When Democrats talk like Republicans -- Bob Kerrey on Lawrence O'Donnell this evening

[Samantha]

What exactly does one do?

Kerrey is running for the Senate seat in Nebraska. I have always liked him somewhat. Tonight, however, his appearance on Lawrence O'Donnell left me thinking I could not vote for him if I lived in Nebraska. Obviously, I could not vote for the Republican running against him either. So the only comment I can legitimately make is that I am so happy I do not live in Nebraska. On election day, I would not have a viable choice for whom I could enthusiastically vote for to serve in the Senate as representing Nebraska.

What did he say that I found demoralizing? He spoke about the importance of bipartisanship. If elected he would make the tough decisions necessary to reduce the deficit. He spoke about the cooperation between Tom Coburn and Dick Durbin in working together to achieve a bipartisan agreement to reduce the deficit. He spoke well of those willing to make the "tough" choices necessary to fix our economy.

Not so tough to do though if one is retiring and not up for re-election. Tom Coburn plans to retire in 2016. Dick Durbin is telling people he is thinking of retiring in 2014. I think both of these will follow through with their retirement plans, and that is exactly why they are working together on this issue. Unlike others who do plan to run again for re-election, these two would have nothing to lose. Perfect political candidates to make those difficult choices! No future voter retribution to worry about!

So what specifically did Kerry refer to that he could endorse in the Coburn/Durbin bipartisan agreement?

In order to reduce the deficit, one needs to look at the biggest drivers. Those drivers are Kerrey said Social Security and Medicare. In order to reduce the deficit, adjustments must be made in those two areas. Kerrey said he could endorse reducing four of the biggest deductions on taxes, the increased revenue from which cuts would serve to reduce the deficit. These four biggest deductions are home mortgage interest on Federal returns, as well as deductions for state and local income taxes, charitable donations and health care costs. Stripping those deductions would generate increased revenue to reduce the deficit.

Really?

Do our politicians ever connect the dots? I think stripping an individual's ability to deduct the home mortgage interest on their Federal return would have a devastating impact on the housing market. It has just now started to recover. In the past a number of people in my generation were sold on the decision to buy a home because one could deduct the interest on his her taxes. That made the purchase of a home an investment. Remove that incentive and one is going to lose a lot of potential buyers. That is my thinking and I feel confident in saying this. Personally, I would have never bought four homes in my lifetime without that incentive. I would have just rented, preserving the ability to escape fixing needed repairs and the ability to relocate with giving my landlord 30 days notice. Removing this deduction would adversely impact, I believe, the banking industry as well as private individuals because fewer people would apply for loans.

Remove state and local income taxes as a deduction? If the Federal government taxes my say $50,000 income without reducing that income by the amount already taxed by my state of Maryland, I would consider that a double dipping. How would I respond? I wouldn't cooperate. I would sell my retirement home which I paid for over 20 years, and take the proceeds and pay off the mortgage for the house in which I currently reside. No deduction on my tax return, I am not playing. I am paying the loan off. Sorry, mortgage holder, you lose.

Remove the charitable deduction? That is just going to reduce charitable giving. Charitable giving is an important component to many Americans during these days of recession. I do not support that.

Remove the deduction for health care costs? Why not go after the real white collar crime in America -- the health insurance and prescription drugs costs charged by entities which overcharge participants and drive up the cost of Medicare and health care in general. Don't punish the participants; go after the true criminals -- those who egregiously overcharge those participants. Sorry, I do not support that either.

My position is that these changes are not truly, as politicians are fond of saying these days, sharing the sacrifice. It would hurt the middle and poor classes the most.

Why not, in the spirit of bipartisanship and just general fairness and a sense of decency, go after what the Congressional Budget Office describes as the true drivers of the debt?



at http://www.cbpp.org/research/index.cfm?fa=topic&id=121

Just asking ... why not go after the drivers listed on this chart as opposed to benefits that assist the middle class and impoverished?

