Time To Move Beyond The Fiscal Cliff

January 1, 2013 20:49 pm

by Charlie · 82 comments

Dear Georgia Republicans – specifically those who are currently elected to Congress.

None of us are really happy with the fiscal cliff deal.  I’m guessing you probably aren’t either.  We wanted a “grand bargain”. There’s nothing grand about this, really.  We still have real problems to solve.  But politically, we’re playing this one wrong.

For over 10 years we’ve heard the Democrats say that the Bush tax cuts weren’t helping the economy, hurt the economy, or only favored the rich.

Now, we have them demanding not only that we keep 99.1% of them, but that we make them permanent.  In addition to locking in all but one income tax rate from the Bush package, we get a permanent fix to the Alternative Minimum Tax, A reduced rate in the estate tax plus a new $5 Million dollar threshold.  Further, that threshold will be indexed to inflation – something that the far left is absolutely apoplectic about.

Instead of declaring this a victory in the battle that lower taxes and certainty of permanent tax rates spurs the economy, many of us have switched positions now that many Democrats are agreeing.  Instead, Congressional Budget Office projections of $4 Trillion added to the 10 year debt are being used by many to torpedo this deal.

There was a time when Republicans argued that CBO’s static analysis can’t account for the growth from low taxes.  Now, we have some who seem to be arguing that we need higher taxes across the board to decrease the deficit because of those same numbers. The inconsistency is palpable.

Yes, we wanted lower spending as part of this deal.  There’s still a debt ceiling vote sometime in late February and a Continuing Resolution that must be passed in March.  Republicans are in a better position to isolate the spending issue with lower permanent tax rates as an issue already solved.

The Bush Tax Cuts were ours.  If we vote down the bill that keeps them permanent for 99.1% of Americans, then they are no longer a Republican position.  It’s past time we figure out our messaging.  This current flailing about isn’t helping that one bit.

Let’s suck it up, accept this is the best we could get given our position, and move on to articulating why certain programs need to be curtailed or eliminated.  Declare victory on this battle and begin full engagement on the next one.

John Konop January 1, 2013 at 9:32 pm

Good post I agree it is a step in the right direction. Obviously we need more……….

mpierce January 1, 2013 at 10:32 pm

What happened to a balanced approach the President ran on? Where are the spending cuts? This piece of cr*p is not worthy of a yes vote. Any bets on whether Obama claims he has the authority to raise the debt ceiling himself when it comes up?

Bottom line, with passage of this bill, there will likely not be any spending cuts or fiscal sanity coming from Washington any time soon.

Charlie January 1, 2013 at 10:46 pm

WASHINGTON – U.S. Congressman John Barrow (GA-12) released the following statement regarding his vote on the deal that attempts to avoid the so-called “fiscal cliff.”

Congressman Barrow said:

“When we began discussions on getting our nation’s finances in order, our mission was to go big – reform our tax code, cut spending, and put us on a long-term path to deficit reduction. The package we’re voting on today doesn’t achieve any of these goals. I can’t support a plan that does nothing to address our debt, doesn’t make the necessary cuts in federal spending we need right now, and sets us up for another fiscal cliff in just a couple of months. I’m glad negotiators answered our call to block a pay increase for members of Congress, but it’s not nearly enough to put this country on the right path. This proposal isn’t a long-term solution — it just kicks the can two months down the road.

“Our nation’s debt is unsustainable, federal spending is out of control, and without seriously reforming our tax code, families in Georgia and across the country, regardless of their income levels, will pay more in taxes than is necessary. We need bold action to ensure that future generations aren’t saddled with our debt, but partisanship is holding us back. I’ll continue to work with my colleagues in the House to address these issues, but the bare minimum, like his package, isn’t good enough for the folks I represent.”

