Republican Doomsday Plan: Cave on Taxes, Vote ‘Present’

[brooklynite]

Source: ABC News

Republicans are seriously considering a Doomsday Plan if fiscal cliff talks collapse entirely. It’s quite simple: House Republicans would allow a vote on extending the Bush middle class tax cuts (the bill passed in August by the Senate) and offer the President nothing more: no extension of the debt ceiling, nothing on unemployment, nothing on closing loopholes. Congress would recess for the holidays and the president would face a big battle early in the year over the debt ceiling.

Two senior Republican elected officials tell me this doomsday plan is becoming the most likely scenario. A top GOP House leadership aide confirms the plan is under consideration, but says Speaker Boehner has made no decision on whether to pursue it.

Under one variation of this Doomsday Plan, House Republicans would allow a vote on extending only the middle class tax cuts and Republicans, to express disapproval at the failure to extend all tax cuts, would vote “present” on the bill, allowing it to pass entirely on Democratic votes.

...snip...

Still unclear under this plan is what would happen to the automatic defense cuts — “sequestration” — scheduled to go into effect on January 1 without a deficit deal. During the campaign, the President promised the cuts would not happen. As part of the deal to allow the House vote on taxes, those automatic defense cuts could be put off for a year.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/12/republican-doomsday-plan-cave-on-taxes-vote-present/

---

I suspect that, if the Republicans pulled this stunt, the President would discover a Constitutional flaw in the Debt Ceiling vote and just ignore it.

[Drale]

1. "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law... shall not be questioned"

The 14th Amendment. The Debt Ceiling is 100% unconstitutional and I would love to see a lawyer try and defend that it is constitutional.

[DallasNE]

21. Kind Of Like The Warpowers Act In That Regard

The debt ceiling law was passed by isolationist Republicans to tie President Wilson's hands following World War I. It is not much more than a Sense of the Senate resolution -- something to pay lip service to but not much more.

[Indydem]

61. Your history is wrong.

The "aggregate limit" was established so that the congress didn't have to authorize every single item to be paid. It gave the treasury more flexibility and power than it had ever had before.

The Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917 didn't tie the executive's hands - rather, it literally ceded part of congress's constitutionally mandated powers to the executive branch.

[DallasNE]

62. Actually, My History Is Right

You may quibble with the linkage I made between isolationist Republicans and the debt ceiling and whether it was intended to tie Wilson's hands from other military adventures but the history is not wrong.

The other thing is that the SLBA addressed the issuance of bonds to fund the war as an alternative to raising the money through taxation so there is a clear linkage to World War I and the Liberty bonds that financed that war. I would think that a good lawyer could make the case that the limit is moot since we are not talking about dedicated bonds in the current situation just as I don't think this limit was imposed on the rest of the federal budget at that time. Regardless, it is a useless relic of a bygone era.

[24601]

42. You won't succeed challenging the constitutionally of the debt authorized by law, only

that debt that has not been authorized by law. The current law limits the authorized debt to those limits passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President.

There is a proposal that would allow the President to raise the debt limit without Congressional action; however, that hasn't been passed. That proposal might be Constitutional, or the USSC could rule that it's not a permissible delegation of legislative power since Article I, Section makes borrowing money "on the Credit of the United States" a power specifically delegated to Congress.

[bluestateguy]

2. That is just asking for carefully worded campaign attack ads

"Congressman XXXX failed to vote for middle class taxcuts"; because you can't say "voted against"

[okwmember]

15. Absolutely correct!

I can't wait for 2014 townhalls when constituents start asking why their republican congressman (who by the way is constantly campaigning on tax cuts) didn't support the middle class tax cut.

I also think its pretty funny that this is the first thing that President Obama asked them to do a few days after the election. I seem to recall a statement about how he always has a pen available to sign this very legislation.

[JDPriestly]

24. "failed to vote" sounds complicated, but imagine a video

of Democrats' hands raised and your Republican congressman's hand not raised along with the "failed to vote" language.

That could really hurt some of the Republicans in Congress.

[Bette]

54. Failed to vote..

That sounds like a great idea! Who can we get to make the video? Whatever it takes to expose these creeps is a good plan!

[kestrel91316]

26. I think "REFUSED to vote for" sounds closer to the truth.

[Red Mountain]

44. In tough times.....

you expect your Representative to take a stand.

Now is not the time for cowards.

It writes itself....

