PDA

View Full Version : Dems' New Worry: Their Own Rich Voters



DarrinS
07-20-2009, 04:09 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124804459318663479.html




A group of Democrats elected in recent years from some of the country's richest congressional districts have emerged as a stumbling block to raising taxes on the wealthy to pay for President Barack Obama's ambitious health-care overhaul just as the plan has begun to meet increasing resistance over its cost.

Friday, two freshmen representatives -- Dina Titus, from suburban Las Vegas, and Colorado's Jared Polis, representing Boulder, Vail and some of the tonier suburbs of Denver -- joined Republicans to vote against Mr. Obama's top-priority health-care overhaul when it faced a vote in their House Education and Labor Committee. One reason was a one-percentage point-surtax on couples earning between $350,000 and $500,000 -- gradually increasing to 5.4 percentage points on earnings more than $1 million -- to pay for it.

The bill passed the committee anyway, but if the number of Democratic defectors grows it could pose a serious obstacle to the president.

Also on Friday a busload of freshmen Democrats went to the White House to plead their case against sharp tax increases with the president and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. The organizer was Rep. Gerald Connolly, the president of the freshman class whose Northern Virginia district is the richest in the U.S. as measured by median household income.

"There could come a time," said Rep. Michael McMahon, a freshman Democrat from New York City's borough of Staten Island, when Democrats are in open rebellion. "We will certainly see in the next few weeks where we are going."

Election gains in some of these affluent regions have helped give Democrats big majorities in the House and Senate. Of the 25 richest districts, 14 are represented by Democrats, according to Congressional Quarterly. In 1995, Democrats represented just five of those districts.

Recently elected Democrats from higher-income areas also have been cautious about legislation that would make it easier for labor unions to organize, and about legislation imposing tough new rules on banks. Republicans have savaged the new Democrats for supporting legislation to stem global warming by capping greenhouse-gas emissions, then forcing polluters to purchase and trade emissions credits -- a "cap and tax," the GOP says.

But planned tax increases are likely the source of the toughest intra-Democratic tensions. The president wants to allow George W. Bush's income-tax cuts to expire in 2011 for families earning at least $250,000 and to stop the estate tax from being repealed next year. Mr. Obama also campaigned on putting an additional payroll tax of two to four percentage points on incomes above $250,000 to help put Social Security back on solid footing. As the president confronts a surging budget deficit and presses his ambitious agenda, all those tax increases may be necessary to make ends meet.

All together, Democratic plans could push the top tax rate to 47%, the highest level since the tax code was rewritten in 1986.

Republicans remain strongly unified in their opposition to the president, who has promised not only to create a national health-care plan, ease the nation away from fossil fuels and overhaul education, but also to pay for it all -- largely through higher taxes and other fees.

Strong Democratic majorities, especially in the House, give the White House plenty of latitude. But if wary freshmen team with the more seasoned centrists in the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrat coalition, who are threatening the health bill in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the coalition could be formidable.

The White House defends its approach. "The bottom line is that I think the president believes that the richest 1% of this country has had a pretty good run of it for many, many, many years," said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs.

Mr. Connolly, the Northern Virginia representative, has a different calculation. Households earning at least $200,000 represent 14% of his district, "and they all vote," he said.

"They're just hanging themselves," says Republican Rep. Sam Graves, who last year beat back a spirited challenge in his northwestern Missouri district, which includes suburban Kansas City, and said he is looking forward to a race on taxes in 2010.

The tax issue is presenting many new Democrats with a quandary as they struggle to get their political footing. "These members are going to have to make their own determinations on how to balance these interests," said Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and himself a representative of the affluent suburbs of Washington.

The issue of taxes has long bedeviled Democratic candidates, but in 2008, Mr. Obama took control of it. He campaigned hard on tax cuts for the middle class, savaged as a tax increase Republican Sen. John McCain's proposal to subject the value of health-insurance benefits to income taxation, and convinced most Americans they would be unaffected even as he said he would allow taxes to rise on the rich.