Charlie January 1, 2013 at 10:47 pm

Rep. Graves Statement On Senate Fiscal Cliff Bill

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Rep. Tom Graves (R-GA-09) issued the following statement on the fiscal cliff legislation passed by the U.S. Senate earlier today:

“The Senate bill offers no commitment to debt reduction, only a demand from taxpayers to bailout Washington. As taxes rise, freedom diminishes. Without any spending reforms, the debt crisis continues. I cannot support a bill that protects Washington and promotes bigger government at the expense of my constituents and future generations.

“What began in 2011 as an effort to address our nation’s debt crisis has been twisted by the president into a mandate to raise taxes. Every effort to reform spending has been bucked in favor of raiding the wallets of hardworking Americans.

“If Congress does not work with more conviction to solve the spending problem, we may soon realize we’re already over the cliff, and in a fiscal freefall.”

mpierce January 1, 2013 at 11:51 pm

Final vote

Dems 91% in favor
Reps 64% opposed

As much as I can’t stand Harry Reid, he would have never allowed a vote with numbers like that. Boehner needs to find a backbone.

Grandson of Flubber January 2, 2013 at 6:20 am

Boehner will never find a backbone unless he is undercutting fellow Republicans. Boehner needs to be replaced. Complete failure as a Republican leader. Paul Ryan for Speaker of the House. Enough is enough.

mpierce January 2, 2013 at 6:46 am

I think Ryan would be better than Boehner, but I’m not really sure about him. He’s talks the talk, but when it’s time to vote he follows the party leaders instead of taking a stand. He voted for this and for TARP.

Bob Loblaw January 2, 2013 at 12:27 pm

Ryan voted for it…was whipping votes for it…what’s your point?

Grandson of Flubber January 2, 2013 at 12:57 pm

At the time I wrote the comment, I was unaware Ryan voted for it and “was whipping votes for it”. My mistake. My opinion remains that Boehner needs to be replaced as Speaker. So, which fiscal conservative currently in the house has the strength of conviction, fortitude, communication skills, and gravitas to lead? Ryan may or may not be the one, but there are others in the House who have these attributes.

Bob Loblaw January 2, 2013 at 1:29 pm

If you were that unaware, then I find you equally unaware to the extent of the politics of leadership and that your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Go back to watching Fox News and being angry at everyone.

Grandson of Flubber January 2, 2013 at 3:46 pm

You truly are the Biblical animal that carried Mary into Bethlehem. Since you are such a low life jerk, no soup for your, DW.

Grandson of Flubber January 2, 2013 at 3:50 pm

Correction: Since you are such a low life jerk, no soup for you, DW.

You will forever be ignored.

Jackster January 2, 2013 at 3:58 pm

You’re on your way to the promised (ignored) land too if you can’t take a little lip from mr. soapbox himself.

Bob Loblaw January 2, 2013 at 6:38 pm

It is an honor to be associated with anything that carried the mother of my Savior! Soup or no, thank you very much.

mpierce January 2, 2013 at 1:42 pm

My point is that he has been a go along to get along guy. I don’t have an issue with that when a bill is a fair compromise and beneficial to the country. I see this as neither and looking at the vote I doubt I’m alone on that. Maybe he disagrees with the majority of his party colleagues or maybe he is just following his party leader. The latter option gives me doubts.

As I said I think he would be better than Boehner, but I still have some doubts about him.

Bob Loblaw January 2, 2013 at 1:49 pm

Go along to get along? He’s been the one guy in the whole negotiating over this thing that wouldn’t go along! The Senate? Ready to go along. The President? Look how far he moved off of his positions? The Speaker had to bring a bill to the floor to keep any negotiating leverage or credibility with the leaders of the Senate and the White House. Guys like Ryan get it–they got behind the Speaker when there was no room left for negotiation and failing to bring a bill to the floor would have been irresponsible and cut his ability to get a deal in the future for the Republicans.

The Republicans that voted no because there weren’t enough spending cuts forgot that voting against keeping taxes low on 99% of taxpayers is terrible politics. “When Congressman X had a chance to vote to keep your taxes from going up, he said NO so those making $450,000 a year wouldn’t get a tax increase on every dollar after the $450,000th.”

