President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

30%

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 14, 2010 12:21 AM UTC

U.S. Senate Votes on Tax Cut Deal, Udall Summarizes Opposition

  • 27 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

TUESDAY UPDATE: Sen. Mark Udall’s remarks to supporters on yesterday’s vote:

Yesterday, I cast my vote against extending tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires, and called for a reworked package that focuses on tax cuts for the middle-class Americans that drive our economy forward.

Among all the challenges our nation faces today, one of the most ominous threats to our long-term national security is our ballooning national debt — funded by China and other creditors around the world. As I said on the floor of the Senate yesterday, our skyrocketing national deficit is a ticking time bomb that needs to be defused.

The tax package currently being considered by the Senate turns a blind eye to this threat, and instead adds $700 billion to the deficit over the next decade to fund the same tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires that have failed to create jobs and spur the economy since 2001.

I have already voted twice to pass the middle-class tax cuts and extend unemployment insurance for Americans searching for work, which will spur our economy forward. I am proud of those votes, and I will continue to work to offer responsible tax relief to middle-class Americans without the unnecessary tax cuts for the rich that will only grow our national debt. I stand ready to work through the holidays if that’s what it takes to get middle-class Coloradans the tax relief that they deserve.

UPDATE: The tax cut deal survives its critical Senate cloture vote–McClatchy:

The Senate mustered enough votes Monday to limit debate on the White House/Republican tax cut deal, a test vote that virtually assures Senate passage in a day or two of the plan to extend Bush-era tax cuts for two years. The vote remained open Monday afternoon and a final tally was expected by early evening, but under Senate rules, 60 votes are enough to shut off debate.

UPDATE #2:

We’re awaiting a directly viewable copy of Sen. Mark Udall’s comments today in opposition to the deal on extending the Bush tax cuts, as brokered between President Barack Obama and Republican leaders a week ago. In the meantime, click below to watch his speech on C-SPAN:

Tweet
Share

Comments

27 thoughts on “U.S. Senate Votes on Tax Cut Deal, Udall Summarizes Opposition”

  1. The rest of the Senate Democrats (including Michael Bennet, who’s otherwise oh-so-concerned about the deficit) are a bunch of weaselly cowards who make Tom Daschle look like He-Man.

  2. I just want to say that I am thrilled with Senator Udall’s fighting for what’s best for the country rather than pandering. I’m proud he’s our Senator.

    As to Bennet, a potted plant for a Democratic administration is better than a potted plant for a Republican administration. But still, a potted plant is a potted plant and I think we could do better.

    1. clear, concise, non-rambling, non-wonky but informative communication. Looks and sounds great. Personable but with gravitas.  Perfect for talking head show appearances. Dems looking for effictive messengers should add this guy to their lists.  

    2. is a cynic.  He’s next up for re-election.  He knew this would pass without his vote.

      So he cast a vote that would placate the people he wants as supporters that would have no political consequences for him.

      Sorry to sound as cynical as he is, but I’m ALMOST as cynical as he is.

      I thought you were smarter, David.

      1. Not usual for you, Sir Ralph of Ie, but you missed that a cynical approach would be to take us volunteers for granted, but vote for the moneyed interests to get the cash.

        On this issue, and DADT as well, if Udall votes the way his conscience and my liberal views would dictate, I’ll be happy to volunteer for him. Whether he votes cynically or not, he’s voting!

        Follow the votes (and try to not to be too cynical)!

        1. And this was your sixth comment.

          Your liberal views are blinders that permit you to see only what you want to see.

          I see cynicism.

          Let me ask you: if the party needed Udall’s vote, if this wasn’t a safe “gimmee” for him, how would he have voted?

          Can’t say for sure?  I can.

          1. Here’s a true case of cynicism from a mushy moderate: http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/12/13/mary-mary-quite-contrary/.

            Sen. Landrieu – the lamest of defeated ducks – spoke against the so-called compromise, like Sen. Udall. But she voted for cloture. But, according to your reasoning, she wouldn’t have if she didn’t already lose her election and needed to shore up her volunteers.

            I think you are still missing real cynicism, if you missed that, O wise Ralphario. And you certainly misread my replies if you can find evidence of blinders in only six comments. Not that I think you actually troubled yourself to read them…

          1. no, udall didn’t take that much of a stand but at least his vote is on record.

            but where does dissent start?  does it wait until 1/4 of the voting bloc says NO to make a case?  does it stop just short of the majority but still fail?  Or does dissent show with one-two-ten voices and builds and builds?  Udall’s vote is self-serving and politically manipulative but I’m happy to have any & all NOs showing in the final tally to prove that this is Obama’s “shove it” to lower and middle Americans  

      3. extends unemployment benefits and doesn’t raise taxes.

        Which sort of implies that he can’t work with the other party (even when his President sets it up!), thinks the unemployed should starve, and wants to raise taxes.

