, in hindsight, this was a case where we were on the popular side and could have gotten them through - and they knew that by themselves the tax cuts for the wealthy would lose badly. You are right.

[zipplewrath]

35. You presume they wanted to end them

You're making an assumption that the White House wanted to end the tax cuts, in 2009 or beyond. It isn't clear that they did. Timmy was a big fan of them, as a stimulus feature, as were several others. Even by 2010 they felt they had some advantage, although they would have preferred to have the cash to spend other ways. But in the end, it wasn't all that important to them and they preferred to negotiate them away for other things they wanted because they didn't see it as much of a big deal.