Amid all of the instant analysis

[rufus dog]

Has anyone brought up the point that tax increases for the top 1% will be the battling point for 2012.

The two year extension will expire and is appears the dems will be pushing for closing deductions on the same group immediately.

Thus a major battle in 2012 will be fought over tax cuts for the rich.

[leftstreet]

1. So they'll be talking about Rich People, and not The Rest of Us

great

[malaise]

2. It will be rich versus everyone else

and by then everyone else will be seething with anger

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

3. The extension can end immediately.

Anyone who tells you different is full of shit.

[monmouth]

4. Strategic plan re campaign...I like it..n/t

[MineralMan]

5. Yes, that's a major 2012 issue. We can all help make it

happen by turning out and putting Democrats back in control of the House and adding seats in the Senate. 2012 is going to be a very, very important election.

[leftstreet]

7. The GOP will take the House & Senate

But then you probably already know that

[jaxx]

9. Really?

Who will help that to happen?

[MineralMan]

10. No, they won't. You might want that, but few others do.

They will not, and it will be because the Republicans are sowing the seeds of their failure even as we write. They will not, because we will bring the voters to the polls. You may do as you please, but your prediction will be incorrect. No more will negativism rule the day. You can fight for Democratic victories, or you can fight against them. Pick your side. I don't have time for this bullshit.

[Dawson Leery]

11. If the Democratic base votes, they will win.

Also, there is no guarantee that the Senate will be going to the GOP.

[leftstreet]

13. Sigh. Did I say I 'want' that? The GOP wins on tax issues

You know this. Or, you should.

If there's no Public Option, or WPA style Jobs Program, or increase in Minimum Wage, etc for the GOP to fuck with, they'll exploit voter fears of tax increases. And they ALWAYS win on that

[MineralMan]

14. They will not win. You could help.

You don't have to, but you could.

[originalpckelly]

6. No, they won't have to do that...

because the Republicans will attach another five years to the unemployment benefit extensions that will be needed some time this year.

[ecstatic]

20. I don't think they'll be that dumb in an election year. That would fracture them nt

[mmonk]

8. So it was strategy that created more suffering?

[ecstatic]

21. has anything gone into effect yet? nt

[gratuitous]

12. The "temporary" extension will never expire

The Hyde Amendment, prohibiting any federal funds from being spent on abortion, was supposed to be one of those "temporary" fixes. But every year, it comes up for renewal, and every year it's passed. At first, there was some debate and some work done to try to overturn the Hyde Amendment. But eventually, opposition just ran out of steam. There was no point in opposing it anymore, because the Republicans vote for it in lockstep, and threaten any Democrats with scary ads if they make too much of a stink about it.

The same thing will happen with the "temporary" extension of the Bush tax cuts. There will be battles fought for a couple of go-rounds. Maybe even some nose-to-nose staredowns. But eventually, the Republicans will win the debate by standing together, and threatening any Democrats with scary campaign ads if they get too numerous. There will always be enough Blue Dog Democrats who cravenly curry favor with the wealthy, and other Democrats in swing districts who are petrified to govern too democratically, to side with the Republicans, and carry the "temporary" extension forward forever. That is why the failure to just let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010 was so fatal to the Democrats, the budget, and the nation. It was an act of affirmative cowardice (doing nothing would have allowed the cuts to expire) that will be repeated again and again until Democrats just give up the fight, like they have with the Hyde Amendment.

They might make brave noises about letting the Bush tax cuts expire, but if they couldn't do it when they held the majorities in both the House and the Senate, they'll never do it.

[sad sally]

25. Like these guys aren't going to buy a few politicians to make sure their tax cuts aren't permanent?

Top 10 CEO's for 2010

$22.9M, Emerson Electric Chairman and Chief Executive Officer David N. Farr

$25.2M, CEO of IBM Samuel Palmisano

$26.5M, Ford CEO Alan Mulally

$28.0M, President and Chief Executive Officer of The Walt Disney Company Robert A. Iger

$28.2M, Brian L. Roberts, chairman and CEO of Comcast

$32.6M, John F. Lundgren, President & Chief Executive Officer of Stanley Black & Decker

$32.9M, Michael D. White, president and chief executive officer of DIRECTV

$70.1M, Oracle CEO Larry Ellison

$76.1M, Dr. Ray Irani, Chairman, CEO and President of Occidental Petroleum Corporation

$84.5M, Philippe P. Dauman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Viacom, Inc.

[pinkkillersheep]

15. Well the politicians are the top 1%, so of course they're wasting our time talking about their taxes

[leftstreet]

16. +1

Thank you!

[EFerrari]

18. LOL

!

[denverbill]

17. Unfortunately, the Democrats blew this one in 2010. Now they're screwed.

In 2010, with control of both houses, they could have proposed a stand-alone bill with only tax cuts for non-wealthy. To stop it, Republickers would have had to filibuster it and would have had NO chance to force tax cuts for the rich into the picture. Their filibuster would have forced a tax increase onto the poor/middle class and they would have taken the blame. It would have been a huge issue going into the election.

Now, Republickers have the votes in the House to pass a bill that includes both tax cuts. And if the Democrats in the Senate or Obama choose to vote against it or veto it, it will be the Democrats that take the blame for the tax increase.

How are Democrats going to force a vote on a stand-alone bill in the House when they are in the minority? They are screwed.

If they had passed a stand-alone bill in 2010, they would have probably kept control of the House to boot.

[killbotfactory]

22. The republicans DID filibuster middle class tax cuts, ffs

Dems still lost the house.

[denverbill]

24. No, they did not. If they had, both tax cuts would be gone.

Senate Blew Dogs and Obama made the decision to include both tax cuts. If the only option had been middle-class cuts or none, Republickers would have been forced to filibuster and the tax cuts would be gone. Instead, Democrats allowed a vote on both tax cuts which passed.

[killbotfactory]

26. You are wrong

September 2010:
"Meanwhile, a spokesperson for McConnell said today that every Senate Republican has pledged to oppose any attempt to extend the Bush tax cuts that doesn't include an extension of the tax cuts for the wealthy. McConnell himself has given similar remarks."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20016227-503544.html

December 2010:
The vote this morning was 53-36 to extend the Bush tax cuts on incomes below $250,000 -- seven votes short of the 60 needed.

Check out how the AP plays this: "Bill blocked to let upper-income tax cuts expire."

A second vote is underway on extending the tax cuts on incomes under $1 million. That, too, is expected to be blocked by Senate Republicans.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/12/gop_filibusters_middle_class_tax_cut.php

[denverbill]

27. Yeah, ok, so in September, McConnell said that. And that was all that happened.

No vote was taken. The vote was postponed until AFTER the election. Nobody filibustered a fucking thing before the election relating to these tax cuts. They didn't have to because the Dems didn't bring the vote when they should have. They refused to allow this to be a defining issue in the 2010 elections because they didn't press a vote in October, when they should have.

WTF good does it do to vote on it a month AFTER the elections? And what the hell does a filibuster matter if you keep allowing more bills to be voted on? Why after offering the cuts on $1 million did they keep going and offer to keep them all?

[EFerrari]

19. Yes, and it's a sucker's bet because in reality

the issue doesn't come up until after the election, isn't that right?

[ProSense]

23. Imagining the End of the Bush Tax Cuts

Imagining the End of the Bush Tax Cuts