Terrible politics. I’d of voted yes, said I kept your taxes from going up and filed legislation to address spending cuts. The markets are up all over the world today because the U.S. now looks like the government can be counted on to operate in its most basic form: Ways and Means.

mpierce January 2, 2013 at 2:46 pm

We went from:
$1 in revenue for $3 in cuts
to
$1 in revenue for $1 in cuts
and ended up with
$41 in revenue for $1 in cuts

Wow, impressive. How could anyone say no to that great offer.

Additionally,
Went from absolute demand that all revenues come from cutting tax loopholes
to
Revenues will come from tax rate hikes.

mpierce January 2, 2013 at 2:50 pm

Oh yeah, I forgot a promise to address spending later. Hmm.. I’ve heard that before.

Maybe someone should show Republican leaders a few episodes of Charlie Brown.

mpierce January 2, 2013 at 3:00 pm

The markets are up all over the world today because the U.S. now looks like the government can be counted on to continue subsidizing markets all over the world at the expense of its own future

xdog January 2, 2013 at 7:33 am

“The inconsistency is palpable.”

I’d use ‘insanity’ but yes. You should tell it to Cantor and McCarthy.

Meanwhile, the House has managed to be persuaded to kick the whole mess down the road for 2 months. See you in March when goper absolutists start spitting out their pacifiers again.

Dr. Monica Henson January 2, 2013 at 7:34 am

The Republicans do not own fiscal responsibility any more than they own morality in this country. It always puzzles me when Democrats do the right thing and GOPers interpret that as somehow stealing the Republican platform. “Flailing about” is the perfect description of how the Georgia GOP Congressional delegation is behaving. What happened to bipartisan leadership? Stop acting like Gingrich’s Party of No and start working with the Democrats to craft meaningful spending cuts.

Jeez.

northside101 January 2, 2013 at 8:23 am

Wonder how many senators and repersentatives actually read all 150 pages of the legislation? How could there possibly have been enough time to do so given the Senate had passed it less than 24 hours earlier? And aren’t there rules about legislation having to go to certain committee, get seperate readings on different days? (Not familiar with the rules of Congress)

Bob Loblaw January 2, 2013 at 6:36 pm

Read the bills? For realz?

Buzz Brockway January 2, 2013 at 8:45 am

Speaking of inconsistency, Better Georgia delivered groceries to Woodall’s and Gingrey’s offices saying tax increases in the deal would hurt families. Woodall and Gingrey agreed and voted no, yet Better Georgia told the AJC the deal must pass. Then they delivered coal to Chambliss’ office because he complained about the deal before voting yes. Huh? These guys are the leading progressive group in Georgia?

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/fiscal-cliff-deal-leaves-many-in-atlanta-angry/nTkJk/

Bob Loblaw January 2, 2013 at 1:56 pm

They should deliver groceries to folks that need food instead of something so lame as this. I hope the offices donate the food to the local food bank.

saltycracker January 2, 2013 at 9:19 am

Haven’t had time to look at the details but there will probably be an interesting list of pork winners when we read the bill to know what is in it.

saltycracker January 2, 2013 at 9:19 am

Haven’t had time to look at the details but there will probably be an interesting list of pork winners when we read the bill to know what is in it.

Three Jack January 2, 2013 at 10:53 am

It’s a lousy deal orchestrated by an equally lousy group of lifelong bureaucrats. But it is the best that can be expected considering the people we have chosen to represent us.

Please define ‘permanent’ for me…as in 99.1% of Americans will see their rates become permanent. Does this mean no attempt at real tax reform will take place because 99.1% have been assigned ‘permanent’ tax rates? My view, nothing is permanent in DC except the bureaucrats who keep coming up with new ways to screw taxpayers.

