Apr 3rd, 2009 at 9:01 am
Budget Bullets
Some points on the budget resolutions that have passes the House and the Senate:
- A few House Democrats defected from the Democratic position, but a larger number of House Republicans voted “no” on the GOP leadership’s “April Fool’s” budget.
- In the Senate, Bill Nelson and Evan Bayh bucked the party and joined with the GOP.
- I’ve heard some see this as an act of political cowardice on Bayh’s part, but I think that’s wrong. Obama carried Indiana. There are many Senate Democrats in more vulnerable states who voted “yes.” Bayh just made a decision of conscience and principle to stand with Mitch McConnell and Jim DeMint on the most important domestic policy vote of his career.
- It’s not clear to me where this leaves the Bayh Bunch of “practical” moderates, since virtually none of its members followed their leader.
- A staggering nine Senate Democrats backed the Lincoln-Kyl giveaway to inheritors of states worth over $7 million.
Needless to say, the House and Senate versions of the budget are different so there’ll have to be a conference committee and then more votes.
47 Responses to “Budget Bullets”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Blanche Lincoln
Budget
Cars
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Demographics
Economics
Economy
Energy
EU
Finance
Football
Gender
Health Care
History
Inequality
Infrastructure
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NBA
Pakistan
Palestine
planning
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Sarah Palin
Sports
Stimulus
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:09 am
I agree with Digby :
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/priorities-or-progressive-caucus-needs.html
Why don’t we hear more about intelligent budgets that cut our outrageous defense spending?
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:10 am
I think we should seriously consider the “Evan Bayh is the living proof that you could reach the Senate while being a complete idiot”.
Dammed American political dynasties.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:11 am
I love the way you call a lighter estate tax a “giveaway”. It isn’t the government’s money, so it’s hardly a “giveway” to let a family/small business keep more of it.
You can argue on ideological grounds as to why a higher/lower tax makes more sense, but calling it a “giveaway” is just dumb.
If you want to discuss things that qualify as giveaways, we can talk about the earned income tax credit, where the Feds give people who pay little or no income tax money directly…
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:18 am
But James Robinson, you just don’t get it!
In ObaLand ANY money the guv’ment leaves in your pocket is a giveaway.
And you dear sir rather than being grateful and getting in line to kiss the ObaAss actually have the nerve to believe that what you earn should largely be yours?!
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:21 am
I hope Matt gives us a list of the Dems who voted for Lincoln-Kyl. That’s gonna be a very useful list, because it sure as frack tells you where they really stand when they have to make a choice between the interests of the nation and the interests of their contributors.
I was one of those people who used to assume that Dem legislators always wanted to do the right thing, and sometimes just couldn’t because of electoral realities in their state.
Over the last two weeks, Matt has summarily demolished the bright-eyed optimist I used to be. Some of these guys are rotters.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:22 am
Roger:
And it is a bigger disgrace considering his dad was an awesome Senator. Evan is making a mockery of the family name. He is seriously trying to give HoJo a run for the money as the DINO that Democrats hate the most.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:27 am
Wingnuts seems to forget that in America we don’t have princes and kings. A large inheritance tax (on huge estates) is extremely important to avoid enormous concentrations of wealth for people who did absolutely nothing to earn it. It is part and parcel of a philosophy that should prefer work to idleness.
But the right wingers here prefer to bitch about money given to the working poor while defending the sacred right of billionaires to pass every penny onto their trust fund babies.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:27 am
That was Ben Nelson not Bill Nelson who voted with Bayh.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:33 am
Marc :
I’m playing devil’s advocate – is it in the government’s job description to tax the estates of the rich out of existence? The constitution seems to imply it isn’t.
Note, I agree with your reasoning, and think it is socially beneficial to follow your advice – but we’re drifting away from the founding principles of the US when we expand that role of government that way.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:39 am
Note, I agree with your reasoning, and think it is socially beneficial to follow your advice – but we’re drifting away from the founding principles of the US when we expand that role of government that way.
What kind of asinine observation is this? People who advocate against the estate tax have to be some of the most clueless idiots (or inheritors). The government needs money right? Normally, taxes take money away from people who did something to earn it. Additionally, you can show that these taxes can reduce economic activity. Instead, we can take the money from dead people without having any economic impact. Who could argue with this??!! I don’t care what the principles of the founders were on this issue. It doesn’t matter. The government needs money and this is the single best way to get it.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:54 am
It’s annoying that Matt said “nine Senate Democrats” without saying who they are or providing a link so we can see for ourselves. Anyone know where to get this?
