Uncategorized

Was the Tax Deal Partly About START?

By Michael Crowley | @CrowleyTIME | December 7, 2010 | +

A few weeks ago the White House ponied up $4 billion in new spending to modernize the US nuclear complex at the insistence of Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl, who has been holding up Obama’s New START nuclear arms reduction treaty with Moscow. Democrats understood Kyl to have promised that he would support the treaty in return for the money–and, given that the rest of the Senate GOP has been following Kyl’s lead on the issue, that it would be enough to win START’s passage. But Kyl said he still wasn’t satisfied.

Now comes the new tax cut deal between the White House and the GOP, which contains an unexpected compromise on the estate tax, which will be adjusted to a level next year that is closer to the Republican position than the Democratic one. Ezra Klein calls this “an ugly surprise,” one that will cost $10 billion more than returning the estate tax (which had a quirky one-year sunset in 2010) to its 2009 level. Under the new deal, the estate tax will be set at 35% percent, with an exemption for up to $5 million of inheritance. Which just happens to be the very plan that a certain Republican Senator from Arizona, who cares a lot about the estate tax, has been pushing for many months.

Now let’s watch to see whether, in the wake of this budget compromise, Kyl is willing to stop stopping START. If so, we may have a clue about how this particular sausage was made. (No offense!) It may be that Kyl has charged Obama $14 billion to make it happen.

Related Topics: Uncategorized

  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images
    Closeup May 25, 2012

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    From our Partners

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA
    2012 Election May 25, 2012

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • Art Pepper

    I wish that I were a registered Democrat so that I could officially leave the party. I’m done with them,

    As for Kyl: I suppose he could think about supporting START because he cares about national security. Then again, he’s a Republican.

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    Just another fine example of principled centrist politics at work.

  • grape_crush

    It may be that Kyl has charged Obama $14 billion to make it happen.

    Kyl is the middleman, a broker for other interests. Ask yourself whom is Kyl representing, and this all makes a sad sort of sense.

  • codepoet2

    “…principled centrist politics…” keeping everyone from killing each other like you lefties & righties: a pox on both your houses, $14B is chump change and the real problem with the budget inflated Defense Budget ($664B) and Medicare/Social Security ($678B/$453B)…THAT’S where the problems are.

    And Republicans don’t want to reduce spending and Dems are all for raising taxes to the roof….again: a pox on both your houses!

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    A pox on the value free, fascist middle too.

  • grape_crush

    a pox on both your houses!

    Bullsh!t. Doing what’s right and sane about our nuclear security should be above partisan considerations…much less extortion.

  • codepoet2

    what’s right and sane…yep…you guys think you have a monopoly on that. You are as authoritarian in your values as any fascist.

  • grape_crush

    what’s right and sane…yep…you guys think you have a monopoly on that.
    .
    Please enlighten us as to why a treaty like START should be horsetraded like any piece of legislation.
    .
    Something like that, you either agree or disagree. You don’t make your agreement conditional upon how much money your political allies are given.

  • megatronrises

    “You are as authoritarian in your values as any fascist.”
    .
    You don’t sound very dissimilar, Mr. High Horse.

  • codepoet2

    It’s not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing on START, clearly it’s a good treaty (which takes 75 votes in the Senate, so it ain’t just simple “horsetrading”). But just because it’s a good idea, doesn’t mean that there aren’t going to be some Senators who will still use it as leverage. A democratic republic and legislation works in this fashion. If it didn’t, it wouldn’t be much of a democracy. But if compromise (which I ADMIRE Obama for and why voted for him, he seemed just so incredibly sane compared to the far right AND the far left!) is the art of the possible, then thank god (or whatever deity you might choose or not choose to believe in) bless him. I LIKE Obama’s reasonableness and his willingness to meet people part of the way. I DON’T see him as Socialist and I don’t share your increasing dislike of him. If I remember my history correctly, the darling of the left, JFK had exactly the same problems with his far left wing and the far right wing in the early ’60s. Nobody is ever “good enough” (by good, I mean left OR right) for anybody else anymore.

    btw…JNS refers to your epithets as “tantrums” in another post. I think that’s very apropos.

  • grape_crush

    But just because it’s a good idea, doesn’t mean that there aren’t going to be some Senators who will still use it as leverage.
    .
    So…extorting something in return for voting for something you agree with is a good thing. Supporting START on its merits alone isn’t enough; using our nuclear security as a bargaining strategy is something that’s perfectly acceptable to you. Got it.
    .
    A democratic republic and legislation works in this fashion.
    .
    Not really, no.
    ,
    If it didn’t, it wouldn’t be much of a democracy.
    .
    Hey, you said it, not me.
    .
    But if compromise (which I ADMIRE Obama for and why voted for him, he seemed just so incredibly sane compared to the far right AND the far left!) is the art of the possible.
    .
    Okay…What part of START did Obama compromise with certain Senate GOPers on?
    .
    Oh wait. He didn’t. He just agreed to fork over money that was tangential to START in order to buy passage.
    .
    That’s not compromise, that’s a hostage negotiation.

  • np042

    But just because it’s a good idea, doesn’t mean that there aren’t going to be some Senators who will still use it as leverage.

    And this is part of the problem. Everyone who matters has said that this is a good, needed treaty, that there is absolutely no reason not to pass it, and that it is incredibly important to national security. And yet a senator will hold it back and for what? What possible objections to it are there?
    .
    If START gets passed because of this, it wasn’t compromise; it was extortion. To paraphrase Rep. Anthony Weiner: “If it’s a good bill you vote yes!”

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    This is the problem with our elected officials today. That one man can hold back passage of a needed treaty in order to get something he wants is just absurd. He has no real objection to START, he’s just put his vote up for sale–or rather has threatened not to vote for it unless he gets something he wants. If they did away with earmarks and made it so that each and every spending measure had to voted seperately maybe we wouldn’t have this problem.

blog comments powered by Disqus