Distinctions
By ddepledge
Former congressman Ed Case has taken exception to a claim by U.S. Rep. Mazie Hirono in a campaign advertisement that she was the only candidate for U.S. Senate to oppose tax cuts for the wealthy first approved under President George W. Bush.
Case was not in Congress when the first round of tax cuts passed in 2001, but he voted against the second round in 2003, when the tax cuts cleared the House 222 to 203.
While the Hirono campaign cites a few subsequent Case votes to extend portions of the Bush tax cuts, the fact is Case voted against the foundation for the tax cuts.
Both Case and Hirono, the Democratic contenders, are on record now against extending the Bush tax cuts.
From Case:
In any event, there’s no real difference between us on our records and positions. The real opponent here is (former Gov. Linda) Lingle, who has always supported tax cuts for the wealthy and has never proposed a way to pay for them and fix our federal budget.
Betsy Lin, Hirono’s campaign manager, responded to Case’s criticism:
It’s understandable that Mr. Case is trying to explain why he sided with George W. Bush on launching the trillion-dollar war in Iraq, or why he was one of just fifteen Democrats who voted for Bush’s capital gains tax breaks for the wealthy in 2005. Mr. Case’s positions on those issues are no different than Republican Linda Lingle’s, and raise troubling questions about how Mr. Case would posture and vote as Hawaii’s U.S. senator.
Political Radar
February 4th, 2012 at 4:56 pm
Mazie is not a leader.
February 5th, 2012 at 12:27 am
Aloha, Mr. DePledge,
Your post is missing a big part of the story.
The key House vote on extending the Bush tax cuts occurred on May 10, 2006. Congressman Case was one of just 15 Democrats to vote yes. Here’s the roll call:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll135.xml
Shortly thereafter, the Senate also voted to extend the Bush tax cuts (with Senator Obama voting no), as reported by the N.Y. Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/12/washington/12spend.html
A few days later, President Bush signed the extension of the Bush tax cuts & had a big White House celebration:
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/05/20060517-2.html
Mahalo,
Dave
February 5th, 2012 at 12:54 am
Someone is pulling Mazie’s strings. Be a politician and become a “marionette”.. Unions who donate. Construction who donates. Business persons donate. These people who donate pull strings of any politician. Name those who lead without any strings attached.
February 5th, 2012 at 2:15 am
So, just to be clear here… Mazie Hirono accused Ed Case of not voting to raise taxes. Ed Case answered by affirming that he did indeed vote to raise taxes. The mind wobbles.
February 5th, 2012 at 3:33 am
I’m getting a little tired of Hirono’s campaign manager doing all the talking. At least Case can speak for himself. Maybe Betsy Lin should run for the Senate.
February 5th, 2012 at 10:42 am
Ed Case is all over the place; Mazie is pretty consistent. We can’t let Lingle use the flip-flop attack against Democrats, so I’m backing Mazie.
February 6th, 2012 at 1:40 pm
Since when are some Politicians leaders? I call most Politicians “marionettes” since they are puppets who have their strings pulled by the 1% and unions.
February 6th, 2012 at 3:34 pm
I suspect Guido’s mind “wobbles” all too frequently when faced with the complexities of reality. So what idea appears NOT to wobble his mind? The Grover Norquist “No new taxes” mantra.
During his first term, Bush not only launched two very costly wars, but cut taxes at the same time. I recognize Republicans think cutting taxes leads to higher government revenue, but those of us who have acquired our understanding of economics from EITHER a college economics text OR from our business experience, recognize it is irresponsible to launch wars and cut taxes at the same time. Unless, of course, one WANTS to rapidly increase the federal deficit.
Some conservative Republicans are “deficit hawks,” but most only use that language in order to sound good. They also want to cut taxes under almost all conditions. (I keep in the exception because many are willing to raise taxes on lower and middle income folks through a national sales tax. And Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 tax would have cut taxes for the rich while raising them for most of the rest of us).
Ed Case has wobbled himself over taxes and the deficit. He was willing to slash valuable public programs, like Public Broadcasting, while cutting taxes for the wealthy. But he has not gone totally off the deep end and signed the Norquist pledge. He DOES believe it is sometimes necessary to raise taxes to pay for important public services as well as to pay our debts. (“Wobble, wobble.”)
Lingle is trying market herself as a “moderate” in order to get elected in the present climate. Someone should ask her point blank, is she willing to commit to the Norquist pledge or does she think it may be necessary to SOMETIMES raise taxes?
February 6th, 2012 at 3:42 pm
Both Mazie and Ed have voted to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy at times because the bills always come up in context with other important measures concerning taxes and benefits for the middle class. The bills were bound to pass anyway. For Ed, voting to extend the Bush tax cuts also included eliminating the marriage penalty and extending food stamps. In Mazie’s case, it included extending unemployment insurance. Ed did get a chance to vote against one of the original Bush tax cuts for the wealthy – eliminating the estate tax – and he voted against eliminating it.
The problem here is that Mazie’s campaign keeps insisting on it’s original message even after it is shown to be false (or misleading at the very best). It really makes you wonder about the character of her campaign. Will we be able to believe anything she says once she starts spending that million dollars she has in her campaign fund?
February 7th, 2012 at 12:17 pm
lingle could not make a decision in her office that she needed the public to vote. civil union is still being standing tough for understanding.
February 7th, 2012 at 12:35 pm
David, you insinuate Mazie is being dishonest in her telling of Ed’s vote on the tax cuts. I could turn that around on you. The vote on eliminating the “marriage penalty” was in 2004 and NOT combined with extending the Bush tax cuts. Similarly, when Mazie voted to extend the Bush tax cuts, it was when the GOP was threatening to shut down the Federal government, stopping all payments to Social Security recipients, cutting off unemployment benefits, etc. Surely you remember the specifics of that vote, as it was very recent.
I believe it is “false (or misleading at the very best), to equate that to the 2006 vote to extend the Bush tax cuts. I am not saying there were not other elements in the bill. But everyone, including Ed, saw that vote as being on the core issue. Ed was not “blackmailed” into voting to extend those cuts they way the Democrats were this last time. Ed voted to extend those tax cuts in 2006 because he sincerely believed it was the right thing to do at the time. Ed’s position on taxes is more nuanced than a lot of other politicians. He supports some tax cuts, depending upon the condition of the economy and the specifics of the tax proposal. At other times, he supports tax hikes, as a means to raise needed revenue to pay down the deficit or to fund essential programs.
(See, I can defend his position better than you can, even as I disagree with him on the 2006 vote!)
In 2006, Ed was one of only 15 House Democrats, almost all of them conscious members of the so-called “Blue Dog” Caucus, who broke ranks with their colleagues in the belief cutting taxes would lead to greater economic growth. I disagreed then and disagree now. While he was in the Hawaii state legislature, Ed supported shifting the tax burden from higher income people onto the backs of lower income folks by cutting the state income tax rate and raising the GET. (They tried, but failed, to win passage of the GET increase, resulting in a serious decline in state revenues). Later, when Ed was running for Governor, his stump speech included the argument that we could no longer afford to pay for the social services many of us desired from the State government. When asked whether his support for the tax cut had contributed to the state budget crisis, Ed stumbled around, before saying he thought the income tax cuts had actually led to MORE taxes being collected, a classic “Trickle Down Economics” response, divorced from reality, but infused with neo-liberal illusions.
So while Mazie’s ad may have a bit inaccurate, it was, in broad outline, MUCH more accurate than your presentation of Ed’s voting record. Ed has had a pretty consistent stand in favor of cutting taxes for the wealthy as a means to encourage economic growth. He is much closer to the classic Republican position on this than the vast majority of congressional Democrats. And his voting record shows this. He has not, however, fallen for the Grover Norquist delusion which has captured the cranium of most Republicans. To his credit, Ed has NOT taken the “No New Taxes” pledge. He reserves the right to evaluate each tax proposal on its merits and under the specific conditions of the economic conditions of the time. (He then, too often, opts for the corporate-friendly option, in my opinion).
We have many months in front of us and there will be dynamics unleashed which may turn Case supporters and Mazie supporters against each other. Those of us who are Democrats should resist those dynamics enough as to not weaken the eventual winner of the nomination. Each time a Case supporter personally insults Mazie, as you have done by attacking her integrity here, you aid the Lingle campaign.