President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) J. Sonnenberg

(R) Ted Harvey

20%↑

15%↑

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Doug Bruce

20%

20%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

40%↑

20%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
December 08, 2010 01:48 AM UTC

BREAKING: Udall Will Oppose Obama Tax Cut Deal

  • 47 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

From The Hill:

A deal between President Obama and congressional Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years has met with an angry backlash from Senate Democrats.

Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) joined Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in stating his opposition to the deal…

“I’m opposed right now,” said Udall, who added that some provisions in the package make sense, such as extended unemployment benefits, but he questioned whether it does enough to help middle-class families given its cost.

Udall also said he opposed the proposal to set the estate tax at 35 percent for inheritances worth more than $5 million for the next two years. He would prefer a lower exemption.

Full statement from Udall’s office follows: “With our debt out of control, our troops battling two wars, and American families struggling every week in the recession, extending tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires makes no sense.”

We note that Udall is considered one of several key bipartisan negotiators in the Senate, and also has an interest in getting to other items on the lame-duck agenda like the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. In our view, that makes his willingness to throw down over the weakness of this compromise even more significant.

At the same time, Udall and other Democrats need to be careful about framing this debate to be solely about the national debt, because that’s exactly the kind of talking point that Republicans want to hear. Republicans want to use “cutting the national debt” as an excuse to oppose everything, and Democrats would be wise to not play into that trap.

Udall: Extending Tax Cuts for Billionaires is Irresponsible

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Mark Udall issued the following statement in response to the deal struck between President Obama and Republican leaders over extending the Bush-era tax cuts:

“Just last week, a bipartisan group appointed by the President called our national debt a ‘cancer’ that is threatening our country from within.  As I’ve said for many years, our looming debt is perhaps the greatest challenge to our economy and our national security.  Now, exactly four days later, we are being asked by the President to add $900 billion to that debt over the next two years.

“I feel like we are suffering from the worst possible case of collective short-term memory loss.  The cost of extending tax breaks for millionaires alone is $700 billion over the next decade.  As I’ve said many times – I believe there are better ways to strengthen the economy than tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans.

“I agree with the President that we need to make progress on the question of whether to extend the Bush tax cuts – and like him, I believe this is an issue that is critical to our economy.  But that is the extent of our agreement.  While I still want to examine the details, my first response to this proposal is to be opposed.

“With our debt out of control, our troops battling two wars, and American families struggling every week in the recession, extending tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires makes no sense.  And I’m willing to stay here in Washington and work weekends, nights and through the holidays rather than pass a compromise that I believe will weaken our economy for the long term.”

Please contact Tara Trujillo or Jennifer Talhelm at (202) 224-4334.

###

Comments

47 thoughts on “BREAKING: Udall Will Oppose Obama Tax Cut Deal

    1. Voinovich has come out against it on the Republican side as being too fiscally irresponsible.  Feingold will be against it for the same reason; he voted against the middle-class and millionaire cuts already because of that.

      Mary Landrieu, another key “bi-partisan-y” Democrat, has come out against it.

      And Reid says he believes the current compromise won’t pass as-is.

      If McConnell can get his soldiers in line, they might be able to overcome the filibuster with a few desperate Democrats, but I don’t think it’s going to happen.

    1. Too many of our Federal officials, elected and un-elected, appear to have wholeheartedly embraced two utterly contradictory ideas – budgetary discipline and tax cuts for all.

      And at the same time they seem to be forgetting that one side of the negotiating team is almost certain to try to win more than what is obvious, and by any means.

      Horrible deal.  Tell McConnell it’s dead and to stop blocking real solutions to real problems.

        1. The Republican tax plan called for a 10-year tax cut, but they had to expire it because the budget forecast said continuing it would screw up the budget, and they passed the cut under reconciliation, so whatever they did could not affect the deficit.  (One of the worst estimations the CBO ever did – the tax cuts most certainly screwed up our budget badly, from the first year they were enacted…)

          The current, legal tax rate for next year is 2-3% higher than it has been.