Charlie January 2, 2013 at 11:44 am

Permanent has a very easy definition in DC tax code. It means that unlike the Bush tax cuts, there isn’t an automatic sunset on the rates. As such, there won’t have to be any more extensions where these rates are used as a bargaining chip, whereas Republicans are having to fight and make concessions just to keep the status quo.

Yes, they can always try to raise rates, which then gets tagged clearly as a tax increase (even many Dems avoid that). And, of course, if Republicans can ever get their act together and get a Senate Majority and/or the White House, they may even be in a position to lower this top rate that so many are going nuts over it reverting back to pre-Bush rates.

Friendly reminder though: Republicans held the House, Senate, and White House and couldn’t make these rates permanent. Now they just hold the House and managed to do so. And yet, the circular firing squad wants larger ammo clips.

Three Jack January 2, 2013 at 1:04 pm

Permanent: continuing or enduring without fundamental or marked change – Merriam Webster

That definition is what concerns me. I never wanted the so-called Bush tax cuts to be permanent, just a breather from Clinton tax hikes until rational reform of the antiquated revenue system could be ratified. Now GOPers have another excuse to avoid tax reform if they somehow manage to stop stepping on their third legs long enough to get a working majority again.

Charlie January 2, 2013 at 1:48 pm

And that’s exactly why you should want these rates “permanent”. Consider those air quotes if it helps.

So long as these rates were temporary, Republicans could (and did) spend an awful lot of energy just on keeping the status quo. Why push for reform when you could keep the base happy just re-fighting the same fight? Look at the reaction from many on the hard right and tell me this isn’t true. A large part of our party is wrapped around the axel because they didn’t fight hard enough to keep all these temporary cuts permanent.

The tax rate issue is largely off the table for Republicans now. They’ll need a new trick, and hopefully real tax reform will be it. I’m not sure even the leaders have grasped this yet, but instead of constant complaining about marginal tax rates in a broken system, it’s time for someone to lead a movement about real tax reform.

Three Jack January 2, 2013 at 1:57 pm

You have much more faith in the GOP than I Charlie. I think they will muster behind the message that ‘we got permanent tax cuts for 99% of you, so let’s move on to another issue’.

Charlie January 2, 2013 at 2:05 pm

My faith stays with my God. We’re talking about politics, and that’s not about having faith, that’s about understanding the motivations of those we elect and the people that elect them, and planning and executing a strategy around that which serves the goals and philosophies that we want.

We’ve spent 12 years of GOP limited government capital fighting over 3-5% differences in marginal tax rates while invoking Reagan. Reagan cut marginal tax rates as much as 40%. There’s not much of a second act left after that, but we’ve managed to beat that horse for an extra two decades.

Republicans jumped on the 9-9-9 plan because it was simple and easy to relate to. While I don’t that that or a FairTax! are a silver bullet, coming up with something like that where the numbers work would go a long way towards Republicans regaining the high ground on the tax issue.

The Last Democrat in Georgia January 2, 2013 at 5:11 pm

If Republicans want REAL tax reform they should advocate for all federal, state and local income and sales taxes to be eliminated and replaced with a simple corporate tax of no more than 40% (with an idea split of no more than 23-25% for the feds, 10-11% for each state and 5-7% for each local government).

mpierce January 2, 2013 at 5:57 pm

Shouldn’t states and locals be able to decide for themselves what level of taxation is right for their community?

The Last Democrat in Georgia January 2, 2013 at 6:55 pm

Yes, they should…inside of federally-mandated caps that keeps them from collecting too much in taxes like, say, places like California, New York and Illinois where one can end up paying as much as 60% of their personal income towards just combined federal, state and local INCOME taxes.

That 60% of income spent on combined fed, state and local income taxes doesn’t even account for the additional amounts of income that one may spend on sales and property taxes.

mpierce January 2, 2013 at 7:37 pm

The feds have too much power already. I don’t want them dictating to the states how much they should collect in taxes.

