Republicans are already out there suggesting there’s no mandate for raising taxes on the wealthy:
On Morning Edition today, Steve Inskeep reminded Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma that the president “won re-election calling for higher taxes on the wealthy” and that “even many voters for Mitt Romney said they favored higher taxes on the wealthy.” Mr. Cole responded that the “same electorate re-elected a very substantial Republican majority to the House of Representatives, which had a different position than the one you just outlined.”
Not so fast, Cole. The Republicans managed to keep their House majority in a year that heavily favored Democratic candidates and policies because of redistricting (see: 1, 2, 3, 4). Dave Weigel summarizes this clearly:
…the GOP’s House majority has been protected by gerrymanders in rust belt states and North Carolina. In large states with nonpartisan redistricting—Arizona, Florida, California—Democrats are gaining seats….Boehner’s returning to D.C. with a smaller majority, which is not usually the mark of a mandate for anything. Take away those Michigan/Ohio/Pennsylvania/North Carolina gerrymanders, and he’d be returning as the minority leader.
This is an important point. Don’t believe the GOP spin about why they maintained their majority in the House of Representatives. I have a feeling this argument is going to come up a lot while Republican lawmakers try to argue that the president doesn’t have a mandate to raise taxes on the wealthy.
↧
Republicans continue to be wrong about everything
↧
