How To Pass Tax Breaks? Congress Junkies Please Help!

[dca221]

I got a question I am hoping someone who knows the way Congress works can help.

How on earth did the congress (Senate?) pass the Bush tax cuts in 2001 when the Republicans did not have 60 votes in the Senate?

Could Obama and Democrats not use the Reconciliation rules now to pass whatever tax cut they want to pass after the 2001 and 2003 cuts sunset, before the lame duck session ends? Why do they have to "deal" with Republicans?

Speaking of, did the Republicans "deal" with the Democrats for the 2001/2003 tax cuts?

 

[fskimospy]

You sort of answered your own question, the Republicans passed both tax cuts through reconciliation because they didn't have enough support to pass it through regular legislation. (the Byrd rule that covers reconciliation is why they are expiring now instead of being permanent)

If the Democrats wanted to man up they could in fact pass their preferred tax plan through reconciliation. The thing about that is the Republicans would in turn blow up everything else they are trying to do, which is why Obama is trying to deal.

As for the Republicans 'working' with the Democrats, it depends. For the first cut you could make the case they worked with the Democrats some (it got votes from about 15-20% of Democrats), the second one... not so much.

 

[ElFenix]

I got a question I am hoping someone who knows the way Congress works can help.

How on earth did the congress (Senate?) pass the Bush tax cuts in 2001 when the Republicans did not have 60 votes in the Senate?

reconciliation

Could Obama and Democrats not use the Reconciliation rules now to pass whatever tax cut they want to pass after the 2001 and 2003 cuts sunset, before the lame duck session ends? Why do they have to "deal" with Republicans?

politics

Speaking of, did the Republicans "deal" with the Democrats for the 2001/2003 tax cuts?

not really.

2001 senate vote
some of the southern and western democrats voted for it. only real big surprise in that list to me is feinstein.

 

[dca221]

so in short, democrats either dont' believe in the BS they are spouting or don't have the balls to push what they stand for

either way, they deserve getting their asses handed to them

 

[Fern]

I got a question I am hoping someone who knows the way Congress works can help.

How on earth did the congress (Senate?) pass the Bush tax cuts in 2001 when the Republicans did not have 60 votes in the Senate?

Yes, they used the reconcilliation process, but I don't know why.

The Repubs had only 49 votes (there was an independant who voted for it, but I don't which party he cacaused with).

But many Dems voted for the Bush tax cuts. It passed the senate with 62 votes.

Could Obama and Democrats not use the Reconciliation rules now to pass whatever tax cut they want to pass after the 2001 and 2003 cuts sunset, before the lame duck session ends? Why do they have to "deal" with Republicans?

They could have used the reconcilliation process. But according to Craig234 that option is not available at this late date; something about having to wait for a 2011 budget to be passed and that's not been done yet.

Speaking of, did the Republicans "deal" with the Democrats for the 2001/2003 tax cuts?

Can't remember, too long ago. I would guess 'yes' because so many Dems voted for it.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, they used the reconcilliation process, but I don't know why.

But many Dems voted for the Bush tax cuts. It passed the senate with 62 votes.

Can't remember, too long ago. I would guess 'yes' because so many Dems voted for it.

Fern

Like I said, it depends. The tax cuts in 2001 were reasonably bipartisan (12 Democrats voted for them), but it most certainly did not pass the Senate with 62 votes. If it had 62 votes, they wouldn't have passed it through reconciliation, and they wouldn't be expiring. (it had 58 votes, which we now well know means death in the Senate)

The 2003 cuts on the other hand were highly partisan (2 Democrats voted for it), and even getting them passed under easier reconciliation rules required a tiebreaking vote by Cheney.

 

[Fern]

Like I said, it depends. The tax cuts in 2001 were reasonably bipartisan (12 Democrats voted for them), but it most certainly did not pass the Senate with 62 votes. If it had 62 votes, they wouldn't have passed it through reconciliation, and they wouldn't be expiring. (it had 58 votes, which we now well know means death in the Senate)

The 2003 cuts on the other hand were highly partisan (2 Democrats voted for it), and even getting them passed under easier reconciliation rules required a tiebreaking vote by Cheney.

Have a look at this link:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2001-165

Looks to me like the senate vote on the 2001 Bush cuts?

Fern

 

[thraashman]

The simple answer is that the Democrats are unwilling to hold the entire nation's well-being hostage to get their way. Basically the Democrats are not spoiled little children holding their breath. On the other hand, the Republicans have proven time and again that they ARE willing to completely screw over the nation to get their way like little children holding their breath.

Everyone knows this.

 

[fskimospy]

Have a look at this link:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2001-165

Looks to me like the senate vote on the 2001 Bush cuts?

Fern

You're linking to the Senate vote on the original bill, but that's not the bill that was put into law. The actual vote on a bill that was sent to the president was the adoption of the conference report (which is the mixing of the House and Senate bills), which had 58 yes votes as seen here:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00170

 

[thraashman]

You're linking to the Senate vote on the original bill, but that's not the bill that was put into law. The actual vote on a bill that was sent to the president was the adoption of the conference report (which is the mixing of the House and Senate bills), which had 58 yes votes as seen here:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00170

Looks like someone got owned

 

[Fern]

You're linking to the Senate vote on the original bill, but that's not the bill that was put into law. The actual vote on a bill that was sent to the president was the adoption of the conference report (which is the mixing of the House and Senate bills), which had 58 yes votes as seen here:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00170

OK.

But I still question the need for reconcilliation. Notice the first/original bill was done under reconcilliation too (see "required votes") when they had 62 votes.

Yeah, I know they only got 58 for the final/reconcilled bill. But once passage is assured, as this was, it gives cover for people to vote a symbolic (and useless) no vote.

Meh, no matter; it's water under the bridge. Just looks like from the outset they decided to go the reconcilliation route when it may not have been really necessary.

Fern