Washington Republicans Fighting A Losing Battle

December 5, 2012 13:00 pm

by Charlie · 49 comments

Today’s Courier Herald Column:

Republicans seem to be negotiating with themselves in Washington these days, as the realization has set in that regardless of the outcome of these “fiscal cliff” negotiations, they’re likely to come out on the losing end.  Democrats, for their part, seem content to blow off any Republican offers with a guffaw and ask Republicans to try again.

Republicans have boxed themselves into a corner, and any way out of it causes them problems.  Democrats are insisting on not just additional revenues to the Treasury which Republicans have offered from limiting deductions.  They are now insisting that rates must increase on high income individuals.  In short, the President’s position is that Republicans must break any pledges they’ve made to not increase taxes as part of any deal.

If Republicans decide not to do this, however, they risk blame for the taxes of all Americans going up.  The Washington Post released a poll in conjunction with Pew Research showing 53% of Americans will blame Republicans if a deal is not done, versus just 27% saying the President is the problem.  That’s a divide of public opinion significantly larger than usual party splits, and Republicans are acting like they are feeling the heat.

That said, Republicans have totally lost the message that ultimately controls public opinion.  These are, after all, still referred to as the “Bush tax cuts”, despite the fact that President Obama has renewed them a couple of times already.  More importantly, the “Bush tax cuts” are an entire package of tax cuts, but to hear most talk about them you would think the only part President Bush pushed for was the reduction of rates on the high income earners.

If these “temporary” tax cuts were allowed to expire, there is an entire range of taxes that would be affected.    Every American who pays income taxes would pay a higher burden.  Millions would be added back to the tax rolls that were eliminated from paying income taxes because of these tax cuts.

And yet, despite lowering taxes for all American taxpayers and eliminating income taxes for over ten million Americans altogether, the Republicans are spending most of their messaging on preserving the tax cut for a small few rather than taking the credit for taxes being lower for all.

Republicans have further handicapped themselves by agreeing to this fiscal cliff in the first place, and by setting sequestration as part of a poison pill solution that was supposed to bring everyone to the table.  They are now faced with the unenviable position of either making a deal on the Democrats’ terms, or watching defense spending be gutted while taxes go up on everyone.  And, frankly, it is a problem of Republicans own making.

Politically, it is difficult to see how Republicans win this battle.  They are likely to either turn off independents and moderates by holding firm against all tax rate increases and let some portion of sequestration and across the board tax increases happen. Or, they may decide it’s politically palpable to renew the Bush tax cuts for most Americans and pledge to fight the good fight on reducing rates later.

A new debt ceiling increase must be voted on soon, likely within the next 90 days.  Republicans appear to be coalescing around the idea that they will have more leverage on that vote, as Democrats don’t fear raising taxes on everyone nor slashing defense spending.  Republicans meanwhile have enough of their rank and file that don’t want to increase the debt ceiling that they believe Democrats will be less willing to play chicken when approaching that vote.

The result of this continued dance appears to be more kick-the-can politics.  Artificial deadlines continue to be created, politicians appear to be heavily engaged, and at the end, they determine they need more time and create another artificial deadline.

Republicans will never win this battle, as they need to eventually realize they are playing on the other guys’ turf.  Instead, Republicans need to get this behind them and begin expressing a transformative vision for 2014 and 2016.  If we’re for fundamental tax reform, we need to begin articulating what that will look like rather than bickering over marginal rates that affect a relative few.  If we’re for entitlement reform, we need to articulate why small pains today mean a healthier plan for tomorrow.

Most of all, if we’re for economic growth we need to articulate the need for “certainty” in our economy, tax policy, and government regulation.  Kicking the can – again – doesn’t project that.  And our economy suffers for it.

DavidTC December 5, 2012 at 1:27 pm

A new debt ceiling increase must be voted on soon, likely within the next 90 days. Republicans appear to be coalescing around the idea that they will have more leverage on that vote, as Democrats don’t fear raising taxes on everyone nor slashing defense spending. Republicans meanwhile have enough of their rank and file that don’t want to increase the debt ceiling that they believe Democrats will be less willing to play chicken when approaching that vote.

I can see why some _Republicans_ would think that, but that is because I try to never underestimate the intelligence of elected Republicans.

