What DON'T The Republicans Plan To UnDo If They Win In November?

Yesterday we released a statement by Justin Coussoule (D-OH) on the difference between his support for middle class tax cuts and John Boehner's insistence that there will be no middle class tax cuts unless the richest 3% of Americans gets billions and billions of dollars in welfare for the wealthy. Earlier today Billy Kennedy (D-NC) drew a similar contrast between himself and the wealthiest member of North Carolina's congressional delegation, self-server Virginia Foxx. And this morning I found this poll the SEIU commissioned that shows broad support for the position Coussoule, Kennedy and most Democrats are taking-- most meaning virtually all with the exception of a kennel's full of mangy, nasty old Blue Dogs on their way to... what's the doggie equivalent of the glue factory?

A majority of voters (55 percent) indicate support for allowing tax cuts to expire for the wealthiest filers, including 40 percent who think that the tax cuts should be allowed to expire for the top earners and another 15 percent who say that all tax cuts should be allowed to expire. This holds true whether the cutoff is $1 million a year or $250,000 a year.

"We need to make this a more fair economy, and that means no more Bush-era tax giveaways to the rich. If we are going to get this country on the right track, we need to create good jobs and put more money in people's pockets. This poll shows that Americans of all stripes agree that working families and small businesses need and deserve a tax cut."

A strong majority in every state polled favors a proposal that replaces tax cuts for those making MORE than $250,000 a year with "lower income taxes for families that make less than 250 thousand dollars a year and provide a series of additional tax cuts and credits to help middle class families pay for child care, save for their kids' college, or afford to buy a home." The plan is also wildly popular with independents.

...A majority of voters think the Bush tax cuts either made no difference on the economy (26 percent) or hurt the economy (27 percent). Only 39 percent think that they have helped the economy, and these respondents are primarily Republican voters (66 percent). A plurality-- 46 percent-- say that the Bush tax cuts made no impact on their personal financial situation. Again, only 39 percent said that the tax cuts were personally good for their families (61 percent Republicans).

This is the winning issue for Democrats-- or at least it would be if the House leadership wouldn't buckle under to a handful of reactionary Blue Dogs who virtually always side with Boehner and the GOP on the big issues and who are worried that if they vote with the Republicans on this one, no Democrats will vote for them in November. Keep in mind as you read this excerpt that when the Inside-the-Beltway press consciously tries to confuse readers by referring to reactionary Blue Dogs as "moderates:"

[T]his issue is shaping up as another one pitting skittish moderates against House liberals, many of whom are urging a vote because they want the party to stand firm on an issue that will motivate the base and draw a sharp contrast between the two parties.

And it seems like the moderates may carry the day.

In recent days there have been indications that the Senate is getting ready to hold their own vote on extending the middle class tax cuts, and it's likely Republicans will successfully filibuster. If that happens, the senior lawmaker involved in the discussions tells me, "that will probably be the end of the discussion."

"The question is whether you have a symbolic vote in the House or let members take it district by district. I'm not sure we could even pass it," the lawmaker says. "People are still taking the temperature of the caucus -- that seems to be where the caucus is."

Three dozen moderate Dems have signed a letter to Dem leaders demanding a vote on extending all the tax cuts. And behind the scenes, they are telling House Dem leaders in no uncertain terms that they don't want a vote focused on just the middle class ones, the sources say. The leadership aide says moderates are complaining that if they take the vote, "they'll be subject to a 30 second ad saying they raised taxes."

I've taken to checking the White House blog whenever I get a chance; you never know what you're going to find on there and last night I found a post by Jen Psaki that resonated.

Yesterday afternoon, Senator Richard Shelby laid out very clearly what Congressional Republicans consider to be one of their major priorities-- rolling back legislation that will provide more security and stability to middle class families, and more accountability to Wall Street. He joins the Republican Leader in the House who promised to try to repeal Wall Street Reform in July.

