Steve Israel NY-2: Position on Tax Rates All About Class Warfare, Not Deficit Reduction

SIW recently read the November 15, 2010 issue of Newsday where Rep. Steve Israel's position on the extension of the Bush era tax cuts was set forth.

This writer almost choked when Congressman Steve Israel stated, in sum and substance, that we shouldn't extend the tax cuts on the "wealthy" because the increased revenue that would be gained by letting the tax cuts expire would allow us to "roll back a good portion of the deficit."

Deficit? Steve, did you say deficit? After going on the biggest spending spree in the history of Congress with Nancy Pelosi, you are suddenly concerned about the deficit? Does anyone (from liberal to conservative) in the 2nd NY Congressional District believe that Steve Israel has had an ephiphany and is now lasered in on  deficit reduction? He is insulting your intelligence.

And even if you believe that this "chutzpah on steroids" position is sincerely felt by Mr. Israel do you honestly believe that if allowing the tax cuts to expire resulted in increased revenue to the government (debatable in itself) that the additional revenue would be directed by Steve Israel, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid to deficit reduction? That is the first thing they are going to do with billions, right?

In short, raising the tax rates to punish the so called rich has nothing to do with reducing the deficit and all to do about the left wing's class warfare strategy to punish the "wealthy." This is not an opinion, this is fact, when you realize that reducing tax rates, not raising them, actually increases revenue to the Federal Government. As stated in an article by Thomas Sowell in Real Clear Politics titled "Deficit Reduction":

"In 1920, when the top tax rate was 73 percent, for people making over $100,000 a year, the federal government collected just over $700 million in income taxes-- and 30 percent of that was paid by people making over $100,000. After a series of tax cuts brought the top rate down to 24 percent, the federal government collected more than a billion dollars in income tax revenue-- and people making over $100,000 a year now paid 65 percent of the taxes. [Read Full Article Here]

        

How could that be? The answer is simple: People behave differently when tax rates are high as compared to when they are low. With low tax rates, they take their money out of tax shelters and put it to work in the economy, benefiting themselves, the economy and government, which collects more money in taxes because incomes rise."

Steve Israel stating that any increased revenue to be gained by expiration of tax cuts will be used to reduce the deficit is simply a phony "fantasyland" position and he knows it.  But he thinks YOU will buy it.

Steve Israel's position to increase taxes is really about two things he does best: TAXING AND SPENDING, and nothing else. Deficit reduction is not in his vernacular, except in this case, when he can hoodwink you in to supporting TAXING AND SPENDING.

New York 2nd Congressional District: When are you, and your intellect, going to stop allowing yourself to be taken for granted and abused?

Anti Pelosi Democrats: True Moderates or Political Chicanery? We Will Know Soon!

Rep. Nancy Pelosi
Will not give up power no
matter how toxic she is for her
party.

NANCY PELOSI WAS TOXIC FOR MODERATE DEMOCRATS IN 2010

Nancy Pelosi, soon to be former Speaker of the House, led her party to an historic loss of 60+ Democratic seats in the 2010 midterm elections. Despite this shellacking Nancy will not let power slip from her bony fingers and will likely be elected to the position of Minority Leader by the Democratic Caucus. She is far left on the political spectrum, by all accounts bitterly partisan, and a poster child for the term "hubris."
 

Many of the Democratic congressman who lost in 2010 were the moderate, or so called "blue dog" Democrats, whose constituency considered the radical agenda of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid too liberal for their districts. Indeed many of the candidates were pictured in TV ads, or campaign mailings, next to liberal tyrant Nancy with the admonition "Congressman [Insert Dem Name] voted with Nancy Pelosi 98% of the time." They lost.

Rep. Quigley, Dem-Ill
called Nancy Pelosi
"Politically Toxic" 

ENTER 18 OR MORE DEMOCRATS NOW PUBLICLY OPPOSING NANCY PELOSI FOR MINORITY LEADER

With the 2010 elections barely passed at least 15 Democrat Congressman (see below) have come out publicly to state, or intimate, that they will not support Princess Pelosi's run for minority leader in the House. Given that her election to this position is all but assured (the caucus is even more liberal than it was previously due to the defeat of moderate Democrats) why are these congressman risking the ill will of their caucus and the ire of Tyrant Pelosi with these public proclamations? Read on patriot.



  Rep. Steve Israel -NY is not among
moderate Dems. He is actually
championing Pelosi's run for
Minority Leader.  The 2nd NY is
apparently the San Fran of the East.

POLITICAL PLOY OR TRUE MOVE TOWARDS BEING MODERATE?

With the bodies of Democratic Congressman who lost the 2010 election barely cold the Democrats who are coming out publicly against Nancy Pelosi's run for minority leader may already be thinking of their re-election in 2012. Go figure, a politician just elected thinking about re-election?
 

