Senator Tom Harkin: No Deal Is Better Than The Deal Being Negotiated

[Report1212]

Video at the link. GO HARKIN!

There are reports that the White House is preparing to offer a deal that would only end the Bush tax cuts on incomes above $400,000 and while enacting a watered-down estate tax. These measures offer a major tax cut to the rich over what is currently set to take place in 2013.

Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) took to the floor just now and denounced this sort of deal:

HARKIN: Mr. President, I was disturbed to read in The Washington Post this morning that some kind of agreements are being made here. Somehow that democrats have agreed to raise the level of, from $250,000 to $450,000, and that somehow there’s been an agreement reached that we would keep the estate taxes at the $5 million level, at 35%. Mr. President, this is one Democrat that doesn’t agree with that at all.

[...] Again, if we’re going to have some kind of a deal, the deal must be one that really does favor the middle class, the real middle class, those that are making $50,000, $60,000, $70,000 a year. that’s the real middle class in america. As I see this thing developing, quite frankly, as I’ve said before, no deal is better than a bad deal. and this looks like a very bad deal the way this is shaping up.

Read more, watch it: http://boldprogressives.org/senator-tom-harkin-no-deal-is-better-than-the-deal-being-negotiatied

[Purveyor]

1. CSPAN replaying Harkins floor statement now. 12:42p eom

[kelliekat44]

60. Tell that to the unemployed... nt

[stevenleser]

2. I am not seeing the reason to be outrage. No cuts to SS or Medicare and some tax increases on rich

and continuation of unemployment benefits?

Why am I supposed to be outraged about this?

[Report1212]

3. It's a tax cut for the rich

If we wait 12 hours the taxes go up on all the rich, and the estate tax is the highest it's been in years.

If we cut their taxes instead, we are effectively giving them a tax cut.

Democrats are giving the rich a tax cut.

Do you think that's right?

[stevenleser]

5. What the OP says is contradictory on that point. It says taxes on the rich are being raised to 39.6%

Where does that equate to a cut?

[Comrade Grumpy]

9. When did $400,000 a year become "middle class"?

Raising the limit means lost tax revenues means more GOP pressure to cut the deficit, etc.

[stevenleser]

12. It hasnt. It is a negotiated point. nt

[hfojvt]

15. it is an abject surrender, is what it is.

Why be upset?

Try this little thought experiment.

First, let the Bush tax cuts expire (please).

Then pass "the deal".

Do an analysis of who benefits from "the deal". Tell me that the top 5% do NOT get much bigger benefits than the bottom 40%.

You know that they do, and you don't care.

That's your privilege. You don't have to care.

But I care. I hate tax cuts that favor the rich. I think they are bad for our country. I expect Democrats to fight for the bottom 60%, not surrender to the top 5%.

My spineless, gutless, wishy washy party had the trump card, and they sold it for $20 billion in unemployment benefits.

They gave it away is what they did.

Three cheers for "middle class estate tax cuts".

[stevenleser]

18. No, chain CPI would have been an abject surrender. No tax increases on the wealthy would have been

an abject surrender. Cuts to medicare would have been an abject surrender. Not continuing unemployment benefits would have been an abject surrender.

What was talked about in the OP is not an abject surrender.

[Report1212]

22. It's a surrender versus waiting 10 hours nt

[Owl]

25. Exactly.

[JimDandy]

24. Cuts to medicare are on the table

Obama just said in the news conference that medicare needs to be cut to strengthen it!

And Social Security had no business ever being on the table.

[hfojvt]

26. well, i call taking $2.5 trillion in automatic tax increases on the rich

and turning them into $600 billion in tax increases on the rich, what it is

a huge victory for the rich

Romney wins - the rich win
Obama wins - the rich win.

I am so happy that Benedict Obama got re-elected, so he could wave the white flag for me - AGAIN.

