David Postman took an interesting look over the weekend at the back-and-forth between Darcy Burner and Dave Reichert on the issue of taxes, and their discussion in various campaign ads.

Let me pull out one aspect of that recounting for analysis. Postman quotes Burner's appearance on a liberal radio show, which includes this line about the Bush tax cuts: "We should let the tax cuts expire." Postman then continues:

That last line is what Reichert and the NRCC point to as Burner's commitment to raising taxes. A NRCC spokesman told me that since the tax exemptions are bundled together in a single bill, Burner cannot pick and choose the exemptions she wants to see expire.

That strikes me as an overly technical 'gotcha.' If that bill were before her then that'd be the question. But that's certainly not as valuable to voters as knowing where she stands on the individual pieces of the tax cut package.

And Burner has since been more specific, saying she supports making tax cuts permanent if they are "aimed at middle class families and seniors, including the protection of the child tax credit and the elimination of the marriage penalty.'

Postman raises a relevant point to some degree. But, it is not as technical as one might think based on statements from leading Democrats. I dug into this issue of Burner and tax cuts earlier in the month, and one passage is worth revisiting:

If Democrats were to win the House, the incoming Chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee has said he "' cannot think of one' of Bush's first-term tax cuts that merit renewal." Yikes. That means rolling back the child tax credit from $1,000 to $500 per child. That means bringing back the marriage penalty. That means bringing back higher income tax rates.

Lost in the hype of Democratic whining about tax cuts favoring the rich, even as upper-income taxpayers are paying the highest share of income taxes in decades, is that the 2001 Bush tax cuts substantively lowered federal income taxes for lower income taxpayers. Take a look at the handy tools at this site. Look at the tax brackets by level of income for 2006, then adjust them back to 2000. It's quite a difference.

For example, use the calculator farther down the page to estimate taxes for $30,000 in taxable income for a married family filing jointly. Their tax bill drops from $4,500 to $3,745 from 2000 to 2006, even before the increased child tax credit and/or other deductions and credits are included. That's real money in the hands of working families (fuller discussion of such beneficial impacts for lower-income taxpayers here).

Students of the current Congress have seen how some committee Chairman, especially in the House, can muscle a bill through their committee onto the floor, such as Republican Bill Thomas of the House Ways and Means Committee Charlie Rangel hopes to chair. Based on Rangel's comment noted above, and the fervor of some Democrats against the Bush tax cuts period, it would not be a stunning turn of events for Rangel to push a bill to the floor returning the tax code to the status quo ante 2001.

Meanwhile, if Darcy Burner were elected to Congress, her odds as a freshman getting on the Ways and Means Committee are terribly small. Thus, how would she vote on such a bill on the House floor, where opportunities for amendment are limited? She claims to support the increased child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, and other tax cuts for the "middle class" (though she still seems not to have taken a position on the important rate reductions benefiting all taxpayers discussed above). But how would she vote, under pressure from her party leadership, on such a bill? Would she vote "no" to protect the tax cuts benefiting the middle class and small businesses, and thus keep tax cuts for investors and higher income ratepayers, or would she vote "yes" to the delight of her base, which would in particular like to see the 2003 investor tax cuts and other "tax cuts for the rich" go away?

It seems clear based on the positions she's taken thus far that Darcy Burner is for raising taxes, including Social Security payroll taxes. The only question is when and by how much. As such, and given her freshman status sans powerful committee assignment were she to be elected, how would she vote if Rangel pushed such a tax cut repeal bill to the floor?

Candidates are fond of saying they'll "demand" this and "insist" on that when on the campaign trail, making promises about what they'll do in Congress. But the reality for newer members is that often they just get the chance to vote "yes" or "no" on legislation, not tailor it to their preferences. So, what's her answer?