The Last Democrat in Georgia January 2, 2013 at 11:18 pm

mpierce January 2, 2013 at 7:37 pm-

I agree that the feds have too much power already. Eliminating the federal income tax and replacing it with a simple flat corporate tax that is capped (preferably by way of constitutional mandate) at no more than 25% will limit that federal power greatly and keep it in check.

Capping the amount of tax that state and local governments can collect will also place much-needed limits on those governments as well (the way that many state governments limit how much municipal governments can collect in sales and property taxes by way of state legislative constitutional caps). Because ALL levels of government need to be kept in firmly in check, not just the federal government.

Trey A. January 3, 2013 at 12:30 am

Charlie, your post here and comments highlight the overarching problem. Businessweek recently said essentially the same thing: The Reagan momentum is over. For 20 years post Watergate, the GOP was the party of big ideas. Now, it is acting like the Carter-era Democrats–beating a tired old drum to no avail (for Carter, it was New Deal/LBJ era liberalism. For today’s angry GOPers, it’s the Reaganism). We need new big ideas and new leaders. It’s as simple as that. They simply haven’t stepped up to the plate.

IndyInjun January 3, 2013 at 7:53 am

They love to hog the plate, hence their demise.

Bob Loblaw January 2, 2013 at 2:29 pm

“We” got permanent tax cut for 99% of you?

Since this is a GA politics blog, we can easily point to the fact that every GA House Member won’t be able to make this claim. This was a bi-partisan “we” and the saber-rattlers stood behind their friends that bank close to a half-million a year. Yep. The 1%.

Three Jack January 2, 2013 at 2:34 pm

Actually Bob, the fight was over raising any tax rates before agreeing to spending cuts. Unfortunately for 77% of taxpaying households, we got a tax increase because the GOP lost this battle long ago when they failed to act on rational reforms when they had majority control.

Three Jack January 2, 2013 at 3:00 pm

Charlie,

We agree on the need for tax reform. But it’s hard to believe (have faith, whatever) in the will of GOP leadership to pursue such a lofty goal. I hope I’m wrong.

gcp January 2, 2013 at 10:58 am

Yes Mr. Barrow and Mr. Graves, many of us know we need to cut spending and reform the tax code. Can you please give some specifics or are you too afraid that you may offend someone by actually giving specifics?

IndyInjun January 2, 2013 at 11:05 am

There never was a fiscal cliff for us….we are riding on the beautiful fiat money balloon to heaven.

Bernanke has no limit to the bounty he can dole out. A few keystrokes can make $16 quintillion, if need be.

Quit being such nags.

Relax and enjoy the heights.

John Konop January 2, 2013 at 11:22 am

An editorial from China…………The get it, but they are holding a lot of our money and debt…………………Hopefully we can get our arms around this in round 2……………….

………In a democracy like the United States, tax increases and spending cuts, the exact dose of medicine needed to cure its chronic debt disease, have long proved hugely unpopular among voters. So the politicians have chosen to kick the can down the road again and again.

But as we all know, the can will never disappear. Sometime and somewhere, you might trip over it and fall hard on the ground, or in the U.S. case, into an abyss you can never come out of…….

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/indepth/2013-01/01/c_132075227.htm

elfiii January 2, 2013 at 11:33 am

@ Dr Monica Henson – Stop acting like Gingrich’s Party of No and start working with the Democrats to craft meaningful spending cuts.

What “meaningful spending cuts” have Democrats offered Monica? Answer me soon. I’m hanging on tenterhooks.

Dr. Monica Henson January 2, 2013 at 12:14 pm

None that I’m aware of thus far from Congressional Dems or the President. Both sides need to get off their hind ends and get to work–but if the Republicans are committed to resistance to any proposals simply to continue their mindless opposition to the President, then it won’t get anywhere.

