Today's Seattle Times includes this story by Alicia Mundy discussing the ongoing dust-up, now being played out in campaign ads, over Maria Cantwell's vote on the "trifecta" bill.
The tone of the story is more worthy of an editorial column than the news section, but let's examine it nonetheless.
Mundy seems to think, or seems to have bought the talking point fed to her, that Mike McGavick's retrospective discomfort over a 1988 campaign ad "may dog McGavick this campaign." I don't buy it.
The 1988 ad in question was based on an apparently inaccurate news story turned into an ad for the Gorton campaign. As the ad was running, questions about the story's accuracy were raised. The campaign didn't immediately pull the ad but also never raised the topic again. McGavick says he now regrets not pulling the ad sooner. Silly me, but I've been in lots of campaigns from the local to the federal level and have to say those sort of retrospective regrets (as one replays the campaign in one's mind) are not uncommon. There is no reason for that candor to "dog" McGavick.
It seems Ms. Mundy has been rolled on what does and does not constitute legitimate political discourse. She says "McGavick's ad might pass as a typical political tactic," implying such ads are usually full of lies, but that this year he evidently can't question his opponent for her vote in the Senate. That makes no sense whatsoever.
As Mundy's own article, and my original Sound Politics coverage noted above, discuss, Cantwell has in the past supported the sales-tax deduction in non-permanent form, but uses the non sequitur that she can't vote for a bill now that doesn't make it permanent. Moreover, the article and my coverage, not to mention David Postman's, note that Cantwell was clearly offered a deal to clear up ambiguity in the legislation regarding tip credits, but she chose to work against the bill rather than to accept the offer and work to help the workers she now claims to be protecting.
Yet, somehow Mundy's article strongly implies it's unacceptable to point this out. McGavick clearly disagrees, and wouldn't otherwise be running this radio ad or having Labor Secretary Elaine Chao join him in campaigning on the issue.
Senator Cantwell cast a partisan vote, McGavick called her on it, and said she should have worked with Senator Frist as he offered to resolve the concerns she claims are paramount in that vote. McGavick isn't even claiming Cantwell opposes the sales tax deducation, he's simply noting she voted against it, even though it would have helped the citizens of Washington state, because her party opposed the bill. That's inarguable, exactly why as the headline of Mundy's story says: "McGavick stands by ad hitting Cantwell over vote on tax bill." He should, because he's right.
Posted by Eric Earling at August 29, 2006 08:28 AM | Email Thiscantthinkwell prefers to have her minions do her 'splainin because she doesn't want anyone to realize that she is, in fact, patty murray's idiot sister...
Posted by: alphabet soup on August 29, 2006 08:47 AMPostman says he was "sucked" into the toilet with Goldenstien, or I should say, Goldenstien tried to "suck" him into the toilet.
Posted by: swatter on August 29, 2006 09:10 AMNote to Congress: Washington is a bona fide member of the United States of America. Its taxpayers are entitled to the same federal tax breaks those from other states get. Yet you keep threatening to take away our ability to deduct state sales taxes from our federal income tax returns.
Knock off the blackmail. Make the deduction permanent.
The latest example of this detestable tactic came earlier this month, when the Senate leadership used an extension of the sales-tax deduction as bait to get Washington Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell to vote for overloaded bill that would have cut the estate tax and raised (and capped) the minimum wage, among a bevy of other things. Murray and Cantwell wisely resisted.
Holding the deduction like a carrot on a stick in front of senators from states that have no income tax isn't deal-making. It's legislative extortion, and it needs to stop.
Taxpayers in the 43 states that have an income tax are allowed to deduct state income taxes from their federal returns - putting a substantial dent in what they pay to Uncle Sam. Congress dropped the sales-tax deduction as part of a tax-cutting bill in 1986, and after 18 years of wrangling, it was finally revived in 2004 - but only for '04 and '05. If it isn't reauthorized this year, middle-income Washingtonians could see their federal tax bite get several hundred dollars deeper.
Senate leaders apparently can't resist hanging onto the leverage they perceive to gain by keeping the deduction in jeopardy. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee is from one of the seven states held hostage to the tactic, yet he has thus far refused to strip it out for a vote to make it permanent - proving that partisan game-playing can even trump his own constituents' interests.