[Chan790]

42. Another fine "deal" by our entirely bought-and-paid-for American government.

I was just talking about this with a friend, I'm thinking of leaving the US. The state of our governance is certainly doing nothing to convince me to stay.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

32. So you want taxes to go up for the top 40% ?

[hfojvt]

34. why not?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2066908

[Sekhmets Daughter]

44. Just asking...

an annual income of $75K puts someone in the top 25% of earners.

[JDPriestly]

20. How many hours do we work a week.

40 times 52 is 2080. Assuming that wealthy people theoretically get the equivalent of two weeks or 80 hours of vacation per year, that's 2000 hours -- a number you can easily divide into almost any other.

If a person's annual salary is $400,000 per year, they are earning $200 per hour. That is a lot of money. Can you imagine spending $200 per hour 40 hours a week for 50 weeks.

When it comes to taxes, people who earn that much money can organize their pay schemes so that they get to take deductions on their taxes. Raising their taxes will not be that heavy a burden for them.

At $250,000 per year, people are still earning enough that they could pay higher taxes although many people earning that kind of money live in expensive parts of the country like New York City or maybe even the D.C., L.A. or San Francisco areas so $250,000 does not go that far for them.

$400,000 is almost too low to start raising taxes. But the problem about people who live in large, expensive cities makes it a safe number. If you live in Des Moines, Iowa, you can probably afford a mansion on that kind of money. But if you live in LA, you get a nice house in a nice area, but not a mansion by any means.

[hfojvt]

29. "almost too low"

oh yeah, my heart bleeds for people who only make $300,000 a year. The poor, poor babies

[JDPriestly]

55. OK, so I barely earned a (on edit, small) fraction of it (in my best years), but . . . .

if you live in a decent area of LA with better schools, you pay very, very high rent or a lot on your mortgage plus taxes.

[Bluenorthwest]

59. US Government says the median income in NYC metro area is 80,000

So those making more than 3X the median must have a really high level of spending if they are claiming poverty. Just saying. Here's a place in Westwood, decent by any standard I'd think, 3 bedroom plus den, $2,800 a month or 33,600 per year. So 250,000 is $20,800 per month, makes that 2800 look very doable to me. Very.
Or does 'decent' mean Bel Aire or Pt Dume only?

[Aerows]

48. Most people that I know

Would view working 40 hours a week as a vacation.

[JDPriestly]

54. True, but it is a good number to work with.

[hfojvt]

10. because if there is no deal - taxes aleady go up to 39.6%

and they go up for income below $450,000 too.

The AMT patch - benefits the rich.

The tax cut on dividends - benefits the rich.

The limit of $250,000 - benefits the rich and raising it benefits them even more.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2097092

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022062010

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021880321

If you really want to know.

[Report1212]

11. See hj's point

Don't forget what happens AUTOMATICALLY tomorrow.

[1StrongBlackMan]

56. You just don't get it ...

do you?

sarcasm alert: nothing will ever be enough ... we could tax the wealthy's income at 100% over {insert income level} and dedicate every dime of it to direct transfer payment to those living on less than{insert income level}, and someone will not be happy.

[hfojvt]

4. huge tax cuts for the rich do not bother you?

They bother me - a lot.

[stevenleser]

6. See my #5 nt

[bowens43]

30. How about permanent tax cuts for the wealthy and lies from Obama?

don't worry, he'll give up SS and Medicare when it's time to increase the debt level. Obama is being played.

[hfojvt]

7. okay, but is he going to use his power to block the deal?

Yes, I am expecting a "Mr. Smith" performance.

Block the deal by yourself if you have to. A simple 10-12 hour fillibuster should suffice.

[bama_blue_dot]

16. I agree with you..

He can threaten to block it all he wants, but if he really wants to fight for a better deal, he will filibuster it..

[hfojvt]

21. actually I wonder if his little speech isn't part of the Kabuki

He pretends to be really upset as a way to generate more Republican support for the deal. "See, if liberals are upset, it must be a good deal for us."