        I don’t think it takes a lot of 527 imagination to write this ad.  Colorado hates taxes, loves the rich, and has a problem with homosexuals.

        I agree that these two fights will go a long way with activists, but otherwise I’m not sure I see an upside.  Votes go on record, your reasoning does not.

        Maybe I’m wrong and the news will report this as Udall fighting the good fight, but I suspect during the election Adam is the only one to mention it.  It’s a helluva gamble to take.  He could’ve just stayed quiet, then complained that about the GOP.  That feels safe to me.

        2. Udall’s talking points on the deficit. Frankly, I agree with him, but I’ve been taken to task on this blog for saying things similar to what Udall is saying above, so it’s not exactly a left wing position that he’s taking. I think it’s actually a far more nuanced stance than anyone is giving him credit for.

          I agree with you that his position on this could come back to bite him in the ass, but he does have the fact that he’s not up for re-election until 2014 playing to his advantage. Also, if it ends up passing, as most observers expect it will, then it’s going to come up again in 2012. We’ll see if Sen. Udall is still saying the same things when it’s a little closer to his own re-election.

    3. betcha he would have been against further enriching the rich but hey, blue-blooded prince michael has to watch out for his own.  You know that death tax is sooo worrisome to trust funders

        1. But Romanoff has become a bit of a martyr to his supporters. The shadow of that primary will be following Bennet around for the rest of his career–or at least until Romanoff ever gets elected to something again–mostly through people saying that Romanoff would have voted differently.

          1. It should be shadowing Romanoff for the rest of HIS career.

            Stupid waste of resources for a guy who was really no different from the guy he primaried.

            Oh well.  I’m over it.  I wish the Romanoff people were too.

            1. he just happens to be outside of the political spotlight right now. If he ever decides to re-enter the political fray, I’m sure the same questions that haunted him during the primary will follow him. The biggest will be if he ends up taking PAC money again. I don’t see him running for anything any time soon though. Unless DeGette unexpectedly retires.

    1. Somehow, I don’t see the House just folding on this.  If it goes to conference, the Senate will get another shot at coming to their senses.

      Millionaires and billionaires better not count their chickens just yet.

  4. A question: how does Udall get to 60 votes when only 14 voted against cloture?  He’s right on all the points but he lost the vote.  Does that summarize fairly?  The point of democracy is to get a majority (or in the Senate, 59) to vote with you.  I want to hear him draw out a scenario where he gets to 60 without any of the items he opposes.

  5. I am going to cut and paste a comment I posted on Caroman’s diary, because it applies to this front-pager just as much.

    Three cheers for Udall trying to do some of what we need Democrats to do now and in the next two years.

    ***

    I am not under any illusions that the result would have been different, but I am disappointed that the President and our elected Democrats do not seem to have been able to adequately lay out the policy issues facing the country.

    Before simply agreeing to what Republicans want, it seems important to make clear to the American people that Republicans insisted that not a single important thing would happen until tax cuts for the top 1% were extended. Not tax cuts for the middle class. Not a START treaty that every top general and living Republican secretary of state and defense seems to support. Nothing.

    Before simply agreeing to what Republicans want, it seems important to show the American people what tax cuts for the rich will and will not do. For example, one thing they will not do is stimulate the economy (see 2001-2009).

    Before simply agreeing to what Republicans want, it seems like someone could put current tax rates into historical context for the American people, showing, for example, that current tax rates are materially lower than they were even under President Reagan. And Reagan didn’t have two wars going on, among other things.

    Before simply agreeing to what Republicans want, it seems like you could make the case that Republican leaders’ first post-election act was to insist that the country enact legislation that would add nearly a trillion dollars to the debt.

    I am a Democrat and I support the President, but there is something surreal about the last couple of weeks. The main message one could potentially take is that our President and Democratic leaders are indeed weak and seem unable to lay out the policy choices in any simple way, much less in a way that shows Republican elected officials for what they are.

    Again, I am not naГЇve enough to believe that the result on this particular issue would be any different, but I am naГЇve enough to think that when we elect Democrats, we should expect them to effectively show the policy choices upon which the other guys are insisting and forcing on the country so that everyone’s taxes don’t all go up. Having elected Democrats do that much would be a small, good thing.

  6. I’m curious, and the only way to know would have been to be a fly on the wall in the negotiations.  Why couldn’t we have raised the tax rates 1%?  Or raised the income levels paying the lower rates?  – why couldn’t there be at least a small move toward addressing the deficit while passing most of the cuts?

    2. “Compromise” is when one side compromises all of its core beliefs in order to endorse a package that completely encapsulates the other side’s core beliefs.

      But it’s important that only one side does this. Otherwise it would be called a compromcompromiseise, which is harder to pronounce.

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

48 readers online now

Newsletter

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