Feisty,

Wall Street lobbyist Norquist and his Koch backers have had their anti-tax fingers and thumb pressure into GOP at congressional & all levels since Reagan.

It is time Norquist got the heave-ho. Let's get down to some income equality.

The top income-earners' have seen an increase of 275% since Reagan, while the rest of us took a giant dive.

I wonder what it feels like to sign your own death warrant. Do you think he went home and said "hey honey, I've gone rogue, better pack the kids."

Koch lobbyist Norquist is unsustainable for the United States.

He has hurt our people and our economy in unimaginable ways, and will be held accountable for it.

Feisty, from what I've read in the past about congressional office assignments, the janitor's closet would probably be a step UP for a freshman. That being said, I suspect he's got a better chance at getting a check in the mail from the Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes at this point than one from the RNCC.

Oh, and here's a great whine about it already from the ever-predictable Redstate.com:

"Crawford scored a failing 58% from Heritage Action and 53% from the Club for Growth. But guess what? Crawford has no primary challengers, and the filing deadline expired at the beginning of the month. We are stuck with a progressive OWS congressman from a conservative state for another 2 years."

As Albany Joe would no doubt say.....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Even though this guy is willing to raise taxes on very high incomes, the requirement for a balanced budget is lunacy.

If we had been tied to a balanced budget requirement entering this Bush recession we would have had to drastically cut critical spending AND significantly raise taxes, both of which would have made the recession worse and caused increased unemployment. Then, because of the increased unemployment, the recession would become still worse, leading to more cuts and more tax increases.

A balanced budget amendment takes away the primary tools the government has at its disposal to deal with economic crisis. Anyone who believes in a balanced budget amendment does not deserve to serve in the legislature.

"This is an issue that we shouldn't open the door to," a GOP strategist told NBC, "As Republicans we should be the party against tax increases."

And that is why we are, where we are today. Tax cuts and tax credits. Those are the only things that can pass Congress. The only time taxes goes up is if a tax cut or tax credit expires without being extended. Even then it isn't an increase, the rate reduction and/or credits just aren't extended and the rate returns to the previous level. The government has been tax cut and tax credited into a deficit since the 90s. Much of it thanks to Republicans leadership in the Congress and Presidency from 2002 to 2006 when Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate and George W. Bush was President.

Democrats for Rep. Rick Crawford, honorable Congressman representing the 1st District of Arkansas!

Representative Crawford is exactly the type of Republican we all desperately need in Congress. Democrats do not need to agree with his proposal - but - do need to vigorously support him making this proposal. Do not allow the Republican obstructionists and, especially Norquist, attack this Republican. Democrats need to help defend THIS Congressman.

Maybe Rep. Crawford is only making a political pitch for his local district - but - Crawford's suggestion is a REAL starting point for discussion. We all need to support politicians that make an attempt to actually govern. Rep. Crawford has stuck his neck out - Democrats need to support him.

Lord-God Norquist will strike him down.

If this was a "crack" by one lowly freshman who also required a balance budget ammendment to go along with it, what was it called when Chuck Schumer broke with President Obama when he first brought out the $1,000,000 threshold instead of Obama's $200,000/$250,000 Level? That should have been a "broken dam"!!

Just sayin - if this is what you want to hang your hat on, its a pretty small hat.

Sounds like a smoke & mirrors idea. The whole balanced budget fantasy is just that. We are running a government- not a family.

As a point of fact-checking, the unemployment rate in Arkansas at the end of January was 7.6%, well below the national average, and declined even further in February.

I have to agree Crawford is what this country needs, a politician that works for the people not the party ...

A balanced budget amendment takes away the primary tools the government has at its disposal to deal with economic crisis. Anyone who believes in a balanced budget amendment does not deserve to serve in the legislature.

I think anyone who doesn't believe in a balanced budget amendment does not deserve to serve in the legislature.

Zathrose

A balanced budget amendment is absurd. If we had been tied to a balanced budget requirement during this Bush Recession the economy would have completely tanked and the country would cease to exist (see my post #1.5 above)

A balanced budget amendment is absurd.

You still going to say that when the US government goes bankrupt?

I bet we don't hear from him again!

This Norquist jackass has to go. Who the hell does he think he is? And why do the republicans kowtow to this jerk?

Arkansas Rep. Rick Crawford announced in his district today that he would introduce legislation that would impose a 5 percent surtax on individual income exceeding $1 million per year. His legislation would require passage of a balanced budget amendment in exchange.

Ooops, there is a radical condition to this -- but of course! Folks, I know your hopes were falsely raised with this bait and switch article title. But a surtax is a band-aid on the gaping wound that is our current unfair tax code that favors the rich. An unconstitutional budget amendment (taxation without representation), and a draconian one that would result in anarchy is worse than throwing salt on the wound.

Puleeze Rep. Rick Crawford, if you can't come up with a new and viable idea, don't waste BTUs!

J Richter-346717

This Norquist jackass has to go. Who the hell does he think he is? And why do the republicans kowtow to this jerk?

Did you see Jon Stewart's interview with Norquist? Norquist sat there and lied until Jon had enough and kept reminding Norquist that his book (which he was peddling) promoted nothing the guy was saying on the show, but was filled with crazy talk. What a poser, and a jerk Norquist is.

Move along folks. There's nothing to see here. It's just more of the same absurdity from Teapublicans in lieu of real solutions to restore the American Dream for all.