[bobclark86]

8. Just read the AP story on the deal being worked out...

and I pulled a Sprite can out of my desk, a co-worker wrote "fucking republicans" on it and we kicked it down the hall several times.

[hfojvt]

13. unfortunately

it is the fucking Democrats who are agreeing to this deal.

Republicans fight, Democrats concede

Republicans fight, Democrats concede

Wash, rinse, repeat.

And every time we get on our knees and beg the Democrats to fight. We jump on our chairs and demand it! We call them every name in the book.

And every time, they refuse to fight.

And WE are the ones who are called disloyal to their great elected selves. We are called every name in the book. We are called childish fools who do not understand how government works. We are told to "run for office or shut up", because they are the elected ones, their sell-outs and profiles in cowardice and pefidity are just pragmatism, real-politik.

I guess being elected means never having to say you are sorry.

[JEB]

17. + 1000

My sentiments exactly.

[Owl]

27. My sentiments also.

[JDPriestly]

23. How right you are.

Had I done my job with as little fight, as little determination, as little stubborn feistiness as the Democrats in Congress and the White House, I would not have last a day, not a day.

It's pitiful.

The problem is that the people who rise to the top in politics are people who have not had to struggle all that much really. By the time they are in their late 30s, they are in the limelight, have good incomes and lots of admirers. That kind of rapid, easy success does not make you into a fighter. I don't care how tough your childhood was, if your life goes well when you are in your 30s, if you are not doing without, pinching pennies, trying to get along, making tough choices but rather are going to the houses of the rich and well positioned, eating their caviar and French cheeses, etc., then you are going to identify with and want to please the rich. You will forget your tough childhood. You will congratulate yourself on having had the talent, the charm, the good character to have overcome the difficulties of the past.

So that is why so many of our politicians begin to side with the wealthy and famous, the sons and daughters of the wealthy and famous, what used to be the polo crowd, when they get into national or state-wide offices.

It's a crying shame, but we and our ugly little battles for survival are not even known to them. They think we are doing as well as they are.

So that is why the compassion that politicians show when they hold cute babies does not translate into caring about the lives of the grown-ups who struggle to feed the babies while taking care of their elderly moms and dads. That's not the "reality" of the successful politicians.

President Obama's mother-in-law was living in the White House last I heard. She is not struggling to get by on her Social Security, so what does the President know about the lives of those who are? Absolutely nothing, I assure you. That is why he was so ready to take the 30 pieces of silver offered by the Republicans.

[Doctor_J]

41. Yep, and you better vote in 2014! Otherwise it's all your fault!

as soon as we get 70 Dem Senators and 280 Reps, then you might get a public option. Until then, we need your vote but don't expect anything!

[Billsmile]

49. I Agree

And where are the Democrats DEMANDS??? We want to double Social Security payments by removing the cap, make the top marginal tax rate 75%, tax capital gains like income, and so on. Start from bold positions at the outset & then negotiate up to a point.....but don't sell your soul every time around by starting weak & negotiating from there. The people end up losing every time.

[malz]

14. Yep

I'm with Thelma and Louise at this point.

[NYC Liberal]

19. Yep. Screw the unemployed.

[bowens43]

31. Obama is screwing us all.....

[hfojvt]

39. but we NEED to pass these tax cuts for the rich to help the unemployed

"Yes, I'm worried about the deficit. I'm worried about the deficit, but I'm more worried about the fellow looking for work. I'm worried about the deficit, but I'm more worried about the single mom who's worried about putting food on the table for her children, so she could find work. And that's where the focus of this administration is going to be." May 12, 2003

"But in spite of the good news, people are looking for work. And as long as our fellow citizens are looking for work, we must act. So long as families are struggling to pay the bills, we must act here in America. So long as small businesses are hesitant to expand and to create new jobs, we must act. And the "we" in this case is the United States Congress." May 12, 2003

"The unemployment number is now at 6 percent, which should serve as a clear signal to the United States Congress we need a bold economic recovery package so people can find work. (Applause.) That 6-percent number should say loud and clear to members of both political parties in the United States Congress, we need robust tax relief so our fellow citizens can find a job. (Applause.)" May 6, 2003


Clearly the best way, if not the only way to help the unemployed is by passing a contination of most of the Bush tax cuts. Just like in 2003, when Bush declared that they needed to be passed to help the unemployed.