        2. you don’t get to take them home afterward. If there’s an agreement that something is temporary, then it’s supposed to end in the future.

          Do Republicans have a problems with temporal awareness or something? Are they all literally brain-damaged? That would explain a lot…

  1. As many here know I’m not his #1 fan. But this is getting out in front and doing the right thing on a very important issue. Thank you very much Senator, I appreciate you doing what this country desperately needs even if it will hurt you politically.

      1. Then it’s going to get very nasty for a couple of weeks. Plus the electorate is not fond of being told that they have to pay for the services they get.

        I think it will work out well, but it’s definitely not the low risk approach – especially not coming out first trashing the president’s capitulation agreement.

        ps – thank you

  2. They are not shy about telling Republicans that they are immoral for nakedly grabbing $700,000,000,000 of taxpayer’s funds for their rich friends, while the economy teeters.

  3. every time Obama or Gibbs or Biden blames unreasonable lefties for all of the Obama administrations problems while enticing Rs with all the goodies they think they can get away with offering.

    Udall is no leftie. He’s what moderate used to mean before it got dragged all the way right with the Dems acquiescence. Bennet doesn’t like it either. The kind of Dems that we can elect statewide in Colorado and the grass roots who work their hearts out to elect them are hardly irrational lefties who want all or nothing.  

    First he needs to stop it and order his team to stop it.  Then he owes every one of us,  true centrist to progressive, who  worked the phones, GOTV, canvassed door to door, gave until it hurt, a personal engraved apology for the way he and his whole team has been using us as a combination punching bag/scapegoat for their screw ups ever since we got them elected.  

    On the plus side, Dave may finally forgive Udall his coffee time sins  

  4. I’m honestly not sure on where to come down on this, but it does occur to me that:

    1.  Udall, and a few others, have the luxury of taking this position today, because of what Obama did yesterday.  Merry Christmas, Mark.

    2.  Maybe Obama is trying some parental reverse psychology on these kids.  God knows the little bastards haven’t behaved well for some time, and that as a group they can’t be counted on to accomplish anything constructive for the right reasons.  Maybe crafting an agreement was meant to cause these children to rebel, thus ensuring the death of all the ridiculous “Bush” economics package?

    It’s going to be an interesting holiday season.

    1. because he was an Obama supporter way back in 2008, and that was Obama’s fucking position.

      It’s hard to look at a person you love and realize s/he is just not the same as s/he used to be.

      As for your other theory, there’s no evidence Obama is really that clever.  

    1. with massive tax cuts for the middle class that we can’t afford. They will also criticize him for increasing taxes. And they will say he has refused to ever reach out to them.

      Democrats will view him as Jimmy Carter, who also turned right in the second half of his term.

      Obama has put himself in a position where even if things somehow improve, he’ll be viewed as someone who tried to make things worse. And I don’t think that’s wrong. His deficit commission was just one of a number of ways where he genuinely tried to fuck things up for people. The payroll tax holiday is another.  

  5. from CNN

    President Barack Obama vigorously defended his agreement with Republicans to extend all of the Bush-era tax cuts on Tuesday, arguing that it was a price that had to be paid to spare the middle class from crippling tax hikes.

    As these were the tax rates we had during the Clinton boom, and are lower than we had under Reagan – how on earth can they be considered crippling?

    1. Taxes will go up for the typical middle class family by $3,000 next year if the current rates aren’t extended. That’s a LOT of money that won’t be coursing through the economy. And whether they really are or not, most everyone feels like they’re pretty close to the edge — $3,000 less in your pocket feels crippling in that situation.

  6. Why are we extending unemployment “benefits” (a.k.a. welfare) past 2 years? If you can’t find some sort of job by then, you’re just plain lazy. How the heck do Democrats think that their going to be able to reduce unemployment if they keep subsidizing it?

      1. Being against hand outs is is being against American ideals? Just say you are for redistribution of wealth because that is so American right Bernie Sanders?

