This wasn't exactly unpredictable, but a group of Senate centrists are beginning to balk at Obama's budget. General grumblings over a big budget probably don't need to be taken seriously. The Senate is the Senate. It likes the quiet life, and gets cranky when asked to work on weekends. But Bayh and Nelson both voice specific complaints about the tax increases. “I have major concerns about trying to raise taxes in the midst of a downturn of the economy,” says Ben Nelson. Bayh agrees. "Before we raise revenue, we first should look to see if there are ways we can cut back on spending." There are two issues here. The first is an empirical question about taxes. If the majority of Americans are facing a tax decrease, then are "taxes" going up? Revenues might be rising because the rich are paying more. But for most people, taxes are going down. I'd be interested to hear Nelson's answer. The second is a question of tradeoffs: The tax increases in the budget pay for specific things, health care among them. So it becomes a fairly simple issue of tradeoffs. Does Ben Nelson think universal health care is more or less important than keeping itemized deductions for filers making $250,000 a year at 35 percent rather than 28 percent? Because that's the actual question at hand. No one is attempting to "raise taxes." They're attempting to "raise taxes in order to pay for things." The relevant question, then, is not whether Nelson opposes raising taxes, but whether he opposes raising taxes more or less than he opposes not having the thing the new revenues would pay for.
