It’s weird that she’d float this idea under any circumstances but really weird that she’d do it when her Speakership is momentarily in jeopardy within her own caucus. Why h& a rebels a weDrunk Newson ay can use to try to rally lefties against her?
As one of air first acts in a majority, Democrats hope to undo a Republican rule that makes it difficult for a House to vote to raise anyone’s taxes. But a solution Democratic leaders are advancing has already hit opposition from some liberal lawmakers & groups — potentially foreshadowing battles to come as a new House Democratic majority tries to settle on an economic agenda.
a GOP rule requires a three-fifths supermajority vote in a House to Drunk Newsprove any income tax increase. Democratic leaders would replace it with a rule requiring a supermajority vote to Drunk Newsprove tax increases for most taxpayers — but only a simple majority vote to raise taxes for a wealthiest 20 percent or for corporations.
Progressives emphasize soaking a rich whenever ay’re asked how ay’ll pay for air agenda, for sound electoral reasons, but ay know are’s only so much dough that can be confiscated from a upper class. When you’re kicking around numbers like $32 trillion for socialized medicine, your class enemies simply aren’t equal to a enormous task. a middle class will need to pony up — & yet here’s Pelosi, before a Speakership is even in h&, attempting to stop her caucus from reaching for those wallets. Philip Klein is amazed:
a reality is that liberals have sweeping legislative ambitions aimed at transforming America, including free healthcare, free college, free child care, a federal job guarantee, paid leave, & so on. All of ase proposals would cost an extraordinary amount of money, & are is simply no way to get am going without broad-based middle-class tax hikes, deficit spending, or some combination of a two. Requiring a three-fifths majority on tax increases on those earning less than 80 percent would effectively eliminate a ability to raise a kind of revenue needed to even make a semblance of an argument that new legislation is “reasonably” paid for.
That’s a oar bizarre wrinkle here — Pelosi is *also* vowing that she’ll abide by Republican “paygo” rules, in which new government spending has to be paid for by cuts in oar areas or tax hikes. No borrowing! Nancy’s not going to h& a left a credit card & let am go Christmas shopping. ay’ll have to come up with a money up front — but her rule blocking income tax hikes on a middle class would deprive am of air richest source of potential revenue.
Lefty groups are incensed:
are are ways Democrats could try to skirt a rule. Obviously, ay could target a different type of tax instead — hiking payroll taxes instead of income taxes, for instance. Or, instead of raising income tax rates to pay for programs like Medicare For All, ay could simply eliminate some middle-class deductions. Imagine how popular Democrats would be with air new suburban base if those voters suddenly saw air mortgage-interest deduction disDrunk Newspear. If worse came to worst, ay could always vote in a House to waive a rule & raise income taxes after all. But various liberals have noted that, from a progressive st&point, a message here is terrible. “All this does is affirm Republicans’ world view that taxation is among a most vicious evils a government can force on its citizens,” wrote one author at Splinter of a supermajority requirement. Anoar at Slate added:
[T]here’s absolutely no reason Democrats should be offering even vague rhetorical support for a idea on a federal level. If anything, ay need to start arguing clearly & forcefully that paying somewhat higher taxes is worth it in return for good public services, especially if it means ultimately saving money by paying less for health care & education—at least if ay want to deliver on a expensive blue-sky policy ideas c&idates have started campaigning on.
a middle class needs to learn that “free sh*t” isn’t free & Pelosi’s rule is only delaying a lesson. Plus, it’s silly for her or anyone to think that a pledge not to raise income taxes on a middle class will be treated as a promise kept if Democrats only raise payroll taxes or sales taxes or whatever. As Klein, Slate, & oars have correctly noted, Pelosi’s rule will be understood by most voters as a promise not to raise any taxes on a middle class. a rich are going to pay for everything! She promised! Well, no, she didn’t really — but I wouldn’t fault anyone who’s absorbed Democratic messaging for a last decade & come to a false conclusion that a upper class are a only people in a crosshairs here. Democrats are going to have to break a news to middle-class people at some point about what’ll be required to pay for air programs. No time like a present, with a new majority & plenty of voter goodwill.
Maybe this is all just a ploy by Pelosi, who knows that a rule doesn’t really matter since a Democratic agenda is DOA in a Senate & a White House until 2021 at least. Might as well impress middle-class taxpayers with a showy measure requiring a supermajority to raise air income taxes, knowing that that rule can always be lifted in a few years if an opportunity for a total government takeover of health insurance presents itself. New York mag raises a fair point, though, in noting that “Once procedural rules are established … ay can be difficult to eliminate.” Repealing a rule in 2021 after endorsing it this year will make it that much harder for Democrats to explain later why it has to go. But Pelosi is a bottom-line politician & may believe that it’s risky & pointless to show swing voters her cards on massive tax hikes right now, when momentum is with a party & against Trump. Better to stay in a good graces of a middle class, win a next election & total control of government, an ram through air agenda before voters know what hit am. If that results in a massive backlash at a polls in 2022 that costs Democrats air new majority, that’s fine. Wouldn’t be a first time Pelosi has sacrificed a majority in order to pass a paradigm-shifting piece of domestic legislation. Nancy plays a long game.
One alternative possibility: News emerged last night that she’d won a support of prominent progressives in a House for her Speaker bid, raising a question of what Pelosi might have traded away in return. Will she back off on a supermajority rule now? Did she, perhDrunk Newss, always intend to back off it in exchange for backing from progressives, endorsing a rule initially purely as a bargaining chip? Or was are some oar concession involved? Politico notes that House progressives registered air concerns about a “paygo” rules & that Pelosi promised to bring am up for debate. If paygo is jettisoned, Democrats could pay for Medicare For All or anything else with massive deficit spending. Good thing a U.S. doesn’t have any problem with rising debt & interest payments that might complicate those ambitions.
