December 17, 2010 08:55 AM UTC
Congressman Jared Polis - the story behind the story on the tax compromise
17 Comments- by: DavidThi808
(Bumped into Friday, highly discussable – promoted by Colorado Pols)
FRIDAY POLS UPDATE: For details of the Colorado delegation’s split vote on the tax cut compromise, check Phoenix Rising’s latest diary.
—–
Congressman Polis was kind enough to talk to me last night and explain what was going on behind the scenes on the tax compromise bill from the Democratic House perspective. It’s a fascinating story with several parts posturing, several parts negotiating, and a sprinkling of making a point. It’s not politics as we learn it in the textbooks, but it is politics as it is actually practiced. And thank you to Jared for laying out what was actually going on. (I think how Jared and others in the House handled this bodes well for their being able to negotiate well from the minority over the next 2 years.)
Jared first discussed all the efforts involved in the lame duck session, and how crazy it is trying to move all that through. First is the omnibus appropriations bill or a continuing resolution, the DREAM act, DADT, the defense authorization bill might come back from the Senate without DADT, and then the tax bill. He has been so busy that he was never in his office all day with all the meetings going on, including he is on the steering & policy committee which is presently working out who all the Democratic ranking committee members will be.
The Tax Compromise
I then asked Jared what he was doing, thinking, voting, etc. over the last couple of weeks on the tax bill. He started off by saying the big items in the bill at first were addressing the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and revising the estate tax. And he stated that he supports the bill. Then he went into the full history (the next several paragraphs is my paraphrasing Jared’s explanation):
In November of 2009 the House passed an Estate tax that he found reasonable and he not only supported it but was a floor manager of the bill. Instead of the estate tax dropping to 0% for 2010, it would have set it at 45% on everything passed on over 3.5 million. The Senate did not act and so the estate tax has been 0% this year. Jared described the 0% inheritance tax as “in my mind is a travesty” (very good to hear such strong words on this).
Next about a month ago the House passed a very clean tax bill that let the cuts expire on income over 250 thousand and retained them for the first 250 thousand of income. This was a bill he ran on and supported. It went to the Senate where it got 53 votes and therefore failed. So we were then facing a course where all the tax cuts expire which was not a course he supported. A family making 40K would see their taxes go up 1K/year, a family making 60K would see an increase of 1.5K. Jared also pointed out that this was the platform both he and President Obama ran on and this is an area where he fully supports the President.
So Congress was then looking at a significant increase in taxes when people are struggling to stay afloat, coupled “with something that is even more onerous … the expiration of unemployment benefits.” Specifically there are several thousand Coloradans a week who will roll off unemployment starting next week “right before Christmas” if this is not renewed. Jared then added “I have no confidence that Republicans would renew unemployment benefits.”
My $0.02: I think it’s a key point that Jared (and therefore certainly many other Democratic Congress people) believe that with a Republican majority there will be no extension of unemployment benefits. And that is a very reasonable assumption. As such, continuing extended unemployment benefits becomes now or never.
Therefore that required a trade. President Obama wanted the middle class tax cuts and extended unemployment benefits. What was the price for that? Tax cuts for the wealthy “which seems to be their legislative priority.” The Republicans held the Democratic parts hostage because they had the power to do so. In addition “my party, the Democratic party did not do very well in the election and they’re coming to town.” And so come January if we Democrats wait till then we are likely to get less or nothing.
There’s no advantage in waiting for a worse deal later. He understands philosophically the desire to let the Republicans screw it up, but in responsibility to his district, he cannot let unemployment benefits to run out and allow a tax increase to hit the middle class. And the President had limited leverage because of the upcoming change in Congress.
I then asked if the tax cut for the millionaires was the only part the Republicans cared about. Jared replied “it seems to be … yeah that’s what they want, they want some adjustment on the estate tax as well.” He then said that there was bi-partisan support for adjusting the estate tax because the minimum next year is 1 million and that’s a problem for many family farms and other small family businesses. What is in the bill is not as good as the House bill last year (35% above 5 million vs. the House’s 45% above 3.5 million).
My $0.02: Jared is rich, moderate, and a strong believer in the power of the free enterprise system. If anyone is going to find common ground with the Republicans in Congress, Jared will. And he sees them as interested solely in giving more to the rich. I’d say that’s a pretty clear indicator of Republican intent.
One of the things the progressive caucus wanted to get in the bill was to continue the renewable energy tax credits. This was “one of the reasons you saw our caucus, the Democratic caucus, doing some posturing.” That gave us some leverage in negotiating some changes. This posturing led to an agreement by the Republicans to add the renewable energy grants, a couple of renewal energy tax credits, etc.
I asked if some of the last week was primarily a negotiating ploy. Jared replied “we wanted to show there was ambiguity as to if it could even pass the house … I thought that was a good idea, not that the remarks to the press were not genuinely heartfelt … but the reason we all joined in on this was that strategically they should not take the House Democrats for granted.” That there had to be some concessions to the House Democrats.
