« The End of High-rise Housing in Cabrini-Green | Kirk Votes Against Middle-Class Tax Relief » |
Illinois Thu Dec 02 2010
Unexpected Vote For IL Rep. On Bush Tax Cuts
Earlier today the U.S. House of Representatives voted on whether to bring the Bush tax cuts up for debate. The ending tally was 213 in favor, 203 against. Thirty Democrats voted against and of those 30 three are from Illinois (Melissa Bean, Jerry Costello, and Dan Lipinski). Congressman Lipinski's name stuck out to me considering his fairly progressive record on tax reform.
A spokesman from Lipinski's office explained that the Congressman voted against the measure because a yea vote would have meant there would be no opportunity to amend the bill.
"He did not like the way the rules were used to deny any type of amendment," Lipinski spokesman Nathaniel Zimmer said. "It would be his preference that there would be a temporary extension of the cuts for all earners and he would like to be able to vote for an amendment to that effect. It's his expectation that in the end there will be a temporary extension for all earners. He believes that this is a very fragile recovery and that raising taxes on anyone right now poses an unacceptable risk to that recovery."
Zimmer also told me that Lipinski planned on voting for extending the middle class tax cuts (that vote passed but when I talked to Zimmer it was a few minutes away) and expected an the Bush cats to be extended for all earners.
Although Lipinski wants to extend tax cuts for all earners most House Democrats are in favor of extending the tax cuts for everyone except the very wealthy. Republicans have mostly been in favor of extending the cuts for everyone.
WAJ / December 3, 2010 3:14 PM
Tax cuts or current tax rates? I like how people phrase the issue that the tax rates that have been in place for almost a decade are referred to as abnormal and as temporary, rather than the real tax rates. Especially when one compromise is to "temporarily" keep them in place for two years. If two years is temporary, wouldn't a tax structure that has been in place for 8+ years be non-temporary?
I guess it helps the psychology of asking people to support raising taxes if you pretend that reality is something other than what it is.
Exit question: Would it be ethical if a power company advertised its current rates (and unchanged for the previous 8+ years) as temporary in order to raise its rates for future consumption?