Beyond the obvious inequity, keeping the deduction in limbo keeps Washington taxpayers from effectively planning a household budget. Eight months into the tax year, people considering a big-ticket purchase shouldn't have to wonder whether the sales tax paid on it will be deductible. And it's unfair to Washington car dealers and other retailers, who stand to lose business as customers put off such decisions.
Simple fairness dictates that taxpayers in the seven states without an income tax should get the same tax benefits as citizens in the other 43. When Congress reconvenes this fall, it should act for fairness.
http://heraldnet.com/stories/06/08/20/100edi_editorial001.cfm
Posted by: Sorry Charlie on August 29, 2006 09:45 AMRepublicans load estate tax bill with popular breaks
By Amy Fagan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
August 2, 2006
Republicans have loaded up the bill to reduce the estate tax with a minimum-wage increase and a host of popular tax breaks that Democrats will find painful to oppose, including help for teachers, miners and college students.
Several provisions target Democrats in tough races and Republicans want to make them instant issues in this year's elections. For example, the bill has provisions to allow mine operators to write off half their expenditures for safety equipment, and gives them tax credits for some mine-rescue-training programs. Another provision provides a tax deduction to the timber industry.
A Senate Republican aide said the timber and mining tax breaks target two Democrats running for re-election in states where those industries play a major role in the economy -- Sens. Maria Cantwell of Washington and Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, respectively.
"There's a lot of 30-second ads waiting to happen in this bill," the aide said.
Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, said that Republicans are in a win-win situation, because if the bill fails, Democrats will have to vote to "kill" a minimum-wage increase and many popular tax breaks.
"It's all reward," he said.
"This is the one shot -- this is the real thing," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, noting broad support for reducing the death tax and increasing the minimum wage. The Tennessee Republican said the bill speaks "very directly" to average Americans such as teachers and people paying state sales tax. He said he won't bring the issues back again, so this is it.
Other provisions in the bill include:
• Tax deductions for teachers who spend their own money to buy school supplies.
• Tax deductions for college expenses.
• Tax credits for research and development expenditures made by companies.
• Tax credits for employers who hire longtime welfare recipients.
McGavic = More of the same partisan BS. Thanks Stephan!
Posted by: Sorry Charlie on August 29, 2006 09:58 AMNon-partisan = Democrats in control and the GOP can pound sand.
Posted by: jimg on August 29, 2006 10:32 AMThis is how the game works. Cantwell and her ilk voted to cut off there nose to spite their face, now they're trying to spin it as "those gready Republicans trying to get their estate tax break". I have nothing to gain with the estate tax break, nor do most of the folks in this country - so who gives a rats a$$ if some rich folks don't get tax raped for dying and can leave more to their surviving families.
Posted by: Jeffro on August 29, 2006 11:18 AMTrue enough. Why should he suddenly start being honest with his ads?
Posted by: Bruce on August 29, 2006 11:33 AMHer no vote was also a no vote on maintaining a deduction on the state sales tax and some tax breaks for the timber industry...both of which are beneficial to her state and constituents.
She voted no so that the feds can continue the death tax which is a tax on money that has already been taxed when it was originally earned. The democrats want to force the heirs to pay an exorbanant fee due to the fact that a loved one died and for no other reason. They try to spin this as not a death tax, but that doesn't hold any water....it's clearly a tax on the wealth of the dead.
Yet, she claims it's the Republicans that are playing politics and are putting forth a partisan bill. What exactly is in the bill that is bad for America and for Washington state? One can argue that raising the minimum wage is bad for companies that do international business, but that's not the part that she was against.
One more moonbat that the voters have elected (or did they?) to congress. Maybe we'll get a second chance this year...but the vote will have to be by such a margin that King County couldn't possibly steal it....we know they have no qualms about that.
Posted by: drw on August 29, 2006 12:12 PMSo Cantwell shafted 99.9% of us so that a few waiters could earn maybe $20 bucks more a week.
So tell me again how Cantwell fights for "all of Washington."
Posted by: Johnny on August 29, 2006 01:18 PMPerhaps someone can explain clearly to me, why it's OK to use something like an estate tax to double tax the materially wealthy? And no, I'm not rich.
