E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIn 19 days, the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, i.e. “The Super Committee,” must report to Congress a plan to trim $1.2 trillion dollars off the United States’ national debt. Many members of Congress are nervous about whether the committee can reach their target goal on time.
“I think the mood is one of nervousness,” House Speaker John Boehner said yesterday, “I think there's pressure on both sides of the isle on the Super Committee and, frankly, on leadership on both sides of the isle in both chambers. We have to come to an agreement.”
While the Speaker may be anxious, the top Republican on the committee he assigned to the job is playing it cool.
“I haven't changed my position from Day One. I continue to approach this process with high hopes and tempered expectations,” said Chairman Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) when asked by NBC if he was nervous, “and I continue to have high hopes and tempered expectations.”
Hensarling also seemed to hint that some semblance of a bipartisan deal from the Super Committee could be announced soon.
“I just left a meeting with Sen. Murray,” (D-WA), his counterpart on the Super Committee. “We continue to negotiate. When we have something to announce you may not be the first people to hear it, but I assure you, you will hear something soon."
Leave a Comment:
Remind me again - what office does Grover Norquist hold?
I'm listening to him on MSNBC & ol' Grover came right out & said that the tea baggers will hold the house in 2012...
Thanks to redistricting!
I've said it before & I'll say it again, these jokers aren't even bothering to put on the 'sheep' costume!
He forgot to mention the GNOP's attempt at voter suppression!
Not so much an office per se, more like a giant compartment in your brain Feisty.
You know the one with Rove, the Kocks, Glen Beck, the Bogeyman.
Well I know Mr. Norquist was not referring to California, the new map favors democrats. As far as voter suppression, I just cant buy into it. If anything, waive the DMV fees for low income voters.
Its better to remove all doubt.
A day or two ago: with respect to the critically important SuperCommittee negotiations,
Grover Norquist, who has in his possession the signatures of 95% of Republican Congressionals in a pledge never to raise taxes, told GOP members involved with that process:
"Consider anything. Just don't vote for a tax increase."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/house-republicans-make-cross-party-pitch-to-embolden-debt-supercommittee/2011/11/02/gIQAhCBugM_story.html?hpid=z1
Feisty:
That would be LOBBYIST Grover Norquist.
Thanks Backhouse - I was waiting for someone to answer the question! ;o)
"The Super Committee," must report to Congress a plan to trim $1.2 trillion dollars off the United States' national debt
Unless they will tell us that they have talked to Aliens -from Venus, not the Mexicans- and they are going lend us money, we have listened to any other type of BS.
I would not expect anything really good, since Norquist had a "conference " with the Republican side. The question remains: are they cutting more retirement and other benefits from us?
I do not see how else they are going to do it. God bless the Billionaries -says Norquist-
LOBBYIST Norquist has zero-zero jurisdiction! His rank and title is LOBBYIST. He is NOTHING to us.
Norquist's opinion only matters to those who are trying to harm our economy, because that is his goal and the goal of the organizations he represents. (ALEC/KOCH/AFP, etc.)
If we cannot get the GOP Senate to even DEBATE creating two million JOBS for the American people right now,
And they have blocked debate on the AJA three times....
Who the EFF is this guy to us, to be directing ANYBODY regarding the Supercommittee task in Congress?
[I was waiting for someone to answer the question!]
Feisty,
The "counselor" is doing the research as we speak...he'll have your answer in a 'lil bit...right, Jr?
@ Feisty and all above concerned about Norquist. This is interesting:
OPINION
Observations and Provocations from the Times' opinion staff
November 4, 2011
Who knew that House Speaker John A. Boehner was also a standup comedian?
Asked [Thursday] whether he thought [anti-tax activist Grover] Norquist, who keeps nearly all Republicans to a pledge never to raise taxes, was a good influence on the party, Boehner didn't acknowledge that Norquist had any influence.
"It's not often I'm asked about some random person in America and what I think," Boehner told reporters.
Ha ha ha ha ha. Thank you. Thank you. Just hand over your $1 bills to the Easter Bunny! But seriously, folks, you've been a great audience.
Now, you may love Norquist. Or you may despise him.
Either way, he's most certainly not "some random person in America."