Your example is the P.I.G.S. of the EU? Really? The countries that are doing exactly what Republicans are proposing to do to the US? The European Union is forcing those countries to cut spending and to increase taxes. We are getting petri dishes of the Republicans economic policy. Seems to be working great for Greece. They are on their second bailout and round of spending cuts and tax increases. They are driving their country into the ground in a death spiral. The demise of the US wouldn't take as long though since Republicans want to CUT spending AND taxes. If we somehow survived to a second round of spending cuts, they would need to be even greater since tax revenues would have also been decreased making the deficit that much worse.

Why bother trying to land the economic plane, when you can fly it straight into the ground?

The fact of the matter is, you can't spend more than what you take in and expect to begin to address the National Debt. The 3% having been living high off the hog long enough and as already noted have seen their wealth increase by 285% since the recession began while the rest of us have seen our wealth plummeting. First off, people need to actually pay the taxes that are called for, ie.. 35% for high wage earners etc... There is nothing that the 1 in 2 people of this nation can do when they are living below poverty or in the lowest economic class. Ohhh, ahhh a whole $50,000 per $1,000,000 is what this proposes. I'll take that any day! Those of you who keep bringing up the 57% pay no taxes obviously have no grasp on what it takes to raise a family below the poverty level. All tax loopholes and deductions for all this b.s that has been going on needs to be closed! All these CEOs and such that make these dramatic salaries 2,000 times what their workers make ($100 million salaries and $100 million bonuses), need to pay their fair share! All these businesses that are taking jobs overseas for cheap labor and to avoid labor laws we have established need to make up for the wages/taxes that they have taken from our nation. Then and only then will we begin to resolve the problems we have with our budget. As for all this bi-partisan garbage that is destroying our nation; if Congress can't do their job, particularly establishment of a budget, they shouldn't get paid plus, if they don't have have a budget approved by time it comes for registering for re-election they should be ineligible. Three years without Congress approving a budget is enough and the people of this nation need to stand up and say so!!

don97524 -- Agreed. All we have to do is look at history (the depression) and at other countries like Greece, where folks have not been paying their damn taxes, and austerity is causing unemployment to skyrocket further.

The Teapublicans and their Race to the Bottom, their nightmare of every man, woman, and child for his/herself, and draconian measures of spending below 20% of GDP so the rich can get richer seem to want anarchy. Why do they hate our country and fellow man so much? The US does better when we are united, when the tide lifts all boats, when there is decency, civility, and everything that is NOT the GOP/TP. Throw the Teapublicans out -- Obama/Biden - 2012!

Zathrose -- Seek help for your obsession with nipple sucking -- WTF?

Norquist should be tried for acts of treason. That's a far more valid statement than the "Obama is a Traitor" crowd makes. When an outside entity demands that a government official signs a pledge that has a direct effect on governance, they crossed that line.

So, the guy in Arkansas has a good idea and it's part of the formula to paying down the debt. Borrowing more money just to pay the interest on the existing debt isn't cutting it. But, we need that surcharge to go directly on the debt--not some politicians pet project. Cuts in defense coupled with tax increases on the top earners and closing all loopholes is a workable solution--therefore, it will never happen. Noble Prize winner in Economics, Paul Krugman, said that the only workable solution comes from Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Google i, read it with an open mind, and you'll see it's the only way that this country can survive with any level of dignity.

Republicans AND Democrats recognize that our Federal deficits are a problem. Republicans AND Democrats have attempted to address the deficit - in different ways. PAYGO was a good idea that was destroyed by political polarization - not by any one political party. The failure of Republicans and Democrats to work together - failure to actually govern - killed PAYGO.

Maybe it is time to consider a Balanced Budget Amendment - but - it cannot be based on mindless political rhetoric. Are there circumstances where a balanced budget does not fit with our national needs? Are there emergencies that should be exempted from a balanced budget? What type of exceptions would be acceptable to suspend the requirement for a balanced budget? Should there be a formula to balance spending cuts and tax increases? Should a Balanced Budget Amendment only apply to discretionary spending or should it also apply to mandatory spending as well? Is an amendment to the Constitution really needed to balance the budget?

Answers to these questions will reveal where common ground exists between Republicans and Democrats. We all need to move towards that common ground - or - nothing will change.

Representative Rick Crawford has taken a step towards common ground. It is up to us to join him there.

Uh Justredd, How will the Republicans pay for combat if Iran stops talking trash and starts shooting? Wars and military actions cost money. /If we had had a balanced budget act when 9-11 happened there would have been no way to go after and chase Al Quida out of Afghanistan. Oh and if FEMA runs out of money early what are you gonna tell the survivors of the next disaster?

I would whole heartedly agree with Crawford, but the spending Cuts COME FIRST!

Before the increase.....

What will kill this, the provision for a Balanced Budget Amendment, just how in the hell will the tax and spenders in government run the country without the ability to spend us into the poor house!

I agree with the Crawford tax but about spending, don't you think 50% of the households in the U.S. who receive checks from the government is a bit much ? What do you want the deficit to be- a quadrillion ? Our poor children, we keep kicking the can down the road.

Norquist is charging up the ol' anti tax drone as we speak....

My only concern with raising tax rates on upper income individuals is that it will be done BEFORE across the board cuts of our entire Federal Government are in place, because if it IS (done before cuts), those cuts will NEVER HAPPEN !!

