E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe Republican co-chairman of the supercommittee, Texas Rep. Jeb Hensarling, pressed committee Democrats this morning to respond to what he said were "considerable concessions" from Republicans this week on taxes.
Hensarling said that Democrats' insistence on $1 trillion in new revenue wasn't acceptable to Republicans. The GOP, said Hensarling, wants to see more reforms to health care spending.
"What we still haven't seen from the Democrats is a plan that deals with our structural debt crisis that actually solves the problem," he said. "And unfortunately we've never seen any reforms that would save and secure our health care programs that weren't attached to a trillion dollars worth of tax increase which we believe is ultimately going to harm job growth."
He said committee members are still talking.
Hensarling's comments followed the release on Wednesday night of a new deficit reduction plan on Wednesday evening that would reduce the deficit by $2.3 trillion by combining $1 trillion in new revenue with another$1 trillion in cuts and an additional $300 billion in lower interest costs.
According to Democratic aides, the plan was quickly rejected by the GOP committee members.
The $1 trillion in tax revenues in the Dems newest plan would be mostly achieved through a mandate that tax reform be completed by January 1st, 2013, according to aides. If tax reform wasn't achieved by that date, a "trigger" would automatically kick in with $650 billion dollars in tax increases that would be set in advance by the supercommittee.
The last 24 hours underscore just how much gamesmanship has become a part of the supercommittee deliberations as the 12-member panel approaches its Nov. 23 deadline. The Democrats on the committee earlier this week, for instance, rebuffed a Republican offer of $300 billion in new revenue as "insane."
But GOP members of the supercommitte have cast that offer as a significant concession. Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA), a member of the supercommittee, detailed the GOP offer during an appearance Thursday morning on Morning Joe.
Toomey confirmed Republicans want to make the Bush tax cuts permanent and lower the top individual tax rate to 28 percent. They would offset that lost revenue with an overhaul of the tax code that would place limits on itemized deductions, tax write-offs and close loopholes. Some of the money captured from the tax overhaul could go to deficit reduction, he said.
Toomey told the Morning Joe panel, "We've recommended the top rate come down to 28 and other rates come down commensurately. That's the ballpark of where the bipartisan commissions have come out on this. And then lets offset that lost revenue by reducing the size of the value of the deductions that people could take and for the very upper income brackets we could reduce that by a little bit more than what it would take to get to revenue neutral and in the process generate some revenue for deficit reduction"
Toomey argued that the Republican change on taxes should be a sign to Democrats that Republicans are ready to cut a deal. "It's an indication of how much we want to find an agreement here," he said.
When asked if he thinks the committee will reach a deal, he said "its not too late - but the clock, its getting late."
Leave a Comment:
The subcommittee was a bad idea from day one. What is the republican mantra (reduce government) so lets create a new super committee and increase the convoluted decision making in congress. I believe this super committee is unconstitutional furthermore the concessions the GOP is looking for are not concessions they are the GOP way or no way. That is not good government and not good politics's. The GOP and all it's followers are a bunch of brain washed idiots that follow what ever there leaders tell them because the leaders say it is good. Well here is the big headline for the GOP and all it's followers "GOP and followers repeating the actions in Germany before WWII" or maybe "The new GOP the next Reich" or my favorite "The GOP looking for the next Hitler" . If you find this ofoffensive then GOOD! Wake up and look at what the GOP is doing they are promoting hatred and bigotry. The GOP is following the teachings of Mien Kampf -the bible to the Nazis-. Read it and maybe you will wake up and see that the GOP leaders all want to rule and control you. Be a true American and stay away from the GOP. Turn off the FOX news, stop reading the propaganda from both sides and investigate the truth! Just because someone screams at the top of their lungs does not make it true. Stop the sheep for the GOP and make up your own minds. Obama has done a better job as president then we had seen in the last 4 decades. He has tried to get America back to work and we need congress to pass the jobs bill to show that either Obama is right or the GOP may actually care about America and try to pass this bill to get American back to work. The GOP solution is to lower taxes which does NOTHING for jobs. Wake up and vote against the GOP we are all tiered of their BS.
Dont want military cuts, dont want tax increases, so I guess to only place to get the reductions are on the domestic spending side, which will not acheive the goals without all three being done.
What happened to the significant deal that Boehner and Obama had in hand. Is this congress so entrenched that they would scuttle a valid offer and what does a balanced approach look like to them anyway? They need to look at a dollar for dollar match for every dollar they reduce entitlements they raise taxes. As for the other areas of spending reductions then everything should be up for grabs and in fact maybe they need to look at an across the board reduction in spending including their salaries.
