Prediction: There will be no compromise on the Bush tax cuts

[Mr.Phips]

It is assumed by most that there will be some deal that extends the Bush tax cuts for a couple of years.  I am not so sure of that at all.

Nancy Pelosi is still Speaker of the House until January and is royally pissed off at Obama and Republicans for what happened in this election.  Well connected sources are saying that Pelosi will not budge on her position that only the middle class tax cuts should be extended.  As Speaker, Pelosi has the power to choose what legislation goes to the floor and she will likely only put a middle class only tax extension on the floor.

Basically we are in a position where Republicans will have to cave and support a middle class only tax cut extension or see taxes go up on everyone.

If taxes go up on everyone, Pelosi has nothing to lose.  Every Democrat that could be defeated was defeated in 2010 and in 2012, many of the Republicans from swing districts that voted against a middle class tax cut could well be defeated in an anti-incumbent 2012 election.  This would leave Pelosi in a good position to regain the House in 2014 and become Speaker again. 

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Or, there's no compromise, and the Republicans end up doing it just after the New Year.

[Mr.Phips]

Or, there's no compromise, and the Republicans end up doing it just after the New Year.

And possibly have Reid not bring it to the floor in the Senate or have it filibustered there. 

[Landslide Lyndon]

Or, there's no compromise, and the Republicans end up doing it just after the New Year.

And possibly have Reid not bring it to the floor in the Senate or have it filibustered there. 

Exactly. The Democratic base right now is furious with the pay freeze and if this is accompanied with an extension of the high income tax cuts they will be even more livid.
If Obama is tone deaf about that then I assume that many Democratic senators aren't and the last thing they want is a populist primary challenge from the left.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Or, there's no compromise, and the Republicans end up doing it just after the New Year.

And possibly have Reid not bring it to the floor in the Senate or have it filibustered there. 

Reid wouldn't do that... he's not as stubborn as Pelosi.  He may be a terrible Majority Leader, but he isn't an idiot.

[Mr.Phips]

Or, there's no compromise, and the Republicans end up doing it just after the New Year.

And possibly have Reid not bring it to the floor in the Senate or have it filibustered there. 

Reid wouldn't do that... he's not as stubborn as Pelosi.  He may be a terrible Majority Leader, but he isn't an idiot.

He might not do it, but enough Democratic Senators could well filibuster it. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

Could the lame duck House pass a bill repealing tax cuts for high incomes before the new Congress is seated ? I really hope so, but it seems pretty unlikely.

[Sbane]

If the Democrats allow the Republicans to give tax cuts to the rich while not extending unemployement benefits, they should basically disband as a party. Especially if they can't make it a winning issue.

[Mr. Morden]

Could the lame duck House pass a bill repealing tax cuts for high incomes before the new Congress is seated ? I really hope so, but it seems pretty unlikely.

They don't have to pass any bill repealing tax cuts for high incomes.  The tax cuts automatically expire without Congress doing anything.

The obvious politically smart move for the Dems is just to hold two votes.  One to extend tax cuts below $250,000, and one to extend tax cuts above $250,000.  Let any member vote his or her conscience on both bills.

The first bill would likely pass, and the second one likely wouldn't.

[Mjh]

If they get enough conservadems in the Senate to pass their new tax cut plan, President Obama will be forced to either sign an extension of upper-income tax cuts or veto an extension of middle-class tax cuts.

Either way it's win-win for us, and the Democrats will again be tarred as the party of higher taxes.

[Landslide Lyndon]

If they get enough conservadems in the Senate to pass their new tax cut plan, President Obama will be forced to either sign an extension of upper-income tax cuts or veto an extension of middle-class tax cuts.

Either way it's win-win for us, and the Democrats will again be tarred as the party of higher taxes.

Except for the inconvenient fact that a majority of the voters opposes the extension of the upper income tax cuts.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Or, there's no compromise, and the Republicans end up doing it just after the New Year.

And possibly have Reid not bring it to the floor in the Senate or have it filibustered there. 

Reid wouldn't do that... he's not as stubborn as Pelosi.  He may be a terrible Majority Leader, but he isn't an idiot.

He might not do it, but enough Democratic Senators could well filibuster it. 

I think enough of them realize that something needs to be passed.  This Senate has been much more reasonable than the House has.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Is a 'compromise' on the issue even being considered? Why? And at the same time as a major pay freeze is implemented? Do the Democrats want to lose more elections?

[Landslide Lyndon]

I think enough of them realize that something needs to be passed.  This Senate has been much more reasonable willing to capitulate than the House has.

