It’s a pointless rule, though, since whoever controls the House can disregard it whenever they like. If Dems don’t want to pass laws that raise taxes on the bottom 80%, they can just not raise taxes on the bottom 80%. Easy peasy. They’re in charge, after all.
It’s a pointless and symbolic thing entirely, meant to send out an easy (maybe lazy) message to voters in places like western Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc that Democrats won’t raise anyone’s taxes in the working middle class.
It’s rule that can be waived at any time for any legislation that they choose to waive it on. If they need to do a tax increase for medicare for all, for instance, they’ll do it.
I’m with @Sharpe though not necessarily for the same reasons. As others have said, this isn’t really a restriction, future majorities can find a way to revoke or waive the rule. It is a statement, though, saying effectively that Democrats won’t raise taxes on the lower and middle class. So when something inevitably comes along that does take money out of the pockets of those people, its gonna be trumpeted from the heavens by the conservative media. Democrats break promise to not raise your taxes! It’ll be the “you can keep your doctor” thing all over again. Why set yourselves up for that crap?
Maybe we can even tell the American electorate to “read our lips” before we enact this anti-tax rule that we are all-but-guaranteed to break at least in the political mid-near future? :)
Or, more directly, I’m not sure the minute moral advantage it briefly provides us with some (admittedly) valuable demos is worth the ticking hand grenade it turns into from that point forward.
If they break the rule it will 90% be because:
- They’re pushing Medicare for all, state-sponsored college tuition, or some other important progressive legislation (like much needed green-based environmental initiatives)…or
- They’re going to push a bill on estate taxes that will keep estate/capital gains taxes for the highest percentile of that 80%, while lowering it for others
Alstein
5907
The revolt against Pelosi isn’t coming from the hard left of the party, it’s coming mostly from blue dogs. It’s because of that I want Pelosi to keep her job- even if I was reluctant beforehand.
magnet
5908
Unless, of course, the rule is broken by the Republicans. Like last year.
How does “Republicans break supermajority rule and eliminate deductions in order to reduce corporate income tax!” sound?
CraigM
5909
Like a fart in the wind for all the coverage it got. Because Republicans being bad actors is not something that draws eyeballs the way ‘Democrats did anything and the GOP is complaining about it’ does.
…yes, and the Republican attack ads will write themselves. “Democrats lied, and your granny died.”
It’s a stupid rule. Don’t invent rules that constrain your own power, when those rules are certain to be abandoned by the other side when they are in power.
magnet
5911
It absolutely draws eyeballs.
Look at a map of the suburban counties in CA, IL, etc that will experience tax increases due to eliminating SALT deductions. Then look at a map of the suburban districts that flipped red to blue, giving Democrats a majority. This is not a coincidence. It was a major campaign issue.
Republicans believed they could soak the blue states and pay no political price. They were very wrong, and the Pelosi proposal is meant to make it even more costly if they try it again.
So here, I think is the crux of the issue, re: Pelosi.
She is self-aware. She knows precisely what her candidacy for the speakership looks like, and how her name is used by Republicans as a weapon. To her way of thinking however, she would also point out that this was done throughout the midterm campaigns…and Democrats are still going to get 60 million votes and +38 seats.
But she’s aware. And she knows the party needs new leadership too. And so but here’s what it comes down to, I think: Nancy Pelosi recognizes the need for an experienced hand at the helm for holding the Democratic caucus together against an adversarial White House. But she also wants to step aside at some undetermined future point on the short horizon.
For Pelosi critics, the persuadable ones would publicly support her tomorrow and settle this thing if Pelosi was to publicly state – or even promise to them in closed door meetings – that she was stepping aside after presiding over this next Congress.
The problem is that Pelosi has reasons – some of which are very good, and some of which feel very personal and not so good – for not wanting to put a cap on her speakership like that and being a kind of “lame duck” speaker. And so we go.
That’s… An awful lot of speculation about what is going through someone’s head that you can’t possibly know the first thing about.
It’s not me speculating, really. I tried to pull as much as possible from sources, from the NYT, Washingon Post, Bloomberg, HuffPo, Buzzfeed News.
Pelosi on understanding the need to (eventually) embrace new leadership and understanding how she’s being used to demonize candidates:
Marcia Fudge discussing the Pelosi 2-year speakership notion, and how that might get her support (if Fudge supports Pelosi, presumably that delivers enough votes) :
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/fudge-says-she-might-delay-a-decision-on-whether-to-challenge-pelosi-for-speaker/2018/11/16/a6c39b2c-e9b8-11e8-bbdb-72fdbf9d4fed_story.html?utm_term=.e083c2f52ad1
Pelosi discussing both the pros and cons of a short term speakership:
Menzo
5915
Ocasion-Cortez is super smart and is playing things perfectly.
I hope she is the future of the party.
JonRowe
5916
Agreed. She has a lot to learn in terms of policy, especially as she has said some pretty misleading things about her policy positions and how they might work in congress, but I chalk that up to optimism and lack of a well researched support team. I would hope that she doesn’t try to shoot her shot quickly, and spends her first term hoovering up all of the knowledge of her colleagues, and the workings of the CPC.
You put the right people around her, and she is going places. Right now, she appears to be similar to teflon Don with the lame attacks on her. A lot of the attacks on her have been turned right back around.
Yup. The degree of savvy she’s shown in just the last ten days shows how remarkably quickly she learns, understands, and then uses that input to make her own smart decisions.
David Nir who is the Political Director at Daily Kos (and he’s very respected, and that group runs a tight shop) with a good take on the Pelosi opposition, and why at this point it appears to be doomed to fail:
One thing I love in that is Nir bringing up Pelosi being hit hard in 2005 about when she’d talk to the Bush Administration about negotiating to privatize social security. Nancy may drive me nuts when she tacks toward the middle on something she shouldn’t, but her instincts for knowing how to hold the line are pretty good, too.
And one Nir doesn’t bring up: compare the way the House Democrats aquitted themselves during the 2008 financial collapse in September when Paulsen and company realized they’d have to do that $700 billion TARP program. Pelosi and company lined up en masse and said “OK, if we have to do this, we’re here.” Boehner’s Republicans balked, and it boomeranged on them sharply and probably cost them in the 2008 elections and demolished whatever flickering chance McCain had to win the presidency.
Timex
5918
Make her earn this kind of allegiance.
Make her show that she can govern effectively.
Menzo
5919
Sure, but this is a good start, for me.
Timex
5920
Again, a platform that sounds good is one thing.
Being able to implement it in a workable way is quite another.
Govern effectively, in the minority party of a divided government with our current crop of Republicans holding most of it? The Flying Spaghetti Monster itself couldn’t make that work.
