Congressional Democrats and the White House said Sunday that they probably will wait to vote until after the November 2 midterm election on the Bush-era tax cuts which are scheduled to expire on December 31.
Those comments on the various Sunday morning public affairs programs led to predictable outrage from House Republicans, who accused the Democrats of being irresponsible and further hurting the American economy.
Maryland Democrat Chris Van Holland told NBC's Meet the Press host David Gregory about the Dems plan yesterday, and why they'll wait to vote:
MR. GREGORY: But what about the timing? Because you say it's probably not till after the election. I've talked to economists, read their words this week, who say the longer you wait the more uncertainty. Why not put it to a vote before the midterms?
REP. VAN HOLLEN: Well, we are absolutely going to get this done before the end of the year. We may well take it up before the midterms. But, as you've heard from Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, they are insisting on holding the tax cuts for most of the American people hostage until they get these breaks for the very top. And we don't think that we should be adding $700 billion to our deficit. That's fiscally reckless at a time that we need to be imposing some fiscal discipline. We should not be adding red ink that's going to have to be picked up by others and, and put us more in hock to China and other countries.
Over on Fox News Sunday, House Minority Leader John Boehner blasted the idea that there would not be a vote in the House before they break for the election. Of course the big dispute is that the GOP is unified that during this (unofficial) recession, taxes should not be raised. President Obama and the Congressional Democratic leadership also wants most of the Bush tax cuts kept in place, with the exception of those that affect couples making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000, where the rates would kick up either 3% or 4.6%, and which both parties agree would only affect roughly 2% of the taxpaying public.
BOEHNER: Chris, the American people are asking the question:, "Where are the jobs?" And if we leave here this week and adjourn for the election without preventing these tax increases on the American people, it will be the most irresponsible thing that I have seen since I have been in Washington, D.C., and I've been here a while.
The speaker ought to promise a fair and open debate on making sure that we extend all of the current tax rates, end the uncertainty and get our economy going again, except that it sounds like they're just going to punt the ball until a lame duck session and, as a result, allow the uncertainty to continue, the economy to go slow and no jobs being created.
Also on Fox, the second most powerful House Democrat, Maryland's Steny Hoyer, confirmed that the Democrats won't bring before the floor a proposal on extending the tax cuts except for the wealthy until after teh election.
HOYER: I doubt that we will, and let me tell you why. The Senate has refused to move forward on that issue. As you know, we have some 400 bills pending in the Senate, 75 percent of which have gotten 50 Republican votes or more, but they can't move through the Senate, so it would be an specious act.
But Democrats have absolutely pledged and we'll make sure that before the end of this year the Republican increase in middle-income taxes will not go into effect, the Republican bill that phased out this year…
WALLACE: Wait a minute. You're calling the Republican — you're calling the Bush tax cuts an increase in taxes on the middle class?
HOYER: The budget ended in 2010. That's why we have this confronting us. Why did they do that? Because they played budget games for scoring purposes. And yes, it's the Republican plan to eliminate those tax… (CROSSTALK)
WALLACE: But you've got a big majority.
HOYER: I understand.
WALLACE: Why not pass the extension of the middle-class tax cuts before you go home to campaign for a month?
HOYER: I just told you. The Senate has decided they wouldn't do it because of the…
WALLACE: Well, that's the Senate. You're the House.
In the same conversation, Fox's Chris Wallace appeared momentarily dumbfounded that if the Democrats lose their majority in November, they would still come back and vote on the tax cut when they had been "rejected" by the country. Hoyer adroitly rebutted that proposal by saying that this Congress is supposed to work until January of 2011, an old fashioned notion that Congress might actually work its full schedule.
And Wallace should note that back in 1998 House Republicans, though they did not lose control were severely spanked by Congress for focusing all year on Bill Clinton's sex scandal, went ahead after they lost 5 seats in a clear showing of disapproval for what they were doing, and went ahead and impeached Clinton, who of course held on what the Senate did not vote to remove him.
WALLACE: if your party loses control of the House, will you promise not to hold a lame duck session after the (inaudible)?
HOYER: Of course I'm not going to promise that, Chris. That would be an irrational promise to make, because we're not going to complete the appropriations process, again, because of the difficulty of the obstructionism in the United States Senate…
(CROSSTALK)
WALLACE: Well, you're the House. You could have passed all these things. But — but here's…
HOYER: We certainly could have.
WALLACE: But here's the — here's the question.
HOYER: But we need to come back to make sure we completed that process as, frankly, Republicans did when they were in charge.
WALLACE: Do you think it's right to have members of Congress who have just lost — I'm talking now about a scenario where the House goes to the Republicans — to have members of Congress who have just lost come back and decide taxes and spending against the will of the Americans who have just voted?
HOYER: I don't think we're going to make any decisions against the will of the American public. Frankly, Chris, that's your assumption.
WALLACE: No, I'm…
HOYER: I think — I think… (CROSSTALK)
WALLACE: … I'm presenting a scenario.
HOYER: I think it is absolutely correct — and under both parties' leadership we have done that — that members of Congress are elected for 24 months, not for 21 months, not for 22 months, for 24 months. And they will continue their responsibilities…
WALLACE: So even…
HOYER: … to the end of their term.
WALLACE: So even if, let's say — I'm just — suppose — even if Republicans gain control of the House, and one of the clear messages is we don't want to raise taxes on anyone, it's OK for the Democrats to come back in a lame duck session and vote to let the tax cuts for the wealthy lapse?
HOYER: I certainly think it's OK. They'll make a policy judgment. As a matter of fact, Chris, there's no — there's no confusion where the Democrats stand on this issue. The president's made it very clear. I've made it very clear. The leadership's made it very clear.
We are for making sure that the middle-class Americans do not get a tax increase. And we're going to make sure that happens. We've also made it clear that cutting taxes on the wealthiest in America will simply exacerbate the deficit without any assistance to the economy.
This article appears in Sep 23-29, 2010.