Rep. John Carney Remains Mum on Looming Tax Fight, and why shouldn’t he?

Filed in National by on November 14, 2012

Still no word from Carney’s office on whether Rep. Carney is going to support the President in the upcoming fight over making the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes.

I sent this email on Monday:

Hi James,

Congratulations on Representative Carney’s re-election. Do you have a moment to chat about Mr. Carney’s take on the upcoming fight with the intransigent GOP congress over middle class tax cuts, and tax increases for the wealthiest Americans?

Your radio ads during the campaign telegraphed what some describe as an overweening desire to compromise with the GOP. We at hope that this desire to compromise does not run counter to supporting the President and faithfully representing the Democrats that returned him to office.

An in person meeting with some bloggers to discuss this and other issues that Representative Carney thinks will be important during this term office would be great.

Thanks for considering it,


I guess he is keeping his powder dry in the tradition of Tom Carper and his famously dry power. And why shouldn’t he? When you look at the winning margins for Corporatist Democrats in Delaware, and you think that the best the GOP can do is Kevin Wade and Tom Kovach, what possible motivation could Carper and Carney have for being the least bit progressive or populist?

The answer is they have no motivation what-so-ever. They both have a lifetime sinecure by just kicking back and making nice with the worst elements in the GOP.

About the Author ()

Jason330 is a deep cover double agent working for the GOP. Don't tell anybody.

Comments (17)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. puck says:

    Good email. I hope you get a response or, if not, at least I hope your point registers.

    Anyway, for the rest of this year, if we’re negotiating we’re losing.

    Of course our delegation will support the President’s agenda, whatever it is revealed to be. But unquestioned support of Obama’s agenda is not always a good thing for Democrats. The question is, will the President’s agenda keep faith with Democrats.

  2. John Carney had the support of virtually the entire labor establishment during the Markell/Carney gubernatorial primary. If Obama owes labor, and he does, then so does Carney.

    While it would be nice to see Carney have the President’s back, I’d rather have him just keep his mouth shut than signalling his desire to negotiate away the D’s current strong position.

    Carney needs to stick w/Obama, and it needs to be made clear to Boehner that he will get no help from wishy-washy Republocrats. For a change.

  3. puck says:

    On the other hand, even Pelosi is already trying to give away the strong hand, saying House Dems would rather negotiate now than go over the cliff. Is that Obama’s position too? Who knows.

  4. puck says:

    One of the best reasons for going over the cliff is the tax rate on dividends would reset from 15% to 39% Clinton rates (treated as regular income). We would NEVER win that amount of tax rebalancing through any sort of negotiations.

    Even Obama’s 2008 tax proposal gave dividends a pass, setting them back only to 20%, which I was not pleased with. But 39% is exactly the incentive needed to encourage hiring and investment over short-term gains for investors.

    And long-term capital gains would go from 15% to 20% plus the 3% ACA tax on capital gains for a total of 23% which is also just about right.

    For the investment taxes, it’s not about making them pay their fair share, or how much revenue can be collected. It’s about reorienting business behavior toward hiring and investment. I would hope businesses would mostly avoid those taxes by hiring and investing.

    If both of those investment tax rates expired to Clinton levels, I’d even be willing to negotiate a point or two on the top marginal personal tax rate if necessary.

  5. cassandra_m says:

    Yesterday’s news was about how some Democrats (reported in some places as just Democrats) wanted to just go over the fiscal cliff. Pelosi is just trying to adjust the story to a more reasonable stance.

    But then — why would you be surprised that House (or Senate Dems) would want to avoid the fiscal cliff? Majorities of them definitely want to head off a bunch of the DOD cuts.

  6. hmmm says:

    See, this is why people are scared of taking the middle road. They see moderate after moderate fall away, and the more ideological folks take their place.

    I’m a progressive, a pretty hard leaning left one. But I’m a human, and I know anything in life takes some negotiation. I may not agree with John all the time, and yes he may give away too much too often.

    But guess what, we need people like him to help bring along his more sensible friends across the isle. Instead of vilifying him, find some common ground and help encourage him (by being supportive) to be more outward about his more progressive views. He has them.

  7. So, you’re saying he’s just too shy to share his progressive views with us?

    I know John. I like John. He’s a good person. But I’ve never seen the progressive bona fides you reference. I’ve seen someone who views Tom Carper as his role model. And who, so far, has mimicked Carper in Congress.

  8. Jason330 says:

    He isnt a bad guy. Carney is still a Dartmouth QB who thinks the guys on the other side of the ball are decent chaps. It is a terribly naive worldview, that hasn’t kept pace with reality. The GOP caucus met and decided that they were going to be on a jihad against this administration. It isn’t ancient history. Google it.

  9. Jason330 says:

    Abd BTW i should think it his (and his staffs) job to find comming round with democrats. I think his office spends so much time trying to prove how bipartisan they are that they forget to remind people that they are Democrats.

  10. Ezra Temko says:

    puck –
    What do you think about a Financial Transaction Tax? A tax of just 3 pennies on each $100 worth of trades would raise $353 billion over nine years. This will also incentivize longer-term productive investments over high-volume high-speed trading based on short-term speculation.

  11. Jason330 says:

    Common ground that is… Stupid iPhone.

  12. @Ezra Temko-

    An FTT of 3% would be even better.

    On the upside, it would force the big players to change their algorithms & (perhaps) help prevent rapid electronic sell-offs. It would also discourage idiotic day-traders & help bring a semblance of stability to the market.

    The only downside I see is pension & IRA funds who are traded rapidly getting hammered w/ a 3% tax per transaction. But WTF do I know? I’m a blue collar worker.

  13. hmmm says:


    You want the congressman to meet with you, and take your thoughts seriously. But he has to just deal with the second that he takes one compromise to achieve a common end goal, that you will crucify and vilify him.

    Hmmm, I wonder why he isn’t more willing to respond.

  14. puck says:

    I don’t know all the pros and cons of a financial transaction tax. It sounds good for a number of reasons, but could have unwanted consequences. The Clinton income tax rates, on the other hand, have been tested and proved successful.

  15. Jason330 says:

    Obviously, in a democracy, all “bi-partisanship” isn’t crucify worthy.

    I just want Carney to stop being in the easy bi-partisanship for bi-partisanship’s sake category. Bi-partisanship doesn’t demand anything of the Republicans is what I have a big problem with.

    Other DL contributors are much more reasonable than I. he could meet with them.

  16. Our pool needs to be fed by using those photopages that you just consider worth becoming section of the “Best Review Collection”. Think it like a journal or maybe a magazine regarding general interest for those who to read through. Funny, witty, controversial, entertaining, useful, acerbic, thoughtful, serious, curious, unexpected comebacks really are welcome.