So what does a Democrat do when his or her fellow Democratic candidate sounds like a Republican instead of a protector of classic Democratic values? I truly have no answer to that question. What is your response?

Sam

[MADem]

1. If you want an answer to your question, reread YOUR FIRST SENTENCE of your 2nd paragraph.

[font size="6"]
Kerrey is running for the Senate seat in Nebraska.[/font]


Nebraska is a kinda conservative place. If Kerrey is needed for a key vote, if Harry Reid says "I need some party discipline, here," Kerrey will do what's needed. He may extract some tribute for the people of Nebraska, but he'll do the Big Picture thing and give the President the vote he needs.

[Samantha]

8. I am pretty familiar with Nebraska's conservative bent -- however

Kerrey is obviously campaigning on the importance of achieving bipartisan agreement. That is his HUGE talking point. He is not a yes man, so I do not think that he will buckle to Reid's call for support. I do not agree with his talking points, so I could not enthusiastically vote for the man -- I don't care where he lives. He sounds more like Romney than a champion of classic Democratic values.

But if you want to say he is just saying what he has to say to get elected in Nebraska and will change his position once in office, as many politicians do, that is a different story. That just makes him a Blue Dog. But I don't support Blue Dogs either.

Sam

[Floyd_Gondolli]

9. Unless you live in a place like NE

You don't really know what it's like as a Dem running for a statewide office. It's even more difficult if it's a senate or house seat.

[Samantha]

15. Hi Flyod_Gondolli -- take a look at SunSeeker's response below

Why can't Kerrey simply support letting the Bush* tax cuts expire? I could support that. I just can't support making seniors take Social Security and Medicare cuts to pay for Bush's 10 Trillion Dollar Deficit. That just does not seem like a decent or fair "bipartisan" compromise. It's a cave in.

But I do understand that Dems in Nebraska have little choice. I am just soliciting opinion here, not being critical of anyone's choice.

Thank you so much for posting on my thread.

Sam

[MADem]

13. He was the head of the New School for friken ever.

It's not rocket science, anyone with a half brain can figure out where he stands on most issues.

You don't have to support anyone--but if you're such an ideologue, you're no damn help to the Dems in this election year. It's lead, follow, or get out of the way. You might as well step aside, because you're plainly no help--you don't want to compromise.

You'll never get everything you want. The world just doesn't work that way.

[Spider Jerusalem]

25. No, he's running to get elected as a Democrat in a conservative, Republican-leaning state.

So obviously he's going to play up "bipartisanship". He has to. If he didn't, or indeed if he were running a liberal rather than a conservative Democrat, he wouldn't get elected in Nebraska at all.

See though his record from his previous time in the Senate, which, if he remains consistent, is pro-choice, pro-marriage equality, pro-environment, anti-drug war, and favours stricter gun control laws: http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Bob_Kerrey.htm

Now contrast that with any Republican who would get elected. And stop whining.

[Samantha]

32. So you call asking a reasonable question "whining"

Is it unreasonable to expect a public servant to protect the interests of their constituents?

I am not bashing Kerrey here. As I said in my main thread, I have always liked him somewhat. Why can't he just grow a backbone and look at the sacrifices which must be made and reason with the conservative Republicans as well as his Democratic base by telling them the simple truth? Which is more important to you? We can protect the social safety net or we can let the Bush* tax cuts expire. Which do you prefer?

That is the simple truth.

It is the Republicans who for years now have bashed people bringing up reasonable questions as whiners. Please don't do that on my threads because I find that technique insulting.