GOD SAVE US!!!! from Tea-publicans!!!!!!!!!
I'm glad I will not live through all this horse hocky!!!
The "SUPER COMMITTEE" are Tea-publicans and Democrats!!!!!!!
Tea-publicans are NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!
Tea-publicans want blood from the elderly, poor,unemployed, middle class!!!!!!!!!!
Tea-publicans "SAVE THE RICH AND DAMN THE PEOPLE WHO WORK FOR A LIVING!!!!!!!!!!
Tea-publicans say "9-9-9, corperations are people too, people on Social Security make too much money damn them for living!!!!!!!!!!
WHAT IN "H" IS WRONG WITH TEA-PUBLICANS MIND!!!!!! and there are people who agree with there rediculous IDEAS!!!!!!
Calm down, AJ. You will continue to get your government check for doing nothing.
The Democrats do not want a deal.
They want a campaign issue. How obvious can it be?
You're right, Dan. Society does have an obligation to provide a safety net for the vulnerable. But who constitutes the truly disadvantaged? Just because you are very young or very old does not make you disadvantaged from an economic point of view. For the sake of argument, let's consider all young to be vulnerable because they are dependent on adults to make the right decisions and care for them, but that is not at all true for all seniors. A governmental promise to provide social security and health benefits to seniors, regardless of economic circumstances, sounds great but cannot be sustained by a society that has too few workers to support an ever growing elderly population. Importantly, this hollow promise causes behavioral changes in its citizens that last for decades: why save money while you're working and young to pay for retirement or healthcare expenses in the future when the govt says it will pay for these things for you. Instead, why not buy a little more expensive house, or little nicer car, or maybe buy the newest electronic gadget or TV rather than save the little extra. Over the course of working lifetime this adds up to a lot of money that could be put to good use when the elderly become "vulnerable" after retirement. Put another way, why should the taxpayer subsidize a lifetime of consumerism rather than keep people accountable for protecting their own future. Yes, the vulnerable need protection, but the govt should not be in the business of incentivizing its citizens to become vulnerable as they age. Perhaps its time to look at how we structure benefits to the elderly to allow gradual implementation of the changes required for a sustainable future.
Sickofthebickering
Dude, I think you forgot who forced extending the tax cuts for the wealthy down Obama's throat. These same concerned Republicans that are now trying to force the general population of this country to except their paulty deficit reduction ideas. These clowns never get off their soapbox. Tax everyone else at an accetable rate but us.
give me break.
Seem as though you forgot about the filibusters. This rant appears to come from the same playbook that Welsh used. Only difference is that he actually screamed at his constituents. If your spin doesn't work, try intimidation!
Maybe we should try the republicans starve the beastt by drastically reducing spending...the difference between me and the republican weenies is that I get to do that we will need to dramtically cut spending for seniors and defense...you will never get there yapping about the post office or dept of education...we have to cut defense, SS and medicare spending NOW to solve TODAYS deficits...sorry teabaggers
Rick, that's Tea Party. Stop before I teabag YOU...Moron
Rick,
Defense is less than 20% of the current budget. Defense was a large portion of the budget 20-40 years ago, but the US government has been limiting the growth of spending for defense since the fall of the USSR. We can probably find some possible cuts in the military budget, but the lions share will ahve to come from SS and Medicare as those are the 2 largest parts of the budget we can control and change. The interest in the debt we can only reduce by not having budget deficits and actually retiring some of the outstanding debt,
I won't hold my breath for either party to vote for a budget that does any of that though.
We have a problem of definitions and perceptions. The Dems believe that the Bush tax cuts perpetuated and increased an income and wealth inequality in this nation that is detrimental to society as a whole. In addition, the tax cuts made the deficit much worse because there was lost revenue to pay for the two wars and the Medicare drug benefit. The GOP pretends that neither of these things are true, or if they are, the GOP believes that are unimportant. It's sort of like Romney's answer to Jim Kramer's question last night about whether corporations should have a social conscience. Romney's pablum reply was that if corporations are allowed to make profits, all's well that ends well. No amount of actual history dissuades the GOP from it's Utopian views.
"Who need a second home?"
None of your business....If I wantI'll buy one.
That's what this all about.
You're not interested in an equitable, level playing field. You just don't want me to have "stuff" you don't have.