I just don't understand the opposition to any form of legislation that reduces the tax burden on certain portions of the population (usually the most productive portions).
Are people evil because they make a lot of money? Are people wicked because they inheritied a sum of of money that their predecessors earned and probabaly aleady paid taxes on?
(I'm assuming the estate tax effectively makes people pay twice; correct me if I'm wrong).
I guess I'm just sick and tired of people who think that just because someone else has a lot of something, they are automatically entitled to some of it; and if you oppose their socialistic viewpoint, then you are selfish, greedy, heartless, evil person.
Posted by: MSB on August 29, 2006 01:21 PMYou were honest enough to label your question rhetorical, but I will take it seriously in hopes that you may have an open mind.
The "double taxation" argument is a canard. In a sense, any tax except tax on the original earnings is a double (or triple, quadruple, etc.) tax. Sales taxes, property taxes, estate taxes, etc. -- they are all taxing money that was previously taxed when earned. And even income taxes are taxes on money that was probably already subject to a corporate tax, and those dollars will eventually pay someone else's salary which will be subject to tax again, etc., etc. So what's the point?
You say you don't understand the opposition to any tax cut. Well, why not eliminate all taxes then? But our society has decided to have certain government services. Of course people disagree on what those services should be, but as long as we've got them, we've got to tax something to pay for them. We could tax just one thing, like income or sales, at a higher rate, but most societies prefer to tax many different things at a lower rate. And as part of that mix of taxes, it seems reasonable to tax the estates of very rich dead people that they are giving to someone else. Sure, you can find some cases where giving that money to the government has unfortunate consequences. You can do that with any tax. But I believe it is much rarer that you can do that with the estate tax than with most taxes.
I suspect that, of the very few people who are subject to the estate tax, you would be hard pressed to find any who would willingly trade the privileges they have received from their families -- financially and otherwise -- even after the estate tax -- with those that the average American has received. With all the people in our society who have desperate problems, there are many who merit your sympathy more than these rich heirs and heiresses.
You worry about taxing the most productive people. Well, of course you've got to tax people who have money, and those people have usually been productive to get that money. But the estate tax is taxing dead people, and indirectly people they are giving money to. That seems further removed from productivity than most taxes.
Again, I'm not arguing that any tax is a good thing in itself (with the possible exception of sin taxes, but I'm not trying to open that philosophical argument). But if we need a certain amount of dollars for our society's common goals, I would rather take some of it from very rich dead people than all of it from living, productive people.
Posted by: Bruce on August 29, 2006 03:06 PMYou're wrong. In most large estates, most of the assets are capital gains that have never been taxed, and are not taxed when passed on to the next generation.
Now that she's running ads telling about her days as a waitress in a hash-house it won't be much longer until she'll revert back to the 2000 mom & apple pie ads. This time she might ad something folksy like using an outhouse in the cold rain.
Posted by: Tyler Durden on August 29, 2006 03:17 PMWhat about an up and down vote? Come on let's have up and down votes on single issues like the judges deserved. break up the Trifecta bill and vote on it individually.
Let's see how the majority party would write a bill, then use the vote.
Propose to Lower taxes on everyone, but take away funding from the troops.
They are just a bunch of K-Street A**holes
Posted by: danw on August 29, 2006 04:23 PMA judge should always get an up or down vote (rather than being bottled up in committee) because there is no possibility of adding anything, good, bad or indifferent. Is this person qualified to be a judge...yes or no.
Bills on the other hand always have more than one thing in them because that's the way it works. You know, like the comprehensive spending bill in Olympia in 2005 that was passed using the non existent emergency because the people voted that if you increase spending more than you should, it requires a supermajority that the dems didn't have.
You want bills with only one point....start with Olympia, then move on to Washington.
In the meantime, let's be honest over who is being partisan to the detriment of the very people they're supposed to be representing and who is REALLY trying to help the American people!
Posted by: drw on August 29, 2006 05:31 PMThis approach would be fair to capital at the 1 year time frame, as well as the 10 and 20 year time frames.
I believe that if the topic is Cap Gains on assets, then NOT talking about inflation and its affect over the course of 5 to 30 years, is begging the question.
Posted by: Gregg on August 29, 2006 11:04 PM