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:57 am
MPowell -
I agree in the rule of law, wish we all did. Expanding government power and responsibility is something that must come from a broad consensus of the governed.
“I don’t care what the principles of the founders were on this issue”. Hmmm. Then your recourse is to lobby for a change in our constitution, not simply disregard it.
Let’s suppose I could make a case that you have not done enough to “earn” the money you currently have, and that the broad economic impact of the government taking it would be small – would you agree with the legality of the government taking it?
I sympathize with some of your points – but do you see how your solution is simple lawlessness, which I don’t agree with?
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:58 am
My parents bought a house in Palo Alto for about $16,000 in 1953; last year my siblings and I sold it for about $1,500,000. We owed essentially no taxes on the appreciation.
Interestingly, my father worked very hard all his life and paid taxes on that money, sometimes at a very high rate.
Perhaps more revealingly, I vividly recall his telling me about a conversation he had at the time he bought the house with a colleague who went on to a very distinguished career, but was unable to buy a house in any such desirable part of the liberal San Francisco Bay Area because he committed the offense of being a black man.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:02 am
What the estate tax does is hit the not actually wealthy, but qualifying for the tax small business guy. My grandfather’s business didn’t survive him due to the estate tax; he did well enough to get slammed by it – enough so that the family had to just liquidate the thing. The truly rich? They find all kinds of ways around this. Ask the Kennedy family how much they’ve lost to it, for instance.
You might be aiming for the wealthy, but you’re actually hitting the upper middle class.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:02 am
Phaedrus, there is nothing that constitutionally prevents the levying of inheritance taxes. In fact, estate taxes have been in effect since the 18th century.
calling it a “giveaway” is just dumb.
It’s a giveaway when it’s targetting at a small class who wouldn’t otherwise benefit from a tax cut in a year like this.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:06 am
I believe the correct expression for this is “grave robbing”. The truth is that you have no idea who earned their pile or didn’t. This is just green envy and retribution. Tsk.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:09 am
Yep, we want names. Stop protecting people.
Actually cutting the estate tax rate from 45% to 35% for over $7 million doesn’t strike me as that bad. Also, given the legal structures used to get around the estate tax this may be one area where this might in the long-run actually raise more revenue and reduce the economic costs of the tax (which is large part just reflects how terrible the estate tax system is). There is a reason the estate tax is called a ‘voluntary tax‘ (though the reality of this can be exaggerated).
Still, it would be very interesting to see who the nine are.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:09 am
Thank you Tyro, I overstepped.
Let me restate. I agree with the ethos of the estate tax, but I think that it should be based on sound thinking and not the fact that it’s easy pickings.
I agree with much of the progressive agenda, but it saddens me that so much of it is based on “feel good” logic.
I do regret pulling the constitution into this, though, you’re right.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:33 am
If you want to discuss things that qualify as giveaways, we can talk about the earned income tax credit
James “White Flight” Robertson yet again shows his kiss-up, kick-down priorities.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:42 am
“White Flight”? I grew up in a suburb, and I live in one now. I’d be willing to bet good money that we have a more diverse set of people living here than exists in most urban neighborhoods – American cities tend to be pretty segregated.
But hey, go ahead and throw rocks. It’s an admission that you have no actual point to make.
To DTM: not having enough liquid assets leads to the business/farm being liquidated. Sort of my point
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:56 am
“What the estate tax does is hit the not actually wealthy, but qualifying for the tax small business guy.’
the Big “Death Tax” lie rears its ugly head once more. If you people can’t argue honestly, i really don’t know why you’re voices are even allowed to be heard.
” My grandfather’s business didn’t survive him due to the estate tax; he did well enough to get slammed by it – enough so that the family had to just liquidate the thing.”
Well then, either your grandfather of his heirs are/were idiots. And, given the braindead rightwing propaganda you spew here on a daily basis, I’m guessing it’s his heirs.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:59 am
Here’s the roll call on Lincoln’s amendment.
DEMS: Baucus (MT), Bayh (IN), Cantwell (WA), Landrieu (LA), Lincoln (AR), Murray (WA), Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE), Pryor (AR), Tester (MT)
It’s mostly your typical senate blue dogs, but what are the Washington Senators doing there? I remember thinking highly of Patty Murray back in the day, especially. Is it a Microsoft thing?
The Lincoln jackass vote, though, was followed immediately by a Durbin Amendment:
“To provide that no additional estate tax relief beyone that which is already assumed in this resolution, which protects over 99.7 percent of estates from the estate tax, shall be allowed under any deficit-neutral reserve fund unless an equal amount of aggregate tax relief is also provided to Americans earning less than $100,000 per year.”