But as Democrats who served in Congress in 1994 will attest, the game changes when abstractions on taxing the rich turn to reality. President Bill Clinton's 1993 deficit-reduction plan largely focused tax increases on the rich, but the collateral damage on Democrats was broad. And nobody wants to be the next Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky, the suburban Philadelphia House freshman who cast the deciding vote on the Clinton budget, only to be swept from office the next year.

"I never should have been asked to take that vote, ever," said Ms. Margolies-Mezvinsky, who now runs Women's Campaign International, a Philadelphia-based group with a mission to empower women politically.

Since the 1994 GOP sweep, districts like Ms. Margolies-Mezvinsky's have swung back to the Democrats. For 14 years, Republican Tom Davis represented most of Northern Virginia's Fairfax and Prince William counties. Now, Fairfax and Prince William belong to Mr. Connolly. Rep. John Hall took over the Hudson River Valley suburbs of New York after defeating veteran Republican Sue Kelly in 2006.

Boulder's Mr. Polis authored a letter on Friday, signed by 21 freshmen and one sophomore, Rep. Paul Hodes of New Hampshire, opposing the surtaxes. "Especially in a recession, we need to make sure not to kill the goose that will lay the golden eggs of our recovery," they declared.

For now, most freshmen aren't saying how they will vote on the House health-care bill. Mr. McMahon, whose New York district also includes parts of Brooklyn, said there is no open revolt, but there have been two meetings with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and there was the White House meeting Friday with Messrs. Obama and Emanuel. Taxes dominated what Mr. Connolly described as a cordial but inconclusive discussion.

"I spend all my time here making the case that the profile of the rich doesn't stand in my district," Mr. McMahon said. "People feel that they're getting hit from all sides."

LnGrrrR
07-20-2009, 04:15 PM
A bit off topic, but I don't even know why we have a tax 'bracket'. Why not have a formula that gradually slopes upwards as you earn more, with a cap at a certain level?

Viva Las Espuelas
07-20-2009, 04:40 PM
i wanna see the look on oprah's face when she gets her tax bill if the tax and tax bill and "healthcare" pass. also the rich people in new york.

ElNono
07-20-2009, 04:58 PM
A bit off topic, but I don't even know why we have a tax 'bracket'. Why not have a formula that gradually slopes upwards as you earn more, with a cap at a certain level?

Duh. So you can game the system...

Winehole23
07-21-2009, 02:42 AM
i wanna see the look on oprah's face when she gets her tax bill if the tax and tax bill and "healthcare" pass. also the rich people in new york.Voyeurism? How quaint, VLE. :lol

jack sommerset
07-21-2009, 11:07 AM
I don't know where I saw this last night but some dude was at a marathon selling drinks to whoever and he had prices set to the income they brought in. If you made $30,000 you paid 75 cents all the way up to over $200,000 you paid 5 bucks. Pretty funny. 3 1/2 more years of this stupidity.

sam1617
07-21-2009, 11:14 AM
A bit off topic, but I don't even know why we have a tax 'bracket'. Why not have a formula that gradually slopes upwards as you earn more, with a cap at a certain level?

Why not just a flat tax, with a luxury tax, so everyone pays whatever percentage, and then those who spend more, pay more.... Encourages saving money, and still results in the rich paying more in taxes...

ElNono
07-21-2009, 11:17 AM
I don't know where I saw this last night but some dude was at a marathon selling drinks to whoever and he had prices set to the income they brought in. If you made $30,000 you paid 75 cents all the way up to over $200,000 you paid 5 bucks. Pretty funny. 3 1/2 more years of this stupidity.

Tax brackets predate this administration.

jack sommerset
07-21-2009, 11:48 AM
Tax brackets predate this administration.