The last debt ceiling fight was _ disastrous_ for Republicans(1), and that was when the American people barely understood it. But in this example, the American people will clearly see a deal being agreed to, a compromise reached…and then somehow, a few months later, the Republicans somehow managed to break things. Again.

You know, like the _first_ time there was a debt ceiling fight, and we all learned that it was settled and Republicans weren’t going to do that again…and then they did.

Brinksmanship works once. It might even works twice. This point, now? This is _three times_.

Yes, this time is different than the other times, but the American people do not actually pay attention. And if they do pay attention, they know what is actually going on is a continuation of the _last_ debt ceiling thing, and they also know exactly how stupid it is to fight over the debt ceiling.

Doing it _again_, a fourth time, is so stupid as to be almost unimaginable. At some point, the American people will think ‘Whenever the Republicans are in control of any part of the government, they constantly play chicken with very important things to get concessions from Democrats. Solution: Stop putting Republican in control of any part of the government.’

But, please, Republicans, keep posturing for the Republican base. That’s how you get elected, right…erm, at least, how you win primaries. Keep disrupting everything to demand more tax cuts for the rich. And, no, it doesn’t matter what actually is going on, which is more complicated than that…that is what Americans _think_ is going on. Over and over. Even moderate Republicans are looking at this going ‘Huh?’

And it’s going to look even stupider in the near future, because Obama, as part of his proposal, is probably going to put something in there to permanently remove the debt ceiling. Although I think it would be funny if he’d just go nuclear on the debt ceiling and ignore it: If Congress sends him a law saying he must spend a certain amount of money, and another law saying he must only borrow another amount that is less than the first, he has to _pick_ which law he’s not going to follow, and nothing says he has to pick the one that everyone seems to think he will. If Congress doesn’t like his choice, they shouldn’t send him conflicting laws, now should they?

1) It is perhaps worth reminding Republicans that they _only_ have control of the House because of their state-level redistricting in 2010, and the Democrats actually got more total House votes than they did, nationwide. I’m not trying to say they didn’t ‘really’ win or anything, I’m just pointing out that in the Presidential race, the total Senate races, _and_ the total House races, more people voted against them than for them, so they need to start reconsidering some of the stuff they did from 2010-2012 if they want to get reelected.

Charlie December 5, 2012 at 1:38 pm

Tom Coburn: “I would rather see tax rates go up” than cap deductions:

http://thehill.com/video/senate/271077-coburn-i-would-rather-see-the-tax-rates-go-up-than-cap-deductions

The Last Democrat in Georgia December 5, 2012 at 2:13 pm

“And, frankly, it is a problem of Republicans own making.”

GEESH! How many times have I heard that one over the past year or so when someone is talking about Republican’ strategic political moves?

seenbetrdayz December 5, 2012 at 6:44 pm

How many times have republicans followed strategic suggestions from democrats who (here’s a little secret) might actually be misleading republicans. Like, Chuck Schumer, supposedly speaking for republicans when he says they ‘want a divorce from tax pledges’. So, the GOP will continue to listen to these folks, which will in turn cause many of the traditional conservatives to lose faith in the republican party, and everyone else will have to choose between a party that mimics big-spending democrats or a party that actually is a bunch of big-spending democrats. —And if people are gonna vote for something, they’re gonna vote for the real thing, which will undoubtedly leave the GOPers scratching their heads as to why the advice of Chuck Schumer didn’t work. (I mean, ‘duh’? In football I believe it’s called a ‘play action’, where you trick the other team into misreading the play).

The biggest problem of the’ republicans own making’ is that they can’t seem to walk the walk and therefore they are obliterating their credibility with fiscal conservatives.

seenbetrdayz December 5, 2012 at 6:48 pm

Here’s a better football analogy of what the GOP is doing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T-1KVLISVw

Three Jack December 5, 2012 at 2:20 pm

America needs a strong bout of pure, unfettered socialism if we are ever to get back on track. The GOP should step aside, let dems do what dems do then be ready to fight in 2 years.

The GOP deserves this mess because collectively they set this thing in motion. How in the hell does a group agree to a deal that gives their adversaries everything they want with nothing in return? If dems do nothing, they get all that they could ever want; higher taxes, more spending, healthcare as a right, no reform of redistribution programs. If the GOP fights, they get continuation of 35% tax rates for the top income earners thus pissing off those who look at prosperity as reason for punishment. What a mess!

