Pelosi loses on Supermajority tax rule. Progressives aim for Pay-go next.

Democratic leadership abandons supermajority tax rule


Pushed primarily by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and incoming Ways and Means Committee chair Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), the proposed rule would have required a three-fifths supermajority vote to raise individual income taxes on the bottom 80 percent of Americans.

This would have made Single Payer, college for all and a host of other progressive policies impossible. The fight isn't over, however. Pay-Go is the next Pelosi maneuver in the never ending class warfare.

Now that the supermajority tax rule has been scrapped from the incoming House majority's rules package, progressives immediately began to set their sights on defeating "pay-go," another deeply regressive proposal pushed by the Democratic leadership that would require all new spending to be offset by budget cuts or tax increases.

"The pay-go thing is an absurd idea," argued Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), co-chair of the CPC, in an interview earlier this year.

Pay-Go is simply another corporate Democrat attempt to rig the system against progressives and the working class.

But for today, we have a win.

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

roles. If it's good for the leaders, maybe it is good for the sheep.

up
0 users have voted.

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

@dkmich wwhen it comes to democratically elected offices. It is a tool of TPTB to keep popular candidates out of office. But for committee chairmanships it could be a good thing.

up
0 users have voted.

@Battle of Blair Mountain

They term limit out of one office and run for another office. With gerrymandering as bad it is, they're pretty much guaranteed to win. We have one smuck who went from the MI House to the MI Senate to the State Board of Ed. For a bunch of people who hate government, they just can't tear themselves away.

up
0 users have voted.

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Unabashed Liberal's picture

is axed?

The PC should have gone after the PG Rule, first. As it is, they've just done the folks over at the fiscal austerian Pete Peterson's Institute, a favor. (as well as other fiscal austerians, including corporatist Dems, who support striking a "Grand Bargain.")

What's difficult to decipher is whether Grijalva and the CP is a willing partner, or being duped. Remember, Grijalva presented himself as a staunch defender of single-payer healthcare, then, declared that it will live as a "political (talking) point" after the SCOTUS decision upholding the ACA.

Grijalva #1_0.JPG

I wish I could, but I can't conceive of Pelosi axing the PG Rule. Already, numerous Op-Eds (including Thomas Friedman's recent on the "Next America"--meaning with entitlements slashed) are pointing to the Dem Party as the "savior," if they take back the WH in 2020, when it comes to lowering the federal deficit. Read, "slashing Social Security and Medicare."

I could be wrong, but somehow, I don't see approximately 60 million seniors/Social Security beneficiaries agreeing to a "Grand Bargain," or, slashing so-called entitlements, as a trade-off for tax increases to fund a Family Leave program, etc. For that matter, it's difficult to imagine that younger Americans would find that to be much of a 'deal,' since they would (eventually) be impacted, as well.

No two ways about it, though--striking a "Grand Bargain" requires trading off tax increases, for entitlement cuts. And, this so-called 'victory' by the CP just put us a step or two closer to the plausibility/possibility of achieving a GB.

Hopefully, I'm wrong, and ol' Nancy will drop the PG Rule. Hey, if she does, I'll gladly eat crow. Wink

But, there was just too much excitement expressed on Twitter, especially, amongst the bipartisan fiscal-austerian crowd--including O's cronies--to allow me to believe that this move was primarily intended to help get progressive proposals through.

Not to mention, this could be a 'perfect' time to push a GB through. Remember McConnell's statement about the need to take care of the deficit, but, needing 'both sides' to come together to do it? Well, DT told the AP in an interview, that he wouldn't back entitlement cuts--that he disagreed with Mitch. However, considering recent legal events/circumstances, I could see enough pressure being put on him by the Repub Freedom Caucus and various austerian Dems to get a GB through the next Congress. Heck, he might do it to trade support of some of his own Party, or, to tamp down aggressive investigation by Dems. Who knows? But, we do know that quite a few lawmakers and factions of lawmakers will have even more leverage over him, now.

Guess time will tell. Glad you featured this piece in a stand-alone essay. Everyone needs to be aware of what's happening regarding Pelosi's bid for Speaker. BTW, there are numerous rules changes that are being enacted, in order to give centrist/corporatist Dems (including the Problem Solvers Caucus/Coalition) an advantage. This is only one of them.

Blue Onyx

"Dogs have given us their absolute all. We are the center of their universe. We are the focus of their love and faith and trust.

They serve us in return for scraps. It is without a doubt the best deal man has ever made."

up
0 users have voted.

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.