        1. How about handouts to Halliburton and KBR? How about corporate farm subsidies? How about massive tax breaks for multi-national corporations?

          The US government has been issuing handouts to wealthy corporations and the uber-rich for as long as there has been a US.

          Wealth distribution doesn’t seem to bother you unless it is distributed to those who actually NEED it.

          You are simply full of shit.  

    1. you stupid little shit.

      IF…I repeat…IF opportunity for success were evenly distributed and available for EVERY American, then there might be something to what you say…but it isn’t.

      Your myopic belief that anyone who cannot rise to the level attained by your white-bread, corn fed ass is just lazy is, indeed, the height of arrogant stupidity.

      Whichever world you live in sure as fuck isn’t this one.

      I gotta go before I say something really nasty to you.

    2. Calling unemployed people “lazy” isn’t one of them.

      I have seen good, hardworking people I know going crazy trying to hang onto a shred of their former life while trying to locate a new job, for months and months extending into years.

      I pray for your family, if not for you, that you don’t have to face such despair. Let alone that you don’t have to be called “lazy” by some good-for-nothing, self-righteous little piece of shit.

    3. This does not carry benefits past 2 years. It merely continues to carry them up to 99 weeks. You see poop for brains, there are still a ton of people who have lost jobs less than 2 years ago who have not been able to find a new job.

    4. Okay, enough with the insults, let’s get down to reality.

      I’ve found myself without a job in two situations for 3-5 months at a time as an IT person with an in-demand skill set.  I made contacts every day of the week and even spent the money to formalize my skills by passing a very respected certification.  The economy was tough during these two periods, but nothing like what it is now.

      The history of someone I know is more informative.  He had to take some time off from his IT career for surgery, and was only a tech support person.  By the time he got back to the job market, it was in a down period and he couldn’t find a job.  After about a year, his skill set was considered out of date (no current work experience) and it hurt his job prospects further.  Eventually he wound up getting help from the unemployment office for some retraining and placement, and now works in a related but less skilled IT field.  Again, this wasn’t the current recession, where the job market is truly horrible.

      Yet another friend lost his job about a year ago now due to off-shoring.  He was as a warehouse worker –  a hard worker and team builder with solid experience driving most warehouse equipment.  He’s still looking, and the prospects are bleak.  He’s poor, bound to public transportation or walking, and can’t afford retraining.  In a good economy, he’d be hired by someone, but in this economy there are too many other people with his skill set vying for the same job.  He might get a job soon, or not, but hundreds of others like him will still be looking, just in the city where he lives.

      These are just a couple of people I know.  I could go on with a young policeman who’s doing essentially volunteer work to keep his certification while looking for a job, or a guy who helped build Level 3’s network, or a Web application developer…

      Unemployment is not “welfare” – it’s insurance against complete disaster when, despite your best efforts, you find yourself without work.  And it’s insurance for this country against the worst possibilities of this Great Recession.

    5. which, if you do your multiplications correctly, is less than 2 years.

      Someone find me a Republican who has greater cognitive abilities than a 3-year-old, QUICK!

  7. I am shocked – but very pleased!  This is the first time Udall has done something ‘public’ -regarding the issues that I’m close too: unemployment.

    I oppose this bill vehemently for several reasons – the two most important are:

    1) TAX cuts for the wealthy? added to deficit and applauded by the GOP hypocrits? Enough said.

    2)  out of the total $900b cost, the long-term unemployed GOT NOTHING.  Nothing.  The HIRE Act tax provisions are not included; the HIRE Act which is in place specifically as an incentive to hire the long-term unemployed, is set to expire on Dec. 31.

    The unemployment benefits extension leaves out 4.5 million people – the 99ers.  there will be ANOTHER 4 million 99ers in the coming few months.  This plan will leave 8 million people OUT in the COLD by early next year.  The WH has not done anything to resolve the long-term unemployment, job creation and hiring practices in this legislation.Good for Udall; I hope Bennet and the rest of the gang in DC follows suit.

