What was the point of tying in the estate tax with raising the minimum wage?

Question

Shouldn't these two issues be treated seperately? Why link them together? The estate tax isn't even an issue right now anyways...

Quote from the link: "The estate tax doesn't have to be addressed until the end of 2010, when current law expires"

It's from FOX news, so don't give me no liberal media bull..
http://search.foxnews.com/_1_2WTRTIC02PS4KWV__info.foxnws/clickit/search?r_aid=EAD462901BD247F1A0A2BC1BB9F09B10&r_cop=main-title&r_coid=370677&rawto=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207180,00.html

Answer 1

Votes! What better way to earn votes then to give something to the rich and give something to the poor. By putting the two together they've given the democrats a Catch-22. If they vote against the bill because they are not in favor of cutting the estate tax then they don't care about the poor if they vote for it they're in favor of cutting taxes. It gets the Republicans votes because the poor working class will say "great look at what they've done for us" and the rich will say the same. moderates will see whats happened and say great they're helping the poor and im getting somthing to. On a side note in my opinion, its worth cutting the estate tax to raise minimum wage but it is kind of a cheap trick by the republicans.

Peace. Love. Unity. Tim D

Answer 2

Well, election year jitters. Congressional seats are up for grabs, so lawmakers, while not really wanting to pass raising the minimum wage yet want to appear sympathetic to lower wage earners, use one as a rider. Attaching it to a bill that is irrelevent is just about a sure way of getting it killed. Unless the President really wants it to float. But since he is a right wing republican, only slightly to the left of Attila the Hun, I doubt it has much of a chance. Although I have seen some bills pass both houses and override a presidential veto if the American People speak out loudly enough in favor of it. Try voting for Al Gore next time and we might just get a fair deal for the working poor.

Answer 3

Typical game played in politics whereby one party gives its consent to a bill it otherwise would not endorse unless it gets something out of it that it has been wanting but would not get without being willing to give something in return. You know the old, "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours". It is ridiculous but is a tactic that has been used by both parties for years and its unfortunately doubtful we'll ever see an end to it. For the record, trying the estate tax to minimum wage was a Republican tactic.

Answer 4

The Rs put it in so the Ds would reject it. Now the Rs can say that the Ds turned down an increase in the minimum wage.

If the Ds went along, the Rs would win on the Estate tax plan.

Nice going Rs.

Answer 5

It's called poisoning a bill, both sides do it all the time. An example: X president wants to start a new highway system that will cost countless trillions, XX Senator proposes an amendment that will require an equal amount of money to be spent on bananas that will be fed to monkeys. Thus negating the bill.

Answer 6

Simple, it was a typical dirty campaign trick, Karl's specialty.

During the upcoming campaign, if a Democratic incumbant voted for the bill, the Republican challanger can say "Democrat X voted to give tax breaks to millionares". If a Democratic incumbant voted no on the bill, the Republican challanger can say "Democrat X voted no to a badly needed minimum wage increase".

Either way, fodder for the Rove slime machine.

Answer 7

by using fact it replaced into an exercising in dazzling politics. i'm not advocating the two social gathering; i in simple terms am keeping that the genius at the back of the pass knew that the disapproval of considered one of those degree could make super fodder for fall candidate classified ads. for a conservative/republican to vote for it may make maximum liberal components re-examine balloting against that republican candidate. if a democrat voted for it, whilst preserving in line together with his/her purpose to develop minimum salary, the valuables tax seize could anger those liberals who observed the piss-colored lining interior the cloud. And, if the democrats voted against it, republican applicants could decry that all and sundry which liberal posturing replaced into in simple terms that: posturing. it rather is unhappy that the political millieu of this united states is so opposed, yet you have obtainable this administration credit for a minimum of getting the ordinary public to come again into the dynamic political debate, which long by using fact has dwindled. Kudos, Rove, you wonderboy, you!

Answer 8

The point was so the Republicans wouldn't have to raise the minimum wage. They wanted it voted down to keep the poor people poor and themselves rich. They knew the Dems would never go for it.

Answer 9

Thank you for not making me type so much Tim D.

Answer 10

to negate "class warfare" typical Demo tactic...