I'm all for raising rates, even if they make it to the middle class, but not unless cuts are in place FIRST !! Our elected officials are ADDICTED to deficit spending and that HAS TO END before any amount of tax hikes is going to start putting a dent in our INSANE $15+ Trillion U.S. National Debt, an amount which is now disgracefully equal to our annual GDP.

There are those that tax the public. There are those that spend the public funds. We do not need either of them to lead us.

What we need are those that attempt to govern. Representative Rick Crawford is making an attempt to govern. Maybe it is a serious attempt - maybe not - I do not know. I do know that we need Congress to govern - not play political games.

The objective is to eliminate the Federal deficits - not protect political talking points - not protect political favorites - not rally around sacred cows. THAT will create obstacles to prevent us from moving to common ground.

Good for Rep Crawford. At least he isn't afraid of Norquist and the other republithugs.

As for Norquist, he needs a mouth full of Santorum!

Did you see Jon Stewart's interview with Norquist? Norquist sat there and lied until Jon had enough and kept reminding Norquist that his book (which he was peddling) promoted nothing the guy was saying on the show, but was filled with crazy talk. What a poser, and a jerk Norquist is.

I saw that... Norquist kept stuttering and stumbling over every single question. I laughed, then shook my head at the sad reality that so many Republicans fall to their knees and worship that man.

The extended interview online was even better. You can tell Norquist has no real plan, and is just pandering to the anti-tax mentality of Republicans.

Stewarts best response: So you don't want to pay for anything, but you still want everything you currently use.

Tying the spending cuts and tax increases together is not that difficult. The surcharge can be part of the Balanced Budget Amendment - ratification of the amendment triggers the surcharge. They both go into effect at the same time. Since this would be an amendment to the Constitution - the spending cuts could not be avoided - the surcharge could not be repealed.

Both sides get what they want - and - cannot alter the terms of the agreement.

Salvia58-3789575

I agree with the Crawford tax but about spending, don't you think 50% of the households in the U.S. who receive checks from the government is a bit much ? What do you want the deficit to be- a quadrillion ? Our poor children, we keep kicking the can down the road.

I think that you have a valid argument, but don't know about half the households getting a check part. We boomers are at or close to retirement age. Many lost chunks in the market and in their 401K's. The future might be a greater problem than now, if not fixed.

I hope that argument was a call for common sense and pro unlimited access to birth control. Hell, I'd pay people not to have children. When I hear of the miracle of birth I think of my male Golden Retriever, Rio, that has about 50 children. I just can't get to pay the child support but he's always ready to procreate. I think he's a Mormon.

You can tax 100% of incomes above 1 million and be back on deficits in 18 months without spending cuts.

Crawford calls for a balanced budget amendment and that will not happen with less than 350 reps and 80 senators that are republican.

Like selling snow to Eskimo's

Democrats voting for a balanced budget amendment would be much more amazing than Republicans voting for the millionaire surcharge tax.

AWW HELL NAW!

Democrats have voted for balanced budget rules before - why would they not vote for one now?

PAYGO was a statutory requirement to control deficit spending that was in effect from 1990 through 2002. PAYGO was allowed to expire in 2002 so the that 2003 tax cuts could be passed without the required spending offset.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO

Democrats reintroduced statutory PAYGO in 2009 and it passed on a party line vote. Statutory PAYGO rules are in effect now because Democrats passed the legislation in 2009.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_Pay-As-You-Go_Act_of_2010

The rhetoric that Democrats do not want to balance budgets or control the deficit is myth. The assumption that Democrats would oppose a Balanced Budget Amendment is based on a fairy tale.

PAYGO is a good starting point for creating a Balanced Budget Amendment. Democrats have already supported PAYGO. The current statutory PAYGO, in place now, can be the foundation for common ground.

I think it is ironic that nearly 1/3 of the article is dedicated to Grover Norquist's comments. Who the hell is he? Is he our law maker or is he controlling our law makers? This is really disgusting that our politicians are taking orders from a lifelong lobbyst...

If the GOP is about shrinking the government, then I say there is then 0 need for politicians nor lobbysts. The states should be divided up according to the corporations.... Walmart can take the south, Apple will take West and North West. 3M and Boeing will have to take the Noth. The East will be divided up up Goldman Sachs... And F the Republicans, because there is no need for the middleman.

The bottom lines, the corporations don't have the guts, and the politicians are too scared... You right wing wackos don't have the guts.... WIMPS! At least the Progressives understand what is at stake, and it is not simply our checkbooks.

Nerm_L: you are correct. Paygo was proposed by Democrats (including President Obama). Paygo was brought up multiple times but not allowed to be brought forth for discussion nor vote.

Well, all I can say is: "Where the hell was this guy when all the Freshmen were hanging tough last Fall and downgraded America's credit rating?"

Right now, all Republicans act like knights in shining armor with the only solution for what ails the country. Only they can reduce spending. What makes this a little tough to believe is Bush and 6 years of Republican majorities in Congress spent this country into oblivion. What makes it even tougher to believe is that most of those same voices for fiscal reform are the ones that voted for increase after increase in the national debt under Bush. Lots of hypocrisy in the Republican party.

Now this Freshman wants to break with the party line and actually consider a compromise. Where the hell were you last Fall? Like I say, lots of hypocrisy in the Republican party!