Rationallogic December 5, 2012 at 2:34 pm

For the life of me, I can’t understand why the Republicans always seem to lose the message battle. Don’t they have marketing firms that help craft and test how that message is received?

Even if we do go over the cliff, I think most Americans, particularly independents, trust Republicans to fix the economy much moreso than the Democrats, particularly Obama.

The one big issue Bush did help to create with the Bush tax cuts is that we don’t have enough American that have a stake in the game because those tax cuts relieved their income tax burden and now the top 50 of earners pay the entire tax burden. Ironically, this makes the class warfare argument easier, despite the rich carrying more than their ‘fair share’ of the burden. We need all Americans to have a stake in the game to grasp the severity of the spending problems.

Though this is way over simplistic, we should have some sort of across the board 2 to 3% government spending cuts. Every department of the government, including the defense department, can afford to get more efficient. If you doubt that, go back and look up the defense department spending boondoggles that Tom Coburn (one of the staunchest defense department advocates) exposed a month or so ago. Possibly it can be solve with just reducing the rate of spending increases but I don’t trust the government to follow through on that. None of this is going to be good for the GDP but eventually we have to take our medicine. Clearly the only real solution is increase the tax receipts through a growing GDP but it appears we’re stuck with anemic growth for years before some type of growth engine re-ignites.

Daddy Got A Gun December 5, 2012 at 4:30 pm

Its very clear that Republicans and Boehner don’t know how to negotiate. Obama knows one tactic very well, bullying. Since the Reps suck at the negotiation game, he wins.

Boehner needs to get advice from real negotiation experts. They’d tell him several things:

1) Shut Up – Go Silent
2) Ridicule The Presidents Offers
3) Change The Target
4) Implement Rule 13 of Rules For Radicals

Here’s how it would work:

1) Shut Everyone Up! Go silent. No Republican says anything about the negotiations, cliff, taxs, etc. till Jan 10. No negotiations. No photo ops. Silence is a powerful negotiation tactic. Obama likes talking, let him. He has no power unless he is bouncing off statements by others. He’ll appear as an empty suit after an extended period of silence.

2) During the this silent time, Boehner goes on a late night show and skewers Obama’s statements/offers. Get the guy who wrote Romney’s Al Smith speech to help. Obama’s weakness is that he isn’t used to being ridiculed. Get ONE Senator to do the same on a show like the View. Get the RNC to make a funny video about Obama’s demands and non-negotiation.

Everyone else shuts the f up.

3) Pass ONE Bill related to the cliff ….. a requirement that the interest payments shall be paid first before all other obligations. This bill shows the Republican intent that we don’t default. Its a responsibility bill and has the impact of reinforcing the fact that the Republicans do have some power in the negotiations.

4) Hold Hearings On The Treasury Plan If The Debt Ceiling is Not Raised. Make Geithner sweat. Have the most forceful/Responsible Republican remind Geithner his obligation not to play politics with the debt obligations. Then buy commercial time. Make Geithner the enemy (Rule 13 of Alynski Rules for Radicals).

Rationallogic December 5, 2012 at 4:50 pm

+1 (If only I had faith in our Republican leader to execute this properly)

Rick Day December 5, 2012 at 5:07 pm

ah so your advice and strategy is to:

1. Obfuscate, dodge, and plant radical saddleburrs ,

2. Use popular media as an entertaining way to skewer the POTUS (as opposed to his positions). Again, fiddle playing “Let’s Attack Obama” while DC burns

3. Pass a bill that is designed for grandstanding. As opposed, say, to a bill with a solution.

4. Throw out the idea that Republican’s are ‘here to help’. They are, instead, here to smear.

*nods* yup. You guys are a$$holes.

Daddy Got A Gun December 5, 2012 at 5:36 pm

1. Silence is a powerful technique to bring negotiating back to negotiations. The silence period needs to be long enough that everyone is extremely uncomfortable with it. That’s why I said Jan 10. I didn’t say ” Obfuscate, dodge, and plant radical saddleburrs ” I said the Republicans need to shut up and wait patiently.

2) You should note that I didn’t say make fun of Obama, instead I said make fun of his statements and offers. There’s enough to have a funny riff going. You can do alot of damage to an opponents position with humor (Alinsky Rule 5). Obama has his bully pulpit, Boehner needs one as well.