[FredStembottom]

3. Please proceed.

I like the one that results in all Dem votes for middle class cuts and against the Bush cuts.

Excellent.

[Vincardog]

4. I say the tax rates have to raise first. After we get the money coming in we can talk

about deductions. Rais the rate on capital gains, make
"carried interest" a thing of the history books,
Make all income subject to SS tax,
Eliminate the CAP on WW wages,
pass a Financial Transaction tax of .003% on every STOCK bond and Derivative trade,

Then we can think about "entitlement reform".

[on point]

12. Plus big time defense cuts in the 100's of billions $ BEFORE any entitlement cut

Oh and the best way to help the medicare would be to save upwards of 30% by implementing single payer.

[bl968]

17. Financial Transaction tax

The Financial Transaction tax needs to be 10% on every STOCK bond and Derivative trade. If you make $36,000 in profit on the trade, you would pay $3,600 to the treasury. for $450 you would pay $45. for $7,500,000 you would pay $750,000. Even at 10% there is still plenty of profit to be had.

It would raise 10 Trillion a year, provide much needed stability to the stock markets, start rebuilding our national infrastructure, and eliminate the national debt in under 5 years. The amount would be paid by the seller of the security when they make the sale.

[GatorLarry]

59. It Won't Work!

I day trade for a living (manually, no HFT) and can tell you that most will just close their accounts based here in the U.S. and open them in another country. There are several viable exchanges around the world that won't implement this crazy idea and all you'll see is already low volume (but for the HFT Computers) dry-up completely and the U.S. markets just . . . die.

[Vincardog]

65. If the financial parasites packed up and left, shat would be the harm?

[fasttense]

67. Your Day Trading can NOT keep up with Goldman's High Frequency Trading

at a rate of 70 Thousand trades a second. Yes, that is correct per second. Small traders like yourself could easily be exempted from the transaction tax with out impacting the massive amount of revenues to be collected.

Not to mention that the big banks have profited handsomely from the Taxpayer, of late, and should be required to do something for the country that bailed their buts out and saved their billions in personal wealth. But instead what we get is head of one of these banks going on TV saying "the American people should not expect to get back what they have paid into Social Security, It's just NOT going to happen."

[SheilaT]

29. I especially like the idea of a Financial Transaction tax.

There are so many other areas where economic activity is taxed, and generally at a far higher rate.

Here in Santa Fe we have a gross receipts tax of 8.125% (I think I have the exact amount correct) which is huge. Every business in Santa Fe pays that much tax on every dollar it collects.

I believe the Financial Transaction tax has the potential to wipe out the debt after a few years. It might also slow unscrupulous financial people from "churning", that is making many unnecessary trades in an account just to collect their percentage.

[reteachinwi]

37. Nurses

See nationalnursesunited.org. They are pressing for a financial transaction tax, single payer health insurance, no social safety net cuts, etc. Go nurses!

[AllyCat]

58. Thanks for this and welcome to DU!

Sorry about the Walker thing. I am in a private-sector nurses' union and with the public-sector nurses' unions hit by Walker, we are in a tough spot. But our members are fired up.

[24601]

43. Except that the businesses don't pay it - consumers do as part of the total transaction cost.

And it's totally regressive.

[GatorLarry]

60. It Won't Work!

Discussed above . . .

[jmowreader]

36. Why that transaction tax rate?

One of the most important things to be done is eliminating high frequency trading.

HFT works by purchasing order flow and trading ahead of it. To make it simple, when a large order of a stock is placed - think hundreds of thousands of shares - the price goes up a couple cents per share. If you have a very fast computer, you can wait till a big order is placed and in the 0.2 seconds before the trade is confirmed, place your own million-share order...then five seconds later when the stock goes up a cent a share, unload the position and keep the proceeds.

Two cents per share is the right amount to tax. It will add almost nothing to the cost of buying stock - a lot of $40 stock will rise from $4000 to $4002 - and it will make HFT so risky people will stop.

The other solution is to just declare it front-running and ban it for that, but taxing it out of existence will work better. And the right wing editorials decrying the death of HFT will be a joy to post here.

[crazylikafox]

56. Bingo. Exactly right.

[jmowreader]

63. You know seven-tenths of all stock transactions now are HFT?

Kinda puts the lie to the justification for the capital gains rate, eh? According to the capital gains apologists, people buy stock so the company whose name is on it can expand and hire. How then do they explain people who own stock for such short periods of time they don't even get a chance to pay for it?

[bemildred]

5. Their doomsday, perhaps. nt

[1ProudAtheist]

6. According To The Terms

of the deficit reduction agreement that will take place automatically on January 1st, nothing short of some type of legislation agreed to by both parties would stop it from taking place. The Village Idiot's tax cuts are a separate item, not attached, and also expire December 31st. Agreeing to one does not stop the other unless the two are married, and the current Bill from the Senate that would be the one considered, does not marry them up.

[DallasNE]

25. Plus, Pelosi Has Threatened A Legislative Maneuver

To force the bill out of Committee in the House and the "present" vote is in response to the Pelosi maneuver. The problem for Boehner and Republicans is how gutless voting present is so it is almost certain to backfire on Republicans in the 2014 elections. Frankly, this may not be a serious proposal but a trail balloon to see what sells and what doesn't -- how will the talking heads spin this, etc. Bottom line, Pelosi is forcing Boehner's hand on this issue so we need to give thanks to Nancy Pelosi.

[BumRushDaShow]

7. Rethugs will be setting up for a rout in 2014

if they can't P.R. their silly stunt.

[madrchsod]

13. they are not worried about the pr...

they have all the major radio and television shit mouths to do the demonizing for them

[melody]

16. Because that worked so well for them last election? n/t

[UndahCovah]

31. Sun Tzu...

Don't underestimate them. It worked damn well for them in 2010. It could happen again. Romney wasn't exactly hardline Tea-party, and their base didn't turn out. It seems in recent years the farther right the GOP runs, the better they do, 2010 being the most frightening case in point.

I think there are a lot more rednecks and tea people out there than we would like to believe, and if they get fired up enough they will vote and we will get stuck with somebody like Sarah Palin.

[sevenseas]

39. I totally agree, UndahCovah -

Have you seen the Governor of South Carolina?

Those shallow rednecks in SOUTH CAROLINA elected her because she resembled Sarah Palin.

How's that workin' out for ya', South Carolina?

[melody]

50. But it didn't

If there goal is only to keep Obama from doing anything, then they'll merely expedite another Democrat into the White House in 2016. The need to get the GOP out will be more strident than ever. Their bullying isn't working anymore, whether they choose to believe it or not.

[thelordofhell]

8. So republicans want the Democrats to have all the credit for the middle class tax cut??

Sounds like a win/win........do this and immediately pass everything else the 1st week of the new congress...........

[UndahCovah]

34. The new congress is still repub dominated nt

[thelordofhell]

45. But by then, they should be shamed..........

even though republicans have little shame as it is.............

[pkdu]

52. Not congress....just the House. Nt

[Still Sensible]

9. That's probably an okay short term outcome, but

I'm pretty sure after the 1st the rest will revert to the same old stalemate.

[Mr.Turnip]

10. Yeah sure, give us a situation where we can actually say that we alone helped ease the Middle Class

Tax Burden while the Republicans were so crazed about the top 2% that they refused to even vote yes on that. I mean really how can they really spin that? And I really doubt America want another damn Debt ceiling debate.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

11. Republican Aide: "You don’t take a hostage you aren’t willing to shoot”

And this, my friends, pretty much sums up the modern Republican Party. The people they are sworn to serve are nothing more than hostages and, in this case, they've decided to let them live.

Those are some seriously magnanimous mother fuckers.

[n2doc]

14. holding the debt ceiling didn't work last time

and it really won't work now, given that they are pushing for SS and medicare cuts and tax cuts for the rich in exchange. Screw them, go ahead and let the dems be the only ones responsible for tax relief. Plus Obama can rightfully say he is cutting spending.

[lyingsackofmitt]

18. What a bunch of

chicken shits.

[cosmicone]

19. Epic Fail

The democrats will also say present, the senate will not vote on it saying it is just a republican game and Obama can still veto it.

People will see right through the games.

[bunnies]

27. This is about the middle-class tax cuts only.

Dems will vote YES and Obama will sign it proudly without a single republican vote.

I think you might be thinking of the tax cuts for the wealthy.

[DallasNE]

20. A Gutless Move Sure To Backfire

A few decades ago our Governor allowed a sales and income tax bill to become law without his signature, in effect voting present, and that ended his political career.

Let them vote "present" and watch Democrats make hay on that vote in 2014 over the gutless nature of that maneuver.

Frankly, leaving the rest of it until after the first of the year could well be for the best. Especially if Reid follows through with the filibuster change. There are way to stretch out the spending cuts so that rather than being a waterfalls they are a rapids.

[democrattotheend]

22. Would capital gains and dividend tax cuts also expire?

Are those Bush tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year, or just the rate cuts?

Also, what about the estate tax cut that Republicans extorted the president to sign in 2010 in exchange for extending unemployment benefits and the payroll tax holiday. Is that set to expire or is it permanent?

[Warpy]

35. Yes, all the tax cuts will expire

Republicans are predicting an economic holocaust if the rich get hit. Well, that might be true for their own party coffers.

I'm not convinced the effect of less money per week in the pockets of marginal workers will have that big an effect since the dollar amounts will be so low.

The tax cuts for working people will need to be restored. However, unless people can be convinced to stop voting Republican, that is not going to happen.

The reckless cuts for plutocrats need to end. My taxes will go up and that's OK, and I'm no plutocrat. The country simply can't run on Republican stupidity.

[Arkana]

23. By all means!

That way Democrats can take legislative credit for a tax cut on working families, and Republicans will have to go back to their constituents and explain why they didn't vote for it due to extreme butthurt.

Delicious.

[patrice]

28. Each additional person doing that reduces the power of anyone else doing it, because if you

try to deal behind the scene and reveal what your true price is to anyone, you lose your seat at the table.

It's just a replication of the status-quo stalemate with other labels on it.

[Botany]

30. Great Plan Guys!

Go for it. Being on record as not voting for a tax break for all Americans
for the first $250,000 while working to protect the very richest of the rich
is a big vote getter.

[docgee]

32. Sounds good to me...

The repugs are going to be obstructionist anyway. No one should fall for there bullshit threats...

[DearAbby]

33. take that vote

201 ayes, 234 present. Ayes have it, and the GOP bared cowardice. They had their bluff called by President Obama, they had a shitty hand.

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. Kick (nt)

[John2]

40. That should

be fine with the Democrats, if the Republicans just want to vote present. I consider that if this passes, then it will be an amendment to sequestration cuts. We can deal with the other cuts later. I think the President has a trick up his sleeve again. Stay tuned everybody, if I think he is thinking the same thing I am. They will not get the upper hand by underestimating the President.

[hrmjustin]

41. Just cave gop to the democrats demands and everything will be ok.

[DCBob]

46. I still believe there will be a deal to avoid sequestration.

It will get ugly for lots of folks including many key GOP consituents, eg.. business owners, investors, military, defense contractors. I dont see how the Republicans can ignore them and only listen to Grover. It makes no sense.

[underpants]

47. They are really horrible at politics. Propaganda they are great at but politics and governing?-- No

[freeandequalpa]

48. What am I missing?

Why not just let all of the tax cuts expire and then, in January, the Senate can pass legislation reducing the tax rates for everyone earning less than $250k to their 2012 levels? What would the Republicans in the house do? Vote against a tax cut for 98% of Americans? Wouldn't that violate their pledge to Grover?

[cstanleytech]

49. A vote where they dont vote is still a vote and in this case

I say spin it as them voting yes.
It will piss off they rabid nutjobs on the far right who wanted deeper cuts and they cannot really deny that they voted yes for it because they clearly didnt vote no, either way its a win win for the Dems with a side order of Republican Seppuku.

[Agnosticsherbet]

51. This redefines a "Do Nothing Congress"

Cowards.

[alcibiades_mystery]

53. ROFL? "Doomsday Plan?" Sounds like a pretty humiliating cave to me

Tax rates go up just for top bracket?

Um, OK. Cheers, y'all!



The joke here is that they're already trying to represent an utter cave in on middle class tax rates as a "plan" rather than what it is: a complete cave in forced by the President's maneuvering.

[Cosmocat]

55. Please proceed

to quote a certain reelected POTUS.

[SunSeeker]

64. LOL nt

[AllyCat]

57. Do your jobs you a$$holes!!!

Blockade, obstruct, deny, protect the rich...that is all they do and for this they earn a salary, power, and pension with great, taxpayer-paid healthcare?

There is no hell hot enough for these traitors.

If I did my job this badly I would be fired.

[madrchsod]

66. the us economy will not spin into a depression.

it`s a really bad tv sitcom that will be canceled when the advertisers pull the plug.