Moments ago, Sen. Bernie Sanders, the self-described socialist from Vermont, stopped by the Senate press gallery unannounced to deliver red-faced invective trashing the proposed tax deal between the White House and the GOP, apparently doubling down on his earlier threat to filibuster the plan.
He said he is willing to do “anything and everything” to defeat the current proposal — which he called a “moral outrage” — and prevent a tax-rate extension for upper-income earners, by filibuster if necessary.
Sanders said he was going to find “a handful of Republicans” willing to reject the current deal (he didn’t say whom he had in mind) and come up with a “fairer” proposal. The prospect of increasing the deficit by extending the tax rates for high earners, he said, would be enough to convince some conservatives to oppose the current plan.
He dramatically accused Republicans of intentionally growing the deficit and wanting to provoke a fiscal crisis by passing these tax cuts, in order to set the stage for severe cuts to spending and benefits down the road.
Sanders rejected President Obama’s earlier description of hard-nosed liberal opposition as “sanctimonious,” saying that while he understands where the president is coming from in trying to compromise, the current deal is not what the American people want.
“I think we should draw the line, I think we should fight it, I think we should put pressure on Republicans. … I think this is a winnable fight,” he said.
While Sanders may in fact be able to find some conservatives that would oppose the deal, he's delusional if he thinks those conservatives would work with him on a "fairer" proposal. Especially since I doubt any of those conservatives care much for Sanders' definition of "fairness".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBoy, that crowd is really wedded to class warfare. All due respect Senator Sanders, just about half of all U.S. households pay no federal income tax. Why do the most wealthy then need to pay more? It's not your money. Please, you and your colleagues in the Senate, learn how to spend less. Dramatically less...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSanders is funny as heck! As I recall, there wasn't ONE Democrat, including this huckster who gave a darn what the American People wanted. As I recall, he spat in most Americans faces last year with Obamacare, cap & tax etc... He's a funny man!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNow, when you lose the Socialists, is that a positive, or a double negative?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere they go again - "moral outrage"? Wow. Please keep those delicious words coming, Class Warrior.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI feel much better about the proposal now that Bernie is against it. Still don't like that there are no offsetting cuts but that was probably one of President Obama's "lines in the sand."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFinding conservatives who "don't like the deal" will be a cinch. Finding even one to lock hands with Colonel Sanders and fillibuster it?
Susan Collins isn't even that much of a RINO, and Jim DeMint isn't even that much of a purist.
For entertainment value, he should try Al Franken!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse.....is every one from Vermont weird as hell.......
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusehere's an idea....reduce government spending, NOW!, BY ALOT!, NOW!....the government has continued to expand while private industry continues to contract....1400 new IRS agents to go after taxpayers while Mexican drug gangs take over our southern borders....taxpayer provided cell packages to bums.....one question; WHO THE HELL IS IN CHARGE HERE?, BECAUSE THIS IS GETTING CRAZIER BY THE MINUTE!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'd be more concerned about Pelosi's House torpedoing the "deal" than Bernie the Clown. There are too many vulnerable Senate Democrats up in 2012 to do something that stupid. But there are 66 House Democrats with nothing left to lose, and about 150 who can't lose in 2012 no matter what.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSanders believes it's a "moral outrage" to let Americans who earn $250,000 plus (including many small businesses) keep more of the money that they lawfully earn by their own sweat, hard work, talent and risk-taking? I strongly disagree with his characterization. Unlike Sanders and the Dems, I don't believe that simply because an individual earns more income, they should give more income back to the government. Success should be rewarded by our government, not penalized. And this inflamed class warfare rhetoric attacking the "rich" and "wealthy" needs to stop. It's unfair, unproductive, unhealthy and un-American. But it is straight out of the class division, sowing seeds of economic resentment tactics of the Marxist-Leninist playbook from the 1920's.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt was my understanding that because Reid did not initiate a proposal on a new budget they cannot invoke rendition so a filibuster would not be allowed. In that case 51 votes would pass a bill in the senate. Let Sanders try to avoid 51 votes. His attempt would spin their wheels during the remaining time so the other useless programs would not have time to be brought up.
It was funny to watch Sanders yesterday. Saw him on two different channels in a row . On the first he said that he had 500 calls in support of the filibuster and the second the number increased to 600. He has as much creditability as Al Gore.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDelicious, and think, the smartest man on earth just set this up as a campaign issue in 2012! We get to see how class warfare plays out once again as a wining strategy (ops, I forgot about 2010).
Offsetting cuts, lest see what happens when the House puts together its budget plans in January.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm confused- in this economic environment, are things working properly if a small percentage of the richest Americans are increasing their wealth while everyone else is losing it?
That seems to be the bottom line.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse