Okay. I need some help here.
In general, the Democrats say we should preserve the middle class tax cuts (because we are in the midst of a recession and they can spend our way out of it) while letting the tax cuts for the rich expire (because we shouldn't spend the $700 billion helping those who neither need the aid nor will spend our way out of the recession).
And in general, the Republicans (and some Democrats) say we should make the tax cuts permanent for everyone (even though this adds to our nation's debt) and definitely not when we are in the middle of a recession. Fine. I don't agree with this assessment but there is no logical inconsistency behind the rationale.
Some Democrats, thinking they didn't have the votes to let the tax cuts for those earning $250,000 a year or more, thought they could win some more votes by raising the threshold to $1 million. I understand the reasoning here. One bill didn't pass so let's propose a less "drastic" or "controversial" alternative which self-declared "moderates" can get behind.
But what is the logic behind a vote for the former (letting the tax cuts expire for those earning $250,0000 a year or more) then vote against a bill that lets those tax cuts expire at the higher $1 million threshold? Why would a senator who voted to let the tax cuts for the rich expire (Jay Rockefeller IV, Richard J. Durbin, and Tom Harkin) then turn around and vote against the more viable and more responsible of the two remaining options?
Would the next journalist who speaks to these three senators press them to answer this question? I'd like to know how a senator who had no qualms voting to let the tax cuts expire at a $250,000 mark object at the higher $1 million threshold?