Could the Democratic Leadership Be Any More Tone Deaf?

The Hill:

House Democrats say leadership has their work cut out in convincing the public to support a tax increase on those making more than $250,000.

With all this populist anger out there, can you imagine a more obtuse statement?

This is about Democrats running scared from the GOP message machine. And I’ll grant that they have  reason — consider some gems from this article alone:

Tax increases always carry political risk, and raising taxes during a recession could be labeled as hampering economic growth.

Right, and a mouse could be labeled an elephant, but that isn’t going to magically turn it into several tons of pachyderm. Remember that we’re talking about letting the “temporary” cuts to the marginal rate for those making more than a quarter million per year expire. That means that only the portion of their adjusted income that exceeds $250K would be subject to the old rate. If you’re lucky enough to be pulling in $300K, the Bush tax cuts  expire and your rate goes up three percent, that doesn’t increase your tax bill by $9,000; we’re talking about a $1,500 increase. How this all could hamper economic growth is beyond rational explanation.

As usual, Dems play this rhetorical game poorly …

“If we’re going to rescind these [tax cuts], which is still going to be a battle, we have to have our message out there on why we are doing it,” said Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a group committed to ending tax cuts for the wealthy. “On taxes and some other things we’ve been on the defensive the whole time.”

Why talk about “rescinding” these tax cuts? Why not say that George W. Bush rammed these tax cuts for the top earners through Congress by calling them “temporary,” and now conservative Dems and the GOP are moving the goal-posts and trying to make them permanent, never mind that they’re responsible for a good chunk of our budget deficit — the same deficit those “fiscal conservatives” are always whining about?

Or, portray it as passing a tax cut for the middle class, which is not inaccurate …

Absent Congressional action, all of the Bush-era tax cuts will expire in December, including those on people making less than $250,000.

Obama and Democrats would like to extend the tax cuts on those making less than $250,000. But to do so, Hoyer said the third-top tax rate must be restructured since it affects earner making above and below $250,000.

Als0 from The Hill, this:

The Obama administration is reaching out to business-friendly Democrats to win support for free-trade policies that divide the party.

The effort is part of President Barack Obama’s push on trade that was launched with his State of the Union address. Obama said he wanted to double exports over the next five years as part of an effort to grow the U.S. economy.

U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk met members of the business- friendly New Democrats Coalition on Thursday to discuss the trade agenda. The Democrats spoke to Kirk about pending trade deals with South Korea, Colombia and Panama that have stalled in the Democratic-led Congress, according to Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.).

Moving any of those deals will be difficult because of opposition in Obama’s own party.

Legislation calling for existing trade deals to be re-negotiated has won the support of half the House Democratic caucus. And administration officials from the president on down have been careful when addressing trade matters.

So letting Bush’s temporary tax cuts on top earners while preserving those that help an ailing middle class is a political minefield, according to the Beltway wisdom, but ramming through some more corrupt trade deals, while tricky, is workable.

If these folks don’t smarten up, and soon, they’ll deserve the thrashing they’re likely to get at the polls this Fall.