Bill Dawers January 2, 2013 at 1:11 pm

Obama had offers on the table of raising the Medicare age in his first attempt at a grand bargain with Boehner. This time he had chained CPI for Social Security on the table and a total of more than $900 billion in cuts over 10 years.

mpierce January 2, 2013 at 2:02 pm

When did Obama put forth an offer with Medicare age increase?

Bill Dawers January 2, 2013 at 4:28 pm

That was part of the deal in the works in July 2011: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60141.html

I don’t think it could have gotten through Congress, at the end of the day.

Bill Dawers January 2, 2013 at 4:35 pm
mpierce January 2, 2013 at 4:49 pm
Bill Dawers January 2, 2013 at 6:13 pm

There would have been no reason for Obama to make it a serious part of this negotiation after his solid win in November and after the solid win to control the Senate. In 2011, Obama and the Democrats were vulnerable, and I think they would have put the Medicare age on the table.

But none of that would probably have mattered, since Americans oppose a major change like that by vast margins — Republican voters too.

The Republicans this time around were pushing for chained CPI for Social Security, which Obama was willing to make part of a broader deal. But then even Marco Rubio denied that Social Security might be part of the deal and accused Obama of being the one that wanted it. (Rubio since deleted that tweet, but a pic was saved: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/30/the-republican-party-in-one-tweet/)

Bill Dawers January 2, 2013 at 6:17 pm

Correction: that tweet is still there, from 12/30 on Rubio’s account.

mpierce January 2, 2013 at 6:44 pm

Social Security and Medicare are separate issues. Social Security is usually not considered part of the deficit due to its payroll tax funding and expected to receive a 25% cut in benefits in 2033 (probably occur closer to 2027). Whereas over 40% of Medicare comes from general revenues.

Bob Loblaw January 2, 2013 at 6:34 pm

The Prez was willing to go to 67 on Social Security. As a Dem, that’s about as big of a give as you can make in his spot. He had 44 Dems on the Hill write him a letter objecting to it.

mpierce January 2, 2013 at 6:48 pm

If that were Medicare instead of SS, it might be worth discussing (assuming he was actually serious).

Bob Loblaw January 2, 2013 at 6:59 pm

SS is broke before a 35 year old reaches 65. How is that a “might be worth discussing” policy decision? It is a critical policy decision that the President was willing to publicly go on record as supporting in the face of opposition from his base.

Think many Republicans would have supported a sacred cow being cut upon like that? I haven’t seen that kind of guts from anyone.

John Konop January 2, 2013 at 7:57 pm

Bob,

You have made many points on this thread that are true and many do not want to hear. Doing the math the real issue is Medicare. You can tweak SS and it will survive. Unless we tackle healthcare cost the math does not add up. We cannot have healthcare cost rise 2 to 3 times faster than GDP with an aging population, and less workers as a ratio via an aging population, and have any math add up. Healthcare cost is a key factor to the economy,budget……….

mpierce January 2, 2013 at 10:04 pm

SS is broke before a 35 year old reaches 65.

You should change 35 to 45-50 as current projection shows 2033 as when it goes broke (which I already mentioned above). FYI, last year they were claiming 2036, but that date keeps getting moved closer and closer. SS is worthy of discussion as policy, but it is not included in our $16Tdebt or $1T annual deficit. As it’s supposed to be self-supporting it is accounted for separately. After SS goes broke it benefits will be cut 25% and the program will continue. This was supposedly about the deficit and debt, which is the context in which I made that statement.

Think many Republicans would have supported a sacred cow being cut upon like that?

I seem to remember defense spending (often considered a Republican sacred cow) being a part of the previous deal.

Charlie January 2, 2013 at 11:40 am

Westmoreland: “We Don’t Have a Revenue Problem in This Country – We Have a Spending Problem”

WASHINGTON, D.C. – This week, the House of Representatives voted on legislation that would allow the tax rates on some American families and small businesses to increase, while at the same time included no spending cuts. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the legislation would add roughly $4 trillion to our debt over the next ten years. Congressman Westmoreland, a vocal opponent of raising tax rates without addressing spending, opposed the legislation. Below is his statement.