In the negotiations, the House Democrats were not involved, the House Republicans were not involved, the Senate Democrats were not involved. It was just the President and the Senate Republicans. So this was a way to push back and make the bill a little better. (And probably also a way to remind Obama and McConnell that they couldn’t take the House for granted.)
But after that was done “not passing a bill is unconsciousable and contrary to everything the Democrats stand for” to allow unemployment benefits to run out in the midst of a recession and to have a tax hike on low and middle income workers.
DADT
I next asked about DADT – does he think it will pass the Senate. Jared first talked about how wonderful it was they passed a stand-alone bill in the House, including 15 Republicans voting for it. He then pointed out that it has the votes in the Senate so it’s merely a matter of timing and scheduling. But he said that first the Senate has to figure out how to keep the government open. But then, if there’s time, then yes.
I then asked him to look 10 years out, every state will have gay marriage – at that point what will be the next major civil rights issue. He said that’s hard to predict but quite possibly it could be poverty or education. Jared pointed out that the quality of a child’s education is decided by the neighborhood they live in, that we have some fine public schools, but we also have some with a 60% drop out rate. (I think providing a quality education to all could well be the next civil rights struggle.)
Next Year
I first asked if he thinks this country can get serious about debt when the Senate will not allow a tax increase on millionaires. Jared replied that he was encouraged by President Obama’s leadership in this including the fiscal commission and the ideas coming from several progressive groups. The tax bill makes things worse, but the big issues are medium and long term, not short term. So we do need to insure we don’t bankrupt our country, but he’s encouraged by the President’s efforts on this.
I next asked about the housing crisis. Jared’s immediate reply was that many families are barely scraping by and barely making their house payment. If the tax cuts expire we will see a lot more foreclosures as more families can no longer cover their mortgage payment. So if we don’t renew the tax cuts for the middle class, the housing crisis will be worse. Ditto if unemployment benefits expire.
He then discussed how Colorado has had a long bottom for a couple of years, unlike Las Vegas which is still in really bad shape. Talking specifically about Adam & Boulder County, we’ve had stagnation for awhile, but he doesn’t think it will get worse. And a “very progressive” part of the tax bill reduces the payroll tax on the first 108K. This will again help people with their mortgage payments. So, while foreclosures are still high, they have dropped some and should continue to drop.
I followed up asking if the payroll tax cut will damage social security, by making it permanent and then having to reduce social security to match that cut. Jared replied “no.” As a progressive cut it’s good, as a strong stimulus it’s good. He then discussed how social security has long term issues that we need to address. Yes it will move forward a year or two when they need to address social security, but we need to address it regardless. Addressing it will probably be raising the cap, means testing the benefits, etc. when they need to take steps to keep social security solvent.
Next I asked if he thought Congress next year would be able to do anything effective on jobs or effective stimulus. Jared first discussed the simulative effect of the compromise bill. Then speaking of next year he said “I don’t see any kind of jobs effort coming from the Republicans. They’ve certainly been devoid of ideas this session.” He then added that if they presented any ideas, he would be thrilled to work with them on it.
My final question was does Washington have less of a gut feel for the recession as unemployment is stovepiped in certain segments and so our Congress people don’t see it first-hand. He started off saying a third of the Democratic staff are out of work (because of the flip due to the election results). So they know many people specifically who are out of work and struggling to find a new job. He then discussed how Congress people see this constantly when they are back in their district, talking to people, etc. Jared runs in to people all the time that have lost jobs, can’t find work, are underemployed, etc. So he is directly aware of how tough and desperate it is for many, speaking eloquently and emotionally about this.
Jared’s Closing Statement
I asked Jared if there was anything he wanted to add. He talked about how next session is going to be interesting because he doesn’t know what it will be like to be in the minority (I know – it sucks). “We will not be running the place, we will be responding, messaging.” He then added the good news is the Democrats won’t have the responsibility of governing but instead can attack the Republicans for their mistakes. “I say that wearing my political hat, but wearing my American hat I really hope they come up with some good ideas.”
He then added that this tax bill is one of the most difficult bills he will vote for, because it has a lot of things in it he does not support. But that it is far better, not even a close call, passing a bill rather than allowing unemployment insurance to expire and presenting the middle class with a huge tax hike.
Full recording of interview (including 2 times when he had to put me on hold): JaredPolis.wma
Jared’s letter to his colleagues regarding the bill (pie charts are evil but the letter is good): Dear_Colleague_Obama_Tax_Proposal22.pdf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
This is too cool – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
particularly since I have never been an admirer. (His stint on the Board of Education, throwing $$$ at Amendment 41 only to say he hadn’t really read it and it ‘maybe’ went to far. Duh!)
Still I think he’s matured in office and for his district and Colorado that’s a good thing.
My Congressman, Polis on the tax cut deal and ‘moving forward’. I have begged the man for help for the 99ers…and the 99ers were not mentioned. I voted for this guy. Why?
