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.

Rep. Steve Israel: Representing the 2nd District or San Francisco?

THERE IS NO DISPUTE FROM EITHER SIDE THAT NANCY PELOSI IS A FAR LEFT LIBERAL 



Not exactly a grouping of
"moderate" Democrats

 No matter where one stands on the political spectrum all pundits agree that Nancy Pelosi is not just a liberal, but a far left liberal.  She is now the former Speaker of the House who told Americans that before they were able to see what was in the massive Obamacare bill the House would have to pass it first... true democracy in action Nancy! She is also the leader who, instead of wanting to investigate the funding for the ground zero mosque, wanted to investigate  those who opposed the mosque!

TRULY MODERATE DEMOCRATS HAVE ASKED PELOSI TO NOT ASSUME LEADERSHIP POSITION

Pelosi has been a polarizing, extremely partisan force in the House.  Even moderate Democrats, those that remain in the House who weren't removed by the "shellacking" that the Democrats took largely because of Nancy Pelosi, recently sent a letter requesting Pelosi not seek the minority leadership position. One moderate Democrat, Rep. Dan Boren of Oklahoma stated:

"They want someone to lead the party who is going to be bipartisan," he said. "This is very disappointing for a lot of us in the center." [Fox News, "Moderate Dems Line Up in Opposition to Pelosi's Bid for Minority Leader."]

ON THE OTHER HAND STEVE ISRAEL ACTIVELY SUPPORTS THE FAR LEFT PELOSI



Rep. Steve Israel has "ingratiated" himself
to the far left Nancy Pelosi.

Conspicuously absent from the signatories of that letter, and supposedly hailing from a politically moderate district, was Steve Israel.  Rep. Israel gives the electorate in his district the impression that he is a moderate Democrat every election cycle.  Once in Washington, with power safely in his grasp, Steve pursues his far left agenda, including actively supporting Nancy Pelosi. In fact, because of Steve "ingratiating" himself to Nancy Pelosi he is likely first in line to assume the DCCC post. [Washington Post, The Fix, Rep. Steve Israel favored to helm DCCC.]

Our 2nd District Congressman actively aligns himself with, and supports, far left Nancy Pelosi, a politician who is wholly out of step mainstream America.  A recent Rasmussen poll found the following about "San Fran" Nancy:

"60% of Likely Voters have an unfavorable impression of Pelosi, including 52% who hold a Very Unfavorable opinion of her." [Rasmussen Reports, "Congressional Favorability Ratings."]

Steve Israel apparently thinks he is untouchable, that his district doesn't follow him once he returns to Washington, or the 2nd District of New York is just about as liberal as San Francisco?

Not only does the 2nd District Congressman tacitly support the far left Nancy Pelosi, he actively champions her.  A recent report stated the Steve Israel was the one who shopped around the idea of Nancy Pelosi becoming minority leader of the House. [Washington Post, The Fix, Rep. Steve Israel favored to helm DCCC.]

Steve Israel is not only out of touch with his district, he is out of touch with members of his own party who are truly moderates and want bi partisanship.

In 2012 SIW believes it is time that the 2nd Congressional District elect a representative who governs like they present themselves when in their home district and who truly represents the interests of the 2nd Congressional District of New York and not far left San Francisco. Based upon the above, Rep. Israel can no longer claim that the moniker "Steve Pelosi Israel" is just a baseless campaign slogan.

Where Some of Your Contributions to Steve Israel's Campaign Went: Far Left Losers Across the Country!

STEVE ISRAEL'S BLOATED CAMPAIGN COFFERS



Rep. Steve Israel used his bloated
campaign coffers to support left wing Dems
across the country. He supported losers at
at an over 4 to 1 ratio.

 Steve Israel's campaign coffers were so bloated with cash that his campaign was able to donate to left wing Democrats all over the country.  The amount of money, and the ability to "spread the wealth" certainly comes with the territory of being a career incumbent politician who is assured that "he owns" his district and doesn't need it for his own campaign.  Indeed, according to OpenSecrets.Org Steve Israel spent  $3,407,185 (yes that's Million) during this campaign cycle compared to his challenger, John Gomez's  $184,770!  Based upon the last vote count Steve spent about  $41.00  per vote for him. But it all wasn't spent in the 2nd Congressional District as will be shown below, and Steve Israel still has over $700,000.00 in cash "on hand."

Incidentally, the pay for a Congressman is $174,000.00 per year.

Having spent many, many, years on a government payroll (either local or federal) Steve Israel is surely a good fundraiser, having made the necessary connections with special interest groups. Some monies do come from donations from the average citizen in the 2nd Congressional District.  However, a lot of  monies donated to Steve still come from the special interest groups, e.g. the Unions, Trial Lawyers, etc., who no doubt expect support from Steve for legislation they favor, or opposition to legislation they don't like.