@thturd -- Democrats actually succeeded in reinstating PAYGO and the President signed it into law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_Pay-As-You-Go_Act_of_2010

The idea behind PAYGO is to offset new spending with spending cuts. Emergency expenditures, like FEMA, are exempted from that requirement.

The recent political drama about spending offsets is actually required by the PAYGO reinstated by Democrats. Claiming that Democrats do not want to control deficits is a fairy tale.

Democrats could support a reasonable Balanced Budget Amendment. The only obstacle is how the two sides view 'reasonable'.

Start with the elected officials pay and benefits, then we can move on to more cuts. Military spending comes to mind.

The crack in the wall may be good but the terms are not. A balanced budget amendment is the worst thing a nation could do. It removes the essential advantage of nationhood. Think about this. The time in our history when the federal budget deficit was highest as a percentage of GDP was in the early 1940s. Do any of you happen to remember what the USA was doing from 1941 to 1945.

A balanced budget amendment in the US would have led to who ruling Europe today?

A bad idea is a bad idea, no matter what dress you put on it.

What the Republicans will do is allow this tax increase to prove that it will have no impact on the complete and total lack of fiscal sanity in Washington. Then who are the Democrats going to blame for not paying their fair share? No one in Washington can find so much as a dime to cut from spending, but this tax increase is going to bailout the country? What a bunch of clowns we have supporting these idiots in Washington.

Yeah a balanced budget amendment would be the worst thing for this country since Washington has been working so well without one. Harry Reid and the Democrats in the Senate don't even see a need to pass a budget when there is no limit on the credit card. Clowns in Washington, and clowns supporting them. Tax baby tax, borrow baby borrow, and spend baby spend is alive and well in Washington thanks to the idiots that send them to serve.

A balanced budget amendment is a simplified solution, used to pander to simple people, in order to distract them from the actual corruption that's occurring, and keep us from enacting the actual solutions which threaten the current ruling class (i.e. our bought politicians and the people who have the money to buy them).

FIRST, THERE IS NOTHING FISCALLY RESPONSIBILE ABOUT DISCOUNTING 50% OF THE POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO THE DEFICIT.

Continuing, for those of you who are paranoid about spending or the debt ceiling, well it should be whatever is appropriate to keep our country from defaulting on our obligations, and we should be spending enough to meet the consideration of the social contract which is government. And, if you're worried about entitlements, than let's look at it without the haze of paranoia or drama, clouding our vision. Simply raise the retirement age, and means test. Voila.

It's not about government being too big, and spending too much. It's not about the government being too small, and taxing too little. It's about the government being smart. Too big, and it's inflexible, ergo incapable of meeting the needs of its citizens. Too small, and it's ineffectual, ergo incapable of meeting the needs of its citizens.

And there are some basic functions the citizens need the government to do. Things like infrastructure, education, law enforcement, defense, research and development. Anarchy and a complete lack of social programs and governmental structure doesn't work. Take a look at Somalia.

Furthermore, if you're really concerned about over spending, why not focus on defense. That's where the biggest problem lays. You know, multiple wars and tax cuts???? Remember that bright idea?

Puh-lease. This is an over dramatized, over simplified, political wedge issue. Most of you probably didn't even know things like the debt ceiling and balanced budget amendments existed until a year ago, just like I'm willing to bet you have no idea who Saul Alinsky actually is, or what socialism is really like.

You wanna fix this country really? Take a look at money in politics. The politicians are nothing but the middle-men who the insanely rich corporations, non-profits, and individuals utilize in order to sell you their load of bull and keep the status quo in place.

Rick You are right! Increase taxes on the top 2% and raise $80-160B in revenue! Then you still have a deficit of $1T+! The left has only suggested decreasing the deficit by increasing taxes on one group. This is like peeing in the ocean to raise the water level!! We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem!! And if these people think that Medicare can continue as it is presently structured, they are even more ignorant than I thought!!!

Raise taxes balance the budget. Seems like a fair idea. But you can bet the Democrats will be screaming how unfair it will be to tie a needed tax increase to the idea of a balanced budget. There is no way they could ever support that idea. After all they might have to actually cut some spending and not the pretend cuts to future planned increases they like to bloviate about all the time. Besides, the Senate under Harry Reid doesn't have any practice producing a budget, so we can't support this measure when it is going to put an unfair burden on our Senators.

You can take to the bank the Democrats will never support this tax increase regardless of how the Republicans present it. Because the simple truth is the Democrats never thought the Republicans would ever go for it, and if it did pass and had no impact who would they be able to blame. The smartest thing the Republicans could do on this issue is give the Democrats exactly what they want a tax increase with no strings attached. Then everyone would be able to see the truth that nothing about our fiscal insanity will be solved, it was just more lies from Washington.

Dark Emperor Norquist is not going to like this, wonder if this senator can feel the force choke at a distance?

Honestly, Lord Norquist's wrath aside... the offer is in off itself either absurd or insulting or both! The first analogy that came to mind (I"m sure I can come up with better ones if I were so inclined and had the time) was offering and acre of land in exchange for Texas!

I doubt the dems are going to like this because now they have to either put up or shut up. A balanced budget amendment has been kicked around for decades but democrats hate it.

BTW, most of the balanced budget amendments I have heard about include allowances for emergency funding when needed.