3) Ordering the Treasury department not to pay politics and not pay bondholders is not grandstanding, it responsible and will reassure the markets. You’ll see the markets settle down once they realize that they are first in line to be paid.

4) If the state-owned media and Obama team weren’t playing politics with this, you’d be right about the smear. But, Geithner is one of the smear merchants. He needs to receive what he has been dishing out. In addition, he needs to be reminded he is Treasury Secretary and his sole obligation is the full faith and credit of the US. If he won’t act responsibly, he needs to resign.

Daddy Got A Gun December 5, 2012 at 5:37 pm

I wish we had the edit button…. number 3 got garbled:

3) Ordering the Treasury department not to pay politics and TO pay bondholders is not grandstanding, it responsible and will reassure the markets. You’ll see the markets settle down once they realize that they are first in line to be paid.

Max Power December 5, 2012 at 3:03 pm

Once again, this is easy. We as taxpayers should bear the true cost of government. Since the Reagan years a big chunk of our government hasn’t been paid for. If you really believe in small government you should absolutely be in favor of raising taxes because when we’re taxed $3.5 billion every year, we will quickly come up with government programs to abolish.

Harry December 5, 2012 at 3:54 pm

Only with a Balanced Budget Amendment would your concept work.

Three Jack December 5, 2012 at 3:56 pm

BBA = debt ceiling….how’s that working out?

Harry December 5, 2012 at 4:24 pm

Let’s see. I don’t think the GOP will roll over on the debt ceiling this time.

Three Jack December 5, 2012 at 4:30 pm

Right Harry just like they stood strong last time…good luck with that misplaced optimism.

benevolus December 5, 2012 at 5:04 pm

So they are going to take the position that “we’re not going to let us borrow the money that we have already authorized”?
Good luck with that.

Harry December 5, 2012 at 5:10 pm

Where did they authorize it? There’s been no approved budget in almost 3 years.

benevolus December 5, 2012 at 6:32 pm

Are you suggesting that President Obama is operating outside the law by spending money that has not been authorized?

Harry December 5, 2012 at 7:02 pm

The U.S. Constitution (Article I, section 9, clause 7) states that “[n]o money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”

No Obama budget has been approved by Congress. Instead, they’ve been operating on stopgap appropriations bills. IMHO, authorizing an emergency stopgap is not sufficient grounds to justify the raising of the debt ceiling. Congress should refuse to enable further appropriations until a plan is in place to eliminate the deficit. This may involve higher taxes and less spending. They set up the fiscal cliff to perpetuate this illusion, but now they’re set to kick the can down the road once again.

This will not end well.

benevolus December 5, 2012 at 8:23 pm

Ahh, so they did authorize the spending. I thought so.

seenbetrdayz December 5, 2012 at 7:49 pm

Are you suggesting that you didn’t know?

Max Power December 5, 2012 at 5:50 pm

I’m sorry Harry but you’re wrong. In 1980 adjusted for inflation the Federal Government spent about 7100 per capita and took in about 7000. The concept of tax and spend constrained the government’s growth. Now we spend almost $12,000 per capita and take in only $8000. If you can get $12000 worth of services for $8000 wouldn’t you ask for more?

Daddy Got A Gun December 5, 2012 at 6:33 pm

I wish our “leaders” would describe the situation in those terms. “Now we spend almost $12,000 per capita and take in only $8000.” Its simple, relatable, and understandable.

Harry December 5, 2012 at 7:27 pm

Would you join with me in supporting a Balanced Budget Amendment?

Daddy Got A Gun December 5, 2012 at 7:54 pm

Honestly, I don’t believe an Amendment will constrain the permanent political class at all.

The debt limit is a pseudo-balanced budget requirement. If they don’t raise the limit, the budget has to be balanced. How often has Taxby voted to raise that limit?

Even if we had the amendment, who will enforce it if both the President and Congress want to spend? The courts? Look how they interpreted “shall not be infringed”.

Max Power December 5, 2012 at 8:02 pm

No because there are times when it makes sense for a government to run a deficit. The problem is we’ve set ourselves up where running a deficit is the default position. Reagan’s greatest failing was that his policies got the American people used to getting a lot of government for a little price tag. Clinton’s greatest failing was that in a once in history confluence of events he didn’t restore the balance.