Sam

[Spider Jerusalem]

35. "Reason with conservative republicans by telling them the simple truth"

I think your naivete in presuming that would be effective is quite charming; Republicans aren't interested in truth, and they don't care about protecting Medicare or Social Security. Some Republican voters may, but ideological conservative thinktank types, what pass for "intellectuals" in the conservative movement, they don't care about it and in fact increasing tax cuts and defunding of everything except the military is part of their longterm strategy. These are Grover Norquist "starve the beast", "make government small enough to drown in a bathtub" types we're talking about. And conservative Republicans and conservative Democrats in Nebraska also don't care too much about protecting the social safety net because when you mention "social safety net" to these people they hear "welfare" and think "my tax dollars going to support shiftless blacks in the ghetto". Never mind that in reality far more whites than blacks receive welfare; never mind that this sort of animosity to welfare recipients is harming their own economic interests; you can't tell these people that because it's something that exists on a level below that of rationality.

I don't necessarily agree with any of Kerrey's positions on eliminating tax decuctions, but then he needs to get elected and we need a Democratic majority before there can be any serious talk of what changes will be made to the tax code and where taxes will be raised and where spending cut in order to close the fiscal gap. If a better Democratic proposal goes before the Senate, his record leads me to think he'd probably vote for it.

[Samantha]

39. I am not in the least naive Spider Jersusalem so please don't start out your response with a

condescending line like that. I have been a political observer for decades, and I sit outside Washington, DC from a perfect perch watching politicians in actions. Many Republican politicians, particularly the right-wingers, will not protect Medicare or Social Security. But if you listen to Republican voters, many of them do think Medicare and Social Security should be protected. Check out C-SPAN callers when you have a moment.

In my employment, I have observed a lot first-hand right on K Street. I have worked for high-profile attorneys defending politicians in trouble, two of whom went on to work on the White House for two different Presidents. In my observance of political science in play, I certainly have achieved enough information to form an independent opinion about the responsibility of public servants to represent their constituents as opposed to corporations and those people who are extremely wealthy. What you condescendingly term "naivete" I call political activism in holding politicians to their responsibility to protect the interests of those who pay their salary. If they do not, hold them accountable.

And those whom you describe as ideological conservative "intellectuals" are being shot down more often today by people who think as I do. I see them publicly challenged today more often than in the past, and that is how it should be.

Kerry's main talking point on the O'Donnell show was the bipartisan work between Coburn and Durbin and his support for their proposals. These are the very same negotiations being conducted in private that we the voting public are not supposed to question. "They" will decide, the politicians, "they" will vote and we shall just have to accept it. I don't think so ....

Sam

[BlueMTexpat]

28. Exactly.

Whatever Kerrey is, it will be better than the alternative, if only because it adds one more "D" to the Senate composition.

At heart, he's a decent guy. We just may need to help him channel his inner progressive once he is elected. But first he has to get elected.

[Angry Dragon]

2. It would destroy the housing industry and construction jobs, building trades

[uponit7771]

3. Fake democrat or a real republican, Truman was right ...

[grasswire]

4. Kerrey has never been a reliable defender of Democratic values.

Too bad a real Democrat didn't primary him.

[Care Acutely]

5. I live in Nebraska.

I'm voting for him.

I take it, Sam, that you've not spent much time here. Believe it or not, it does have its good points but in politics, your choices here are 1) moderate Democrat OR 2) no Democrat. That's it.

[Samantha]

10. I know Care Acutely, and that is why I said I am happy I do not live in Nebraska

I am just an unabashed liberal and I ardently support classic Democratic concepts. I think it is a conundrum when Dems have no choice but to vote for what they consider the best of two choices, and obviously that is usually never a Republican, so I am not going to be critical of what anyone is doing ... I am just wondering what Nebraskans will do.

Thanks for posting of my thread.

Sam

[Care Acutely]

53. It's not much of a conundrum at all.

Do I want a moderate Democrat to represent my state or do I want NO Democrat ever? Not so hard.

I support other state races too, and live vicariously through the progressive senators of others.

[MADem]

14. +1,000,000! nt

[LiberalAndProud]

6. Vote for him.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/15/Deb-Fischer-Shocks-Political-World

The Republican establishment spent nearly $3 million to support state attorney general Jon Bruning. The Washington conservative establishment spent nearly $3 million to prop up their candidate, Don Stenberg, who never got traction despite all of his endorsements. But it took just 135 words from former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to propel Fischer to the head of the pack and give her the momentum, buzz, and name identification to capitalize on some of the groundwork she had diligently laid.