And while none were suffering from any type of bowel runs, nor had any taken any sort of laxative, all other republican Congressional members inadvertently and quickly, went from clean to lightly soiled, with some releasing full dumped loads into their Scivvies.

Of course all balanced budget amendments had emergency funding provisions. But that is not the point, it is the balanced part that Democrats oppose, or whether they fund another cowboy poetry festival under the emergency provision.

Congress just can do what congress does best, nothing. All they have to do is let the Bush tax cuts expire. They may a fight on their hands if they try to extend them again.

I find it truly amazing that no matter how bad republicans treat women, the poor, and middle class, some people can still agree with them and blame democrats for everything that's wrong in america. For the idiots that just don't know- everything republicans say has a double meaning- reducing the size of government really means cutting programs the poor and middle class need and using the money to give the rich another un-needed tax cut. Right to work- means, kill unions and let employers pay workers as less as possible and trim health coverage to the bare bones. Gazillionaire Romney's tax plan will raise taxes on anyone making 30k or less while at the same time his tax plan would lower taxes on anyone making a million or more. Like it or not, but right now there is a lot more white middle class people in america than any other group, this is the group that republicans are throwing under the bus because this group collectively has the money coming in from their jobs and the programs the government is spending money on. To give the rich a major tax cut, they need somebody to pay for it. guess which group of people republicans chose to pay. To make their plan work, all republicans have to do is blame the democrats because they know their die-hard voters will believe anything they tell them. So go ahead vote republican and let them kick you square in the butt, also, remember to stay bent-over because once elected they will be kicking you again and again, just like they're doing right now in every state controlled by republicans. Find a fool, bump his head.

I'm all for a balanced budget, but not one penny from social security health care or medicare

there are plenty of subsidies to profitable1s corps, gifts to other nations and way to muchomuch spent on military that needs to be dealt with.

The good people of this nation do not deserve any part of the suffering anymore do to the puppet masters decisions. Raise taxes for the wealthy back up to 50% if need be... I fail to see where they are doing much of anything to help America and Americans

heck there should be 35% tax bracket for millionaires, and 40% tax bracket for all income after 10 million, and a 50% tax bracket for all income over 100 million, and a 75% tax bracket for any money after $1 billion.

Money concentrated into a few hands is creating empires and influence that does not benefit the majority.

Some here think that only the Democrats are guilty of budget-busting governance. What about keeping two wars (that weren't paid for) off-budget AND then cutting taxes even though the budget deficit was bursting at the seams?

That 'Republicans are fiscally responsible, but Democrats are spending us into a hole' myth simply doesn't square with the facts. Other than the govt. stimulus spending in his 1st few months which was needed to prevent the US from sliding into depression, Obama has been very conservative with spending.

Republicans are constantly talking about cutting government waste, reduce the size of government, and balancing the budget. They want to cut programs the poor and middle class need, but I have never heard one republican even hint about cutting the one government program that causes the greatest waste of all, Corporate Welfare- welfare for the rich. It cost the government 50 billion a year for every poor man, woman, and child on welfare, it cost the government 150 billion a year for welfare for the rich, only they call it government subsidies. Mega-rich Romney gets government subsidies, but that's not the problem, the problem for republicans is all of those poor, lazy bastards getting food stamps. For all the people that think the poor should be drug-tested before they get welfare, it will actually mean something if you start drug testing the group on welfare that gets the most. Or better yet, end corporate welfare completely.

You guys have the Republicans all wrong. They aren't against new taxes. They are only against anything that raises taxes on the rich, which includes them.

They have shown time and time again that they are not at all opposed to raising taxes on the poor and middle class. For example, Cain with his 9-9-9 plan would have given a tax break to those making over $200k a year at the expense of the rest of us. Yet he stood up on stage and swore he was against raising taxes.

I lost $75,000 in home equity due to the Banksters unbridled greed; why isn't there a tax deduction for that? Instead, folks are being charged capital gains on their losses by the IRS when their homes are foreclosed on, simply because their home isn't worth what it was before the banks crashed the market.

The banks should have to pay damages to every homeowner. Between crashing the market and then flooding it with Short Sales and Foreclosed homes, they have made it impossible for any of us to sell our homes for what is owed, even after many improvements.

Show me a candidate that is willing to do something about that!

Facts about who pays the taxes:

Top 1% pays 36.73% of the federal income tax
Top 5% pays 58.66% of the federal income tax
Top 10% pays 70.47% of the federal income tax
Top 25% pays 87.30% of the federal income tax
Top 50% pays 97.75% of the federal income tax
Bottom 50% pays 2.25% of the federal income tax

I'm sure you can figure out the dollar amounts. This pay your fair share is just political BS. Half the people don't even know how much they pay. Half the people don't know how much waste there is in the government. You can figure it out. One of my first jobs was working for a school district. We got money to buy new desks and some other new equipment. We had the job to throw out hundreds of perfectly sturdy and hardy old desks, smash granite countertops, ect. And we all know what they replace it with is something that is not at all the same quality. There is an example of government waste. My first job was government waste. The supervisors told us to go on break all the time. I literally, in a normal day, worked 4 hours and broke for another 4 hours. I was about 16 at the time.

The real answer is to stop the class warfare and quit this spending.

Wow - I could feel the ground shaking all the way on the left coast from the Republican stampede in the House to run away from this poor guy. We know where Newt is going to send the poor lost soul .. to the moon-base.