“The American people are sick of Washington politics and temporary ‘fixes’ that don’t really fix anything. They want to see us take real actions with real solutions to the real problems we face – especially our mounting debt. Over the last four years since President Obama took office, our debt has risen from a little over $10 trillion to more than $16 trillion. That’s a 60 percent increase. And it’s only getting worse. Did you know that our country borrows roughly $6 billion every day? That’s $239 million every hour, or $4 million every minute.

“Let’s look at the reality of our overall tax situation. Between 2007 and 2009, the bottom 20 percent of American earners paid just three-tenths of a percent of the total tax burden while the richest 20 percent paid 67.9 percent. And now the president and Congressional Democrats want us to force them to pay even more.

“I do not believe we need to raise income tax rates to find a successful approach to handling our debt. And I won’t support this legislation that raises tax rates without addressing the real driver of our debt – spending. Higher taxes are not a real answer to our fiscal problem in Washington. In fact, if we went even further to what President Obama wants and raised taxes on those who make $250,000 and more, it would only cover about eight and a half days of his bloated spending. We don’t have a revenue problem in this country – we have a spending problem,” stated Westmoreland.

IndyInjun January 2, 2013 at 11:52 am

We have no problems. The Fed can and will fund unlimited spending at no cost to any of us.

The dollar prices 60% of world commerce and is indispensable. We create them in the the Fed’s computers and use them to maintain our dominance.

This can never end.

Bill Dawers January 2, 2013 at 1:20 pm

I don’t follow Westmoreland’s politics closely, but if spending in general is really the biggest worry, House Republicans should just block any type of deal to lessen the impact of the $1.2 trillion sequester, which will eventually kick in and take a huge bite out of discretionary spending, especially the military.

Or the American people need to hear exactly what entitlement cuts the Republicans in the House would vote for. (They already voted of course for the Ryan budget, but that was more show than reality since they knew it wouldn’t move ahead.) Any cuts to Social Security or Medicare are wildly unpopular with voters, including Republican voters in November.

Just given the math, it’s impossible to maintain anything close to the current level of entitlements for older Americans without some dramatic increases in revenue.

mpierce January 2, 2013 at 3:29 pm

Need a 54% increase in revenues just to pay for current spending.

IndyInjun January 2, 2013 at 3:56 pm

No, we need to cut taxes to zero to prove that the Laffer Curve works and that Bernanke ponzinomics obviates the need for revenue, as long as the funds can be borrowed without limit and without cost.

Bob Loblaw January 2, 2013 at 12:32 pm

We have a problem when Republicans think that they can keep taxes lower for those making less than $450k a family and that those making more than that will have their taxes increased on the amount above the $450k. The GOP literally stood behind the 1%.

Sometimes in this business you have to admit when your opponent holds better cards. Good luck explaining to everyone with incomes ranging from poverty to $450,000 annually why you voted against their taxes going up.

Bob Loblaw January 2, 2013 at 12:33 pm

sorry: “can” should have been “can’t”. Free the modify!

IndyInjun January 2, 2013 at 2:19 pm

You guys need to wake up. The $16 trillion in US debt was accumulated since the dawn of the republic. The FED created $16 trillion in debt to backstop the banks in a matter of months and there is NO LIMIT to their power to do the same for the people. Shoot, they should just send every US family $1.2 million checks. That would allow them to pay off debts and would send the US economy into the stratosphere.

My early years on PP were too focused upon mathematics and the Rule of Law. The ‘powers’ on this site beat me roundly for that. Those concerns were passe. We are ALL Keynesians now indeed.

