U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
December 07, 2010 07:55 PM UTC
32 Comments
class warriors. Why else would they object to keeping tax breaks for the beleaguered top 1% who account for 23% percent of all income?
But, to be fair, you can make that cut with only 388 K and paying the same percentage as in the Clinton era would no doubt be a crushing blow at that level. They might have to hit the food banks to get by. The biggest beneficiaries are the top one tenth of one percent who account for a little more than half of the top 1%’s share, the poor lower 99% of that demo having to share the other half.
Naturally, the R’s demand and the so called “moderate” Dems, yesterday’s rock ribbed conservatives, agree that any slackening in favors for the few families in that top .01% is just as bad as the French Revolution’s Terror. The importance of retaining them in their present back to the gilded era isolated from the plebians grandeur is worth everything the rest of us are being asked to sacrifice. And when their ponzi schemes fail, its our job to bail them out or they’ll take what scraps they leave us with them on their way down. Money changers we can believe in.
The payroll tax holiday is, supposedly, going to be paid for out of the general budget, meaning Social Security itself won’t be touched.
unfortunately that will not stop the Simpson and Bowles types from using that as a further argument to “fix” Social Security.
Anyone who thinks Republicans suggested a payroll tax holiday, compensated from the General Fund, simply because it’s good for the working folk needs to stop smoking whatever it is they’re smoking.
The tax holiday (a) gives them the opportunity to pitch a renewal of that tax reduction (preferably permanently, dooming the financial soundness of SSI), and (b) allows them to show that Social Security is in the red financially.
right now in a phone town hall.
When the payroll tax holiday is over, it will seem to be a tax increase to resume it, so the pressure will be to continue it. Yes, the Rs want it to be permanent, to then argue SS is “unsustainable.”
if you think there’s actually a chance Bennet and Udall would vote against tax cuts for the top 2 percent while scaling back even further the estate tax for the richest 1 percent.
Yeah, right.
For the first time in the Obama Presidency I am NOT proud of what our president is doing.
The Democrats should be sticking firm to the $1 million compromise. THAT is a compromise. There is no proof – NONE – that restoring the old tax rates for individuals on their second million and up would in any way affect job hiring.
What about $ 5 million? $10 million? $25 million? Setting the bar at such absurdly high levels seems crazy, but there HAS to be some point at which the Bush tax giveaways need to be trimmed back so that we can at least start tackling our gigantic deficit.
I’m disgusted with both parties right now – the Republicans far more, but the Democrats as well for their lack of backbone.
The Republicans used Reconciliation to get these tax cuts passed 10 years ago.
Why didn’t the Dems use Reconciliation to write the extension any way they wanted?
Reconciliation instructions have to pass through the House, and they’re subject to Republican motions to recommit IIRC.
If Democrats had taken this up before the election, they could have pushed it through the House by now, but they waited until after the election, no doubt hoping they’d have a less recalcitrant Republican opposition once the political grandstanding for the election was done.
Answer: Cojones.
I think the instructions have to be written at the beginning of the congressional session. That was what Obama set up in 2009 for the health care reform bill (passed in 2010). It also relies on the parliamentarian.
to blame wimpy Dem leaders or the late date on the calendar, the answer is actually really simple.
You can only pass one reconciliation bill each year. Dems used it on health care.
David Waldman (from Kos and Congress Matters) explained it in greater detail a while back, but i don’t have a link handy.
The HCR bill passed under a 2009 reconciliation instruction, not a 2010 instruction.
but there’s no 2010 instruction because there’s no FY2011 budget.
But the real point here is the only way you can use recon at this point is to pass the tax cuts, have the president sign them into law, then repeal them (+$250,000 or whatever)using recon. That’s the only way the bill would actually reduce the deficit (a necessity based on the Dems own rules). That they could do under the FY2010 rules.
Of course, now instead of just allowing some cuts to expire, Dems would quite literally be raising taxes. That’s just not going to fly with a lot of folks.
Just cutting taxes below $250,000 via recon would, to me, violate the Byrd Rule as well.
A Reconciliation bill has to save money.
So you’re right – reconciliation instructions could be created to repeal the upper class tax cuts, but probably couldn’t be written to pass the whole tax cut package.
and subject an erosion of trust that can never be recovered?