Agreed Wayne - a balanced budget amendment must be approached very carefully. While we should make every attempt to curtail spending, we mustn't do so to our economic peril. When will the right ever understand that government is not a business, and it should not be run as one.

I'm for a balanced budget. It will require tough choices, but since Congress has demonstrated repeatedly it's incapable of making the hard calls, I say an amendment is justified.

As for the surtax, 5% on everything over $1 million is reasonable enough. Don't know if it will make much difference to revenues, but it seems fair. Eliminate the cap on the payroll taxes, too.

If I recall correctly, during WWII we also had a tax rate in excess of 90%. But, the greed that exists in our nation and with those controlling our nation through their paid for politicians would never consider raising taxes lest they loose the almighty campaign dollars. Here's one for you , how about no tax deduction for campaign contributions? If these people truly believe in what a person represents, they should want to see the person in office. Finally, all lobbyists should be banned from all Federal buildings and all these perks elected officials get from these corporations should be capped under ethics rules. My oh my, wouldn't this change a few things for the better in Washington?

I propose that in addition to a 5% surtax on taxable income over 1 million, that there be a 25% surtax on taxable income over 10 million and then 50% surtax on taxable income over 50 million.

Wasn't Romney's income 240 million? This should hit him. Actually, it would probably be cheaper than all the money he has spent running for President.

AG99 Eliminate the cap on payroll taxes??!! SS was never designed to be a method for wealth transfer or a welfare program. It was designed to be a supplement to retirement income, not total retirement income!! Since benefits are capped and benefits are roughly proportional to contributions (or at least they were before means testing in the form of taxing a portion of benefits), there is a cap on income subject to SS taxes. If I pay in twice as much as you, my benefits should be twice as much. It is a forced savings plan not a welfare program!!!

NorthernLights If you want what I have, earn it like I did. Don't propose that you should take it from me by increasing taxes!!

Would somebody PLEASE point me towards an economist, a real one, not a pretend one, who thinks a balanced budget amendment is actually good for America. People keep acting like it's their stupid household budgets and it's not. It's huge, complicated and needs to be flexible to respond to unexpected situations. It get's tiring listening to simpletons equating this countries budget to their household budget. Not even close to the same.

Any Congressman who signs a pledge other then his oath of office is not fit to be in Congress. To think otherwise is pure folly.

TES must be rich.....

Tes THINKS he's rich. And that's the problem. He doesn't get he's one of us not one of them.

If frogs had wings they would not be bumping their ass all the time.

Wayne-1656909

Yep, if we could cut out many of the deductions for people like John Kerry we might see at least some progress.

Yes, mj, I am wealthy! Not in the top 1% in wealth but firmly in the top 1% in income. I started poor but 40 years of hard work has it's benefits. You can sit on your a## and complain about it (and propose that someone else give it to you) or you can get your a## in gear and do something about it!!

Ah! JoAnn just answered me, in a round about way above! Nevermind.

WOW, that was quick, they have already turned on him....

But to label him an OWS progressive? shows where their heads are at!

Face it, to some people "progressives" are anyone who thinks that somewhere someone might actually be hungry or homeless, or that if a kid has a compound fracture that the first question from the ER staff might not ought to be, "Where's his insurance card?" Makes me wish I could join that former Canadian party, the Progressive Conservatives. Maybe then I would've "fit in" somewhere!

He is, if only because he has so many people, some of them otherwise intelligent, believing that he is, and in politics perception=reality, at least most of the time. He's not a great thinker, but he is a great saleman, and he is surrounded by some of the Right's sharpest PR flacks.

IKnow,

Yes Rep. Crawford has changed one sentence in the conversation. But one sentence leads to another and before you know it you begin to have a real conversation about "governance" among our elected officials.

Democrats need to continue the conversation. Any real substance that leads to breaking the impasse in Congress will be a victory for all of us.

Hey, a Republican finally grew a brain!

Now only if the Democrats don't lose theirs!

shhh...the great right way thinks running the country is just like running their household...it's blasphemy to tell them they are being ridiculous...

But long term the top 5% is the only group making a sizeable income that they aren't spending 100% on food, housing, and transportation. The middle class has no wealth and not very much income, the math simply isn't there to pay off this debt on their already crowded backs.

That's funny -- I'm nowhere near a top 5%'er, and I somehow manage to save 7-8% of my income and be at least somewhat charitable. (Disclaimer: no children, adult or otherwise, live with me). Part of it is prioritizing, and wanting not to be in debt for a lifetime, and taking pride in paid-off stuff over new stuff. But that is the "paradox of thrift". If everyone thought and lived as I do, the demand for new goods and profitable "luxe" services in the economy would swoon far worse than it already even has, resulting in even more prolonged weak/negative growth for the economy, even worse employment numbers, etc.

face, you've been drinking too much of Grover's Kool Aid. If you think that we're going to make any meaningful impact on the deficit without raising taxes I've seriously underestimated the degree of your intellectual limitations.

Whats balanced about 50% of Americans paying nothing in Federal income tax? You call that balanced? Please learn the meaning of a word before using it.

face the facts, your post is indicative of your lack of smarts when it comes to the 46% not paying taxes. Many of them don't earn the minimum amount required to be eligible to pay taxes. Second, many of the remaining people who don't pay taxes have qualifying deductions and tax write-offs that offset their tax obligations. Before you shoot off your big mouth why not bother to learn the facts, pal.