Need proof? Check out this Times story:
The GOP's anti-tax stance got a hefty boost Thursday as 33 Senate Republicans -- including three members of the bipartisan "Gang of Six" -- warned the congressional "super committee" against raising new tax revenue to meet its $1.5-trillion deficit reduction goal.
Most Republicans in the House and Senate have signed an anti-tax pledge with conservative activist Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform, and have been reluctant to break the promise in advance of an election year.
Thanks Irespond!
I still want to know when some low-life scum sucking lobbyist was chosen King! lol
Will that "something" be some kind of actual tangible agreement or will it be just a bunch of members of Congress throwing their hands up in the air?
Let's hope that members of both parties on this committee finally agree to put national interest ahead of politics. Any evidence of agreement would be welcomed as a good sign.
If they were "smart" in the Texas sense, they would just take the wars off the books, and VIOLA, $1.2 trillion in cuts.
Wait, they already tried that in the previous administration.
It would appear even in the age of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles that there is something difficult about making decisions that have to do with taking money from one paper sack and putting it in another paper sack. A reasonable debate *might* be required to have both revenue increases and budgetary deletions, but this is not about reasonable debate. This is about making Obama a single term president, which in this environment might be a good thing--its not like the Republicans really want the job based on their field of chosen candidates--and I wouldn't want Obama's job either. More power to him on that one.
We don't have a government of action, we have a government of reaction, and that is actually a good thing. When the government gets proactive, people get nervous and start talking about freedoms being restricted. But because of this environment, expecting anything other than a bunch of platitudes and hand wringing from the super committee is wishful thinking. T'ain't gonna happen, folks.
Silly, only children and Republicans believe in "The Magic Accounting Fairy"!
If an agreement doesn't happen and the automatic mesures take effect, will that be a plus for either party? Both will undoubtedly blame the other, but which party will be hurt the most?
AMERICANS will be hurt, I could care less about the parties.
lib50
Good point!
Stellar proofreading again. "across the isle" - which isle would that be?
Tax Cuts: The B.S. and the Facts
By Larry Beinhart, AlterNet. Posted November 11, 2008.
That tax cuts stimulate the economy is taken as a matter of faith, but the brute facts suggest otherwise.
The Myth
Do tax cuts stimulate the economy?
Yes. Tax cuts allow people to keep more of their own money. Therefore, they have more to invest and spend into the economy, and they have more money to start business and create jobs, therefore also helping to stimulate the economy. -- Yahoo Answers
I think when people take a look back at this moment in our economic history, they'll r ecognize tax cuts work. They have made a difference. -- George W. Bush
The Realities
The brute facts are these:
The Three Great Tax Cuts: Boom, Bubble, Crash
1. Hoover
During World War I, the top marginal tax rate went up to 73 percent -- not the highest ever, but pretty high.
In 1922, a series of rate cuts began. Down to 56 percent, 46 percent, and finally, in 1925, it went down to 25 percent.
The stock market took off. There was a boom. But the boom was a bubble.
It was followed by the Great Crash of 1929.
There were bank failures and the Great Depression.
2. Reagan
From Franklin Roosevelt's second term all the way through to Jimmy Carter -- from 1936 until 1982 -- the top rate was in the 70 to 92 percent range.
Then along came Reagan in 1981. In 1982, he cut that down to 50 percent.
The economy went into "the worst recession since the Great Depression."
His supporters argued that it was all Carter's fault and that the new policies would take time to work. The tax cuts stayed in place. In 1987, there was another round of tax cuts. They took the top rate down to 38.5 percent. It would stimulate the economy!
There was a boom. But it was a bubble.
Then, in October 1987, there was a crash -- the worst since '29. It was called Black Monday.
Much of the bubble money had gone into -- ohmigod! -- real estate.
Suddenly there were bank failures! More than during the Great Depression. There was a Savings & Loan crisis! There had to be a bailout.
3. Bush II
George Bush came into office with the healthiest, post powerful economy in American history.
He immediately cut taxes. The top marginal rate went down from 39 percent to 35 percent. He also cut capital gains taxes and inheritance taxes. A recession immediately ensued. But he persisted.
Eventually, the economy began to grow.