Senator Shelby wants to go back to a time when there was no such thing as a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and when consumers were left without a voice at the table. This is an agency whose mission is to look out for American consumers and empower them with the clear and concise information they need to make the financial decisions that are best for them. Its existence is enormously important, because one cause of the financial crisis and the Lost Decade for the middle class was the unscrupulous practices of credit card companies and mortgage lenders, who reaped billions at the expense of consumers from hidden fees and penalties.

That's why the President fought so hard for the new CFPB and new rules to outlaw the tricks and traps that have punished the American people. That hard-won victory came over the fierce opposition of Wall Street and the financial industry. But now the man who would be chair of the Senate Banking Committee says that if Republicans win control of the Senate, he will work to gut these new consumer protections.

We hope Senator Shelby is prepared to explain why he feels that way to the millions of Americans who have been misled with pages and pages of fine print on applications for credit cards, mortgages or student loans, and now find themselves in untenable financial situations.

It’s important to understand that when Congressional Republicans talk about re-opening this legislation, they’re talking about standing up for the interests of big banks and their lobbyists and leaving middle class families to fend for themselves.

The Wall Street reform legislation is a clear victory for the American people. It will bring greater economic security to families and businesses across our country by enacting the toughest financial reforms since the ones created in the aftermath of the Great Depression, and by making Wall Street more accountable. And yet Senator Shelby wants to get rid of the progress we made and go back to a system that helped cause the financial crisis.

It’s become very clear that Congressional Republicans do not have any viable solutions to fix our nation’s problems. And the solutions they do offer, like repealing Wall Street reform legislation, will do absolutely nothing to grow our economy, put people back to work and strengthen America’s middle class. Instead, they would take us back to the same exact failed economic policies that created the mess we’re in: cutting rules for the special interests and big corporations and cutting the middle class loose.

And Shelby is less insane than the new crop of Republican extremists trying to get into Congress now, dangerous crackpots like Joe Miller (AK), Christine O'Donnell (DE), Rand Paul (PA), Sharron Angle (NV), Ken Buck (CO), Mike Lee (UT), Carly Fiorina (CA), Rob Portman (OH), Marco Rubio (FL), Ron Johnson (WI) and, perhaps worst of all, Pat Toomey (PA). Worst of all? Yes, the former Wall Street derivatives trader who went on to lead the Greed-Is-Good attack machine known as Club For Growth. The fondest dream of GOP front groups like Club For Growth-- especially Club For Growth-- is the privatize Social Security and abolish Medicare. That's what all these Republicans have in common. They don't want to talk about it, but that's what they're running on, some, like Sharron Angle and Joe Miller, more openly than others.

Blue America is backing a working family type candidate in central Arkansas, Joyce Elliott, a proven progressive leader and a defender of Social Security and Medicare. Her opponent, Karl Rove's shady protégé Tim Griffin, is more in the Sharron Angle/Joe Miller camp of wanting to privatize Social Security entirely, but he's trying to not frighten Little Rock voters by being too vocal about it in public. This is a press release that went out to Arkansas media yesterday from the DCCC:

The conservative Club for Growth, a Washington DC-based backer of Tim Griffin, today issued a fervent call for the risky scheme to privatize Social Security, or to put it in their own words: “Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!” Tim Griffin needs to come forward immediately and explain this “hell yeah” approach to privatizing Social Security to Arizona voters.
 
“Today Tim Griffin’s backers in Washington announced a ‘hell yeah’ approach to privatizing Social Security, effectively signing over Arkansas seniors’ retirement benefits to Wall Street,” said Ryan Rudominer, Spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “With Arkansas families losing their savings on Wall Street and seniors struggling to make ends meet, the last thing they need is Tim Griffin subjecting their guaranteed Social Security benefits to the whims of Wall Street.”
 
Had individuals been relying on private Social Security accounts in the stock market during the 2008 collapse, they could have lost nearly 40% of their retirement savings in the 12 months leading up to the collapse.