Time For The Tax Burden To Be More Fairly Distributed-- And Come Off The Backs Of Working Families

In 2008, victorious Democrats running for the House, for the Senate and for President drew a clear, sharp line in the sand: Republicans stand for tax cuts for the wealthy; Democrats stand for making the rich pay their fair share of taxes in order to shift the burden off the backs of the middle class. It was an inspiring and winning formula across the country. They all focused specifically on the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, campaigning on abolishing them while Republicans promised to extend them. So to have heard that some Democrats were getting cold feet about making the rich pay their fair share seemed like political suicide for Democrats. Look at the video above, reactionary South Carolina handmaiden for the wealthy and rabble-rouser for imbeciles, Jim DeMint, demagoguing against the Estate tax, while Bernie Sanders explains that the Estate tax is an attempt to "provide one trillion dollars in tax breaks to the top three-tenths of one percent. 99.7% of the American people do not get a nickel. In the end DeMint's amendment was defeated 39-59 with only the two most reactionary Democrats voting with the GOP, habitual aisle crossers and asskissers to wealthy donors, Blanche Lincoln (AR) and Ben Nelson (NE). Their votes were more than balanced out when Susan Collins (R-ME), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and George Voinovich (R-OH) voted with the Democrats.

But the big battle brewing over fairness in taxation is the expiration of the Bush tax cuts to the rich. More Democrats than just Nelson and Lincoln are leaning the GOP way on this, including Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad and leader of the Senate ConservaDems, Evan Bayh. In yesterday's Washington Post Lori Montgomery seems to have information that the Democratic leadership has decided to stick with their campaign promises after all-- and in a big way, a way that could win them lots of seats in November.

President Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress are setting the stage for a high-stakes battle over taxes in the final weeks before the November congressional elections, betting that their plan to eliminate tax breaks for the wealthy will resonate with voters who have lost houses and jobs to what many see as an era of Wall Street greed.

Raising taxes is usually a perilous move. But Democrats, facing the potential loss of their majorities on Capitol Hill, believe that the strategy will both force Republicans to defend tax breaks for a tiny, wealthy minority and expose GOP hypocrisy on budget deficits.

The cuts, enacted under President George W. Bush, are set to expire in January. Given partisan gridlock in the Senate, congressional aides and administration officials acknowledge that lawmakers could run out of time, leaving virtually every American taxpayer with a significantly higher bill in 2011.

Although they have blamed Democrats for record budget deficits, most Republican lawmakers want to extend all of the tax cuts, adding at least $2 trillion over the next decade to the national debt. President Obama and senior Democrats want to extend the cuts only for families making less than $250,000 a year.

"This blows a hole in their argument that they're deficit hawks. They're not deficit hawks; they're deficit chickens," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), who heads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which is tasked with defending the party's House majority.

Republicans say the tax cuts are critical to bolstering a feeble economic recovery. And with unemployment at 9.5 percent, even some Democrats are queasy about raising taxes on high earners-- a category that includes many small-business owners-- when policymakers are trying to encourage them to create jobs.

"We are eager to oblige our friends on the other side of the aisle who want to have this debate," said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), a senior Republican on the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee. "They can talk about the wealthy all they want, but this is about stopping a job-killing tax hike on small businesses during tough economic times."

On Saturday, Obama pressed the attack in his weekly radio address, criticizing House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (Ohio) for urging repeal of Obama's health-care initiative and vowing to "permanently keep in place the tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans-- the same tax cuts that have added hundreds of billions of dollars to our debt."

"These are not new ideas. They are the same policies that led us into this recession," Obama said. "They will not create jobs; they will kill them."

There are dozens of congressional races across the country that could be won or lost on a clearcut tax debate. How will advocates for Wall Street like former bank lobbyist Steve Stivers and ex-derivatives trader Pat Toomey be able to stand up to strong advocates for working families like Mary Jo Kilroy and Joe Sestak in this hot races in Ohio and Pennsylvania? Let's allow Pat Toomey to speak for himself; this is what he wants to do if he gets back into government:



And then there's the race for the western Ohio congressional seat currently occupied by the orange-tinged golfer who would be Speaker. He's also tinged with millions of dollars in thinly veiled bribes from Big Business for whom his every action is aimed to please. Boehner wants to abolish taxes for the rich; period. That's his record and he stands on it. He helped Bush force through the billions of dollars in no-strings-attached bailouts for Wall Street bankers in 2008, going so far as to threaten Republicans who voted against it the first time around to change their votes. Because of Boehner's aggressive action for the wealthy, three dozen Republicans who opposed the bailout the week before, voted for it and allowed it to pass. Boehner knows just who butters his bread-- which has made him surprisingly vulnerable to the populist attack he's under from Justin Coussoule back home. I caught up with Justin between parades and county fairs yesterday. His vision for America is very different from Boehner's. It's a vision where families are dead-center, not corporate board rooms.

John Boehner’s blatant indifference to the struggles of working middle-class families is matched only by his predictable servitude to those who have bought and paid for his representation.

Having just voted against an extension of unemployment benefits for millions of Americans struggling to find work (because it will cost $35 billion), Boehner now vows to cram through an extension of the Bush tax cuts for people making over $250,000 (even though that budget buster of a move would tack on nearly $700 billion to the deficit).

Why does John Boehner oppose helping millions of Americans who have lost their jobs during a severe economic recession (that he helped create!), but supports handing a giant, unfunded tax cut to the same super-rich Wall Street bankers who hobbled our economy in the first place, and who he flat-out refuses to hold accountable?

Because working middle-class Americans, like those who make-up Ohio’s 8th Congressional District, don’t line Boehner’s pockets with millions upon millions in campaign contributions and keep him swinging clubs at luxury golf resorts 119 days a year. If you want to try to understand the hypocrisy of the most coin-operated, career politician in Washington, just follow the money. At the end of the trail, you’ll find John Boehner every time-- if you can get past clubhouse security, that is.

Oh, and if you're so moved-- and want to make 100% sure that John Boehner is never speaker of anything but beer parties at the 19th hole-- please consider making a contribution to Justin Coussoule's congressional campaign.