Too bad for you....
It's truly troubling how you GOP people are so fooled by all this talk. It hasn't been any clearer that the Redumblicans only fight for the 1% and I seriously doubt anybody on this post fits into that category, so to sit here and Defend people that could careless about you is baffling to me. Just for once stop listening to FOX and do your own research. All economists have given the Republican field a "F" when it comes to Economics, but people still go out and vote for these hypocrites. On one hand GOP screaming less gov. this less gov. that so what the hell are you running for if you want to do away with gov. But when it comes to abortion and voter rights they want the government ALL in your LIFE..Now what sense does that really make I'm dying to hear a logical answer.
The one statement you have right is......sorry I couldn't find one. The 1% pay almost 40% of the tax money seized from us everyday...We already have income redistribution in this country...quit crying over the 1%....Or I'll tell you what..don't ever go buy anything from a 1%er.....don't take a job from a 1%er good luck with that...Moron
Did you really expect these clowns to get anything done? look at them....Swiftboat Johnny Kerry (but I have three purple hearts), Patty (braindead ) Murray; the only woman in government less articulate than Nancy Pelosi, James Clyburn, Fred (Mr Carbon Credits/Cap and Trade) Upton and the omnipresent and totally invisible Jon Kyl.
If brains were dynamite and this bunch pooled their resources they wouldn't be able to blow their nose.
we should all be paid the same amount in wages
It isn't fair that someone has more than me. Tax the heck out of em'. It won't get us anywhere in the short or long term but I will sleep better at night knowing those rich folks don't get to keep as much of their money. If I can't have then I don't want anyone else to have it. At least the government will be able to find a way to funnel that money back to people like me. Because I deserve it. It is my human right.
It is sad that we have people in America that think this way. Just a matter of time before we look like those European countries that are falling apart right now. We all want something for nothing these days...
Democrats need to hold the line: reform the code to close loopholes, fix the deficit, then (only then) talk about reducing marginal rates. Otherwise it will be the 1%er's who benefit and the rest of us get screwed.
I guess the republicans haven't heard 72% of the american people want those making over 250k per year (millionaires and billionaires) paying the previous Clinton rate of 39.6%.
Yet, Republicans, as in this article, are STILL asking for cuts instead of addressing raising revenue. The cuts have already been addressed and put on the table during the debt ceiling bill negotiations. Now, in addition to those cuts already negotiated, they STILL insist on pressing for even more cuts instead of raising revenue from millionaires and billionaires who would share america's deficit pain.
Let's vote these selfish GOP pigs out of office!!!!!
You do notice that almost all of democrats cuts are something along the line of "we will cut some amount from something in the future as well as decrease the projected cost of hypothetical increases in proposed programs and use the projected savings to reduce the amount spent on a program to be named later by an amount equal to the estimated reduction in proposed estimations."
Ok Someone said earlier you can't overcome stupid....tonytells bs.....we do not have a tax issue...we have a spending issue....It's not rocket science..it's math. Our Government takes in about 250 billion a month....and we still have to borrow 4 billion a day....are you getting the picture tony....or are you one of the ones that can't overcome stupid...
tonysmokescrackeveryday
Once again, Republican want to cut tax for richest two percent on the back of middle class. In this economy, most house are under water, mortgage interest deduction is often the last straw to make their houses float. This is a call for class warfare to middle class. The whole reason Republican offering eliminating some tax deduction is they do not want one cent of cut defense budget, keep tax loop hoe for big oil etc, and cut tax for the ultra rich.
BTW: Can they propose eliminate of tax deduction? Absolute not, things like donation to church.
So you are saying that the middle class would be hurt by eliminating a tax deduction for a second home?
I don't know about the middle class, but the "upper" class wouldn't be hurt at all. The mortgage interest deduction phases out at higher income levels. So, the rich may pay mortgage interest, but they get no tax advantage from it.
I find it amazing to read some of these posts. The republicans propose removing the deduction for second homes which should hit the wealthier classes more and would presumably make most democrats happy. All I see are democrats complaining that it would be unfair. Suddenly all those poor downtrodden middle class Americans that we hear about are awash in second homes and would be hit hardest by this proposal.
We don't care about second homes. We care about Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. We care about Tricare and we care about what we see as the never agreeable GOP against sane policies. Treasonous to the point of bringing our country down with their anti-tax agenda.