Too bad Obama won’t throw the unemployed under the bus for the greater good. They are probably grateful that they don’t have to eat dog food this Christmas but it sure makes the guy look like a politician who can’t keep his promises.
Republicans have been holding long term unemployment compensation hostage, and this lousy proposal with its political football expiration and back-handed attempt at gutting Social Security for the long term is what we get in return.
Frankly, I hate to say it, but if the payroll tax holiday is the trojan horse it seems to be, we’re better off trying to compensate the unemployed workers some other way. Taking the first step on the road to dismantling Social Security is something I hope none of our Representatives or Senators take.
This is a no-win situation for the Dems. I know some bloggers have been arguing this is a winner, but really, arguing for tax increases, for anyone, just doesn’t fly. I think Bennet has indicated for awhile that he would probably vote for an extension of all of the tax cuts.
I do find it humorous that some Dems have responded to this compromise by organizing a petition to the White House. Heh. Yet another sternly-worded letter. Oooh. I don’t think this has been thought out for down the road.
It flew in 2008, when Obama won election based on promising to raise taxes on the rich, which was I recall discussed endlessly.
You think that was why he was elected?
I would posit:
Economic Crash of Fall 2008;
Getting out of Iraq;
Getting out of Afghanistan;
Superior campaign organization;
…
saying he would prefer to let them expire is not exactly a big campaigning argument.
My wife and I decided to take shots every time the phrase “Joe the Plumber” was mentioned in the third Presidential debate, which nearly resulted in alcohol poisoning. It was a big deal. It was discussed endlessly. He campaigned on raising taxes, and it didn’t hurt his campaign at all.
Just wait until next month when all the Wall Street bonuses are announced.
Standing up for a tax increase on the $1-million-a-year crowd is a political winner, and a public policy winner too.
I’d be interested in where your Congressional Representative stands on a tax increase for income over $1 million. Is it in that person’s top three priorities for the next two years? What are those priorities?
If it’s not the priority of your Representative, how do you expect it to pass Congress?
1. Re-election.
2. No boat-rocking.
3. Adding two more years to that base federal pension.
I expect more from the reps who claim to be serious about the deficit, economic recovery, and keeping alive the American dream of upward mobility.
If tax cuts have been so great for the +$1 million crowd, then where are all the jobs they created?
Keep bringing up a bill that does nothing but extend unemployment benefits. Bring it up every day in the Senate for the Republicans to shoot down. Go 2 weeks with daily stories of families becoming homeless and starving played against the Republicans saying millionaires need a tax break – and it will get passed.
David, where have you been the last two or three years? People have been losing their homes at an astonishing rate — a little thing called the foreclosure crisis — and, for those without college degrees, unemployment is alarmingly high. This isn’t a secret. And yet look who triumphed in the election a month ago.
As the only organization that could take one of the most amazing accomplishments of the human race… And make it boring.
The Democratic party is the only party that can take a situation where the Republicans are doing everything they can to further trash the economy, and take on the ownership of those results.
Yes you’re right, our leadership in Washington could well end up taking the blame for Republican instrangence. But do we just bend over for the Republicans because our messaging sucks? Or do we keep trying?
in the Senate, I’m not sure their rules would allow a daily vote. It has to get scheduled, then a vote on cloture, then a vote, but there is a set time between the votes. I could be wrong, but the Senate does seem to defy any sort of rationality.
at least in terms of what David is talking about, is have someone ask unanimous consent to proceed to an immediate vote on S. 3981, the Unemployment Insurance Stabilization Act. Of course repubs (and maybe even some dinos) would object and that would be the end of it.
Sure, Dems could do that every day, but the Coburns, Barrassos, and DeMints of the world have no problem with objecting and looking like asshats until the end of the current congress…
So reports FireDogLake, saying that a lobbying pitch by VP Biden (who pushed for the middle-class-only cuts) to accept the deal, Mark Udall has announced he’s against the deal.
It’s gonna be a tough slog for Mitch McConnell and the President to sell this, I think.
I’d just as soon have them pass it, but that would be great if the Dems in Congress pushed back. When push comes to shove, though, I really doubt there will be enough to stop this bill. I’d love to be proven wrong.
Unless our party has an open and honest discussion of what rank and file Dems want and whether the candidates are willing to fight for us, many voters may just ignore the 2012 election. Obama and House and Senate Dems are underestimating the level of dissatisfaction with their performance.