Kyrsten Sinema doesn't want to raise tax rates on corporation or the rich:
But her refusal to raise tax rates on high earners and major corporations to pay for Mr. Biden’s plan is pushing Democrats toward wealth taxation and other measures once embraced only by the party’s left flank.
The frenzied search for new paths around Ms. Sinema’s tax-rate blockade has cheered liberals but raised serious qualms among more moderate Democrats, who now openly say they hope that Ms. Sinema’s business allies will pressure her to relent once they — and she — see the details of the alternatives that she is forcing on her colleagues to pay for around $2 trillion in spending on social programs and anti-climate change initiatives.
This can't possibly be right, can it? If Sinema is opposed to raising tax rates on the rich, surely she's also opposed to a wealth tax on the rich. Right? So this would create no leverage at all. She'd just tell everyone to keep looking for more acceptable funding sources.
What am I missing here?
> What am I missing here?
Nothing. She's a saboteur. She's not going to let it pass if she can help it.
You're missing nothing.
But this isn't aimed at you - it's aimed at whomever actually can talk to Sinema and get her to listen. She infamously ignores most of the media and only listens to people close to her, so I believe the story is aimed at getting someone a bullet point argument they can get to her.
Not saying it's likely to work, but someone has a keyboard and a publisher. And when you have a hammer....
Ya it does seem like that - but who knows if she's even smart enough to get that?
I wonder if another approach is to ask for, say, full funding of the IRS (you know, kinda how we treat the military budget: they get all they want and Congress falls all over itself to give them more.) Seems like there must be a study somewhere that says if we collect all appropriate tax, we'd increase revenue by X amount. Heck, if we're in to sweetening deals, howzabout we also add federal money for States to better collect taxes as well? Hey Mr. Businessman FOS (friend of Sinema) that 28% rate doesn't seem all that bad after all, eh? Care to share with her?
1.She will raise taxes on corporations and the rich with Trump tax cut removed.
2.The wealth tax is another House stupidity. Biden rejected it during the campaign.
Maybe Kyrsten thinks embracing a wealth tax will bring back her youth as part of the 99% fighting the 1% at the World Trade Organization.
Sinema sees all the love AOC is getting for her Met Gala "tax the rich" dress & thinks she can recapture some of that mid-twenties Naderite shine.
If one removes the merits of a wealth tax, I believe there is a crucial reason why it will not be included in the legislation. There is an open legal argument around the constitutionality of a wealth tax https://www.axios.com/wealth-tax-warren-constitution-8c098c0b-7dc4-48ab-a154-d578aec20d0d.html
Given the makeup of the current Supreme Court, including a wealth tax would be very risky. Further, if the wealth tax raised meaningful amounts of money, the Supreme Court could rule that the wealth tax was not separable from the broader bill: therefore, the whole bill could be overturned by the Supreme Court.
It’s only risky if you want the wealth tax to survive legal challenge and/or care about making sure all spending is paid for. If you want to use the wealth tax to appease the moderates into voting for the “paid for” bill and then willing to allow the court to scrap the wealth tax a year or two later on appeal… well I’m all about gimmicks for the pay-fors if it gets useful programs in operation.
After all, no significant faction of voters really cares about the deficit… or can even explain why it’s important for it to be at a certain level.
I agree and disagree
Agreed most voted don't care/focus in on the deficit.
I disagree that the Supreme Court overruling the wealth tax does not matter. To qualify for reconciliation the legislation must be deficient neutral over ten years. If the court removes the wealth tax revenue they COULD say that the wealth tax revenue is inseparable from the broad bill: how can the court select what items (environment, child care etc) to remove. Therefore the whole bill must go. I can imagine five or six votes for that concept....
Further, if the wealth tax raised meaningful amounts of money, the Supreme Court could rule that the wealth tax was not separable from the broader bill
I don't see how it could do so if the bill includes a severability clause. There's nothing in the constitution that says Congress can't pass legislation that increases the deficit. And obviously whatever arcane rules the Senate wants to write for itself (reconciliation, ten year window, etc) aren't in the constitution, either.
I am out of my league/can only speculate on what the Supreme Court might do: however, are you near certain there are not five votes to overturn a wealth tax AND the whole bill ....I am not confident.
Sinema needs to be primaried, even if, at the end of the day, she votes to pass (hugely watered down) BBB legislation. I'd hate to lose that seat to the GOP, but 2024 should be a good year for Democrats.
Flat out refusal to raise taxes is simply too much of an outlier position, and can't be tolerated in a Democratic Senator in that it equates to stone refusal to strengthen the safety net or do anything at all, really, to address economic inequality.