Gapers Block has ceased publication.

Gapers Block published from April 22, 2003 to Jan. 1, 2016. The site will remain up in archive form. Please visit Third Coast Review, a new site by several GB alumni.
 Thank you for your readership and contributions. 


Sunday, March 3

Gapers Block

Gapers Block on Facebook Gapers Block on Flickr Gapers Block on Twitter The Gapers Block Tumblr

The Mechanics
« Unexpected Vote For IL Rep. On Bush Tax Cuts Durbin Votes With GOP On Extending Bush Cuts For Up To $1 million »

Budget Sat Dec 04 2010

Kirk Votes Against Middle-Class Tax Relief

Staying true to his pre-election stance, Mark Kirk this morning, in practically his first official act as Illinois Senator, joined a solid bloc of Republicans and a handful of primarily blue-dog Democrats in voting against cloture of debate on a Senate bill to extend tax cuts to American families making less than $250,000 a year. Kirk then also voted against a softened version which would have extended cuts to those making $1 million or less a year. Both votes garnered 53-vote majorities, but under the "faux filibuster" rules of the Senate, a majority vote was insufficient to move the measures forward.

It's important, as Illinoisans and Americans look at these votes, to understand the background and context. Republicans are attempting to frame the Democratic move as a "tax increase" but that is -- how to say? -- well, I'll call it a lie. In order to understand that, let's review how we got here.

In 2001, in the recession following the collapse of the tech bubble, Congress passed and President Bush signed "The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001," or EGTRRA, also known as Public Law 107-16, a humongous tax bill that made large changes to the tax treatment of income, capital gains, retirement plans, educational savings, and estate and gift taxes.

The overall effect of the tax changes was known at the time to be something that, at least in the short term, would enormously increase the federal deficit. As a recent federal report recounts, the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation estimated at the time of the 2001 tax cuts, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-27), and the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-311), that the combined effect of the three Bush bills would be to increase the federal deficit by $1.76 trillion.

Under a Senate rule in place in 2001, the so-called "Byrd rule," a single Senator could block such legislation if it would significantly increase the deficit more than ten years out. The EGTRRA cuts if permanent would clearly have done that. So, in order to evade that rule, numerous EGTRRA provisions, such as the cuts in the estate tax and the income tax, had expiration dates. Thus the January, 2011 deadline we now face.

Keep that in mind. The tax cuts were passed only as "temporary." If Congress does nothing, they expire, and income taxes will return to where they were in 2001 automatically. So: the Democratic bills the GOP shot down today were not to "increase" taxes. When Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell says, "This is really a debate on tax increases," what he is saying is false. The status quo is that taxes will return to their 2001 levels (under which the federal budget was running a surplus). The Democratic bills were for tax cuts, and the debate on those bills was a debate on who gets the cuts: the Democrats say the middle class, but McConnell, Kirk, and the Republicans demand money for multi-millionaires as well.

An argument could be made that none of the tax cuts should be extended because they are a big part of the reason -- along with a decade of orgy-level military spending -- that government is going bankrupt at all levels in the US. Or that the original tax cuts didn't give enough benefit to the middle class anyway. This is the reason, apparently, that outgoing Democratic Senator Russ Feingold voted against the move. However, the Republican motivation is different. It holds hostage tax relief for the middle class in order to make sure that those making $1 million or more a year -- not just millionaires, mind, but those with annual incomes of more than a million -- get to keep every cent of a Bush tax cut they never needed in the first place.

Kirk's stance is economic hypocrisy. He claims to oppose extension of unemployment insurance benefits on deficit grounds -- even tho the UI benefits, unlike tax cuts, would indeed pay for themselves because they are much cheaper than the societal impact of families collapsing if benefits run out. However, there is no question that extending tax cuts for the higher earners would have a large negative deficit impact -- without any commensurate economic benefit. The return to 2001 rates proposed is modest, and a group of the super-rich have in fact launched a website urging such a restoration for the sake of fiscal sanity.

This first Kirk vote sadly does not display the "moderate" or "independent" thinking on which our new Senator sold himself to Illinoisans, but is more like that of a Senator marching in lockstep with the Party of No as it attempts to make government too poor to be a force for social good.

GB store

Name / December 4, 2010 6:27 PM

The opinions represented in the article by Jeff Smith do not reflect the truth or the facts.

USA and Illinois government with Democrat majorities have failed to manage budgets responsibly.

Step aside and shut up.

