Democrats gamble by backing tax increases: "No political risk" or "Remember Mondale"?

[DeepModem Mom]

LAT: Democrats gamble by backing tax increases
Party strategists say higher levies on top earners pose no political risk. Others have a two-word response: Walter Mondale.
By Janet Hook, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
November 1, 2007

WASHINGTON — More than two decades after Walter F. Mondale said he would raise taxes -- and lost his presidential bid in a landslide -- the Democratic Party is on the verge of a major political gamble: Some of its leading members are proposing an array of tax increases on wealthier Americans.

All the major Democratic presidential candidates would allow President Bush's tax cuts for wealthier households to lapse. Most support raising the cap on income subject to Social Security taxes. Some want to raise taxes on capital gains and other investment income. On Capitol Hill, a leading Democrat -- House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel of New York -- has proposed an additional tax on wealthy people and a levy on hedge fund managers to help ease the tax burden on the middle class.

Some party strategists say calling for upper-income tax increases does not pose the political risk it once did, because of wide public concern, particularly among Democratic voters, that the gap between rich and poor is growing. Income inequality has become an increasingly salient issue as many people feel economically insecure about such bread-and-butter items as health care, pensions and college costs.

"The top 300,000 income-earners in America now make more than the bottom 150 million combined," former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards said when he unveiled his plan to raise taxes on the rich and cut them for the middle class. "Our tax code has shifted most of the burden onto the backs of working Americans."

But Republicans still see the emerging debate on taxes as a political gift. They have called Rangel's bill "the mother of all tax hikes," and their House campaign committee sent news releases and videos attacking the proposed legislation to 50 Democrats' districts....

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-taxes2nov02,0,7443901.story?coll=la-home-center

[Dewlso]

1. Its a given

It doesnt matter who gets elected. The debt that bushco created will have to be paid for, whether by us or our children or their children or their children or their children.

[lligrd]

2. Perhaps They Should Do What Is Best For The Country

and not for themselves. That is what their job is supposed to be.

[silverojo]

3. It's a non-issue

Republicans will ALWAYS accuse Dem candidates of being "tax and spend" or "raising taxes". Even if a Dem stood up and proposed no taxes for anybody, the Repukes would still drag out the old "tax and spend" mantra.

Screw 'em. Let's make the rich pay their share for a change.

[Possumpoint]

4. Nothing Like

being deliberately stupid.

Back in the 90's the Democratic party lost control of Congress, partly on the perception of being the tax and spend party. Then the lying George W. Bush stole the election in 2000. 6 years later, by a narrow majority, they have regained Congress. Bringing up new tax packages now, the Democrats in Congress, are giving election talking points to every Republican candidate in every state. Knowing it's reputation and history, I voted Democratic this past election anyway to effect a change in our policies in Iraq. I've been disappointed in that effort.

You want to change the tax structure to start paying for the war or what ever? Shut the "F" up until after the elections. This is like the pass receiver turning his head before catching the ball.