THE AVERAGE MODERATE DEM THAT CONTRIBUTED TO STEVE ISRAEL SHOULD THINK TWICE IN 2012

Rep. Steve Israel with friend Nancy
Pelosi & Charlie Rangel

It is the average citizen of the 2nd Congressional District who made a donation to the already filled "war chest" of Steve Israel that evoke the most empathy. Perhaps some of these were moderate Democrats who, when contributing to Steve Israel, didn't know their contributions would be used to support far left Democratic candidates across the country. However, even if donors knew the money would go to other left wing Democrats, it is even more troubling that those who the Israel campaign chose to support with your money to were almost entirely LOSERS of their elections. 

TAKE A LOOK, YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS SUPPORTED 26 LOSERS VS 6 WINNERS:

REP. STEVE ISRAEL’S CONTRIBUTORS: WHERE SOME OF YOUR DONATIONS WERE USED IN 2009-2010
CANDIDATE NAME	STATE	OFFICE RUNNING FOR	AMOUNT  OF YOUR MONEY STEVE DONATED	ELECTION RESULT
BERA, AMI	California	Congress	$1,000.00	LOST 43%-53%
FOSTER, BILL	Illinois	Congress	$1,000.00	LOST 45%-51%
OWENS, BILL	New York	Congress	$8,000.00	WON 48%-46%
CHILDERS, TRAVIS	Mississippi	Congress	$1,000.00	LOST 41%-55%
JUSTICE, CHARLIE	Florida	Congress	$1,000.00	LOST 34%-66%
DONNELLY, JOE	Indiana	Congress	$3,000.00	WON 48%-47%
DRIEHAUS,  STEVE	Ohio	Congress	$1,000.00	LOST 45%-52%
ELLSWORTH,  BRAD	Indiana	Congress	$3,000.00	LOST 40%-55%
MAFFEI, DAN	New York	Congress	$2,000.00	LOST 49%-50%
BARROW, JOHN	Georgia	Congress	$1,000.00	WON 57%-43%
POUGNET, STEVE	California	Congress	$1,000.00	LOST 42%-52%
GIFFORDS, GABRIELLE	Arizona	Congress	$2,000.00	WON 49%-47%
CONNOLLY, GERRY	Virginia	Congress	$1,000.00	WON 49.3%-48.9%
CRAWFORD, HARRY	Alaska	Congress	$1,000.00	LOST 31%-69%
TEAGUE, HARRY	New Mexico	Congress	$1,000.00	LOST 45%-55%
SKELTON, IKE	Missouri	Congress	$4,000.00	LOST 45%-50%
HILL, BARON	Indiana	Congress	$1,000.00	LOST 42%-52%
BOCCIERI, JOHN	Ohio	Congress	$2,000.00	LOST 41%-52%
CALLAHAN, JOHN	Pennsylvania	Congress	$4,000.00	LOST 39%-54%
CARNEY, JOHN	Delaware	Congress	$2,000.00	WON 57%-41%
DAHLKEMPER, KATHY	Pennsylvania	Congress	$1,000.00	LOST 44%-57%
KILROY, MARY JO	Ohio	Congress	$2,000.00	LOST 41%-55%
KIRKPATRICK, ANN	Arizona	Congress	$2,000.00	LOST 44%-50%
KATROVIL, FRANK	Maryland	Congress	$1,000.00	LOST 42%-55%
LENTZ, BRYAN	Pennsylvania	Congress	$1,000.00	LOST 44%-55%
MARKY, BETSY	Colorado	Congress	$2,000.00	LOST 41%-53%
MCMAHON	New York	Congress	$3,000.00	LOST 48%-52%
MASSA, ERIC	New York	Congress	$2,000.00	Didn’t Run; Republicans won seat 44%D-56%R	Resigned in March, 2010 after being accused of harassing a male aide.
BROOKS, PAULA	Ohio	Congress	$1,000.00	LOST 41%-56%
PERRIELLO, TOM	Virginia	Congress	$2,000.00	LOST 47%-51%
PIPE, MICHAEL	Pennsylvania	Congress	$1,000.00	LOST 28%-67%
MURPHY, SCOTT	New York	Congress	$1,000.00	LOST 45%-55%
TOTAL NUMBER OF LOSERS YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO STEVE ISRAEL SUPPORTED: 26 LOSERS, 6 WINNERS
SOURCES: www.opensecrets.org, http://www.politico.com/

IS THE 2ND DISTRICT OUT OF TOUCH WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OR IS STEVE ISRAEL?

Based upon the above information there are two questions that are raised. 


Rep. E Massa who received $1,000 from
Rep. Israel Campaign; Resigned due to
allegations of sexual harassment by
a male aide.

Is the 2nd Congressional District of N.Y. so out of touch with, and left of,  mainstream America and  also firmly in "lockstep" with Steve Israel, that they too would knowingly have supported 26 Congressional Candidates, whose philosophies were roundly rejected by mainstream Americans across the country?

Or....

Is the  2nd District a politically moderate district, the voters of which mistakenly thought  they were contributing to, and voting for, a centrist Democrat  and they only unwittingly supported a politician who in turn supported far left candidates across the country who were roundly rejected by the American people?
SIW chooses to hope that latter question is answered in the affirmative, it can be corrected in 2012.