Same argument, different day.

You oppose the Bush tax cuts? Don't you care about the unemployed, you heartless bastard?

[Report1212]

35. So a congress with Elizabeth Warren

Has a less likely chance to get UI passed next month. Are you kidding me?

[NYC Liberal]

38. Sure, let the unemployed starve for a month.

By the way, who controls the House?

[totodeinhere]

51. Sources are saying that an extension of unemployment benefits will be a part of this deal.

But having said that I am vehemently opposed to caving in on the estate tax.

[Owl]

28. Senator Tom Harkin is right: No Deal Is Better Than The Deal Being Negotiated

[iemitsu]

33. If Obama is stupid enough to think Americans will forgive him for

favoring the rich at the expense of workers and the national budget, that's fine for him. Senate Democrats better be smarter than that. Our party has not been is such a good position, in decades, to make America a better place for its citizens and the leader of our party is going to throw it all away.
Its insane.
Even the bank teller was complaining this morning about Obama's plans to sacrifice older American's security in order to allow the rich to keep what they have stolen from us. The bank teller!
Happy new year.

[CranialRectaLoopback]

47. What are we gonna do, vote against him?

Most people here have been there, didn't do that.

[Doctor_J]

36. Why does Harkin have to read about it in the paper?

Here is what is bugging me about Obama's conduct in this matter

HARKIN: Mr. President, I was disturbed to read in The Washington Post this morning that some kind of agreements are being made here.

Dear Mr. President

TALK TO THE FUCKING DEMS ABOUT THIS. 70 MILLION OF US VOTED FOR YOU. WHY ARE YOU NEGOTIATING WITH BONER AND DISCUSSING IT WITH THE POST??????????

It's going just about like the HC talks - lots of Big Insurance reps, no SP.

[Report1212]

37. He had to read it in the paper

He couldn't even get a call from the White House. Proud progressive Harkin. Truly sad.

[Doctor_J]

40. Does anyone know if the president has even met with the progressive caucus about this?

Sanders? Any of the real Dems?

[CranialRectaLoopback]

46. His fist met with our gut.

[No Compromise]

43. we need to start over and have the American people start calling the shots

NY Times Budget puzzle- you fix the budget
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022103899

[CranialRectaLoopback]

45. Senator Harkin can stop the deal

Under current senate rules Senator Harkin ALONE can stop this deal. But he won't.

[totodeinhere]

52. I think it more likely that a Republican such as Rand Paul or Mike Lee might stop it.

Some of them will oppose anything that doesn't extend the Bush tax cuts for everybody including the super rich.

[airplaneman]

50. Here is what irks me about this kind of deal.

To only let the tax rate go up on those making $400K or $450K instead of $250K means that in excess of 80% of the effect of the increase has been wiped out. The same goes with the estate tax. This plays into the republicans two ways. One it almost eliminates any effect at all and it proves their point that taxing the rich more has practically no impact on new revenues.
WOW if I could get better than 80% of what I want in a deal it would feel like a landslide and not a compromise.
-Airplane

[daybranch]

53. let me see

lets make a deal now so republicans can do what they want regarding the debt limit and take back what they want next year.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. That's why politicians invented back rooms and "closed door" meetings.

They sure as hell don't want the ordinary folks to find out what they're doing until it's too late and they can roll out the spin doctors to tell us it's all been for our own good.

[Skittles]

58. WOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

IS SOMEONE ACTUALLY SPEAKING FOR WE THE PEOPLE???