By Steve Kornacki
Let me be clear upfront: From a policy standpoint, the case for allowing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to expire is very, very solid. (Heck, the policy case for allowing all of the tax cuts to expire isn't that bad, either, when you consider that the savings could be used to, say, extend unemployment benefits or shore up Medicare -- not that this idea is on the table.)
What is not solid, though, is the insistence of progressive activists that using the lame-duck session of Congress to restore rates for the wealthiest (read: those making $250,000 or more) to their Clinton-era levels would be a political slam-dunk for the White House and Democrats -- that reaching a compromise with Republicans would mean ducking from a fight that would significantly boost the standing of Obama and his fellow Democrats.
Superficially, the activists have a point. Polls typically show that voters are fine with the idea of raising rates on the rich, especially when the alternative is cuts to programs that are popular with the middle class. Thus, a recent survey from the Progressive Change Campaign Committee found that voters, when asked to choose between cutting Social Security, cutting defense spending and raising taxes on the wealthy, strongly preferred socking it to the rich. Similarly, exit polls from the Nov. 2 midterms found that 51 percent of voters -- the same voters who propelled Republicans to a 60-plus seat gain in the House -- say they want Bush-era tax rates on the wealthy to expire.
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/11/15/bush_tax_cuts_democrats/index.html">Continue reading
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
