Obama Positive About Baucus' "Tax Cuts For The Rich" Jobs Bill

President Obama is pleased with Max Baucus' "trickle down" jobs initiative, according to the White House, who released this statement:

The President is gratified to see the Senate moving forward in a bipartisan manner on steps to help put Americans back to work. The draft bill released today by Senators Baucus and Grassley includes several of the Presidentís top priorities for job creation, including a tax incentive to encourage businesses to hire, a tax cut to make it easier for small businesses to invest and expand, further measures to keep people at work repairing our nationís roads and bridges, and extended unemployment insurance and health care assistance for Americans who are out of work.


The American people want to see Washington put aside partisan differences and make progress on jobs. The House has already passed a constructive set of measures and the President is hopeful that the draft language presented today will lead to a bipartisan Senate bill. The President looks forward to working with members from both parties on this bill and on the additional job creation measures he has identified, including incentives for energy efficiency investments and increased access to credit for small businesses.


Speaking for me only

< Thursday Afternoon Open Thread | Reid Nixes Baucus' "Tax Cuts For The Rich"Jobs Bill >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Either he's a complete idiot (5.00 / 10) (#1)
    by observed on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:04:28 PM EST
    on policy, or he's a Republican...wait, there's no difference.

    Huh? So, which one is he? (none / 0) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:40:04 PM EST
    You missed it. (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by cal1942 on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 02:30:06 PM EST

    Ah, yes. Thanks. Very good. (none / 0) (#56)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 02:49:20 PM EST
    President Obama (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by lilburro on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:13:46 PM EST
    has small goals, and he intends to keep them, dammit.

    When did Democrats decide that (5.00 / 9) (#3)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:15:40 PM EST
    tax cuts equal jobs creation?  Isn't that a Republican position that Dems have always pushed back against?

    Bipartisan still means do-it-the-GOP-way, but it's more than a little disheartening to see that being pushed from the Democrats' side of the aisle.

    When? (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 02:26:44 PM EST
    Right after they kissed the unions goodbye and sponsored pro life legislation!

    Salo's little cuckoo chick has grown (none / 0) (#4)
    by observed on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:17:29 PM EST

    Good grief, Lucy, (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:19:12 PM EST
    please don't pull the football away this time.....

    He couldn't be more of a republican (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by athyrio on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:20:01 PM EST
    than he is now...he is a plant IMO...

    Now I understand why (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by hairspray on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 04:36:07 PM EST
    Hilary couldn't be allowed to be the president.

    More "any bill is a win" mentality (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by andgarden on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:31:14 PM EST

    Shouldn't Obama (none / 0) (#97)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 07:23:23 PM EST
    Mention the estate tax when he publicly suppoets Baucus jobs bill. And square with his insistence om deficit neutral HCR.

    So... the 58-59 vote (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:33:26 PM EST
    majority puts up the minority's positions as its main points for stimulus.


    A Baucus--Grassley bill is a republican republican bill. And it contains all the elements that the "democratic" president wanted.

    Well, with the leadership in the White House proposing tax cuts and so forth, it makes perfect sense.

    I'm starting to wonder why I should be worried about party unity or a party position any more. I don't know if I even belong to this party.
    Rumsfeld talked about 'old Europe' I guess I'm an 'old Democrat.' Passe. Kind of like Grandpa Simpson.

    As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

    Welcome to Enlightenment Jeff... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:39:15 PM EST
    I know its harder for you old timers:)...from what I hear the Democratic Party used to actually be about the little guy and the working class way way back in the day...its all legendary myth to my generation...the Clinton/Obama brand "corporate centrist police state sell the country down the river" Dem is the only brand we know...aside from a few weirdos in the House like Kuch who get laughed at behind their back by their mainstream party brethren.

    Are you better off today... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by goldberry on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 02:09:57 PM EST
    ...than you were 40 years ago?
    I plan to copyright that before some intelligent (and rare) Democrat runs on it.  

    Legendary myth, indeed. (none / 0) (#22)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:49:14 PM EST
    It's always been about power and what flavor of polished turd you choose to present to those who vote you into power.

    Nothing's changed, since time immemorial...


    Probably right... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 02:00:31 PM EST
    the only good we ever got out of 'em was strictly due to scaring the sh*t out of 'em a la Emma Goldman.