The message was clear: the conservative grassroots are fed up and candidates favored by both the Republican and the Washington conservative establishment are not safe.

Fisher received 41 percent of the vote to Bruning’s 36 percent and Stenberg’s 19 percent.

“I never planned to run for the United States Senate, and most of you are the reason why I jumped in,” Fischer said in her victory speech on Tuesday night. “I wasn’t happy with what was happening in Washington, and I don’t think anyone is.”

Until Palin endorsed Fischer by writing her a note, nobody thought Fischer had a chance of entering the general election to become Nebraska’s next Senator.

I apologize for the link, but we take what we can get in these parts. Bob won't likely win this election, so rest easy.

[Samantha]

11. I am sorry - don't get me wrong - I won't be happy if he loses

I just regret that Nebraskan's Dem is not more protective of issues like Social Security and Medicare. You are saying he would do less harm than a Republican, and I understand that.

I am trying to discern how Dems in Nebraska feel, and in that regard, I thank you so much for posting your informative response. I will re-read it.

Sam

[LiberalAndProud]

17. He was a better senator than Ben Nelson.

I would be grateful to have him represent me again.

If you read the excerpt, you understand that Nebraska is going to send another TeaBagger to Washington. If that doesn't happen, I'll get down on my knees and apologize to the God I don't believe in.

Deb Fisher hails from Cherry County. You may have heard of it. Without much exaggeration, what Deb Fisher's husband doesn't own, Ted Turner does. It is the largest county in Nebraska with a population of less than 6000 people, averaging more than one square mile per resident. When all you see around you is Sandhills, lakes, buffalo, cows and horses and wild game galore, you don't see much need for government. That's just how it is. Add to that a long, long tradition of Republicanism and a heaping measure of Rush Limbaugh. The national Democratic party has forsaken us. Drink from my cup.

[Samantha]

34. I understand LiberalAndProud -- and if you reread my thead I do not bash Kerrey

And you certainly will get no argument from me about Kerrey being better than Ben Nelson.

I am just asking what I believe is a reasonable question and soliciting opinions. You have presented your opinion extremely well, and you did so without using belittling remarks and insults. Instead you pointed out the reality of the lay of the land in Nebraska. For that, I salute you.

Thanks for posting on my thread.

Sam

[SunSeeker]

7. Kerry will never be put to this "tough choice" because Dems (if they have any brains) will

just let the Bush tax cuts expire, which in one fell swoop will take care of the biggest current driver of the deficit (see op's graph).

I heard Kerry and did a double take. But he is running in Nebraska. It doesn't get any redder then Nebraska. Anyone more progressive than Kerry could not get elected in Nebraska. I'd way rather have Kerry than some bible thumping right wing nut bag. Kerry's election means one less vote to support a Repuke filibuster, and one more vote for President Obama's Supreme Court nominees.

[Samantha]

12. That is an excellent point, one less Repubican vote to support a filibuster

I have always supported letting the Bush* tax cuts expire. That is one of the key drivers of the deficit, and that seems to me to be one of the logical solutions.

What does not seem logical is cutting Social Security and Medicare to finance the 10.6 Trillion Dollar Deficit Bush* left when he finished his second term. Asking seniors to take cuts in these programs to pay off the Bush* deficit as opposed to letting his tax cuts (which were not paid for when implemented) expire is absolutely appalling.

Thanks for posting your opinion on my thread.

Sam

[abumbyanyothername]

24. It doesn't get any redder than NE? Oh yeah?

WY, AL, MS, ID, UT?

At least NE had elected Kerrey before. Kerrey was way better than Nelson.

I haven't lived there in 16 years but when I did I played some bridge with Bob (and Warren), dated a girl whose father regularly had dinner in his home with Bob and Debra Winger, was partners with some of the heaviest hitters in the NE dem party.

