The House Democrats reject the tax deal in a non-binding caucus vote.
This is another sign of Obama’s diminished influence, leverage, and power after the midterms. Several dozen of these House Democrats are out of work in January (and presumably have no interest in being Obama appointees or ambassadors). The White House could threaten that the president won’t campaign for them come 2012, but let’s face it, that didn’t turn out to be so helpful for Creigh Deeds, Jon Corzine, Martha Coakley, or a slew of congressional Democrats this year. And many members of the Democratic caucus are in such safe seats, they’ll never need Obama to come campaign for them. They probably figure he’ll need their help by 2012.
I understand the White House line is that today’s rejection is part of the “normal process.” Really? Is it normal for a majority of the president’s own party to vote against deals he makes?
UPDATE: In light of this . . .
President Obama warned his fellow Democrats on Wednesday that they risk plunging the country into a double-dip recession if they reject his tax-cut deal with Republicans.
. . . we can only conclude one of two things:
A) A majority of congressional Democrats don’t believe the president when he says a particular act is necessary to prevent a double-dip recession. In short, most members of Obama’s own party no longer trust his judgment on economic issues.
B) A majority of congressional Democrats agree, but don’t care, because they’re willing to endure a double-dip recession if that’s what it takes to ensure the rich pay higher taxes.
I'll take door "B"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe presume that the Dems don't want all the tax rates to go up, but is that true? Would the progressive wing not prefer ALL taxes go up to fully fund their government programs, they have offered retoric to support the concept of keeping "middle class" taxe rates as they are, but this may be empty words. They would rather see rates go up and then block a future tax cut from the GOP majority in the house with progressive allies in the Senate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think that the Democrats still bitter over Clinton's triangulation are going to make very hard for Obama to benefit at their expense. They believe still that if they just get more Liberal more consistently a great Liberal wave of voters will appear out of no where and save them. In 2012 they will again be mugged by reality.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseChoice 3: They're clueless.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"President Obama warned his fellow Democrats on Wednesday that they risk plunging the country into a double-dip recession if they reject his tax-cut deal with Republicans."
Obama is unravelling. According to him we can't raise taxes on the middle class, because that will kill job creation and lead to a double-dip recession. And Dems have to accept the bitter pill of "tax cuts for the rich" in order to get that deal from the GOP. This is the reverse of reality, since for job creation you *have* to keep rates lower for "the rich" (investors and small business owners) so that they'll have the confidence to put some of their money to work. But that's still Obama's argument.
So if middle class tax relief is so vital - why did the Democrats wait until weeks before the rates were scheduled to go up to even talk about it? They've had *two years* with substantial majorities to pass whatever they wanted in this regard, and sever it from "tax cuts for the rich" and never bothered to do it. The fact is they're alergic to *any* tax cuts, and prior to taking a political beating had no interest in preserving any of the Bush tax rates.
For that matter if Obama "knows" that low tax rates create jobs and fend off double dip recessions, why weren't actual tax *cuts* one of the *first* things he tried, rather than make deferring a tax *increase* one of the last?
Funny, isn't it?
Regards,
Joe
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse