Senate Democrats extend Bush tax cuts for middle incomers, for one year. Repugs didn't filibuster!

[Bill USA]

no need to filibuster when they know Repugs in House will kill it without extending cuts for those with incomes above $250,000.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/25/middle-class-tax-cuts_n_1703463.html

WASHINGTON -- Senators blinked in the political standoff over how much of the Bush-era tax cuts to extend for another year and voted Wednesday to keep current rates for people with incomes of less than $250,000.

Tax rates would rise by 4 percent on incomes above $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for single filers. Popular breaks like the child tax credit would be preserved.

The extension, passed on a vote of 51 to 48, represents a short-term win, at least, for President Barack Obama, who has been pushing for a similar plan. But it appeared unlikely that the House would embrace a similar measure before the election, having proposed its own bill to extend all the Bush-era cuts. The House hasn't proposed extending Obama's breaks for millions of middle-class families.

Democrats estimated the GOP version would add an extra $155 billion to the deficit. They also argued that the GOP plan raises taxes on some 25 million Americans by not renewing the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit and a college tuition break.
<more>

[Lil Missy]

1. Now it has to pass in the House where it might not be so easy.

[Cal33]

2. I can think of a couple of reasons why Repugs. didn't filibuster: 1. They don't wish to give the

Dems more ammunition to use against them on Nov. 6. And 2. The bill will never pass the
Repug. House anyway.

[emulatorloo]

3. McConnell was claiming he wanted the votes "on record" before the election.

They will no doubt do some lie ads about how "DEMOCRATS ARE RAISING YOUR TAXES" with Koch/Rove money.

[Igel]

4. I thought that expired decreases weren't tax increases.

Wasn't that the argument? Allowing the * tax cuts wouldn't constitute a tax increase but a failure to retain a tax decrease. Sort of a negative decrease, which is nothing at all like a positive increase?

They will all or almost all be passed, but not before we pay in rivers of blood. They'll talk and talk and talk until our ears bleed.


As for the surprise, it's a much promised surprise with a lot of advanced notice. "We will let this come to a vote in the Senate and in the House." Then it comes to a vote in the Senate. Surprise!

Expect two bills in the House. The first parallel to the Senate. The second with the full set of income tax negative tax recissions. The first will fail; the second pass. I think the (D) are being set up, but I'm not sure why I think that. Such games irritate me.

[Motown_Johnny]

5. All bills that effect taxes must originate in The House. This was meaningless.

It wasn't filibustered because it can't ever become law. It is unconstitutional from the start.


Theater.