I am pretty sure that Obama is going to get one EV out of NE again.

[SunSeeker]

45. From your lips to God's ears. nt

[Inuca]

33. KerrEy!! n/t

[Auntie Bush]

36. I'd rather have a bluedog Dem than a teabag ReThug. Sunseeker has some good points.

"Kerry's election means one less vote to support a Repuke filibuster, and one more vote for President Obama's Supreme Court nominees."

That is better than nothing! Vote Kerry

[LarryNM]

16. I Heard It and It was Disgusting

The reality of bipartisanship today is Democrats caving to Republicans. The comments on Social Security were false and no mention, of course, of raising or eliminating the income limit on Social Security taxes. No mention of the bloated "defense" budget. The tax deductions solutions are no solutions. Seemed to give some credence to increased revenue but no specific mention of doing away with Bush tax cuts or raising taxes on the wealthiest or the big corporations. They probably will be retired before Congressional pension "reform" takes effect. Ends up supporting the Corporatist agenda of wrecking the economy and running up deficits, and then "save the city" by destroying the New Deal.

[Samantha]

18. Bingo, LarryNM

You have got it.

We elect politicians to support our best interests. When they do not, I personally do not vote for them. I do not know about everyone else, but I personally define my prevalent issues and I look for politicians who will vote in my best interests. That, in theory, is how we speak in our political system. So what does a person do when neither candidate supports the interests of the constituent?

At the very least, speak out before the election. Voice your opinion. Tell a Blue Dog democrat his approach is not the answer, it is the approach that supports the elite in our society, and his constituents are comprised of many, many people who do not fit into that category.

That is what elections are about. Define what is truly important to you, speak out, and then vote according to your personal preference. I personally could never be comfortable living in a state where the best candidate I could vote for was a Blue Dog; therefore, I choose to live in the State of Maryland, one of the bluest of the states, and I feel comfortable in my own political skin. Hey, but that is just me. I do realize that is not everyone's prerogative.

Great response and thanks for posting on my thread.

Sam

[winstars]

19. Watched it, didn't really like what he said. But, if I lived there, I would vote for him in a second

At the very worst if he only occasionally voted "the right way" it would still be better than a fucking tea bagger. Kerrey has always been like this and it seems at least in Nebraska, he is the best we can do.

I am not into this blue dog bullshit. Fuck these Heath Shuler, Dan Boren assholes, but its better than nothing I guess. Although I do see the idea that having Ben Nelson as a Democratic Senator was actually WORSE because we tried to placate him and all he would do in the end is essentially screw us over...

[Samantha]

20. You know what winstars, I have had a hard time in this thread answering my own question but I think

I can now.

If I ever see Bob Kerrey on something like CSPAN, I will call in and ask him the question: "Why are you not supporting addressing the true drivers of the deficit, such as the Bush* tax cuts, as opposed to cutting Social Security and Medicare?"

I think my answer is while that Dem in fact is running, put the difficult questions to that candidate before election day and make that candidate publicly respond. That to me just might be the most proactive response to a Democrat still campaigning but sounding a lot like Romney.

Thanks for posting your opinion on my thread.

Sam

[LiberalAndProud]

27. You seriously do not get it.

He can't take that position. The notion that "raising taxes will increase unemployment in a time of economic downturn" is gospel. Seriously. That is irrefutable scripture in the minds of most Nebraskans.

[Samantha]

30. Most Nebraskans are wrong to think that way

That is just a PR plank the Republicans promote which is not true. The Bush* tax cuts are one of the biggest drivers of the deficit -- see the chart above -- which when passed were not paid for. So Nebraskans have a choice in front of them. Review their irrefutable scripture as you put it or prepare to sacrifice in their Social Security and Medicare benefits. That is the choice Republicans present.

I seriously do get it, and I do not feel compelled to change my perspective on my priorities to comport with what more conservatives voters have been hoodwinked to believe. My position is tell them the truth and hope the overall priorities most reasonable people find consequential, for instance, protecting the social safety net, are more important than caving to the planks dishonest right-wingers promote.