    Kuch is one of the few left (none / 0) (#28)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:54:37 PM EST
    that reminds me of what a real Democrat looks like. Also, in the olden days, you could find a someone with Kucinich's domestic views and a hawkish foreign policy. Democrats used to be like that, with a range from left to right on the issues. Now they seem to range from right to center right, with all obeisance sent to the fat cats.

    Well. guess it's time to look for a beach to retire to in central or south america... I'll trade english lessons for beer and food, lol.


    You mean a Dweeb? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by goldberry on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 02:13:06 PM EST
    He makes Alan Colmes look tough.  Kuch is a non-starter for president.  Never. Happen.  
    BTW, isn't Kuch anti-choice?  

    You're right... (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 02:17:51 PM EST
    it will never happen...because as a collective the electorate is as dumb as a bag of rocks.

    "No, we can't vote for the guy with the good ideas, he is too short, funny looking, and believes in UFO's.  Let's vote for the tall good looking guy in the pocket of the banks."


    Wow! You sound like there are no other choices (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by goldberry on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 02:23:29 PM EST
    I don't like Kucinich for a number of reasons.  UFOs are one of them.  
    But yeah, I saw him in Chicago in 2007 and he just struck me as unelectable.  Think Michael Dukakis but even more likely to get sand kicked in his face.  
    There is one candidate that has legitimacy and has shown leadership abilities and is virtually immune to the media at this point so calls for bipartisanship will get a lukewarm reception.  
    THAT'S the person to call back from exile.  
    IFF the Democrats really gave a damn.  And by the way things are going, it doesn't look like they do.

    UFOs *aren't* one of them. (none / 0) (#51)
    by goldberry on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 02:24:26 PM EST
    I kinda like people who think outside the box.  
    But in other respects, I don't like him.  

    Gravel woulda worked too... (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 02:50:30 PM EST
    sh*t I'd take Ron Paul...anybody who isn't on Citibank's speed-dial...which would eliminate the person I think you're referring too, who is Sec. of State, far from exile.

    She didn't get the Citibank vote though (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by goldberry on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 03:01:05 PM EST
    Did she?  
    Just sit quietly and let that thought sink in...

    She got the money... (none / 0) (#64)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 03:05:23 PM EST
    at the start, till Citi and the boys saw another horse coming hard down the stretch and hedged their bets.

    If she resigned in protest, that would show me something...otherwise I'm left to assume she's down with how its going down.


    You could also assume (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by nycstray on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 03:13:05 PM EST
    she may feel like she can do some good at her current position, especially since she is in a non-political position. What would resigning in protest solve?

    Maybe... (none / 0) (#72)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 03:28:57 PM EST
    shame this rather shameful administration?  Nothing else seems to be working.

    Again, think about that (none / 0) (#68)
    by goldberry on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 03:21:48 PM EST
    Why switch horses in mid stream?

    When you think... (none / 0) (#73)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 03:30:55 PM EST
    you're backing a losing horse.

    I'm a horseplayer...I'd be a rich man if I could change my bet mid-race like the bankers can in The Presidential Derby.


    She won right up to the very last day (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by goldberry on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 04:05:22 PM EST
    In spite of all that media firestorm and all of Obama's wealthy new friends.  

    Think about it...


    Actually she would still have (none / 0) (#91)
    by hairspray on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 04:44:57 PM EST
    those FDR democrats because they voted overwhelming for her.  Those caucuses were manipulated with the young who could pack them and run them.  Just google caucuses and primaries and read the whole report.  It was an inside job.
    Until the Democrats run their primaries with a secret ballot like common sense tells us, nothing will change. But they still like the card tricks and "snake eyes."

    He used to be (none / 0) (#48)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 02:18:56 PM EST
    But not recently--firmly pro-choice now...like Al Gore in that regard.

    I thought about donating to Kucinich (none / 0) (#34)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:59:31 PM EST
    last go round based on his foreign policy alone--plus I thought the Department of Peace and UFO stuff were cute....

    He is one of the House members who has spearheaded the effort to close the School of the Americas....even appearing at the annual Ft. Benning protest one year.


    And there he was... (none / 0) (#40)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 02:09:14 PM EST
    right there in the running for the nomination...too bad everybody was so scared of the big bad republicans to actually support somebody possibly worth supporting.