We 99ers need to focus our efforts on the media. I have several links in recent articles. I am on a campaign to educate the media – and the unemployed about the lack of assistance that Obama and Congress have given to the long-term unemployed – this is going to be a big story in the coming weeks/months as people start to realize they are OUT of UI benefits.
KWiedemer
Denver Unemployment Examiner
http://www.examiner.com/unempl…
In my experience with unemployment, if you’ve been out of work for 99 weeks you need more than just unemployment compensation – you’re likely to need some retraining. Either your skill set is not in demand (meaning you need to consider a career switch to find a job), or it’s become out of date and needs some professional (and resume-building) bolstering.
The long-term unemployed benefit most, IMHO, from the unemployment office’s job placement and training programs. In my experience these programs tend to be under-funded and focus too much on simpler jobs. If the new Republican House majority is serious about getting the unemployed back to work, they would be wise to consider expanding job retraining programs.
We’re interviewing for a sales admin and the people who have been out of work for a long time tend to come in expecting to not get the job. So there’s no energy or effort and they just go through the motions of the interview. It’s understandable, but it kills their chances.
But there’s not much you can do about that beyond generally giving them something to feel good about. Retraining can give people a bit of a boost; after that, getting a job is the best thing for the job-hunting ego.
A large portion of the 99ers are the over-50’s. These people have training and experience of all kinds. They are not and will be not be hired!! They are looking at the strong prospect of never being gainfully employed again. Unless you count being a WalMart greeter.
The other factor is simply geographical. Many long-term unemployed have skills and training and relevant experience but have no means to get to someplace where it’s in demand.
I don’t have anything against retraining for those who can really benefit. But for a lot of the 99ers that really is not the answer.
there is no single perfect answer.
However, the unemployment benefits for highly trained workers of the skill and experience of these 50+ aged workers will never replace their previous income, and as you say, they are much less likely to get jobs than younger workers. At some point, sad as I am to say it, people have to sit back, evaluate their situation, and move on to another job. (I won’t call it a career, because chances are, it won’t be anything so goal-worthy to be called by that name…)
Geographical issues require other solutions, and again, I don’t think that the best solution is more unemployment compensation. Targeted stimulus to depressed areas, perhaps a relocation credit… Simply paying UI to long-term unemployed factory workers when the factory equipment’s been sold off doesn’t begin to address the problem.
How the hell can a million or so unemployed people just be totally left out of the discussion!
The only mention of jobs in this interview was “the R’s won’t do anything.” Wonderful. How about the D’s did virtually nothing for the last two years as well? No plan, no real policy, infrastructure still falling apart. What would he have said?
And, of course, the Social Security comments are infuriating. ‘Jared answered “No”‘ Well, isn’t that sweet. What’s the goddamned plan?! How is the SS CONTRIBUTION going to be raised back when this little holiday expires? With the R(egressives) in charge of the House? And them all screaming “they want to raise your taxes!!” And then adding in the means test again. When many top economists and a lot of other smart people say that will just help destroy SS because it turns it into a WELFARE PROGRAM.
I was hoping I could read this and find a ray or two of hope for Democratic strength and good policy making. Didn’t happen.
We knew this was coming, didn’t we?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/17/929169/-Extend-Social-Security-payroll-tax-holiday-No-thanks.
And dear liberal Ezra Klein thinks that extending the Social Security payroll tax cut into 2012 will boost President Obama’s reelection chances.
Meanwhile, according to ABC’s polling, the Social Security payroll tax holiday is an unpopular idea: 57% of us oppose it, only 39% support.
Aside from those of us who were railing against this plan because of the Social Security trap set by Republicans, the GOP itself started saying they’d do this before the deal was signed.
We’ve got a year to work on our Senators and Representatives – and to get the message out to voters – that extending these cuts will threaten Social Security far beyond any other problem it has (might have).
And I’m not just picking on Congressman Polis here, but instead this apparently pervasive idea that our elected Representatives (and Senators) from the minority parties have no responsibility towards governance except, to attack and “hope.”
Jeezus H. Christmas with a stick — I was feeling pretty good today until I read that and became reminded what a worthless lot our system produces, and why nothing constructive gets accomplished regardless of the time frame involved.
I don’t like it either, but that’s the facts on the ground in D.C.
that we’ve elected, that “It’s not my job to govern, it’s my job to make their job harder”?
I understand the political reality of outcomes. But, there’s few of us on this site that tolerate that attitude from the Republicans when they’re in the minority, so why should I get behind that attitude from the Democrats because now they’re the minority?
How long do your employees get away with “It’s not my problem, it’s his problem” at your company?
The problem is the current reality. The “job” of the R(egressives) is to screw us worse than we’re getting screwed now, and to make sure that Obama doesn’t get re-elected. I doubt that there are more than a handful of R’s in House who aren’t sociopathic, greedy, ideological SOB’s. (And in Boehner’s case, drunks who cry at the drop of a hat.) So any way that the Dems can make their job harder is probably the best we can hope for.