All 6 of the Republican members of the Supercommittee have signed Grover Norquist's pledge. No wonder they can not negotiate in good faith. They have to comply with the pledge. To hell with the nation. Let's get another credit rating down grade.
And all 6 of the Democratic members have committed to spending without regard to financial ability to pay or the long term consequence of ever higher national debt. No wonder they can not negotiate in good faith. They have to stick to the democrat playbook of spend it all and then some and let the future generations deal with it. To hell with the nation. Let''s get another credit rating down grade.
Johnr,
Such hostility when presented with facts. During the Republican made debt ceiling crisis, the president was willing to cut 2.4 trillion in 10 years which included cuts to SS, Medicare and Medicade but, because of the revenue increase requirement, the Republicans refused and tried to lay the blame on Obama. The fault lies with the compliance to the Anti-tax pledge. That Sir, is treason.
Scotch, you Sir are an idiot
Google and read this article: House Republican: Grover Norquist ‘is paralyzing Congress’
Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) is one of just six Republican in Congress who haven’t signed Grover Norquist’s anti-tax pledge. On the House floor Tuesday, he attacked Norquist for single-handedly enforcing this hard line within the GOP, creating a destructive impasse in the legislative process. “Everything must be on the table and I believe how the ‘pledge’ is interpreted and enforced by Mr. Norquist is a roadblock to realistically reforming our tax code,” Wolf said. “Have we really reached a point where one person’s demand for ideological purity is paralyzing Congress to the point that even a discussion of tax reform is viewed as breaking a no-tax pledge?”
Signing this pledge is a criminal act of treason and must be addressed. Government can not move forward with members of congress beholden to Grover Norquist!
I agree with Rep. Wolf, but while signing the Norquist pledge may be criminal, it is not treason. Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution; it is extremely difficult to prove, by design. None of the actions or statements I've seen come anywhere close to being treason. So, let's all cool it with the rhetoric, shall we?
The country would be better off if they all just sat around a table playing rock, paper scissors.
There should be no tax cuts.
Only revenue increases and spending cuts. Any tax cuts will only increase the deficit.
Nav, become better informed before you post...you'll go to hell for lying...you must be one of Obamas children..you believe anything on MSDNC
Nav
Where did you learn economics?
Even the economist most canonized by liberals and communists everywhere, John Maynard Keynes admitted that tax increases often resulted in LOWER revenues. And the Nobel Prize Winning economist Arthur Laffer worked out some of the basic equations that support that. (Hence the so called "Laffer Curve" which shows that tax revenues work on a curve and start declining at some percent of income/sales/wealth.)
We've even seen that in the US as the Clinton era cut to the Capital Gains Tax saw revenues increase immediately and stay higher for the next 3 years.
Tax revenues do not work on a linear scale where: "If I collect $2 billion at 10%, I'll collect $4 billion at 20%" although that is what every liberal pundit uses when "proving" that a proposed tax increase is something we want.
Simple economic fact is that investment money seeks maximum profit, and with the advent of computers and the internet money is extremely easy to move around. Say you do establish a new 10% increase in taxes on all people making $250,000 or more. Basically you've told that small business owner who has been making $251,000 that he's going to lose an extra $25,000 to the government. Ah, but all he has to do is work a little less, make only $249,000 and he keeps the rest of that tax increase. Of course that might mean he has to layoff a worker. So in exchange for collecting slightly less taxes on this man, you've created another unemployed worker who actually costs teh government more money for services and entitlements.
And what baffles me is that I can't find any liberals who understand this fact. They all assume that not one person making $250,000 or more will change their work habits, cut jobs at their companies, cut back on hours, or any other income reducing activity after a major increase in their taxes.
Perhaps they wouldn't, but I expect few liberals who are begging for taxes to be increased expect to be affected by the changes.
And don't bring up Warren "Tax evader" Buffett who is actually under IRS investigation for "failure to pay taxes". And when the GOP offered to increase Warren Buffett's taxes, the man clammed up immediately. His company happens to offer a number of tax shelter investments and he was trying to get other rich people to invest through his company. When it came time to put his money where his mouth was, he ran like the greedy coward he really was the whole time.
Good, stupid teapubicans again who have no clue how economics and deficit reductions works.
Plus mvargus
None of what you have talked about has ever worked. We have had low taxes for 10 years and zero job growth. I live in the low tax haven of Nevada and guess what the jobs are still in California.
Nav,
I'm not a member of the Tea Party and you have to hold a gun to my head to get me to vote for a Rethugican. I despise the party more than any liberal could ever hate that party.