    I wish I could say we've learned our lesson...but if we haven't caught on by now we are a lost farkin' cause...still too well-fed I guess, give it time.  


    btw, stay out of the surf (none / 0) (#45)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 02:17:35 PM EST
    on the East side of Isla Mujeres--it is a mean, vindictive, snarling surf....

    The West side is all placid....


    Thanks MKS... (none / 0) (#58)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 02:52:07 PM EST
    what would I do without you guys and your vast knowledge:)

    Just envious (none / 0) (#67)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 03:15:31 PM EST
    Would like to hear about your experiences on your trip.....

    Kdog, not "everybody" (none / 0) (#95)
    by Zorba on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 05:38:58 PM EST
    was so scared of the Rethuglicans- I have been a Kucinich supporter for quite awhile.  

    If you pull it off... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 02:06:18 PM EST
    and could use a right-hand man...please consider me:)

    Job's bill would clearly (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:36:11 PM EST
    be a budget item.....So, it would be perfect for reconciliation....

    Can't we at least do one bill via reconciliation.....

    The Republicans did it quite effectively when they had a small majority....

    from your type to (none / 0) (#15)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:38:13 PM EST
    Harry and Nancy's ears, or screens, or to the screens of their legislative assistants'!

    Partisan differences (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by Dadler on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:46:14 PM EST
    He speaks of these differences as if they are nothing, as if they are not the difference between good policy and bad.

    He stinks (5.00 / 18) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:49:11 PM EST
    I have to admit it now. Obama just stinks.

    Sorry to say it, but he's (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by observed on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:52:38 PM EST
    just not that bright. All the hooha was about nothing much.

    I guess (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 02:52:48 PM EST
    it's better late than never but I always wondered how someone as smart as you got suckered by Obama.

    I second that (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by klassicheart on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 04:22:20 PM EST
    I third it! (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 07:32:18 PM EST
    (speaking as one of those who had to go find another home after the convention) Takes a big guy to admit a goof--

    OMG New post? (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 07:33:52 PM EST
    Reid scraps Baucus bill (5.00 / 6) (#60)
    by Alvord on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 02:55:43 PM EST
    That is what both Rollcall and the Hill are reporting.

    And why (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by lilburro on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 03:06:31 PM EST
    because Democrats complained.  Squeaky wheel etc.

    Hallelujah Harry! (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 03:24:50 PM EST
    Harry Reid has just scrapped the Baucus bill--too many giveaways to Republicans....


    BTD must have sent this diary over to dear ol' Harry.....

    Tea too weak even for Harry? (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by andgarden on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 03:32:17 PM EST
    I would not have predicted that.

    And we had such a chance (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 03:44:42 PM EST
    Obama may be more concerned about appeasing the Republicans than working for the people that elected him. The Senate and House are a different story. These are the people that are on the firing line.

    Obama will be more than happy to pack his bags and go home. He's achieved his only goal. He's president. I really don't think he cares. He much prefers the celebrity status than actually having to roll up his sleeves and do the dirty work. He can return to private life blaming his failure on the culture of Washington.

    He was the wrong man at the wrong time. The country was in desparate need of a doer, not a thinker. Such a waste of an opportunity for the country. People were begging for change. Instead he's embracing the very policies that got us where we are today.

    He deserves to fail. It's just unfortunate that he has to take us all with him.


    Uh, we have just received (none / 0) (#79)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 03:47:29 PM EST
    good news on the jobs bill....

    I said a long while ago (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 03:37:44 PM EST
    that Obama was a trickle down guy.  He's just sneaky about it.  However, luckily, he didn't get his wish, apparently, Reid scrapped it? Hope he really did.

    off topic (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by star on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 03:44:07 PM EST
    But just heard on CNN that Bill Clinton hospitalized in NY.. gosh I hope it is nothing much..

    Chest pains (none / 0) (#80)
    by waldenpond on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 03:48:05 PM EST
    Two stents in coronary arteries, (none / 0) (#87)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 04:21:54 PM EST
    per CNN.

    Glad he got checked out promptly.


    I'm sure (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 04:21:25 PM EST
    that "the professor" could have figured out a really graceful way of saying just that -- because a Democrat wouldn't have gone along with that bill. Reid didn't even bother with niceties, just nixed Baucus' junk.  Obama could learn a great deal from Reid (which is something of a sad state of affairs when the Democratic prez is to the right of Reid).

    Top down (trickle down) has been proven . . . (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Doc Rock on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 04:21:29 PM EST
    . . . time and again, not to work! Obama is Bush III/Reagan IV.