I don’t understand what that means, but it’s clearly a response to the Lincoln amendment in some fashion. I’m guessing it’s an amendment that makes it easier to strip out the Lincoln amendment in committee.
All the Dems who voted for the Lincoln amendment also voted for this amendment, except for Bill Nelson and Mary Landrieu. (Yup, Ben Nelson and even Blanche Lincoln herself voted for this one.)
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:02 am
There is no way to accumilate 7,000,000 dollars worth of assets and not be wealthy.
you might know people who have a shitload of money. You still have more than 99.99999999999% of the American public. Once you have that level of assets, calling yourself a ’small business owner’ is a joke.
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:11 am
DTM – so you’re willing to whack a “small percentage” because taking money for other purposes is a good thing? Right.
As to the guy who courageously calls me stupid, well. The reality was, the tax settlement was very complex. Liquidation and payment of taxes was a ton simpler than going through the onerous process of trying to reorganize the business in order to pay the tax and keep it going.
But go ahead – make wild claims about stuff you don’t understand. I’m sure you understand the complexities of running a business way, way better than my grandfather or his brothers did. They just ran it; you have the massive expertise that comes from political theory behind you.
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:29 am
I would have been equally in favor of Mr. Robertson paying capital gains taxes on the increased value of the business. That, of course, would have been very complex– much more complex than the simple estate planning that was too much for Mr. Robertson to bear when it came to a rather unprofitable business he liquidated for the assets.
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:32 am
Funny, though, what gets these exurban Republican partisans hots and bothered. Robertson is throwing a tantrum about very fair, rather low, easily planned for estate taxes. Mention torture and the invasion of Iraq, though, and he can’t be bothered to move his lazy, lying ass.
rarely in the history of the united states have business had to be “liquidated” to pay estate taxes which then allow their heirs to sell assets completely free of capital gains taxes. But this is what makes him all hot and bothered while he rushes off to vote for Bush and scream and rant about how kerry and Gore are traitors.
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:34 am
DivGuy FTW!
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:39 am
Damn, this comment section is full of right-wing trolls. Can we have a permanent moratorium on arguments based on “this tax isn’t fair because I worked really hard”, please? Many people work really hard and many do not. If they earn money, they pay taxes all the same. Seriously, cry me a f*cking river. This is a policy discussion, not a group therapy session. And back on planet earth, it’s literally impossible to come up with a type of tax less personally burdensome than one that kicks in when you’re dead. We should crank that rate up to 75, 80%. Fuck inheritance. Work, or collect unemployment and food stamps with the proletariat.
Meanwhile,
Here’s the roll call on Lincoln’s amendment.
Good fr
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:40 am
Here’s the roll call on Lincoln’s amendment.
What I meant here is… so this actually passed? Good gravy, what happens now? Matt, will you follow up on this?
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Sigh. At the time that happened, I was 2, my parents were in their early 20’s, and they were busy burying my mom’s dad. My grandfather’s brother, when faced with the expense of paying the tax and keeping the business running, liquidated it and retired.
But thanks for all of the stupidity people like tyro toss around on this. The upshot of it all was, a bunch of blue collar workers (it was a construction company) lost their jobs. But hey – the Matt’s of that era felt better, so it’s ok.
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:18 pm
And obtw, I don’t consider Kerry or Gore traitors. I disagree with them, and I think they have misguided ideas – but I don’t think they wake up thinking “how can I make America worse”.
You guys though? It’s not enough for the crowd here to disagree with me, or anyone on the right or libertarian side. No, we have to be out for evil. Off to kill the poor, and destroy the planet.
When you wonder why civil discourse is so hard, try a mirror.
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:52 pm
My mother has always said that the burden of the estate tax was the primary decision maker.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Per the earlier comment. Can you please fix your post to indicate that it was BEN NELSON who voted ‘No’ with Sen. Bayh? Thanks, bud.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Oh, please. Bayh is as “conscientious” as McConnell and DeMint, which is to say, all three are as eager to perform the role of pimp/whore (take your pick) as fast as possible.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:21 pm
beep . . . beep . . . beep . . .
I think timothy3 needs to replace the batteries on his irony detector.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Maybe that’s the point. The organization doesn’t exist to influence legislation in a more conservative direction, but to provide its members with useful credibility as moderate seekers of bipartisan solutions as they seek re-election.
What’s particularly awesome about this is that it allows Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi to say “See, our proposal to give gay abortions to terrorists without reducing their welfare has broad support, even among conservatives.”