Silly me. This is normal. Trillion dollar stimulus package that was not intended to stimulate the economy but was used to pass pet projects for the Obama dems. Cap and trade to save the world yet the only thing it will do is tax more people because noone else is helping plus Earth does not need saving. Governement health care for everyone in the US just like the Canadians. There people just love the long lines to get a simple shot and get shit ass doctors. Business as usual. Wait until he taxes people who make under $250,000. It will be another bullshit lie he told the people. This guy needs to go! Spend money to help us NOT go bankrupt. What a smart guy.

This guy gets a freaken FAIL the first 6 months. His tax guy didn't pay his taxes. Spending a million dollars to see a play is not practical for a date night. I'm stopping.

ElNono
07-21-2009, 12:01 PM
Silly me. This is normal.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the status quo.
But silly you indeed.

Viva Las Espuelas
07-21-2009, 12:18 PM
Voyeurism? How quaint, VLE. :lol
whatever floats your boat

jack sommerset
07-21-2009, 12:25 PM
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the status quo.
But silly you indeed.

:lol

LnGrrrR
07-21-2009, 12:35 PM
Why not just a flat tax, with a luxury tax, so everyone pays whatever percentage, and then those who spend more, pay more.... Encourages saving money, and still results in the rich paying more in taxes...

Sam, I've heard about the flat tax, and morally/philosophically speaking, I'm in favor of it! However, I've also read some reports that state we couldn't possibly pay for our current federal budget with a flat tax, unless it taxed at a high base rate *say 20% or something like that*

What would be classified under the luxury tax?

Wild Cobra
07-21-2009, 07:47 PM
Sam, I've heard about the flat tax, and morally/philosophically speaking, I'm in favor of it! However, I've also read some reports that state we couldn't possibly pay for our current federal budget with a flat tax, unless it taxed at a high base rate *say 20% or something like that*

What would be classified under the luxury tax?
17% was the working number in the early 90's and I'll bet it's still the working number. I doubt that number changes due to the facts behind the Laffer Curve.

The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1765.cfm)

wiki: Laffer Curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve)

LnGrrrR
07-21-2009, 08:26 PM
17% was the working number in the early 90's and I'll bet it's still the working number. I doubt that number changes due to the facts behind the Laffer Curve.

The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1765.cfm)

wiki: Laffer Curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve)

Thanks WC.

Anyways, I'm not necessarily opposed to the flat tax idea, and I'm not necessarily opposed to a formula that would tax on a curve. Mainly because wealth becomes less necessary as one gains more. For instance, 10% of 30,000 is $3,000, and 10% of 3,000,000 is 300,000. However, the family missing the $3000 probably needs it more than the millionaire needs his $300,000.

Is it 'morally' acceptable to tax the rich person more? Probably not. Is it morally acceptable for rich people to complain about paying more taxes when people are starving? Probably not.

I'm a bit ambiguous on taxes, and have not done enough research/critical thinking to come down firmly on the side of any tax plan.

Wild Cobra
07-21-2009, 09:03 PM
Thanks WC.

Anyways, I'm not necessarily opposed to the flat tax idea, and I'm not necessarily opposed to a formula that would tax on a curve. Mainly because wealth becomes less necessary as one gains more. For instance, 10% of 30,000 is $3,000, and 10% of 3,000,000 is 300,000. However, the family missing the $3000 probably needs it more than the millionaire needs his $300,000.

Is it 'morally' acceptable to tax the rich person more? Probably not. Is it morally acceptable for rich people to complain about paying more taxes when people are starving? Probably not.

I'm a bit ambiguous on taxes, and have not done enough research/critical thinking to come down firmly on the side of any tax plan.
You made an argument for the flat tax. The rich man is already paying more at the same percentage. Why should he also pay a larger percentage?

At $30,000, the family is paying close to nothing if they do, and it's at the 10% marginal rate. At $3 million, after deductions, the millionaire is paying I think 35%. It was 39.6% before the Bush Tax Cuts, and the 10% was 15%.

Why cannot we accept an equal percentage for all income tax brackets?