Tim Johnson to Support Tax Cut Extensions

Looks like Senator Johnson will be supporting the passage of the Bush tax cuts for everyone after all.

There has been plenty of press stating that he didn’t support tax cuts for the wealthy, and would be reluctant to support cuts for everyone.
Glad to see he has come to his senses.

42 Replies to “Tim Johnson to Support Tax Cut Extensions”

  1. Ghost Repeater

    Not so sure voting for something contained in a bigger package is the same as supporting that thing. I imagine Johnson supports extending unemployment benefits and supports some of the tax cut extensions. I doubt he supports tax cuts for the wealthy.

    Funny how quick the deficit faded as an issue given how this popular bill will deepen that deficit.

  2. caheidelberger

    Are you also glad to see Republicans supporting a $900 billion stimulus package “funded” entirely by deficit spending? Are you also glad to see the Tea Party disappear when Republicans push a package spending our grandchildren’s money?

  3. Troy Jones


    There should be no package. Split these out and let them stand on their own merits. I’m for retaining the current tax levels and not the new spending. If this is what the leadership thinks is a deal, I’ll wait until the new members get sworn in.

  4. duggersd

    Cory, that is not a $900 billion stimulus package. It is a matter of continuing the current tax rates. And even more important increasing the tax rates on a certain group of people does not guarantee increasing revenues by the amount you are suggesting. The CBO is not allowed to take into account human nature. It assumes behavior will remain the same. Increasing taxes on people who earn more does not mean they will continue to earn at the same rate as before. They will likely not earn more. This can be shown in the way some people who had the ability took compensation this year rather than next year. There is nothing in this bill that is stimulus other than the spending.
    When the tax cuts were enacted, whether because of them or just coincidence, the treasury had increases in revenue. Go figure.

  5. MikeH

    Troy and Cory are both right.
    Ideally, everything would get is own vote.

    On its own, the tax cuts were the right thing to do. Johnson said while he didn’t agree with the cuts for the wealthy, he would sit vote for its passage – this is all I was pointing out.

    Wrapping it up into Omnibus legislation is wrong.

  6. Ghost Repeater

    Hey, this was compromise – you support the unemployment extension, I’ll support tax cut extensions. Nothing wrong with putting all of the element sof the deal in one bill.

    I suspect the unemployment extension will have a much greater impact on the economy than the tax cuts. Much of the money saved by people through the tax cuts will get squirreled away in savings. However, the unemployment benefits will get put right into the economy and do more to stimulate sales, sales taxes, and employment.

  7. Jeff J.

    THC –

    Funny how Dana Milbank can’t even do enough fact checking to realize Noem never ran as a tea-party type candidate. She ran as a Republican only. Yes, the tea-partiers supported her, but she didn’t claim to be one. I’ll wait until she actually starts voting on things though before I try to hammer her. Her COS may be immediately coming from lobbying, but he spent years on the hill and has great experience there (and is from SD by the way). Also, simply showing up at meet and greets isn’t a big deal. No one ever expected that she would hide in her office and refuse to even acknowledge the fact that there are lobbyists in that town.

  8. THC

    I don’t think her supporters expected her to hire one as her COS. But nice hair splitting Jeff.
    She sure put herself out for the Tea Party types out in Rapid City.
    She did everything she could to identify with them short of wearing one of those moronic cat-in-the-hat lids. Guess it would have hidden too much of her hair shield.
    No, really. Good parsing. Keep it up. Love those ag and ethanol welfare checks.

  9. springer

    Aren’t the omnibus bill and the extension of the tax cuts bill two different bills? I would like to know how Johnson intends to vote on the omnibus bill (I really don’t need to ask though!) and how many earmarks he has in that 2000 page monstrosity that they again want to be passed without being read. I too would prefer that the tax cut bill be defeated and the whole thing be addressed retroactively when the new congress convenes after Christmas. Let the gov’t shut down. Would be the best thing that ever happened lately! Then let the conservative House get to work to address the problem while NOT spending more on unemployment and other giveaways that the Dems stuck in this so-called compromise. STOP THE SPENDING!!!!!

  10. Arrowhead

    I would have rather seen him oppose it. This is just a joke of a bill.

    It’s designed so that REpublicans can get all of the “goodies” passed right now so that when the new congress starts they can already have the dirty stuff passed and not have to ruin themselves by supporting ethanol etc.

  11. I would rather be fishing

    Looks like Senator Thune will be supporting the passage of that guy Obama’s unemployment extension after all.

    There has been plenty of press stating that he didn?t support unemployment extensions.
    Glad to see he has come to his senses.

  12. caheidelberger

    $900 billion added to the deficit. $900 billion that wouldn’t be there if we maintained the status quo. $900 billion that should have the Tea Party screaming about grandkids just as loudly as they in response to Stimulus I.