The 50% who pay no Federal income tax don't earn "the minimum annount required" because of all the write-offs and deductions they get. They make PLENTY of money to be paying taxes on. Please educate yourself or don't post. Collecting from those that pay nothing is the solution. Those that pay no Federal income tax should also not be allowed to vote... no tickie no washie. Hopefully this will educate one big-mouthed fool.

what face the facts ignored was the actual FACTS lol those 50% you mention if taxed at 100% wouldnt make a dent in the budget. If you think that taxing a person that makes 10,000$ a year say 15% would make a difference when billionaires are enjoying the largest tax breaks ever you truly are a fool ! Every dime that person makes goes to pay bill buy goods and services that create jobs that in turn pay wages. What does that same money for a millionaire/billionaire do? It sits, that wealthy person doesnt spend more because he can get anything he wants already. He invests? Are you saying he wouldn't invest anyway when most have made their wealth by investing? By taxing the poor and taking their "entitlements" away you will do one thing ensure they stay poor ensure they stay in their "place". Thats what you truly want isnt it Face the Facts ? For the poor to stay in their place beneath you ?Many of these people work 2-3 part time jobs just to survive and yet are called lazy.I know a few abuse the system but many more survive because of it .

Facethefacts can't face what he doesn't have.

It seems like it was the Bush tax cuts that put in the refundable portion of the child tax credit. Remember, Bush was a flaming liberal.
It also seems to me that it was the Bush tax cuts that put in the zero percent (0%) rate on capital gains if you were in the 10% tax bracket.

dave --- what you said is very true. good post.

Northern -- thanks for pointing out that Bush was a mere "social" conservative. He might have been anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion, but he was in other ways something far more dangerous than a "tax-and-spend" liberal, as they at least have actual revenue to expend, even if it is often on ill-conceived schemes. Bush was a "borrow-and-spend" pseudo-conservative, who proudly claimed his "conservatism" even while proposing Medicare Part D with no offsetting revenues with which it could've been reasonably funded. Of course, Bush could readily cite the fate of one of the few "social programs" started under Reagan, Medicare "Catastrophic Coverage", a truly excellent idea which was funded by a "means-tested supplemental premium" on the wealthy -- that's right, essentially a surtax on not just the top 1%, but the top 15-20% or so of covered seniors. When this turned out to be essentially half of the Republican Party donor base, they couldn't repeal it fast enough, before it even became fully effective. Grover N. was one of those banging the drum on this, as I recall: how dare you raise taxes just on people who can actually afford to pay some more taxes?!

facethefacts: I'm one of those millionaires who benefits from your policy, although I strongly agree with President Obama's tax policy.

It doesn't bother you that you would be taking food out of people's mouths? Rick Perry was right. You people are heartless.

facethefacts, read my prior post before you make a bigger fool of yourself regarding the 46% of people who are not paying taxes. You're a complete fool!

facethefacts, I hate to overload your tiny brain but here are some facts you should know before spouting off in such an ignorant manner: Income taxes aren’t the only kind of federal taxes that people pay.
There are also payroll taxes and investment taxes, among others. And, of course, people pay state and local taxes, too.

Get off your lazy arse and get the facts, face!

toJackbeidiot: Read my post Genius before posting a reply that has NOTHING to do with what I said. I refer to the 50% who pay no Federal income tax. Of course there are other taxes they are forced to pay... but they should ALSO PAY FEDERAL INCOME TAX like the other 50% do.... If you do not understand what you read, please refrain from posting.

face the facts: live by your own moniker. You can't get blood out of a turnip although heaven knows your ilk will surely keep trying. Please refrain from posting if you can't even understand such basics.

Face maybe you had better do some math 5% of little ...drum roll please...is a little, it wont balance the budget it wont even put a dent in it! but and ill say this slow so you can understand 5% of a lot is a lot! incase you are math challenged 5% of 10,000$ per year is 500$ but 5% of 10 million is one half million dollars. But the poor wouldnt pay 5% they would pay more like 15-20% again if, and it sounds like you are, math challenged that is 1500-2000$ a somewhat ok used car to get to the 2-3 part time jobs they hold to barely get by but totally worthless in the terms of a balanced budget take all the 50% you say doesnt pay taxes all together tax the heck out of them and it wont add up to one tenth of taxing the 1% their fair share which even Bush said should happen after his tax breaks expired thus the expiration date in the first place. So go ahead and yell about taxing the poor more it just shows how cruel you are yes lets take more from those that dont have much in the first place while we leave the ultra rich alone that will solve everything while we are at it lets make children of the poor work those little people need to earn the food they get lets put the elderly out of their misery all medicare and social security does is make them feel "entitled " to something they dont need and since they are retired (thus not working) they are lazy and dont deserve it anyway right??????? For christ sakes leave the poor alone will ya !

Ahh, poor face the facts.

I hope you're not black and blue from all that arse kicking you're receiving.

Tell you what... Go back to reading Robinhood and Roots in reverse and take your mind off the pain.

