Where Does Congress' Responsibility Lie?

[bigtree]

Do House Democrats want an extension of middle class tax breaks that are part of the Bush-era tax cuts? If so, what's their plan for keeping them?

Do House and Senate Democrats care enough about these tax credits and incentives to do more than throwing their hands up or throwing stones at the President (as some are doing)? What's their plan to retain those tax breaks for the middle to lower income wage earners? Do they want to extend them?

What's their plan to achieve the extension of expiring unemployment benefits?

What's their plan to extend the Earned Income Tax Credit?

What's their plan to extend the Child Tax Credit?

What's their plan to extend the American Opportunity Tax Credit?

Do they care at all about preserving these? If so, where is the leadership from CONGRESS in making that happen? Why is Congress scampering around behind the President - grousing and grandstanding against the compromise tax 'framework' he negotiated - still unable (after a year of political dithering) to come up with a coherent direction or plan to preserve these tax breaks, or even one that would divert resources to some yet-undecided on economic policy with a dubious future outcome in the next republican-led Congress?

Just what is their plan? Are they just going to dance around the President's 'framework' tax compromise and pick at it; or are they going to take up their constitutional prerogative in financial and money affairs and forge their own way forward?

It's not as if they've done anything more than stage votes on bills they knew well would fall; especially the House, whose members appear so satisfied with their own efforts in sending a dead on arrival bill to the Senate that they can now just stand back and castigate the President. What do they want to see happen before the expiration deadline in a month and how do they intend to make that happen? There's too much passivity and stone-throwing to believe they are serious yet about responsibly asserting their constitutional role.

It's absurd for legislators to rail against the President for working to preserve those middle-income benefits that they, themselves, were unable or unwilling to defend. Even if there was something untoward about a President stepping up in defense of wage earners against a reduction in income by fiat of the federal government, Congress is supposed to do more than just stand by and cluck their tongues.

In the defense of their leadership, they've held their criticism, so far, to muttering about the President's process of negotiation. But, you can be certain that they're also busy working to alter the President's framework agreement to their liking. They're busy piggybacking on the President's efforts, hoping (I'll bet) that the President continues to take heat for his efforts to preserve the cuts they failed to (for whatever reason)

Of course, the unraveling of the President's initiative threatens to unravel the coalitions which were expected to vote for them. Each change the House manages to make to the package, for instance, threatens votes in the Senate. But, that's their JOB to reconcile all of that into action.

The late, Robert Byrd, spoke often about the responsibility of the legislature; its constitutional prerogative in budget and money matters; and, its frequent and habitual abdication of that responsibility.

"We, as legislators, have a responsibility to work with the chief executive, but it is intended to be a two-way street," Sen. Byrd remarked in an address on the Senate's history.

"The Framers did not envision the office of President as having the attributes of royalty. We must recognize the heavy burden that any President bears, and wherever and whenever we can, we must cooperate with the chief executive in the interest of all the people. But let us keep in mind Madison's admonition: "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition."

There is nothing at all stopping Congress from setting their own agenda and acting on it. In fact, the constitution demands that they provide the necessary checks against what they may view as the excesses of the Executive. But, they must also produce more than just opposition to the President's proposals. They need to take the lead in enacting the people's business.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. They need to end this absurd capitulation

There needs to be a vote on a bill that extends tax cuts for working Americans ONLY and which reinstates unemployment payments to the 99ers. If the Republicans vote that down, it will be a replay of the government shutdown of 1995. Within in days we'll have exactly what we want, and the Republicans will be in flames.

[jaybeat]

3. I don't get how that shuts anything down the GOP cares about

It shuts down the Bush tax cuts; they don't want that, but they'd love it if Obama and a Dem Congress "let" it happen. In the next Congress they'll just be running the House to put up whatever giveaways to the rich they really want. And then the Dems become the "party of no."

It shuts down unemployment benefits. Dems care about those, repukes don't. Don't expect them to come to a vote in a GOP-led House, either.

But there's no shutdown of the government; no federal workers staying home; no media circus of the GOP acting like irresponsible children. Instead, the Dems look irresponsible for raising taxes on everyone when the economy's crap.

*We* need a deal, more than they do, and the GOP knows it. THAT'S why we and the POTUS look weak, IMO.

[bigtree]

6. what do you think are the chances of that bill in this Congress?

I'm not seeing it.

[jaybeat]

2. Good point

If Dems in Congress want something better, then they are free to DO something better. PASS something better, through both houses. It's not like the President is going to veto it. But if they CAN'T pass something better, actually PASS it, then they should STFU.

[bigtree]

5. right. President Obama will sign any reasonable Democratic-oriented legislation

His compromise is based on what republicans told him they'd accept for their votes. But, the President's operating outside of his traditional role of the proposer of legislation. Congress, conversely, is acting as if he's the one that's supposed to write, organize, manage, and pass the bill.

[notesdev]

4. On the sidewalk in a pool of its own blood

in answer to the original question "Where Does Congress' Responsibility Lie?"

[bigtree]

7. .

[rtassi]

8. Yep ..

[bigtree]

9. .

[bigtree]

10. kick

[bigtree]

11. kick

[defendandprotect]

12. First, present GOP with the tax cut for the Middle Class -- take it or leave it ... period.

Same with unemployment benefits -- all of them which should be extended --

including for the '99'ers ... who got nothing in Obama's deal --

And, as far as I'm concerned, Congress can certainly start to assert themselves

over wars -- cancelling them or no longer funding them.

They can then move on to actually setting -- debating and discussing economic

policy for the nation -- including full employment vs the Fed's "employee instability"

goal. And take economic policy away from the FED -- it's handier to have our laws/

policies made by the people we elect on the presumption that we can un-elect them --

not something we can do with a private bank like the FED.

Certainly the Founders -- who left us with a schizophrenic Constitution -- didn't

envision a president making back room deals with corporations and the opposing party!!!

What might they have called that?