And I didn't suggest any policies. I do have a BA in Economics from UC Berkeley and could teach the subject in high schools if I took the education classes necessary to get a credential.
However, to answer your unasked question. Tax policies right now have no relation to job growth. In fact with the exception of how business investment tends to shift in anticipation of tax increases, tax policy has almost no ability to directly affect job growth. There is no economist I know of who has attempted to show that at any level.
the lack of job growth has been driven by overly burdensome regulation, a labor pool lacking in the types of workers businesses are looking for, and the globalization of the world economy which allows major manufacturers to move most low skill jobs overseas where they don't have to pay minimum wage or deal with the levels of bureaucracy endemic in the US.
I said nothing about taxes. Taxes might have CEO's looking for ways to move corporate headquarters overseas, and will definitely slow expansion of small businesses that are near the $250,000 per year income point, but that's where taxes have an effect.
My argument about taxes is to point out that no tax increase is going to raise as much revenue as congress will claim. They always overestimate the revenue increase from a tax increase and they over-estimate the revenue drop from a tax reduction. We need a comprehensive fix, not a knee-jerk push to tax the wealthy.
Not that we could balance the budget even if the most optimistic predictions of revenue increases by taxing the rich worked. One economist did a study and found if you used tax policy to confiscate 100% of the wealth of the 500 wealthiest citizens in the US, it wouldn't pay for 6 months of hte current budget deficit. And of course you couldn't repeat the feat the enxt year because you would have wiped out the 500 richest men in the nation.
There will have to be spending cuts. They have to be real and they have to be serious. Right now neither party is looking at that.
Obama's new plan - become the president of NO.
Veto anything that does not include closure of tax loopholes.
Veto any attempt to further lower tax rates.
With this plan, the automatic cuts kick in, and the Bush era tax cuts will expire.
Then listen to the GOP howl as they are hoisted on their own petard, and the dems wind up with most of what they want anyway. Kinda' like Boehners comment about getting 98% of what he wanted.
If you put a frog into boiling water it jumps out, but if you put a frog in a pot and slowly heat the water, he sit's there till he's dead.
Washington is spending at record levels. So what do we do? Raise taxes! Of course that doesn't stop the spending does it? No, that continues. Until guess what? We need to raise taxes again. These people are slowly heating the water and you are all sitting there saying.... "it's not too bad yet." If they hit you with a 100% tax increase, would you say anything then? Because if you look at the numbers, they could just about double the current tax rates, and still be spending in the red! If we don't stop them now, we are allowing ourselves to become slaves.
Our debt levels have just exceeded our GDP. That means that if every working person in America handed over all of their pay for one full year, we still wouldn't be able to pay our governments bills. Every day that passes that we don't make drastic cuts to our spending only compounds the problem.
There is only one candidate who is addressing this issue truthfully. His name is Ron Paul.
Restore America now. Restore our prosperity, Restore our security, Restore our hope.
Ron Paul 2012
nice write...I am not supporting Paul, but I like allot of what he says...I think Newt is really the best person we could have as a President right now. ...I think he said he would ask Dr. Paul to run the treasury. Smart move..
Want to reduce spending? How about ending corporate welfare? Oops, can't do that. Take food away from starving people? Of course we should, they don't have any power, but keep your dirty paws off corporate welfare!
EGlide -
You obviously read a bit too much liberal propoganda. Very few conservatives support the level of corporate welfare that comes out of Washington. The problem is that both parties tend to keep the level of subsidies up high.
Lower the ethanol subsidies? Nope, both D and R congresscritters have shot that down, especially if they are from the Midwest and "owned" by ADM
Lower the oil and gas subsidies? It's been a few D senators fighting against it as well as the usual R suspects, especially D senators from states that have recently started exporting oil or gas.
Corporate Welfare is a product of the old mercantilist economic system. It's crony capitalism at its finest and I can assure you that the Tea Party would love to see it die just as much as the Occupy Wall Street crowd wants to make it die. But again, both parties have congresscritters who will fight to the death to keep the coporate welfare in place since it means more campaign contributions and invites to parties and such.
Pay a bit closer attention to what is actually put in writing when the parties offer their cuts, not what is said. You'll find that even the Dems refuse to touch 99.999% of the corporate welfare programs. The poor don't contribute to campaigns, corporations do.
What is clear to me is that all politicians are rich and the Democrats have been laying down for the Republicans even when they are in power. Why? Because they want those tax breaks.