After all, these politicians are public servant elected to protect the interests of their constituents, not to devastate them financially into poverty. Make them do it.

Sam

[LiberalAndProud]

47. There's an idea. You're stupid and wrong. Vote for me.

The time to hold Kerrey's feet to the fire is after the election, not now. And that, by the way, is a moot point because it isn't going to happen.

You have certain luxuries that I don't have. I'm truly happy for you. Call Kerrey on C-Span and ask any question from the left you can think of, because your answer MUST come for the realm of the right if he's to stand any chance. That is the cold, hard, endlessly frustrating reality.

[Samantha]

49. You are putting words in my mouth

In no way did I suggest Kerrey tell conservative Nebraskans they are stupid. Don't twist my words. I suggested he asked them which was more important to them -- preserving their Social Security and Medicare benefits or agreeing to a bipartisan proposal to reduce the deficit which would cut those benefits. After all, there are other options as have been discussed in this thread, such as letting the Bush* tax cuts expire. They were only supposed to be temporary to begin with and they have been extended twice because of the recession. Let them expire.

Sam

[Auntie Bush]

38. The more you make Kerrey sound like a Dem...the more likely he will lose! nt

[NCLefty]

21. Is the objection to wanting to work with R's or about looking at SS/Med as possible cuts?

My gut reaction is to support someone talking about cooperation in politics. Unfortunately, the side that seems to be refusing to do any isn't our side.

[Samantha]

31. The objection is to caving to what Republicans insist on having to protect corporate interests

as opposed to the interests of their constituents. There is no question the Bush* tax cuts are one of the biggest drivers of the national debt, but Republicans refuse to cast a vote to increase taxes (which they say letting those tax cuts expire is the equivalent of doing) and they hold hostage too many other issues simply waiting on Democrats to cave. I don't call that bipartisanship; I call it blackmail.

Sam

[dsc]

22. He has been a deficit hawk forever and he has also had a big ego forever

which isn't a great combo. I remember in 93 when he played games with the vote for the Clinton budget though he did eventually vote the right way. It is Nebraska though which means any Democrat we get from there is going to be lousy.

[winstars]

23. That's about it...

[LiberalAndProud]

26. Thank you.

I guess it would be pointless to put this here.

http://www.bobkerrey.com/splash

Keep an eye on Deb for me, will ya? Thanks.

Edit: I wonder if "did eventually vote the right way" wasn't a good thing.

[OldDem2012]

42. Former Navy SEALs do have a tendency to have big egos,...

...especially those who have won the Medal of Honor and lost part of a leg doing it.

Here's his citation for the award:

"For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while serving as a SEAL team leader during action against enemy aggressor (Viet Cong) forces. Acting in response to reliable intelligence, Lt. (j.g.) Kerrey led his SEAL team on a mission to capture important members of the enemy's area political cadre known to be located on an island in the bay of Nha Trang. In order to surprise the enemy, he and his team scaled a 350-foot sheer cliff to place themselves above the ledge on which the enemy was located. Splitting his team in 2 elements and coordinating both, Lt. (jg.) Kerrey led his men in the treacherous downward descent to the enemy's camp. Just as they neared the end of their descent, intense enemy fire was directed at them, and Lt. (jg.) Kerrey received massive injuries from a grenade that exploded at his feet and threw him backward onto the jagged rocks. Although bleeding profusely and suffering great pain, he displayed outstanding courage and presence of mind in immediately directing his element's fire into the heart of the enemy camp. Utilizing his radio, Lt. (jg.) Kerrey called in the second element's fire support, which caught the confused Viet Cong in a devastating crossfire. After successfully suppressing the enemy's fire, and although immobilized by his multiple wounds, he continued to maintain calm, superlative control as he ordered his team to secure and defend an extraction site. Lt. (jg.) Kerrey resolutely directed his men, despite his near unconscious state, until he was eventually evacuated by helicopter. The havoc brought to the enemy by this very successful mission cannot be over-estimated. The enemy soldiers who were captured provided critical intelligence to the allied effort. Lt. (jg.) Kerrey's courageous and inspiring leadership, valiant fighting spirit, and tenacious devotion to duty in the face of almost overwhelming opposition sustain and enhance the finest traditions of the U.S. Naval Service."

