Soldiers of Fortune

Once again, key members of the House Blue Dog Coalition stand up for the values of their culturally conservative, economically downscale constituents by helping out billionaire hedge fund managers:

The House today passed, 216-193, an $81 billion tax extenders package, including a one-year patch to protect 21 million taxpayers from the alternative minimum tax. Eight Democrats voted against the bill, including several who had voiced opposition to offsets used to pay for the package. Democrats voting no were Reps. Tim Mahoney of Florida, Jim Cooper of Tennessee, John Barrow of Georgia, Melissa Bean of Illinois, Nick Lampson of Texas, Jim Matheson of Utah, Harry Mitchell of Arizona, and Gene Taylor of Mississippi. No Republicans voted for the bill. The largely united Democratic vote belied more widespread concern in the Caucus about the offsets, though leaders managed to persuade them to support the bill despite misgivings. To offset the AMT patch, House tax-writers included a $26 billion provision to tax the profits of private equity, hedge fund and other investment partnerships at 35 percent instead of the 15 percent capital gains rate as under current law. The bill would also delay implementation of tax cuts for multinationals and yank tax benefits that hedge fund managers enjoy by deferring compensation on offshore income.

Have I mentioned that balanced budgets is the signature Blue Dog issue and they have one of those silly national debt clocks (there's no point in reporting the debt as a giant, ever-growing nominal sum rather than as a ratio) on their homepage?

Comments

Oh my God, Allan Boyd voted aye?

given how many hedge fund billionaires live in his rural Florida district I find this hard to believe. the wingnut seems to be going soft in his ripe old dotage.

hopefully Allan will come to his senses and put forwards a new plan to privatize Social Security. again.

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | November 12, 2007 12:57 PM

Lampson represents former district of Tom DeLay, so perhaps his constituents fully wish their representative to be an a.... le, except someone not indicted and with somewhat better manners.

A bit more seriously, in conservative places like suburbs of Houston or Utah, what could a moderate Republican do? You know, some mumbly middle of the road position on social issues, friendly to (or worshipping) bussiness, contemplating the idea that sometimes you should cut taxes and sometimes increase etc? Over there, it makes you almost a Communist, so you have to join the (almost) Communist Party.

Posted by piotr | November 12, 2007 1:04 PM

Just be happy that the Dems have a majority. Blue Dogs will always exist.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | November 12, 2007 1:34 PM

Thank you, Southern red necks!

Posted by New York Millionaires | November 12, 2007 1:36 PM

There is nothing "economically downscale" about Melissa Bean's district, Harry Mitchell's district, Nick Lampson's district, etc. Tim Mahoney's district includes some very wealthy parts of Florida.

Posted by P | November 12, 2007 1:51 PM

To endorse P's point at least about Bean. Her district is upscale, and she needs to help the wealthy vote on social issues rather than economic ones. So she is somewhat the flip side of a blue dog.

Posted by Lon | November 12, 2007 2:07 PM

Jim Cooper is a disgrace to the city of Nashville. We deserve better.

Posted by dob | November 12, 2007 2:08 PM

What interests me is the question of why Republicans are so adamantly against this. After all, the hedge fund managers who inordinately gain from the the loophole give overwhelmingly to Democrats. I mean, if I were a Republican in Congress, I would think about voting for the bill just to stick it to the hedge fund managers who love the Democrats so much. (As it turns out, I support the bill anyway, given that I am an AMT payer. But still... Moreover, you'd think that the Republicans would be happy to help out their AMT-paying voters, who are surely more numerous that the hedge fund/private equity/etc. partnership owners.) There must be more going on here than the simplistic news stories are telling us.

Posted by Al | November 12, 2007 2:18 PM

It is indeed very interesting why hedge fund managers contributed so heavily to Democrats, what was it, 75% of their contributions of 85%?

Possibilities:

1. Computing the odds is what they do for living. Betting on GOP is like aggresively shorting oil futures. Democrats can extend their beneficial situation from gratitude, or not. GOP will never be in the position to deliver any goods.

2. This is a new industry and these people are new to their money, and they retain middle class values. In particular, they actually feel that paying fair share of a very generous income is a good thing.

Which still begs the question of the voting pattern of Blue Dogs. It can have something to do with a perennial GOP slogan "My opponent voted for every tax increase he/she could, altogether, 140 votes for tax increases. He/she just does not feel right without any tax increase in a given week."

One way of dealing with it is "Liar, liar, pants of fire, I voted 178 times against tax increases and only 62 times for." Followed by a fiery speech in defence of moderate budget irresponsibility (as opposed to the utter one). And the numeric record of votes agaist taxes must be compiled. One can offer hopeless amendments etc. to increase the count, plus vote against taxes at EVERY occasion that party leaders allow for. If Democrats already secured the majority, the Dogs polish their stats.

It would be nice to know if Lampson EVER votes with the leadership. He was perfectly comfortable plugging for money at dailykos.com at the time sane Democratic donors regarded him as a lost cause. (Although you never now if a poster is gagging or not.)

Posted by piotr | November 12, 2007 3:56 PM

"It is indeed very interesting why hedge fund managers contributed so heavily to Democrats, what was it, 75% of their contributions of 85%?"

Hedge fund managers are comparatively younger disproportionately well-educated people (and disproportionately Jewish) living almost entirely in New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Mass and California (there are some funds elsewhere in the US, but not many). It's not that weird that they heavily donate to the Democrats (one of my old bosses in the biz was Edwards' primary money-raiser in a major city). They also do tend to be newer money than the more old money private equity guys.

Posted by burritoboy | November 12, 2007 8:59 PM