Have a nice day.

face, what are you smokin' these days? The fact is that the only way any meaningful reduction in the deficit is through a balanced approach of cuts in programs and increases in revenues. Man, you're a real piece of work.

facethefacts, since 46+ MILLION Americans are at poverty level right now, you believe taxing them an amount of approximately $1,100 (since a 5% rate for a person making $22,000 a year- being a 2011 poverty level statistic) that will take food or gas out of their income will magically help(?), opposed to a person making $1 million a year being taxed another 5% (which would be approximately $50,000)? Let's see, WHO would really be hurting more...

BTW, there are approximately 3.1 MILLION millionaires in the U.S. A 5% additional tax would bring in an approximate amount of $155 BILLION, compared to $50.6 BILLION in additional taxes to 46 MILLION in poverty. A year. But as I said, WHO would be hurting more because of said additional tax, if not the 'millionaires.' taxing 3.1 millionaires = taxing 46 million poor people, yep, that's equal taxation.

Fantom Let's say your numbers are correct and you do both. That would raise roughly $200B/yr. Then the deficit would still be $1T+!! Do you still think lack of tax revenue and not spending is the problem!!??

The main reason to raise anyone's taxes on the bottom end would have very little to do with revenues directly, and everything to do with the idea that everyone should have at least a little "skin in the game". I'm no "spring chicken" -- I remember the withholding from my first paycheck at my first regular, steady job: fifty cents, from a paycheck that was IIRC around $38.00 net. (That was federal income tax, not the FICA which was also withheld.) Actually I thought that it was fair that I had a little withheld from my part-time, minimum-wage paycheck, as I was now both old enough to vote, and a taxpayer after a fashion. I now had "skin in the game", so when a new program was proposed, I wondered how many more cents a week it would affect me, since back in those long-ago days the two were at least vaguely correlated. Let's face it, if you confiscated the incomes of the bottom quintile, that alone wouldn't balance the budget, anymore than confiscating the assets of all of the billionaires would. There has to be a way of figuring what amount you can raise taxes at the top which would actually increase revenues, rather than resulting in capital flight, income shifting, and other effects which would actually reduce revenues (the way that the Maryland "millionaire tax" allegedly has), and then implement that.

Can you say "shellacking?" That is what is going to happen AGAIN. Libs have embarrassed themselves AGAIN by defending stupidity, and we ended up with the worst president in history.

No that would be Bush and Bush senior a close second, come to think of it Reagan would be third worst then Nixon "I am not a crook"then.......

No, actually the worst Presidents in history would be James Buchanan, Franklin Pierce, U. S. Grant, and Warren Harding, which shows how modern Americans totally lack historical perspective. Even Nixon and Jimmy Carter simply were not in their league.

Sorry, but every time that I hear about "Grover", I can't help but think of that thing on Sesame Street ...

The GOP is running against Bush?

"Face" the facts?

More like FAKE the facts.

Baystater -- while I like what you have to say in theory, you need to remember that your private household will likely never have to fight a war out of its own resources, or provide a monthly income for millions of retirees who depend on it. Also, Gibbon's history is a little bit of a heavy read, even for this crowd. "Pork" is so often in the eye of the beholder, i.e., a new park near your house where I'll never go, a new school for your children/grandchildren that no one I know will ever attend, a new bridge on a road I never drive, or contraception for your daughter for that matter. I really don't have much of a problem with the "flat tax" as long as I have reason to believe that the person who makes half of what I do is truly only paying half as much (possible) while the person who makes 10,000 times what I do is paying 10,000 times as much (unlikely).

Let me make something perfectly clear.

The Teapublicans aren't in the slightest bit interested in curbing spending. That isn't what concerns them.

What? I'll say it again. Spending too much is NOT what motivates them.

The idea that part of their tax money goes towards helping the disenfranchised and disadvantaged is what infuriates them. Thats why you heard nothing but crickets during Reagan's and G.W. Bush's spending sprees. Ask them if using taxes to repair roads and build armies is ok, they'll say yes. Will they say anything about spending too much? Not a peep. You'd think they would be like, "spend on that stuff, but you'd better spend responsibly, or we'll be after you!" None of that.

But spend money on things like healthcare or education and LOOK OUT!

During Clinton's years, they wanted to eliminate art, music and free lunch and breakfast programs for school kids.

They're willing to take food out of poor kid's mouths before they raise a billionaire's taxes one dollar.

Heartless. They don't care about spending.

They care about spending to uplift the country by helping the "underclass."

Classic Ebenezer Scrooge stuff.

All this "balanced budget" stuff is a device meant to make them seem thoughtful and reasonable.

They aren't.

Have a nice day.

We were doing alright, we had low unemployment, were looking at a surplus and having the debt paid off in ten years. If we had kept on the Clinton path by 2010 we would have been out of debt.

Well that was until Bush got elected and then bush and the republicans decided that we didn't need to pay down the debt we needed tax cuts, then they started two wars and decided that their rich friends needed even another tax cut. Don't forget this was with all the democrats opposing but they didn't have the votes.

We don't need a balanced budget amendment to ham-string our country, we just need to not elect republicans who think America is their own private piggy bank. Those would be the people who protect the rich 1% from paying their fair share at all cost.

Americans First-3238795

Most of what you posted is a lie. To pay off the 5.7 trillion debt that existed when Bush took office it would have taken a budget surplus of seven hundred twelve billion five hundred million per year for the eight years Bush was in office

Clinton's budget surpluses first never approached that and second disappeared in 2001 due to the collapse of the dot com boom.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/24/the-dot-com-bubble-how-to-lose-5-trillion/