In short, some of the public anti-Pelosi pronouncements may simply be a political ploy designed to give these "moderates" political cover in the 2012 elections.  Coming "out of the closet" against San Fran Nancy will, they perhaps think,  enable them to have some plausible deniability come 2012.  They may envision themselves being able to say "I voted against her as minority leader," after she obstructs the Republican Congress and makes future, and frequent, "foot in mouth" statements such as "We have to pass the bill [Healthcare Reform] so you can see what is in it" or calling for an investigation into those who opposed the ground zero mosque.




Rep. Bishop, D-NY is
looking for an alternative to Pelosi and
a "new face" for  Democrats
Source: AlbanyHerald

However, these anti-Pelosi Democrat politicians will have the sincerity of their "move to the center" tested very quickly for all to see.

MODERATE DEMS WHO USE THE ANTI PELOSI STANCE SOLELY FOR PLAUSIBLE DENIABILTY WILL HAVE PROBLEMS IN 2012

Such a strategy may seem prudent in the present political environment, however it has its  problems. The main problem is that the current electorate is engaged and not as ill informed as some of these alleged moderates would like to think.  They, and their votes, will be followed. They will be followed not just by potential Republican challengers, but by the moderate voters of their district.

Therefore, despite opposing Nancy Pelosi for minority leader they will not be able to go back to their districts, come election 2012, and claim to be moderates if if they have still voted with the Princess 98% of the time on important legislation.

The very first issue that will be a litmus test for the sincerity of these congressman in their "moderation," and away from San Francisco, will be the upcoming votes on the extension of the Bush era tax cuts.  On this issue the public will be able to see if their anti-Pelosi  stance is mere political chicanery, or a sincere move towards bi-partisanship and the political center.

ANTI PELOSI DEMS WILL HAVE THEIR ALLEGED "MODERATE" POSITION TESTED QUICKLY WITH THEIR VOTES ON TAX CUTS

Rep. Dan Boren, D-Ok says
He cannot "in good conscience"
vote for Nancy Pelosi

In the present economy voting for tax relief for the electorate is not likely to raise the scorn of any moderate Democrat's constituency.  Voting to extend tax cuts for all is nearly not as partisan for the average voter is it is  inside the Beltway for Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Pitting the "have nots" against the alleged "haves" has been part of the  divide and conquer and divisive strategy that is as ingrained in the left wing as apple pie on Thanksgiving is part of the rest of the country.

The current plan of the far left is to vote against any tax relief bill if it  proposes giving tax cuts to all Americans.  The desire of the far left  to deny tax relief to 98% of Americans because they want to punish only 2% of the so called "wealthy" [debatable] is obsessive,  and is more of the continued escalation  of "class warfare" by the far left Pelosians.

Based upon the above, the litmus test of  whether these anti-Pelosi Dems really understand the results of the 2010 mid term elections, understand that their constituency is more moderate than San Fransisco, and  whether their anti-Pelosi stance was really their move to the center, will come sooner rather than later.  The immediate test of their sincerity  will come on the votes of whether to extend tax relief to all Americans.

In summary, voting to extend tax relief to all Americans would be a politically safe vote if these anti-Pelosi Democrats are truly moderate.

WATCH THESE ALLEGED ANTI PELOSI  DEMOCRATS ON THE UPCOMING TAX RELIEF VOTE

The following 18 Democrats were tallied as being opposed, or at least not supportive of Nancy Pelosi's bid for the Minority Leader position in  The NationalJournal article "Hotline Whip Count: House Minority Leader" on November 12,  2010:

  

Jason Altmire (D-Pa.)
Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.)
John Barrow (D-Ga.)

Dan Boren (D-Okla.)

Kathy Castor (D-Fla.)

Jim Costa (D-Calif.)**

Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.)*

Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.)

Tim Holden (D-Pa.)

Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio)*

Larry Kissell (D-N.C.)

Daniel Lipinski (D-Ill.)

Jim Matheson (D-Utah)

Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.)

Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.)

Mike Quigley (D-Ill.)

Mike Ross (D-Ark.)

Albio Sires (D-N.J.)

Add in Heath Shuler, a blue dog Democrat from North Carolina, who as of this writing plans a futile run against Nancy Pelosi for minority leader, and you have 19 Democrats opposed to the continued tyranny of Nancy.

NationalJournal also notes that Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) and Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), are from the liberal wing of the party. Therefore, their opposition to Nancy Pelosi cannot be seen as any indication of a move the the center.

However, as to the others: Watch them, watch their votes on tax relief.  If their votes go "lock step" with San Fran Nancy, their stance on her assuming the minority leadership position was pure political chicanery, symbolism over substance. In such a case, in 2012,  their moderate constituencies will be able to say "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me." The electorate won't buy these politicians meaningless and hollow stances against Nancy Pelosi for minority leader, the actual votes of these Dem "moderates" on issues like tax relief,  is what really matters to the voters and what they will watch.