In good times you run surpluses so in bad times you can run deficits. It’s simple but it requires a level of maturity and selflessness seemingly absent in our political class.

Dave Bearse December 5, 2012 at 10:13 pm

“Clinton’s greatest failing was that in a once in history confluence of events he didn’t restore the balance.”

I’m not sure where you’re coming from given the federal government was running budget surpluses with surpluses projected to continue when Clinton left office.

Not balancing the budget in good times is a failing of both parties, most recently the GOP, which failed to take action (increase taxes or cut spending) when the economy rebounded after the 2000-2001 recession. Indeed the massive deficit spending increases for unfunded wars and the establishing a new Medicare Part D entitlement during relative prosperity made it clear GOP concerns about deficits is out-of-power politicing.

mpierce December 5, 2012 at 11:41 pm

I’m not sure where you’re coming from given the federal government was running budget surpluses

Federal Debt:
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

Dave Bearse December 6, 2012 at 1:30 am

Your debt information is authoritative, but the difference may lie in either the details of the definition of budget surplus, and/or inflation. The following is based on surplus (or deficit) based on receipts less outlays adjusted for inflation:

1993 -255B
1994 -203B
1995 -264B
1996 -107B
1997 – 22B
1998 + 69B
1999 +126B
2000 +236B
2001 +128B
2002 -157

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

mpierce December 6, 2012 at 10:33 am

He borrowed money from various trust funds to make it look like a surplus.

More detailed explanation.

Max Power December 6, 2012 at 7:45 am

Simply put we’re never going to see the deflationary impact of half the worlds population coming out from under non-free market regimes while at the same time having an incredibly innovative wealth creating new technology coming on the scene. Clinton was dealt a Royal Flush but either didn’t recognize it or didn’t have the political courage to capitalize on it. During the boom years he should have been pushing for much higher taxes and much smaller government.

bowersville December 5, 2012 at 5:43 pm

From Charlie’s column:

Republicans will never win this battle, as they need to eventually realize they are playing on the other guys’ turf.

The following is from South Carolina:

Almost one month to-the-day after Barack Obama won a second term as president, 48% of all South Carolinians polled approved of the job he is doing. The category of respondents who most disapproved of his performance—at 51.9%—were those who reported that they had voted in the presidential election last month.
More than three-in-four of all respondents disapproved of the way Congress is doing its job.

Read more here: http://thesunnews.typepad.com/a_different_world/2012/12/president-obama-more-popular-in-sc-than-gov-haley-while-tea-party-influence-wanes.html#storylink=cpy

Folks, that article is dated today. South Carolina isn’t much different than Georgia. Gingrich carried both States and the pan handle of Florida during the Presidential Preference. If Ga is trending the same and the SC poll is credible, it’s time for concern.

John Konop December 5, 2012 at 7:55 pm

The toughest number is 50k Latinos turn18 every month. Add that with Other minorities and women it is a demographic nightmare for the GOP. The crazy part the Rush listeners really think they lost via everything other than policy.

The GOP leaderships needs to read Goldwaters book or watch old shows from Buckly. Simple policy change pro small business over big business, smart infastructure investment, libertarian on social issues massive savings ie end drug war………., end policemen of the world foriegn policy ie massive savings, promote a shift toward an annuity style savings over social security, embrace cost savings on health care ie let seniors and government workers buy drugs from va………flatter taxes with no special interst write offs………immigration policy that promotes us getting the best and brightest, while making sure new immigrants and temp visa workers pay for themselves ie insurance………

Just a start……..

xdog December 5, 2012 at 6:46 pm

” are now insisting that rates must increase on high income individuals. In short, the President’s position is that Republicans must break any pledges they’ve made to not increase taxes as part of any deal.”

That’s wrong, isn’t it? No one’s asking for goper consent to tax rates going up for income over $250,000 a year. No one needs their OK. The law reads that those rates will increase, and that’s that. What’s at issue is whether gopers will be a party to the process of stopping tax increases for everyone else.

“Republicans need to get this behind them and begin expressing a transformative vision for 2014 and 2016.”

Well, yeah, but it’s hard to say what that vision would be when they’ve put so much political capital in the old vision of lower rates for the rich above all, and someday the others can make it to the middle class. Paul Ryan as Jack Kemp doesn’t really sound right, and anyway, Kemp didn’t move the party.

