Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLet me try to explain this in short bursts. 1. The bill does NOT have 50 votes at the moment. 2.
Thread.
Democrats, we have a problem.
NEW: confirming other reporting, *sources* familiar, that there is a tax issue which has not been worked out as of a short time ago.
Sen. Sinema is highly concerned about a provision that she sees as undermining the deal shed struck.
Let me try to explain this in short bursts.
1. The bill does NOT have 50 votes at the moment.
2. B/c @SenatorSinema
opposes how the corp. minimum tax (15%) would apply to some businesses w/ subsidiaries, notably including hedge fund and private equity.
2/
3. The issue, somewhat simplifying it, is that the min. tax applies to businesses > $1 billion.
4. That includes subsidiaries. So total, including subsidiaries >$1 billion.
5. Sinema thought private equity, w/ many small (# of ppl) subidiaries with lg ($) revenues, wld b exempt.
6. This issue is worth $30 - $35 billion.
7. So it's not minor.
8. Sinema wants it out, wants these firms to be less likely to be hit by minimum tax. (She argues it is deterrent to investment in her state.)
From there the plot thickens even more...
4/
Republicans have a calculating answer.
Sen. Thune proposes an amendment dropping the portion Sinema dislikes and replacing the revenue with from.... **extending the SALT cap**.
Problem: Sinema could easily be a yes for that and it might pass. Setting off a storm w/ other Dems.
SO WHERE ARE WE:
- Democrats do not have 50 votes for this bill in reality at the moment.
- Though they have 50 in theory IF they can work things out w/ Sinema.
- At the moment though, this is a rather tough stare-down.
And it is not clear how long, how this will resolve.
Democrats, we have a problem.
NEW: confirming other reporting, *sources* familiar, that there is a tax issue which has not been worked out as of a short time ago.
Sen. Sinema is highly concerned about a provision that she sees as undermining the deal shed struck.
Let me try to explain this in short bursts.
1. The bill does NOT have 50 votes at the moment.
2. B/c @SenatorSinema
opposes how the corp. minimum tax (15%) would apply to some businesses w/ subsidiaries, notably including hedge fund and private equity.
2/
3. The issue, somewhat simplifying it, is that the min. tax applies to businesses > $1 billion.
4. That includes subsidiaries. So total, including subsidiaries >$1 billion.
5. Sinema thought private equity, w/ many small (# of ppl) subidiaries with lg ($) revenues, wld b exempt.
6. This issue is worth $30 - $35 billion.
7. So it's not minor.
8. Sinema wants it out, wants these firms to be less likely to be hit by minimum tax. (She argues it is deterrent to investment in her state.)
From there the plot thickens even more...
4/
Republicans have a calculating answer.
Sen. Thune proposes an amendment dropping the portion Sinema dislikes and replacing the revenue with from.... **extending the SALT cap**.
Problem: Sinema could easily be a yes for that and it might pass. Setting off a storm w/ other Dems.
SO WHERE ARE WE:
- Democrats do not have 50 votes for this bill in reality at the moment.
- Though they have 50 in theory IF they can work things out w/ Sinema.
- At the moment though, this is a rather tough stare-down.
And it is not clear how long, how this will resolve.
Link to tweet
7 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Let me try to explain this in short bursts. 1. The bill does NOT have 50 votes at the moment. 2. (Original Post)
demmiblue
Aug 2022
OP
Lisa d whatever the rest of her name is a correspontant...I see no evidence of any such thing
Demsrule86
Aug 2022
#5
Sinema released a statement that she was OK with the bill so I don't believe it.
Demsrule86
Aug 2022
#4
Me.
(35,454 posts)1. Damn Her
and is that what she was plotting with McConnel and Cotton?
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)5. Lisa d whatever the rest of her name is a correspontant...I see no evidence of any such thing
Raven123
(7,797 posts)2. Was this disputed provision added after she agreed to the Bill?
hedda_foil
(16,985 posts)7. Of course not. The hedge fund attorneys just didn't notice it before.*
So they must have called in her a tizzy this morning to get it fixed! And Sinerama is off and running to do their bidding again.
* Yes, this is pure speculation but I'd be willing to bet on it.
Frustratedlady
(16,254 posts)3. I thought Manchin was a PITA, but Sinema takes the cake.
I thought she was solid in her agreement. Sounds to me like the Repukes have been having a little fun and giving her the attention she so dearly desires.
Grow up, Sinema. The Repukes are using you and have been since Biden WON the office of POTUS.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)4. Sinema released a statement that she was OK with the bill so I don't believe it.
AZSkiffyGeek
(12,744 posts)6. Her latest tweets indicate they've found a solution nt