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:13 pm
THANK YOU DivGuy!!! That provides a much fuller context. I had always assumed that I didn’t have to worry about calling my senators to make sure they voted progressively, but then Durbin pulled that weirdo stuff with the Cap and Trade 60 votes thing, so I was freaked out that he might have also voted for this Lincoln amendment. Then I find out that Durbin is back to his normal role and basically undermined the nonsensical amendment.
This whole process seems weird because hopefully Durbin’s amendment will ensure that the Lincoln BS gets taken out in committee, allowing all the Blue Dogs to say that they voted for it but they actually didn’t really. In fact, the idea that Lincoln ALSO voted for Durbin’s amendment makes it seem that her introduction of this nonsense was nothing but a ploy for more election money from the Waltons. wtf?
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:33 pm
One explanation for the Washington State guys – Microsoft money. Not everyone who got rich off that place is as selfless as Bill Gates.
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Bayh just made a decision of conscience and principle to stand with Mitch McConnell and Jim DeMint on the most important domestic policy vote of his career.
Not sure where you get “conscience” out of that, seeing as how his moderate stance has no underlying policy principles, as Bayh himself admitted.
I think he’s either in it for the media attention (think of him as the New Lieberman) and power, or else he thinks at some point Obama’s popularity, at least in Indiana, will wane and he’ll have benefited by laying this groundwork.
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Sounds like a pretty convenient dodge by your great-uncle to explain why he was retiring instead of continuing to work when the family tried to pressure him to keep things running on his own. I can’t really blame the guy — if you’re the only one left to run it and you’re at retirement age, it’s going to be a lot more attractive to cash out than to try and reorganize it. If no one else in the family was willing to take it on and he was going to have to do it all himself, then he took the most logical route.
I suspect your mother’s memory of the events may be a little, um, tainted by the family conflict over the business.
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:19 pm
I think we are seeing the future of the GOP. It is at least conceivable that these ‘moderate’ Democrats will at some point switch parties. If somehow ‘moderate’ Republicans could wrest the party away from the Palin’s and Plumbers they would welcome the ‘moderate’ Democrats with open arms.
It’s all a daydream sort of thing but it does make certain logical sense. The Democratic wing of the Democratic Party is almost empty. Obama sort of pretended to represent it but how do you lead if you have no followers. I suppose Obama is really a committed consensus builder and if there was some viable liberal group to include in reaching that consensus they would have a voice. There isn’t however. Obama is actually turning out to be Broder’s dream, but Broder being Broder won’t recognize it. He want’s bipartisanship further to the right.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:28 pm
For the record, there has been No, NOT ONE, recorded instance of a family farm being lost due to having to pay inheritance tax. Republicans have been looking very hard for one for many years and have yet to find one.
The drive to eliminate the inheritance tax is being financed by some very wealthy people. Our founding fathers were very much against establishing Royalty here but the folks funding this fight very closely fit the description. Here’s a list:
Allyn-Soderberg Family (Welch Allyn Inc.),Blethen Family (Seattle Times Co., Cox Family (Cox Enterprises, Inc.),DeVos and Van Andel Families (Alticor/Amway),Dorrance Family (Campbell Soup Company),Gallo (E&J Gallo Winery) Harbert Family, Johnson Family (BET, RLJ Development Co., Koch Family (Koch Industries,Mars Family (Mars Inc.), Mayer Family (Captiva Resources), Nordstrom Family (Nordstrom),Sobrato Family (Sobrato Development), Stephens Family (Stephens),Timken Family (The Timken Company)and no list would be complete without, the Walton Family (Wal-Mart) Wegman Family (Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.)
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Probably Bayh decided that leading a Senate obstructionist bloc would be the straightest path to national relevance after his vice-presidential hopes were dashed. Not hard to explain, just scantily clad self-interest garnished with a sour grape or two.
April 4th, 2009 at 12:39 am
Obama won Indiana, but by the lowest margin of any state he won (only Mo which went to McCain was a tighter race). So in the event of ‘buyer’s remorse’ – which is not the most likely scenario, but is far from a non-zero probability – Bayh would be bettered positioned as being on the record as breaking from Obama. And in any case, he can always kiss and make up next year if he needs to.
I also don’t see a primary challenge. The Democratic party in Indiana doesn’t have a reputation as having a deep bench (but this history may have come to an end) A quick lookup indicates that of the five members of Indiana’s delegation who are Democrats, three are proud Blue Dogs, and one is practically an infant (and is black and actually a muslim to boot)