    At the very least (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 04:33:57 PM EST

    He looks ridiculous now that Reid pulled the plug.

    obama is the very best thing (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by pluege on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 05:36:08 PM EST
    that ever could have happened to republicans. he pushes all their measures all the while they trash him relentlessly to their political gain. a stupider man, a stupider situation is hard to imagine.

    If you're waiting on Uncle Sam... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:27:44 PM EST
    to find or make a job for you, outside of employment as occupation fodder or a job in the prison metal shop...well, lets just say I hope you don't eat much and/or you are a skilled shoplifter.

    Feds are hiring 1/2 (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 07:05:26 PM EST
    Million census enumerators.

    Told my students to apply. (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 08:17:13 PM EST
    one, that had agreement from some others said, "Do I have to count MEXICANS?"

    Cooler heads than mine prevailed, thank god or dog for at least two students. They got loud, and I was able to give a civics lesson. In College. About the count.

    I am wondering if my morphine drip and teaching face to face are compatible. I think people "have gotten uglier, or I have no sense of time.

    Ohhh, mama can this really be the end
    to be stuck here inside of Mobile
    With the Memphis Blues again"


    My S. CA informant (none / 0) (#102)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 08:32:51 PM EST
    Told Latino interviewer for census
    Caucasian informant is proficient in Spanish. His eyebrows went up. Does not sound like he was convincws.

    That'll help a little... (none / 0) (#104)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 12, 2010 at 08:26:12 AM EST
    temporarily...if you can pass the background check.

    I read the title chapters of the bill. Please (none / 0) (#8)
    by steviez314 on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:28:59 PM EST
    tell me where the tax cuts for the rich are?

    Click the links (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:32:12 PM EST
    As Ezra Klein reported, the work on the Baucus bill is EXPRESSLY contingent on a parallel passage of  "reform" of the estate tax" and other "reforms" of taxes on the rich.

    Keep up Stevie.


    FYI (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:33:30 PM EST
    "While not addressed in the proposals in this package, there are two process agreements that are essential to completing action on it. Fulfilling these agreements has been a condition precedent to the bipartisan discussions that have occurred. First we will work to ensure that the scope of the Finance Committee package retains its bipartisan character. Second we are committed to timely consideration of permanent bipartisan estate and gift tax reform."

    The estate tax fix has already been in the news (none / 0) (#13)
    by steviez314 on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:35:35 PM EST
    a great deal.

    It has been obvious for a while that they were not going back to pre-2001 levels on the estate tax, but were more likely to freeze the 2009 rates.

    There has never been enough support in the House or Senate to go back to 2001 levels on the estate tax.


    Going back to 2001 levels is the default (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by andgarden on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:45:46 PM EST
    and would be a pretty huge progressive win.

    That default position was never going to happen (none / 0) (#23)
    by steviez314 on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:49:44 PM EST
    because they cleverly put 2010 rates at 0% (look out grandma).

    That had to get fixed, so that opened up the 2011 and later rates to changes too.


    I ask you again (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:54:19 PM EST
    What does that have to do with a jobs bill?

    But of course (none / 0) (#24)
    by lilburro on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:52:27 PM EST
    we are not to expect transformational change from Obama.

    In 2001, the amount of one's estate that (none / 0) (#61)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 02:59:10 PM EST
    could pass estate-tax free was $675,000; moving up the brackets, the max rate was 55%.

    To go back to these rates is to capture a whole lot of people who aren't in any way, shape or form, "rich" - and to do so would not be progressive or likely to meet with the approval of an awful lot of ordinary folk.

    The 2011 exemption amount is scheduled to be $1 million - still likely to snare a lot of people who aren't rich: a home that has risen in value, a retirement account, and a couple of insurance policies would easily fall into this area.

    At a minimum, it requires people to pay lawyers and accountants to sort out the details and prepare the returns - all well and good for those of us who work in this area, but not so much for the average schlub who's got just enough to have to file, but won't owe any tax once deductions are applied.

    Leave it at the 2009 rates, and you are more likely to affect those who aren't just passive bystanders to inflationary increases in value, but have acquired and accumulated actual wealth.