Fixed.

Is a 'compromise' on the issue even being considered? Why? And at the same time as a major pay freeze is implemented? Do the Democrats want to lose more elections?

Apparently they do.

[Frink]

Or, there's no compromise, and the Republicans end up doing it just after the New Year.

And possibly have Reid not bring it to the floor in the Senate or have it filibustered there. 

Reid wouldn't do that... he's not as stubborn as Pelosi.  He may be a terrible Majority Leader, but he isn't an idiot.

He might not do it, but enough Democratic Senators could well filibuster it. 

I think enough of them realize that something needs to be passed.  This Senate has been much more reasonable than the House has.

The Senate always has spoken for the elite- so it makes sense.

[Mr. Morden]

The obvious politically smart move for the Dems is just to hold two votes.  One to extend tax cuts below $250,000, and one to extend tax cuts above $250,000.  Let any member vote his or her conscience on both bills.

The first bill would likely pass, and the second one likely wouldn't.

The first bill would pass the House, but not the Senate. How closely do you watch U.S. politics? Because of the arcane Senate rules, they need 60 votes for anything. The Senate doesn't have 60 votes for a middle-class-only tax cut, because everyone in the Senate knows that a yes vote on extending just the middle-class tax cuts is effectively the same thing as voting for a tax hike on the rich. President Obama will veto any bill that extends tax cuts solely on the rich. That's why Republicans in the Senate will obstruct and filibuster any bill that only extends tax cuts on the middle-class.

That would be political gold for the Dems, because they'll then have all those GOP Senators on record voting against tax cuts for the middle class.  They'll be able to say "The GOP voted to raise your taxes.  They thought tax cuts for the rich were so important that they held middle class tax cuts hostage."

The fear of that kind of campaign being waged against them would likely cause at least a few GOP Senators to vote for the middle class tax cut extension.  If not, like I said, political gold for the Dems, as they'd be able to club the GOP with "raising taxes" on everyone because they so valued tax cuts for the rich.

[Mr.Phips]

The obvious politically smart move for the Dems is just to hold two votes.  One to extend tax cuts below $250,000, and one to extend tax cuts above $250,000.  Let any member vote his or her conscience on both bills.

The first bill would likely pass, and the second one likely wouldn't.

The first bill would pass the House, but not the Senate. How closely do you watch U.S. politics? Because of the arcane Senate rules, they need 60 votes for anything. The Senate doesn't have 60 votes for a middle-class-only tax cut, because everyone in the Senate knows that a yes vote on extending just the middle-class tax cuts is effectively the same thing as voting for a tax hike on the rich. President Obama will veto any bill that extends tax cuts solely on the rich. That's why Republicans in the Senate will obstruct and filibuster any bill that only extends tax cuts on the middle-class. Because if that middle-class-only tax cut gets passed, President Obama gets exactly what he wants. After that all he has to do is veto the second bill that extends tax cuts on the rich. And he can veto that bill as many times as he wants.

A bill that extends the cuts for the wealthy wouldnt pass the Senate either.  Here are the Democrats I would see going along with that:  Bayh, Conrad, Lieberman, Lincoln, Landrieu, Pryor, both Nelsons, Webb, and Warner.  Voinivich already came out against an extension.  That's only 51 votes for it when 60 is needed.  

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I think enough of them realize that something needs to be passed.  This Senate has been much more reasonable willing to capitulate than the House has.

Fixed.

Without some "capitulation," (as you're labeling it), HCR never would have passed.

[Mr. Morden]

That would be political gold for the Dems, because they'll then have all those GOP Senators on record voting against tax cuts for the middle class.  They'll be able to say "The GOP voted to raise your taxes.  They thought tax cuts for the rich were so important that they held middle class tax cuts hostage."

The fear of that kind of campaign being waged against them would likely cause at least a few GOP Senators to vote for the middle class tax cut extension.  If not, like I said, political gold for the Dems, as they'd be able to club the GOP with "raising taxes" on everyone because they so valued tax cuts for the rich.

That could happen, but I see an equally likely scenario where that bill doesn't pass in the lame duck session, then the new Republican House takes over and they pass a bill extending ALL of the tax cuts. I don't see the tax cut debate ending if the middle-class only tax cut bill dies in the Senate in the lame duck session. I think it will just get handed off to the new Republican House.

