The FP of today's NYT has an article about the looming expiration of the W/Cheney 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Both sets of cuts were passed via Reconciliation (an approach that suddenly became a bad thing when it applied to the 2010 HC bill), and both of them sunset at the end of this year.
RDemocrat already wrote a diary addressing some aspects of this looming controversy. That diary notes the various perspectives of the various sides in this debate. I'd like, however, to address the big-picture strategic question that's presented here.
For 18 mos now, we've seen the GOP play the politics of obstruction. It has, in fact, been their sole strategy since 1/20/09. They don't hold the WH, and they have decided minorities in both houses of Congress. They consciously chose, largely via the Senate filibuster, to delay and deny the Dems at every turn in an attempt to sour the public on the Dems and on the concept that the federal govt can help people.
The efficacy of this approach has been evident in many ways. It's likely that the 2009 Stim would've been bigger w/o that approach, and, had the Stim been bigger, current economic (and the Dems' political) prospects probably would be brighter. The GOP was able to drag out the debate over HC, to galvanize its base, to cause the Dems to expend serious political capital, and to end up w/ a bill that pleases few and offends many. Financial regulatory reform dragged out as well, and the bill that was ultimately passed proved to be something of a mixed bag. Major climate legislation will not be passed by this Congress. EFCA, the primary legislative priority of a key Dem constituency, has faded into oblivion.
The GOP clearly thinks that obstruction has worked, which is why it has become ever more firmly wedded to that strategy over the course of this Congress. To date, they never had any legislative priorities, so being the party of "No" worked for them. The shoe, however, will be on the other foot as the W/Cheney tax cuts approach their expiration date.
If nothing is done by year's end, estate taxes, which are currently nothing, will revert to the 2001 level of 55%. The top individual marginal rate will revert to the 2001 level of 39.6%. Capital gains taxes will rise, and depreciation rates will change. The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) will revert to 2001 levels.
Except for the last change, the vast majority of Dem voters would be unaffected of these changes. Their estates aren't large enough to be taxed, they don't pay anything close to the top marginal rate, and they don't pay capital gains taxes. A fair number of Dem voters would likely be hurt by AMT reversion. On balance, however, it's predominantly GOP oxen that will be gored if the tax cuts expire.
Most Kossacks are painfully familiar w/ how 40-41 GOP senators have been unable to throw sand on the legislative gears for the past 18 mos. Imagine what 59 (nominal) Dem senators and the WH could do here if they chose to throw some sand. They could, for example, tell the GOP that they'll work together on AMT revisions, but they're in no hurry to do anything about the other provisions that are expiring. 41 Dem senators could easily take such an approach. Hell, 34 Dem senators plus a WH veto would be enough to pull it off.
The issue here is not over the finer points of the tax code. The issue is the possession of power and the willingness to use it. It's an issue that the GOP understands now and that Dems like LBJ and FDR understood in the past. The GOP used obstruction w/ visible success when it was in the distinct minority. Imagine what the Dems could do by using obstruction w/ a solid majority.
Our foes have important legislative goals that they will soon be desperate to achieve. Our party can easily thwart them from achieving those goals by using tactics that they have perfected in the past 18 mos. It is, accordingly, time to turn the tables on them.