You won, so what is all the bitching and moaning about? Bernanke and Obama have your backs – infinitely.

saltycracker January 2, 2013 at 2:25 pm

Years ago in an intense, emotional negotiation with a powerful
Exec one of the involved asked him “do you really think that is fair ?”
He screamed back “FAIR ? FAIR ? F**K FAIR ”
It became our inside laugh for years until Obamaspeak stole it.

We didn’t just have the most expensive campaign in history to develop a Fair Tax with everyone with skin in the game.

IndyInjun January 2, 2013 at 2:40 pm

“We didn’t just have the most expensive campaign in history to develop a Fair Tax with everyone with skin in the game.”

The Fair Tax, as it was developed, skins everyone in the game.

Jackster January 2, 2013 at 2:44 pm

And that’s what makes it Fair.

saltycracker January 2, 2013 at 3:05 pm

The political definition is usually a bit different from what one usually means when defining “fair”, “permanent” or “sex”.

Jackster January 2, 2013 at 3:26 pm

oddly enough, all three of them involve skin now.

Bob Loblaw January 2, 2013 at 6:27 pm

that’s hilarious :)

IndyInjun January 2, 2013 at 3:59 pm

You misunderstood. Those with skin in the game are the middle class, because they are being flayed alive to support parasites at the ends of the spectrum.

Jackster January 2, 2013 at 4:03 pm

No, I understand what it is, and how it’s implemented. when you replace taxes with taxes, you still get taxed, even the middle class. At the risk of a thread jack, let’s just leave it there.

Jackster January 2, 2013 at 2:42 pm

I’m a bit disappointed that my congressman (Woodall) used some one off CBO stats to justify his position. His position better focus squarely on actual justification for meaningful spending cuts very soon, as he did not incorporate an appreciation for the larger issue during this vote.

The sad thing is his competition during his primary and general didn’t seem to grasp these issues, either. I’m hoping either the R’s put forth someone who has a broader view of the world during his next primary, or the D’s put forth someone a lot less smarmy than Steve Reily.

Charlie January 2, 2013 at 3:55 pm

KINGSTON OPPOSES FISCAL CLIFF “FIX”

Cites increased spending, unbalanced approach

Washington, D.C. – Congressman Jack Kingston (R-GA) issued the following statement after voting against a legislative package intended to avert the fiscal cliff:

“Our ultimate goal in the process was to address tax rates and reduce the deficit. The package we voted on only addressed the tax issue not the deficit reduction.

“Delaying the spending cuts – the ones already on in August 2011 – is especially worrisome. Does anyone really believe attitudes toward less spending will be any different in March than they are today? The fiscal cliff deadline was created in August 2011 and nothing happened in the Senate until last week. If we did not get religion in sixteen months, I doubt we’ll get it in two.

“According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the package we passed last night actually adds $4 trillion to the national debt. With $600 billion in new taxes, it contains $10 in tax increases for every $1 in spending reduction. This merely increases the deficit rather than shrinks it and we could have done better.”

IndyInjun January 2, 2013 at 6:31 pm

So saith one of the more effective appropriators in Congress, Seenbetr, so I tend to agree. Dems or GOP, both are poison to you and me.

There never was going to be a hard landing, because of Ben Bernanke’s rescue with his legendary money helicopter.

seenbetrdayz January 2, 2013 at 4:59 pm

Is it necessarily wise to move beyond a cliff? . . . I hear it isn’t the fall that gets you, it’s the landing.

But seriously, this fiscal cliff nonsense will be back in about 2 years. The county is still faced with an insurmountable debt that our children’s children’s children will be working 3 jobs to pay off. I see no way out by relying on D.C. critters.

mpierce January 2, 2013 at 10:25 pm

More great benefits from the fiscal cliff deal

$480 million in aid for rum production.
up to $2,500 in tax credits for purchasing electric scooters.
$430 billion in tax breaks for Hollywood (no rich people there?)
Tax breaks for Motorsport Race Track Owners (middle class tax relief?)
$59 million in tax credits for algae growers
Subsidies for asparagus growers.

Comments on this entry are closed.