    A few things... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Romberry on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 03:22:56 PM EST
    First, the scheduled 2011 exemption is 1 million dollars per person. (That means a married couple could pass on 2 million tax free.) Second, the 20089 exclusions (3.5 million per person, 7 million per married couple) are just freaking absurd. Third, the estate tax is not a "first dollar" tax. It only applies to amounts in excess of the exclusions. And finally, the fact is that the bulk of what gets passed on in most large estates comes in the form of assets which have large capital gains that have never been taxed at all.

    Yes, going back to 675k per person (1.3 million per married couple) is progressive. Passing on 1.3 million tax free? Very few estates even have to worry about such a thing.


    As someone who's been working in (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 04:19:12 PM EST
    this area since 1978, I've seen it from the inside, and have to disagree with you on the progressiveness of subjecting estates above $675K to tax rates that could be as high as 55%.  Sure, when you do the math on the entire estate, including the exemption amount, the actual rate is - or can be - a lot smaller.

    The exemption amount is the point at which one is required to file, so even if you have deductions and expenses that will take an estate below the credit amount, a return will still have to be filed.

    One spouse can leave all of his or her estate to the other spouse, completely estate-tax free.  When the second spouse dies, however, that's when the chickens can come home to roost; without good estate-planning, this can come with a hefty tax bill.

    If I'm smart, my Will creates a residuary trust (sometimes known as a "By-Pass" or "Credit Shelter" trust) equal to the exemption amount, that will provide income (and discretionary payments of principal) to my spouse for life, and after my spouse's death, will continue on for the benefit of my descendants; this keeps the trust out of my spouse's estate when he dies, and still allows my spouse to leave, tax free, the exemption amount of his estate to descendants - or whomever.  Potentially, this has the effect of sheltering much more than the straight credit/exemption, and is a tool that people will use regardless of whether the exemption amount is $1 million or $3.5 million.  

    It is no doubt because I have been doing this for a long time that I no longer look at a $675K or $1MM estate as being "big;" I'm working on several estates now that are each in excess of $10MM - one will have a significant tax bill that will take about 50% of the estate - that's a big tax bill!

    An expression that has stood the test of time could definitely apply here: "Pigs get fed; hogs get slaughtered."  Legislate an estate tax structure that is designed to extract the maximum tax at all levels, and the backlash in loss of political support may not be worth the increased amount of taxes collected - although it will swell the coffers of lawyers and accountants, for sure.


    Does that include the family home (none / 0) (#75)
    by nycstray on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 03:34:32 PM EST
    small biz/farm etc?

    There is special treatment.... (none / 0) (#101)
    by Romberry on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 08:21:10 PM EST
    ...in estate law for small farms and family businesses.

    It's not always a slam-dunk, (none / 0) (#103)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 10:04:07 PM EST
    but I've seen it done and it can make it easier to keep a business intact or preserve land.

    In order to make a Sec. 6166 election, the decedent's interest in the closely-held business must be more than 35% of the adjusted gross estate; it is not without its pitfalls and consequences.

    Electing to specially value real estate is somewhat more complicated.  One can elect to value real estate in accordance with its actual use, but doing so commits the heirs to continue to use the land in line with that use or risk recapture and revaluation and the impostition of tax at the higher general use value.

    None of this is something the lay person should attempt without advice from a professional with expertise in this area of the law.


    I wonder what the definition of (none / 0) (#71)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 03:26:27 PM EST
    "actual wealth" is?

    Nevermind, not an answerable question...


    You mean you're ok with not passing a jobs bill unless there is an agreement on the estate tax?

    Are you nuts?


    Because there will be no jobs growth (none / 0) (#29)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:54:59 PM EST
    unless the mega wealthy can pass on their estates without taxation....

    The death tax since its inception has prevented this country from growing....


    Sigh (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:56:08 PM EST
    I know you are snarking but please, explain to me how in Gawd's name this makes any sense in terms of policy or politics.

    How bad are these people at this?


    what's scary is (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by kempis on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 02:44:46 PM EST
    there are Obamacrats at DKos who really do sound more and more like Republicans as they defend Obama's banker gaffe and now this turkey.

    I thought the correct term of derision was (none / 0) (#63)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 03:04:10 PM EST

    I'll let you know when I figure it out (none / 0) (#35)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 02:00:28 PM EST
    There is an article somewhere (none / 0) (#37)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 02:02:36 PM EST
    saying how insulated Obama is in terms of those from who he gets advice:  Just from the Big Four:  Rahm, Axelrod, Jarret, and Gibbs.....Cabinet out in the cold...

