Liberals to Dem leaders: Hold a vote just on extending middle class tax cuts

By Greg Sargent

On Friday I reported here that liberal groups and labor have hit on a legislative strategy to make the fight over the Bush tax cuts work in Dems' favor: Hold a vote just on making the middle class tax cuts permanent, without tying it to any vote on the high end ones.

Now Dem Reps. Raul Grijalva and Lynn Woolsey, the two co-chairs of the House Progressive Caucus, have endorsed this approach, sending a letter to Nancy Pelosi asking her to carry it out:

As Co-Chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, we would like to reiterate our support for President Obama's Fiscal Year 2011 budget proposal that would extend the Bush tax rates for the middle class, but permit the tax levels to return to previous levels for single taxpayers making more than $200,000 or married couples making more than $250,000. We respectfully request that we have a Caucus discussion regarding our position before any proposal is brought to the Floor.... We believe extending the Bush tax cuts would be a giveaway to the nation's wealthiest people and would significantly increase government debt. This debt, in turn, will be paid by the lower and middle classes through increased interest payments and decreased social services for generations to come. This astronomical sum could instead be used to close our budget deficit. It is critical that we pass President Obama' s middle-class tax proposal without providing an even greater lift for the wealthiest Americans who don't need it.

It's impossible to read this without hearing echoes of the public option debate: Liberals and labor pressed Dem leaders hard to include it as a key pillar of health reform; they made a strong substantive and political case; Dem leaders nodded their heads in agreement; and it ultimately never happened. So you might be forgiven for thinking you're watching a rerun of a bad movie. Also, you'll recall that Dems didn't do this before the election because they feared they couldn't pass it in the House, making it unlikely that they will do it now.

But for all the reasons I laid out on Friday, the dynamic is very different now than it was before the elections, making passage this time more likely. Meanwhile, Steve Benen and Jonathan Cohn argue that it's good politics for Dems even if the proposal goes down to defeat.

It's also worth pausing to appreciate the description of this proposal employed above by Grijalva and Woolsey: "President Obama's middle class tax proposal." Obama orginally proposed it. It's his. Holding a vote on it would drive this home. It would force Republicans to vote for Obama's proposal, or against a middle class tax cut. By contrast, a phony "compromise" on a temporary extension of all the cuts would only muddy all these waters further. A temporary extension of all the cuts would merely telegraph Dem weakness, singaling clearly that Dems will cheerfully give the GOP their way as long as everyone agrees to call it a "compromise."

Will it happen? Probably not. Like I said, a rerun of a bad movie. But it's still benefical if Obama and Dem leaders get an earful from the left on it.



UPDATE, 1:06 p.m.: The Dem message to Republicans, translated.