Jack / December 4, 2010 7:41 PM

Instead of declaring that Jeff Smith did not reflect the turth, how about you tell us how. Because the truth is that the vote this morning was to extend tax cuts for 98% of Americans, the Republicans unanimously voted against it. Their reasoning being that they wont vote for anything until the wealthiest 2% get an extension of their tax cut. Fact: We would have to borrow $700 billion, all from China likely, to do that.

Stick your head in a bucket of water and drown fascist.

Freddie / December 4, 2010 11:39 PM

It’s not just the taxes, it’s also the regulatory burdens. Do away with them and taxes become a moot point, for the simple fact they become unnecessary. What percentage of our taxes goes to fund these bureaucratic enforcement agencies? They need to all be trimmed, in some cases dropped all together. Any regulation worth having can better be done by the states with a minimum of federal oversight.

WAJ / December 5, 2010 2:46 PM

Just a couple things...

First, "Staying true to his pre-election stance"... and "does not display the "moderate" or "independent" thinking on which our new Senator sold himself to Illinoisans"

Huh? That is contradictory and ridiculous. Kirk sold himself as "X", gets elected on platform of "X", then votes in accordance to "X" and that is somehow illustrative that Kirk sold himself as something other than "X"?

Voters had a choice. If they wanted a democratic vote in the senate, they would have voted for Giannoulias (i.e. Alexi sold himself as a lock step liberal and didn't get elected).

Second, if the current tax rates are not extended, tax rates will increase. You can use whatever verbage you like, but the outcome will still be an increase in taxes and those increases have been supported by the previous democratic party majority and now a smaller set of the democratic minority (when I say minority, look at the vote. The dems only garnered 36 votes out of 100 senators)

Third, federal spending grew by over 40% from 2000 to 2009 and over 200% from 1990 to 2009 (obviously thru both D and R adiminstrations and congressional control). That increase has been at almost every level: pensions, defense, healthcare, welfare, as well as discretionary. If you want to take a look at why government is bankrupt, you have to this into account as a whole, not just defense spending. Everyone understands that entitlements such as social security and medicare are structurally unsustainable, so its obvious that federal outflows are more responsible for the federal fiscal reality than a 4-5% change in income tax rate for the last 9 years.

Fourth, it is priceless that in the span of one post, you lament the use of the fillibuster to block legislation, but then refer to the Byrd rule where one individual can have the ability to block legislation in order to support your argument. So which is it? One person "obstructing" legislation is laudable, while multiple persons "obstructing" is not laudable.

Lastly, the "Patriotic Millionaires" website you link to... Go ahead and search their political contributions and its obvious that they are a partisan group. Lawrence Beneson $58,000 in '08, $84,000 in '10 (all dems). A little sampling: Charles Fink $41,000 in '08 (all dems) Peter Weinberger $26,000 in '08, $25,000 in '10 (all dems), Bill Janeway $30,000 in '10 (all dems), Lawrence Beneson $58,000 in '08, $84,000 in '10 (all dems).

Wasn't it just yesterday that you were decrying all the "shadowy cash" from rich donors? Nope. Sorry, it was October 17th.

Really? You take a position when it is convenient and then you take the other side when it suits you (in the same post where you accuse others of lying and engaging in hypocrisy!).

GB store


Parents Still Steaming, but About More Than Just Boilers

By Phil Huckelberry / 2 Comments

It's now been 11 days since the carbon monoxide leak which sent over 80 Prussing Elementary School students and staff to the hospital. While officials from Chicago Public Schools have partially answered some questions, and CPS CEO Forrest Claypool has informed that he will be visiting the school to field more questions on Nov. 16, many parents remain irate at the CPS response to date. More...


Substance, Not Style, the Source of Rahm's Woes

By Ramsin Canon / 2 Comments

It's not surprising that some of Mayor Emanuel's sympathizers and supporters are confusing people's substantive disputes with the mayor as the effect of poor marketing on his part. It's exactly this insular worldview that has gotten the mayor in hot... More...

Special Series

Classroom Mechanics Oral History Project
GB store

About Mechanics

Mechanics is the politics section of Gapers Block, reflecting the diversity of viewpoints and beliefs of Chicagoans and Illinoisans. More...
Please see our submission guidelines.

Editor: Mike Ewing,
Mechanics staff inbox:



 Subscribe in a reader.

GB store

GB Store

GB Buttons $1.50

GB T-Shirt $12

I ✶ Chi T-Shirts $15