You read that headline right. In a day full of really strange news, the White House’s opposition to a compromise tax cut plan in Congress had to be the most disturbing.
House and Senate negotiators had a deal in place that would extend a series of middle-class tax cuts — including an increase in the child tax credit, tax relief for married couples, and an expanded 10 percent tax bracket — for the next two years. Dems and GOP moderates were on board and the deal was going to sail through. Congress was going to hand Bush an opportunity to sign a popular tax cut bill in the middle of his campaign.
But Bush promptly killed the bill. In fact, the White House went all out to make sure it was dead.
Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. put in a round of angry phone calls Tuesday night, several Senate aides said. Then White House counselor Karl Rove and Bush himself called GOP tax writers yesterday urging them to kill the deal.
You see, the White House doesn’t want a popular two-year extension with broad bi-partisan support; Bush wants Congress to pass a more expensive five-year extension in September, which would add even more to the deficit and has far less support from fiscally responsible lawmakers.
In other words, Bush wants a campaign ploy. If reasonable lawmakers balk at the costlier plan when Congress returns to work in September, Bush can rail against opposition to “tax relief.” If he can bully Congress into passing the five-year scheme, Bush gets a tax-cut victory right before the election.
A senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity so he could discuss legislative strategy, said Bush is confident that the gambit will work. Democrats and some moderate Republicans have pushed a shorter extension, offset by tax increases to reduce its impact on the budget deficit. But come September, the official said, the vote will be overwhelming for a longer extension without offsets.
“Do we run a risk?” the official said. “As this year has shown, it’s very difficult to pass even what many would say is common-sense legislation. In this business you always run a risk.” But, he added, “the Democrats don’t want to be on the wrong side of family tax relief. . . . In this case a filibuster will be seen as stopping those tax cuts.”
There are no political games beneath their already low standards.
In fact, Republicans didn’t hesitate to admit their real agenda, which has little to do with actual tax cuts.
Congressional officials said the administration did not want a deal that Democratic lawmakers might support, giving them a tax-cutting credential, too.
Pandagon’s Jesse Taylor summarized this nicely, explaining that this as an example of “crippling an effort to extend the effects of Bush’s signature issue because it’s not opposed by enough Democrats…. This is the long and short of it — Bush rejected a bill that served his political purposes because it appealed to too many people.”
Jesse wasn’t the only one who was confused.
Sen. John Breaux (D-La.), who was at the center of negotiations with the administration over two successful tax cuts at the start of Bush’s term, urged the White House to accept a two-year extension. “If they accept this, it could benefit everybody,” he said.
What Breaux seems to be forgetting is that the White House couldn’t care less about “benefiting everybody”; they have campaign schemes to hatch. The business of governing is more or less irrelevant, as usual.
But wait, isn’t the White House at all concerned that the public will disapprove of Bush’s opposition to expanded middle-class tax cuts? Not really. Because of the timing of yesterday’s work on the Hill, public attention is probably focused elsewhere.
Michael Froomkin called this ordeal “one of the most cynical ploys in US politics” he’s ever seen. It’s hard to disagree.