    Who knows if it is true....


    May be true but he (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 02:23:55 PM EST
    would have had to been isolated for 30 years to think that tax cuts create jobs.

    Cabinets have been out in the cold (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by cal1942 on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 05:08:34 PM EST
    since at least Nixon.  The Cabinet's traditional role was long ago eclipsed by the White House staff.  

    Obama's circle of advisors are his circle and looking beyond is simply not in contemplation.

    IMO, what we're seeing is Obama's concept of the Presidency.  His concept of the Presidency is only about the status of the Village and nothing more.

    And this is the Rosetta Stone that reveals him.

    His concerns are only Village concerns.  That world where passage of any old piece of crap of a bill is considered a triumph.

    When he was elected so many thought that he'd be either a Carter of a Roosevelt.  It's safe to say now that that he's fallen below Carter, plunged through the basement into the realm of the worst Democratic President since the 19th century.

    For those who think there's still hope it should be recognized that it's a forlorn hope.  The chance has already passed.  The time for significant action was in the first few months.  The window has closed. His supporters have never really understood that.


    If Congressional leaders understood (none / 0) (#93)
    by observed on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 05:13:29 PM EST
    and acted on what you said, the situation could be saved, to some degree.

    Agreement on 'timely consideration' of an estate (none / 0) (#30)
    by steviez314 on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:55:34 PM EST
    tax fix.

    That's what Baucus and Grassley agreed to.

    This is the same nothing burger that yesterday's banker bonus nonsense turned out to be, except to raise blood pressure.


    You're nuts (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:57:41 PM EST
    This means there will be no jobs bill until they agree on the estate tax bill.

    This is simply ridiculous.


    Let's all read this together. (none / 0) (#38)
    by steviez314 on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 02:03:24 PM EST
    Notably, the measure does not address the estate tax, a legislative priority for many Republicans. But according to Baucus and Grassley, the negotiators agreed not to put off the issue much longer.

    Reid is trying to schedule a jobs bill vote the week of Feb 22nd.

    I'm sorry, but actually reading stories and bills is not ridiculous.  The instant outrage is.


    You must be joking (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 02:10:45 PM EST
    Honest to effing Gawd, Stevie.

    If there is going to be a vote on February 22, that means that on that day there will be a vote on estate tax "reform."

    Which means the Dems will swallow what the GOP wants on the estate tax.

    Who in the eff are you kidding with this silliness?

    For crissakes, this is the stupidest example of political bargaining in the HISTORY of political bargaining.

    Now the GOP can accuse Dems of not caring about jobs because they will not capitulate to GOP demands on the estate tax.

    This is honest to Gawd the most idiotic thing I have ever seen. Bar none.


    And I guess if they don't vote on the estate tax (none / 0) (#44)
    by steviez314 on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 02:16:31 PM EST
    that day, you'll just say they had a secret agreement to vote on it on such-and-such a day.  And they've probably already agreed to the rates.

    Can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down.  I just can't come up with any arguments versus your "knowing" these things.


    No (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 02:18:15 PM EST
    There won't be a vote that day is what will happen and the GOP will accuse the Dems of not caring about jobs because they went back on their agreement on estate tax "reform."

    What in Gawd's name possessed them to let Baucus issue that statement connecting the jobs bill to the estate tax?

    What in Gawd's name is possessing you to defend this obviously idiotic move?


    And why the estate tax of all things (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 02:34:54 PM EST
    With all the populist fervor out there, the Dems are going to tackle the estate tax?

    Bad politics.  Bad economics.


    Has anyone told Orzag from the OMB that (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by cawaltz on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:52:51 PM EST
    because it's pretty contrary to what he said when he spoke with Sanders I believe.

    Frankly, I think the idea that the top 1% need something in order to put Americans back to work ought to be something the Democrats should be highlighting.

    It aggravates me that this bill is going to give someone like Gregg who smarmily insisted he opposes a repeal of the estate tax cover.

    I do not understand why the party who supposedly is supposed to be for the working class is participating in collusion. Why would the Democrats fear making the Reublicans vote against a REAL jobs bill? The conclusion I am coming to isn't pretty.


    Support? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Romberry on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:56:34 PM EST
    They don't need to support anything. They simply need to do...nothing. The law already exists. What you're saying is that they do not support the current law.