  13. caheidelberger

    Maybe Kristi will repeal this package, given her cute board game ad with the kids and her worries about making the kids pay the bills. But before I consider that possibility, I’ll have to get done laughing at the argument above that it’s o.k. for Kristi to party with lobbyists simply because she never said, “I’m a Tea Party candidate.” SHS never said that either, but you guys never cut her slack for associating with Washington insiders. Will the DWC hilarity never stop?

  14. Troy Jones

    Obama campaigns on the promise “No lobbyists” will work for him. I thought it was a stupid promise and unrealistic. Obama has lobbyists working all over the White House. In fact, a record.

    Noem doesn’t make this promise. Madison’s village scarecrow from Wizard of Oz condemns Noem from not keeping Obama’s promise.

    SHS raises 4x as much PAC money than Noem she got by hosting fundraisers of lobbyists. Noem goes to a meet and greet event to meet her new colleagues hosted by a lobbyist. The Scarecrow finds humor. What the Scarecrow doesn’t realize is everyone is laughing at him.

  15. Michael (Constant Conservative)

    Letting people keep their own money (though the bill goes much further than that w/unemployment, etc) is not stimulus–it simply the right thing to do. Will it have the effect of stimulating the economy? It will–as long as people also walk away with the understanding that the rules are not going to keep changing, thereby making planning and budgeting very difficult.

  16. J Rae

    JT was on Imus this morning talking about the tax bill and defending the blocking of the health care funding for 9-11 heroes. Congress will sure be forced to make some interesting choices this year.

  17. Mike

    Wait, Wait, wait. Tory Jones, the man whose head exploded when I dared to describe a guy with one arm as “as a dude with one arm”, saying it was an ad hominim attack because I disagreed with the fellas politics, is now throwing around insults? Oh how the mighty have fallen. But I am sure I will be told that his insults are not ad hominim (is that how you spell it?), and thus perfectly fine. If Cory is the scarecrow Troy, then you are the great and powerful Oz (pay no attention to the man behind the curtain…)

  18. Mike

    Oh, and site looks ok. But it is the content that keeps people. SOme of the longest lasting sites I read have never changed their format, because their readers are constant. It is all about content gentlemen; and right now it is pretty thin gruel.

  19. William

    Not that I get a vote, but I would have preferred that there be no “Lame Duck Session” at all. No one currently in office that will NOT be returning in the next Congressional Session should be able to vote on any binding legislation after the election. Any legislation that “must be passed” between the election should be restricted to up and down votes on single issue legislation only (no “omnibus” anything”), or the current budget is simply deemed a continuing resolution until March 1st with no amendments and no new legislation permitted.

    1. Haggs

      Sorry, Willian, but this session of Congress did not end on November 2nd. The new term doesn’t start until January 4th. I don’t want our government to sit on their thumbs and wait for a new Congress to start when they could be doing stuff now. It’s their jobs.

      In an ideal world, I might agree with you that lame duck sessions are not really needed. Unfortunately, Republicans have wasted so much of our time with their stupid obstructionism that this is the only time that they can actually get something accomplished for the good of the country.

    1. William


      These terms were originally fixed to allow time for a physical travel that’s no longer required in the modern era. Congress has only held 16 lame duck sessions since 1940. This lame-duck session is the sixth since 1971, 3 of them in this decade (2000, 2002, 2004).

      Regardless of which party has the majority, in my honest opinion, unless there is an emergent matter that must be addressed by Congress such as a declaration of war, there is no reason that a Lame Duck Session be held, let alone allowed to vote on legislation that will have any binding effect on the newly elected Congressional Session. There is far to much opportunity for “pay back” by ousted officials and a rebuked “lame duck majority” to attempt to repudiate the results of the electorate.

      1. Haggs

        I see this current lame duck session as necessary. I, as an American liberal, didn’t get a lot of the legislation I wanted in the last two years even though Dems controlled the White House and Congress (although it really didn’t appear that way). I got a watered down healthcare reform bill and some good stuff at the beginning of Obama’s term, but Republicans successfully blocked most everything else.

        So if this lame duck session can finally give me some of the policies I’ve wanted these last two years (like DADT repeal), then I will happily take it. Those policies can’t wait until the new session because Republicans will control the House and they most likely won’t pass.

          1. Haggs

            William, they do in this case. Repeal of the discriminatory, pro-lying DADT policy cannot wait. Republicans will control the House in the next session and they would be jerks and not let it pass (even though 75% of the public supports it).

  20. insomniac

    It seems to me everyone wants to pass this bill so that they can say it was the previous congress that spent all of the money and the new members can get the goodies they want without having to take the blame or break any promises.

    I’m actually more dissapointed that KRISTI NOEM supports this bill than I am happy TIM JOHNSON voted for it.

  21. TEA TIME

    If I was there I’d vote no. But I’m not and our Reps support it and thats because they are politicians and more concerned about reelection than principles.

  22. Just call me Joe

    Poor TJ – I think he’s lost in a world of obsequious, but manipulative handlers – a controlled environment of group-think where everone tells him how wonderful he is, what he should do, and then praises him for incisively finding the right position and then acting on it. It must be like going down rabbit hole, or living in the merry old land of Oz….