Meanwhile, right now you’ve got Dan Burton holding anti-science bullying sessions on vaccinations and Louie Gohmert introducing another flat tax proposal that is as distorted and unfair as most of the rest. That’s two problems right there and neither of them is going away.

House goper leadership shows some nihilist back benchers what the back bench is for and the wild right erupts. Dick Armey gets bought out. That’s the tea party problem and they aren’t going away either. They already have their vision.

Jindal, Gary Johnson, Rubio all try to make some sense but what real pull do they have in the party? imo this isn’t vision time for gopers, it’s survival time. They should hunker down, try to keep the crazies in the background as much as possible, find some adults to tell the others the facts of life. That’s key right there–find some adults.

Harry December 5, 2012 at 7:05 pm

Let’s go over that fiscal cliff, and also refuse to increase the debt limit. Then we can start to get serious. But of course the politicians are jokers and will not get serious.

IndyInjun December 5, 2012 at 8:17 pm

We Paultards do not feel your pain.

Die, rotten GOP, die a horrible death.

You have been a joke for years, now your plug is being pulled.

Harry December 5, 2012 at 8:40 pm

Do you think the surviving Democrats will fix the deficit?

IndyInjun December 5, 2012 at 9:40 pm

They will fix it about as well as the GOPers…….stick a fork in them, they are DONE.

Harry December 5, 2012 at 8:43 pm

Anybody who has an option when to start with social security, you better start drawing it as soon as possible while the dollar still has some value.

IndyInjun December 5, 2012 at 9:39 pm

Will it still be there in 1 year and 6 months?

That was my plan. Now I figure I will get it, but it won’t even buy a Twinkie…..Thanks Saxby, Johnny, Nancy, Harry and Barack.

Dave Bearse December 5, 2012 at 9:59 pm

“They are now insisting that rates must increase on high income individuals” wrongly implies recent change when it’s been the Obama and Dem position for years.

“In short, the President’s position is that Republicans must break any pledges they’ve made to not increase taxes as part of any deal.”

I don’t think the President has any position on GOP pledges that he’s not a party to. The GOP refusing to cooperate on healthcare reform wasn’t framed as a GOP position that Obama would be breaking a campaign promise that healthcare reform would be high priority.

mpierce December 6, 2012 at 12:11 am

“They are now insisting that rates must increase on high income individuals” wrongly implies recent change when it’s been the Obama and Dem position for years.

Obama July 22, 2011

Dave Bearse December 6, 2012 at 1:40 am

Breitbart citing Obama discussing a comprimise position that would have involved tax changes that wouldn’t involve increasing tax rates doesn’t rebut the position that Obama has long advocated increasing taxes on high incomes.

Dave Bearse December 6, 2012 at 1:40 am

Oops, the above was supposed to be in reply to mpierce.

mpierce December 6, 2012 at 10:58 am

Breitbart citing

There was a video of Obama saying it. Does it matter that it was posted on Breitbart?

“They are now insisting that rates must increase on high income individuals”

is a change from

“What we said was give us $1.2 trillion in additional revenues, which could be accomplished without hiking taxes — tax rates, but could simply be accomplished by eliminating loopholes, eliminating some deductions and engaging in a tax reform process that could have lowered rates generally while broadening the base.”

Yes they always advocated increasing taxes, but they didn’t always insist that those increases came from higher rates.

xdog December 6, 2012 at 6:46 am
northside101 December 6, 2012 at 8:48 am

If Republicans are going to agree to revenue increases, then Democrats must offer spending cuts. And I mean REAL spending cuts—not “Washington math” (cuts in the rate of growth) LOL on the latter, as none of the liberals will admit Washington has a spending problem. You’re more likely to see snow in Atlanta on the 4th of July than Obama, Reed and Pelosi admit on camera, “Washington has a spending problem.”

FYI, listed below the difference between a “cut” and a “Washington cut” in spending:

Private Sector, ABC Widgets: “Our payroll is $100 million this year, but because of a sagging economy, we have to cut it by $5 million to $95 million in 2013.”

Washington Math: “We will spend $100 million in 2012 on XYZ program. In 2013, we were going to spend $110 million, but instead we will spend “only” $105 million, for a $5 million cut.

Comments on this entry are closed.