The No-New-Taxes Democrats
Obama and Reid need to convince their own caucus to raise taxes.
If Democrats think it is a national priority to raise taxes to lower the deficit, why don't they take a stand in the Senate and do it?
Democrats hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate, so Majority Leader Harry Reid shouldn't need a single Republican vote to move his tax agenda forward. A budget resolution requires only 51 votes, which means Democrats could vote today to pass a budget resolution on a $1 trillion tax increase as President Obama has endorsed, or the $2 trillion that Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad has proposed.
Instead, Mr. Reid continues to put any Democratic budget with tax increases in the deep freeze even as the party keeps saying the polls show that Americans support a tax hike as part of a debt plan. Why not go for it?
The answer is Senator Reid can't rally his own caucus to get anywhere near 51 votes for a big tax increase. Even as President Obama and Mr. Reid continue to push for a closed-door bipartisan agreement to raise taxes, the only bipartisan consensus in the Senate on taxes right now is . . . against raising them. Here's a sampling:
Ben Nelson of Nebraska, up for re-election in November 2012: "Raising taxes at a time when our economy remains fragile takes us in the wrong direction." He adds: "If we start with plans to raise taxes, pretty soon spending cuts will fall by the wayside."
Joe Manchin of West Virginia, also up for re-election next year, told us: "Make no mistake, I don't believe in tax hikes, I believe in tax fairness." This means closing "unnecessary loopholes."
Virginia's Jim Webb, who is retiring at the end of next year: "During my time in the Senate, I have consistently opposed the notion of increasing revenues through raising taxes on ordinary, earned income—those amounts, whether large or small, that Americans take home as part of their every-day work and their basic compensation packages." He said he advocates raising taxes "by other means," including "ending costly subsidies and tax loopholes or by adjusting such measures as capital gains."
Joe Lieberman, the independent from Connecticut, told the Connecticut Mirror he has a lot of "unanswered questions" about the Democratic budget plan, and that the $2 trillion to come from tax hikes could be too "high" for him to accept. "For 50% to come from tax increases is a lot."
Specific tax-hike proposals also hit a wall of opposition in the Democratic caucus. An increase on the oil and gas industry, a top priority for the White House, has firm opposition from three energy-state Democrats—Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Begich of Alaska and Mr. Nelson of Nebraska. Ms. Landrieu cites bipartisan opposition to the idea.
Bill Nelson of Florida and Mr. Begich have expressed reservations about another populist Democratic revenue raiser: a millionaire surtax.
One of the most unjustified tax loopholes is the ethanol subsidy. But 13 Senate Democrats voted against a measure earlier this year to kill it, including Iowa liberal Tom Harkin.
The White House and Harry Reid may think Americans favor reducing debt with a big tax increase. But first they need to convince the antitax Democrats in their own caucus.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303406104576444471460169378.htmlAll they really care about is holding onto power, the US be damned. When's the last time these jokes actually voted on something important?
800+ days and counting since they passed a budget.