[dsc]

43. I am not saying he has no good qualities

but his behavior in 93 was outrageous.

[oswaldactedalone]

29. The key to supporting Kerrey

Despite the conservative talking points he put out is that he also wants to raise revenue to balance the budget and his opponent signed onto the Norquist pledge. Once you go with Norquist, revenue sources flatten and the budget stays a permanent mess.

[porphyrian]

37. Our party needs control of Congress to get anything done in the next four years.

Hold your nose and vote?

[Samantha]

40. That is an individual choice Dems living in conservative states faced with Blue Dogs running

should make for themselves. I am not trying to influence their decisions. I am soliciting their opinions.

And thank you for posting on my thread.

Sam

[cali]

41. If Kerrey were running in Vermont, his rhetoric would be unforgivable

and a losing frame, but he's not. NE is about as conservative a state as there is.

[hfojvt]

44. sorry, Sam, you are just wrong about itemized deductions

get your tax facts here http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/169

Who gets most of the benefits from itemized deductions? http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/151

Those two groups (tax filers with AGI between $10,000 and $60,000) together are 65% of all adult taxpayers, only 22.8% itemize their deductions, and they only get 22% of the total.

...

Then there's the other side. 321,294 filers make over $1,000,000, and almost 97% of them itemize their deductions. They are .28% of all adult taxpayers, but they get almost 11% of the total deductions. Since they pay at the highest rates, their deductions are also worth more. They get $141.6 billion in deductions whereas their standard deductions would be no more than $4 billion. Their itemized deductions are thus worth about $45 billion or about $141,000 per household.

The next richest group also does very well with itemized deductions. Those with incomes between $100,000 and $1,000,000. There are only 17.9 million of them which is only 15.4% of adult taxpayers, but they get 44.4% of the benefits as 88% of them itemize. They get $579 billion in itemized deductions versus the $204 billion they'd get from standard deductions. (and the $240 billion they'd get from the proposed higher deduction). That's about $118 billion a year in tax breaks going to a group that is in the top 20%.


78% of the benefits of itemized deductions goto those with AGI of more that $60,000. Less than 23% of those with incomes less than $60,000 itemized their deductions.

Getting rid of itemized deductions would NOT "hurt the middle and poor classes the most". It would "hurt" the rich and UPPER middle class the most.

[Samantha]

48. Won't the very wealthy, should Romney win, receive a $250,000 or more tax cut?

In other words, are you saving that given that size tax cut, the very wealthy after losing those deductions will still pay more taxes?

Sam

[stevenleser]

46. I dont understand why we have to go through this every two years.

In Red states/red districts, you get centrist Democrats running for office and are lucky if you can get them elected. Even if they only vote Democratic 50% of the time, it is better than what a Red State/Red District Republican would vote as they would vote Democratic 0% of the time.

Also, Red state/red district Democrats vote to organize the house/senate for Democrats, the vote for Democratic nominees for courts and cabinet positions, etc.

This is not rocket surgery. Why we have to go through this every two years and bemoan centrist Democrats in Red areas is just bewildering to me.

[MADem]

50. I agree with you completely. I also enjoyed your "rocket surgery" description. nt

[Dirty Socialist]

51. That would Clobber Me Financially

Thanks for the tax increase, buddy. : (

[alsame]

52. My Congresswoman in NY 18, Nita Lowey,

is running TV ads in which she says she will support tax cuts for small businesses so that they can hire more employees.

[bluestate10]

54. Kerry is a blue-dog.

Some may throw up, but democrats need blue-dogs to take control of Congress.