    I’m am doing my best to let them know how this bill (does nothing) for the long-term unemployed.Denver Unemployment Examiner

    http://www.examiner.com/unempl

  8. The UI extensions cost $56b; that is 6.2% of the total price tag. That is what the WH and the Republicans are willing to spend to help those who suffered the most in this recession. I am absolutely furious with OBAMA. Then, yesterday Biden’s Chief Economic Advisor told CNN (when asked why millions of 99ers were being left out), that the long term unemployed need job skills, training – not more UI. He said it in a way as to suggest we have no job skills to begin with. unbelievable. I did get my B.S. as a night student, I have a wealth of job skills – they just don’t fit the profile to work at McDonalds or Walmart -have tried.

    This is the biggest slap in the face yet – and even if I did need job skills/training, like all 99ers, I have no MONEY for transportation, housing, shampoo…

    Obama has probably lost me at this point. His administration is doing NOTHING to help the millions of middle class workers – professionals who are still struggling beyond belief can’t find work. the discrimination is blatant – and his administration wants to ignore the real issues by slandering us in this way. unbelievable and outrageous.

    Denver Unemployment Examiner

    http://www.examiner.com/unempl

  9. Look at this piece from the New York Times: this “compromise” is a disgusting travesty. I’m not sure who should be more ashamed: the President for betraying the poorest Americans, or the Republicans for absolutely betraying the trust of the gullible Tea Partiers who voted for them.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12

    What kind of selfish, totally irresponsible nation are we becoming?  

    1. Thanks for the link, HGF. Those numbers, particularly about the top 1% getting a quarter of the tax savings seems terribly unfair.

      But even that doesn’t piss me off as much as assholes like Pat Buchanan talking about disenfranchising voters for all kinds of reasons.

      How about disenfranchising your Christian, white, working class, citizens, Pat? I mean, they are ill-informed, poorly educated, and make their judgements based on thirty second sound bites. Many don’t own property, they rent.

      Oh…that’s right, they are white. They have an exemption from your class bigotry, don’t they?

  10. It’s painful to witness the decline of the US.  

    Passing tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans as a “compromise” sends the message around the world that the US is not capable of fiscal responsibility.  As predicted, the bond markets ,where “compromise” is not relevant, are reacting by rapidly raising interest rates.  

    It’s just so damn frustrating.  It seems that this is an issue that we could even partner with the teabaggers.  Instead, there is no political price paid by the GOP.  Moreover, the trap has been set to extend these cuts next time as well since the attack during the next election will be that the Dems want to raise taxes.  Right after an election is the only time in America when unpopular actions can be taken (even though most Americans favor letting the tax cuts for the wealthy to expire).  

    I guess we can only hope that the stimulative effect of the bill in total will offset the costs of the non-stimulative gifts to the wealthy (don’t forget the estate tax giveaway, as well).  It just made it more than a trillion dollars more difficult.  

  11. Thank god, that Udall was out there breaking ass for Markey and Salazar, making damm sure that the republicans did not get control of the House.  I was so impressed with how Udall came out fighting at the suggestion that the president wasn’t a citizen.  Way to go Mark.  OH WAIT.

    1. If Republicans had taken control of the House, in the worst case scenario they might have proposed a deal to pass tax cuts for everyone which lasted two years so they could refight this battle.

      Which is exactly what’s happened, except Democrats can still say no to it. Udall’s position on this issue is irrelevant to any of that.

      Sarcasm: you’re doing it wrong.

      1. I’ll do sarcasm anyway I damm well please.  You are absolutely right, Udall can say no and the Democrats could what?  block the vote?  Let the tax cuts expire? Now, they are stamping their feet and deciding to fight? To what end?

        My point is, and I think it was incredibly well made, if Udall had helped fight for a Democratic House of Representatives, the republicans would not be in a power position to push their agenda on the President – who has just been handed the worst mid-term defeat in over sixty years.

        Udall’s position on this issue is irrelevant to any of that.

        What does this mean?  I have no idea.  

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

106 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!