The only way that I can see your scenario working, where Democrats can say that Republicans blocked the tax cuts, is if the tax cut issue just died after that vote in the lame duck session and was never brought up again. Unfortunately, that won't be the case. If the vote fails in the lame duck session, the new House is going to demagogue the issue all year. It will be hard for Democrats to claim that Republicans blocked tax cuts when Republicans are constantly introducing bills in the House to extend the tax cuts, and claiming that Democrats are blocking them. It requires a nuanced argument about "de-coupling" tax cuts, etc. that the American people just do not understand.

No, I don't see the tax cut issue just dying.  What I'm saying is that if the Dems are smart, they'll hold two votes in the lame duck session: One on extending tax cuts for those under $250,000, and one on extending them for those over $250,000.  If enough GOP Senators peel off to prevent a filibuster, and the lower income tax cut extension is passed, then great, they've extended the low income tax cuts, and the new GOP House can keep bringing up an extension of the tax cuts for the rich if they want, but I don't think it'll be a winning issue for them.

I think this is in fact the most likely scenario, *if* the Dems are smart enough to follow this strategy.  I don't think the GOP is unanimously going to vote against the tax cuts on those below $250,000, that'll be too politically risky.  I agree with what Jonathan Chait wrote about this months ago:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/77777/democrats-will-never-escape-devious-tax-trap-unless-uh-they-walk-right-out

The other scenario would be if the GOP does filibuster the lower income tax cuts in the Senate, because they insist on coupling it with the tax cuts for the rich.  You write that the GOP House, once they take over, will then keep introducing a bill to renew the tax cuts for everyone.  Well, the Democratic Senate can then just as easily keep introducing separate bills for those under $250,000 and those over $250,000.  It'll be just as uncomfortable for the Republicans in the Senate to keep voting against tax cut extensions as it will be for the Dems in the House to do the same.

[Mr.Phips]

A bill that extends the cuts for the wealthy wouldnt pass the Senate either.  Here are the Democrats I would see going along with that:  Bayh, Conrad, Lieberman, Lincoln, Landrieu, Pryor, both Nelsons, Webb, and Warner and Voinivich already came out against an extension.  That's only 51 votes for it when 60 is needed.

You need to provide a source for this information. I know that Ben Nelson, for one, wants ALL the tax cuts extended. So that calls into question your entire list. I think that most of those conservadems will vote to extend the upper-income tax cuts, if such a bill ever comes up in the Senate. It's pretty much guaranteed. These are stick-in-the-muds who fought the public option on health care to its death. They are totally in the pocket of big money.

Edit: Misread your comment. You need to put a period before "Voinovich already came out against an extension". I read it as saying that all those Senators that you listed came out against an extension, since there was no break in the sentence.

I changed my comment so it wouldnt confuse people. 

[Sam Spade]

You see, this is why I say Obama is clueless.

Republicans basically have him over the coals on the tax cuts.  They can stick to the all or nothing game because if nothing occurs, we know who will get blamed.  The argument of "they wanted tax cuts extensions for the rich, we didn't, so there will be no tax cut extension at all even though we fought for tax cut extensions for the middle class and they didn't" is far too complicated of an argument for anyone to get, and this administration, at this point in its term, is going to find it impossible to push a message of partisan behavior by Republicans for rather obvious reasons.  We'll see if the Republicans are smart enough to figure this out, though (which is usually the $64K question).

On the other hand, there was absolutely no reason to do the pay freeze of government workers.  Most people naturally realize that this has little impact on anything and the really smart people recognize that he pushed through huge CoL increases over the last 2 years in comparison to the rest of the population, so this move is also disingenuous.  The left-wing base, as noted here, is not happy for obvious reasons.  The right-wing base is not going to be moved by any of this, for equally obvious reasons.  Not to mention the issue of how government workers themselves will react - they were one of the more loyal cohorts to Obama in 2010 vis-a-vis 2008, for rather obvious reasons also.

Clueless, simply clueless.

[memphis]

Dems will cave. They always do.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm betting on Obama being full of fail on this issue. The man is incapable of not failing.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Is a 'compromise' on the issue even being considered? Why? And at the same time as a major pay freeze is implemented? Do the Democrats want to lose more elections?

The question is whether Obama is completely retarded, or whether he's a Republican operative. I can't figure out which. Well, no matter which, I'm rooting for his defeat in 2012, hopefully in the primaries.

[Torie]

As one addendum to what Sam said, the real money drain as to overpaid public employees is at the local level - by far. The federal GS system is actually quite good, and when you compare the quality of federal and state employees, well, having dealt with both over 34 years of legal practice, I have my own opinion, and it is a rather firm one.