Employment didn't grow very much. Median income went down. The stock market was pretty flat. But the financial sector -- and only the sector -- grew.
Which should have made it obvious to someone, that it was … a bubble.
There was a crash.
Bank failures. A bailout.
The three worst economic disasters in American history follow the exact same pattern: tax cuts, boom, bubble, crash.
High Taxes Correlate with Strong Economic Growth
The four periods of greatest economic growth in American history, by pretty much any measure, are:
A lot of ink, sweat and ranting have gone into proving that the New Deal did not end the Great Depression. Nonetheless, the economy grew 58 percent from the time Roosevelt came into office and when the United States entered the war.
Some of that anti-New Deal rhetoric also claims that the recovery began under Hoover. Perhaps, but to say so is also to say that it began with tax hikes.
Likewise, many right-wing critics insist that the Clinton boom actually started under Bush the First. It is necessary to remember that Bush the First also raised taxes (from 28 percent to 31 percent) and was soundly thrashed by the conservatives for doing so. Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute called it "The Crime of the Century" and explained at length how it had brought ruin to America.
Tax Increases Are Followed by Economic Growth
Three of the four high-growth periods cited above followed significant tax hikes.
The fourth, the Truman-Eisenhower years, began with a top tax rate of 91 percent -- it couldn't get much higher.
Moderate Tax Increases Are Followed by Flat Growth
John F. Kennedy is generally credited with starting the tax cut craze.
He proposed it, but, as with all his ideas, it was Lyndon Johnson who actually got it enacted. The top rate was cut from 91 percent to 77 percent, then to 70 percent, on all income over $200,000 for a single person and over $400,000 for a married couple.
That's where it stayed, through Nixon, Ford and Carter.
The Dow Jones average was pretty much the same when that period ended as when it began. Median personal income stayed roughly the same.
These are the brute facts.
I call them that because there doesn't appear to be any theory to explain them.
A noted conservative (a sane one, not William Kristol) recently wrote to me in a private e-mail exchange on this subject:
"I am unaware of any (or many) respectable economists (maybe I've missed some) who have suggested that higher taxes have proved to be a formula for better economic growth."
Actually, I am too.
Even now, in the midst of the Bush disaster, I constantly see and hear tax cuts, particularly at the top, described as "pro-growth." So I went and looked at the numbers -- tax rates, tax cuts and tax hikes -- and placed them alongside job growth, the Dow Jones, growth in the GDP and median income.
The brute facts say the opposite of the myth.
The belief in tax cuts is a subset of the belief in Free Markets, with a capital F & M, which is a theological belief.
How do we distinguish a theological idea from a scientific (or rational) one?
According to Karl Popper, the great thinkers in the philosophy of science, a scientific idea has to be capable of being refuted. There has to be some theoretical test that could come out the wrong way, which would then say the theory is wrong.
On that basis, Popper rejected Marxism and Freudianism, along with religious theology, because no matter how many times they didn't work, there was20always some explanation that said that the theory was right and if you just looked at the facts in some other way; you could make up some story that said your theory was still right.
The quintessence of theological thinking goes like this. The preacher says, "The world will end next Saturday night! The Bible says it must be so." Everyone in the congregation wakes up safe and sound on Sunday morning. They head off to church and believe whatever he says in that sermon, too.
In science, we come up with a hypothesis. Then we set up an experiment. We see what happens.
Economics is complex. It takes place in the real world where many factors are at play and we can't control for them all. Still, none of the major tax cuts since 1913 have led to significant, sustained growth. Two them were followed by instant recessions (Reagan and Bush), and three of them, when they were sustained, were followed by bubbles which were then followed by the three worst crashe
Excellent facts. What a pity they won't stop the trolls from telling us how bad Corzine is or that Herman Cain was just being 'friendly'. Facts have no place in any debate about taxes, after all, especially not compared to the need to get rid of Pres. Obama, or the need to drag even more of the national wealth to the 1%. Third world country, here we come!
The net result from the "supercommittee"??
Higher taxes imposed on all but the poor during the first major depression since the late twenties. The great Obama Depression.
Spending cuts?? Well no. No. Those can wait. Maybe in ten years or so. Probably never.