Woodall To President: Make Us An Offer We Can’t Refuse

7th District Congressman Rob Woodall took to the House Floor to urge the President to offer spending cuts along with tax increases.

“Mr. Speaker, my challenge today to the White House, to my friends on the left: make it hard on me as a freshman and a conservative … Lay out those tax increases right beside solutions to the real problem, which is spending, and make those spending reductions so large, and so helpful to the American economy, that I would have no choice but to agree to your tax increases so that we can save the country from the real problem, which is spending,” Woodall said.

Here’s a video of Woodall’s remarks:

If you’re interested, here is an hour long speech Woodall delivered last week on the subject of the fiscal cliff.


  1. John Konop says:

    I wonder if Woodall would support this free market approach to raising tax revenue and lowering enforcement cost ie big government?

    ………Would legalizing prostitution help the US economy?
    A Nevada brothel owner says America is missing out on billions of dollars in taxable revenue……..

    ………..With his plan, Hof says, the government would gain about $6 billion in federal income tax “from the girls” — plus nearly $2 billion more in licensing fees……………


        • John,

          You are ignoring the very negative aspects of prostitution. It’s not the sweet little lifestyle choice Hollywood makes it out to be. In fact, the article you linked to points out this:

          “While legalization was supposed to turn prostitutes into self-employed taxpayers who did not need pimps for protection,” Reuters reported in 2007, “the city said the industry is still dominated by criminals attracted by the 370 Euros ($484 U.S.) each woman can earn a day.”

          And a new academic report, looking at data from 116 countries, found a higher instance of human trafficking in countries where prostitution is legal.

          “Our research suggests that in countries where prostitution is legalized, there is such a significant expansion of the prostitution market that the end result is larger reported inflows of human trafficking,” said Eric Neumayer, Professor of Environment and Development at the London School of Economics and Political Science, and co-author of the report.

          We’re trying to fight exploitation of women and human trafficking, not expand it so we can grow the tax base.

          Even if we did this, it’s hardly a solution to the debt crisis we face. $6 billion is tossing pebbles in the ocean.

          Any serious solutions to the problem?

          • John Konop says:


            You have to first look at the countries they are studying, you cannot compare Bangkock to our country. 2 our country has already done this with alcohol and shown it decreased violence, gangs in the business…….. 3 alcohol, cigarets, cigars…..generate a lot of tax revanue with very little enforcement cost. Finally it will not solve the ills of society, but is that what you want a big government playing daddy? Hey the war on drugs has only helped the gangs and people making money off the court system, while the rest of us pay for it. How is that working? Btw human trafficking is illegal as well as shooting someone with a gun. Do you want to ban all guns because some people used wrong? I am for going after people who violated the law not create more laws?

            • Legalizing drugs is a debate worth having but in the sex trade the woman is the commodity rather than the drugs or alcohol. I find that abhorrent and don’t think prostitution should be legalized. A study in the very article you linked to proves that it makes matters worse so why are we even having this discussion? I suppose you just want to throw out some ridiculous idea to muddy the waters and distract from Woodall’s comments.

              • John Konop says:


                No I am throwing real ideas to lower the cost of government and raise tax revenue. Unless all ideas are on the table we cannot get it done. You cannot argue about the numbers. I see a lot of guys talking a big game about big government and very few actually proposing real ideas. All talk no real solutions……..if we are taking off the table legal cost of being social police than tell me your idea to place the cuts and revenue?

        • John Konop says:


          But not on the initial transaction and we still have enforcement cost. Some of you talk about big government…………, but it seems you like it, if you support it ie military, 3 strikes and you are out in sentencing……….

      • John Konop says:


        The cost for enforcement of laws like this………This does not include the upside on tax revanue…….

        ….In the 2010 edition of “The Budgetary Implications of Drug Prohibition,” Jeffrey Miron, director of undergraduate studies at Harvard University, estimates that legalizing marijuana would save $13.7 billion per year in government expenditure on enforcement of prohibition.

        “Legalization eliminates arrests for trafficking and possession,” Miron says. “Second, legalization saves judicial and incarceration expenses. Third, legalization allows taxation of drug production and sale.”

        Miron estimates that eight states each spend more than $1 billion annually enforcing marijuana laws: New York, $3 billion; Texas, $2 billion; California, Florida, $1.9 billion; Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, $1 billion.

        Arizona—another border state—spends $726 million, while Coloradospends $145 million. North Dakota spends the least—$45 million a year—reflecting both its location and population density.

        The budget for the federal Drug Enforcement Administrationhas increased 40-fold since its inception in 1973, from $65 million (and 2,800 employees) to $2.6 billion (11,000) in 2009….


        BTW this is a 1987 number and I am sure it is much higher now.

        ……….Prostitution Arrests Cost $2,000 Each, Study Finds……..


        • Daddy Got A Gun says:

          If you want to reduce the cost of enforcement against malum prohibitum offenses like marijuana possession and to some degree prostitution, repeal the forfeiture laws.

          Once that happens, you’ll see Law Enforcement focus on the truly bad people (suppliers, pimps, etc.) and away from people who cross the line slightly but hurt no-one. Right now, LE has a perverse financial incentive to chase and criminalize bit players because its a quick buck to their budget.

    • Jackster says:

      Would uncle sam then be big pimpin? Cause essentially he’s taking his cut of whatever they earn. And he’ll come after you if you don’t pay him.

  2. saltycracker says:

    The country is fed up (pun intended) with ad hoc ideas and make me an offer BS.
    Want the world to rejoice ?

    Republicans: Agree to the tax rate increase on the upper incomes.
    Democrats: Agree to limit spending to 18% of GDP.

    Then go fight over the details.

  3. IndyInjun says:

    Meanwhile, there is some evidence that the liquidity that averted a total collapse in 2008 was provided by the illegal drug trade.

  4. DavidTC says:

    So, basically, the Republicans are _still_ unable to offer spending cuts of their own, and _still_ demand the president himself provide them. Hint: That is not how negotiations work.

    Dems: We will sell you everything on this table for $100!
    Reps: Not good enough, add some stuff.
    Dems: Uh…like what?
    Reps: *whispering as if scared to be overheard* You knows, some trinkets or something.
    Dems: Okay, how much? What kind?
    Reps: Just add them! Like, oh, $50 worth! *turns to people standing around the table * This person is being deliberately obtrusive and won’t agree to my demands that he invent some random stuff to give me in addition to what he already offered!
    Random bystander: You Republicans think we’re all idiots, don’t you? Or possibly don’t understand how to haggle?

    If Republicans want spending cuts, they must offer those. (Considering they’ve been yammering for spending cuts for _decades_, it is actually somewhat odd looking they _don’t already have a plan_ for spending cuts ready to hand out at a moment’s notice.)

    But no, they keep demanding that the president psychically know what _they_ want to cut. Yeah, no one’s falling for that, we remember the _last_ time the president offered cuts to Medicare waste and they spent an election attacking him for it, even though their VP candidate offered exactly that in _his_ plan also. (And those specific cuts, incidentally, are _already_ in the president’s plan.)

    If the Republicans demand cuts, they Republicans must _actually make those demands_, period. The American people have always noticed that the Republicans keep saying ‘The President don’t agree with our demands’ and yet do not _actually_ have any sort of demands put forward.

    I sorta wish the president, pretending to be confused, would offer to cut Congress’s pay to almost nothing. Is _that_ what the Republicans want? No? Okay, how about cutting subsidies to oil companies, is _that_ what Republicans want? He should just start making a long series of satirical suggestions of cuts, acting completely baffled every time Republicans said no.

    • xdog says:

      You’re exactly right.

      For a party that likes to brag on their tough-mindedness gopers sure do a lot of milling around when it comes to dealing with the real world. They can’t handle any problem that requires more sophistication than a kneejerk appeal to the powers of trickle-down. Witness their devotion to Big Brain Ryan’s budget with its $trillion of unspecified revenue increases and $trillion of unspecified cuts, all to take effect at an unspecified time. It’s holy writ to them, the worthless slugs.

Comments are closed.