E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSAnyone thinking Republicans might be ready to accept extending the Bush tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 now, think again.
House Speaker John Boehner (R), the man at the center of negotiations with President Obama, today rejected Oklahoma Rep. Tom Cole’s suggestion to pass an extension of tax cuts for 98 percent of people, declare victory, and go home.
Yuri Gripas / Reuters
U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) speaks next to Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, November 28, 2012.
"I told Tom earlier at our conference meeting that I disagreed with him,” Boehner said at a Capitol Hill news conference Wednesday morning. “He's a wonderful friend of mine and a great supporter of mine. In my view, raising taxes on the so-called top 2 percent, half of those taxpayers are small-business owners that pay their taxes through their personal income filing every year. The goal here is to grow the economy and control spending; you're not going to grow the economy if you raise the top 2 percent rates. It'll hurt small businesses, and it'll hurt our economy, why this is not the right approach. We're willing to put revenue on the table as long as we are not raising rates."
Cole (R-OK) on Wednesday reiterated his call for Congress to pass an extension of the Bush tax rates for those making less than $250,000 first and then work on the extension for higher-earners later, a major break from the Republican's strategy in fiscal-cliff negotiations.
“In my view, we all agree that we're not going to raise taxes on people who make less than $250,000 dollars, so we should just take them out of this discussion right now,” Cole said after a meeting of the GOP Conference. “Continue to fight against any rate increases; continue to try to work, honestly, for a much bigger deal.”
NBC's Mark Murray and Domenico Montanaro discuss the ongoing fiscal cliff negotiations and how Grover Norquist's no-tax-increase pledge plays into the discussion. Plus, what happened when Susan Rice made a visit to The Hill.
Cole, the deputy whip and former National Republican Congressional Committee chairman, first made the suggestion during a closed-door "whip meeting" yesterday, which was first reported by Politico last night. His comments have drawn criticism from those in his party.
Boehner is not the only Republican to disagree with Cole. Rep. Sean Duffy said on MSNBC’s Daily Rundown Wednesday morning that he believed Cole’s views are in the “minority” of House Republicans. In fact, interviews with other GOP members confirms that.
The lack of support for Cole’s proposal highlights the gap that persists between the White House and House Republicans with the clock ticking toward the so-called “fiscal cliff,” when all Americans would see tax increases and there would be a round a severe Defense and domestic spending cuts unless a deal is struck.
“Cherry picking provisions and rates right now doesn’t solve the problem, and they're not a serious deficit solution,” Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) told reporters today after a meeting of the Republican Conference.
Brady, who sits on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, said he is advocating for comprehensive tax reform, to be completed next year after all rates would be extended.
“I think we're strongly unified behind no tax increases on New Year’s Day,” he said.
Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID) echoed Brady’s concerns, saying he believes the majority of the Republican Conference, including himself, is opposed to the idea of decoupling the Bush tax rates.
“We have to make tough decisions about our tax rates,” Labrador said. “We have to make tough decisions about our spending; we have to make tough decisions about our deficit. Let's do that today. There's nothing courageous about saying let's raise taxes on a few people today.”
In August, House Democrats proposed a bill that would do exactly what Cole proposed, but it failed 257-170 with no Republicans voting for the bill, and 19 Democrats voting against it.
Related:
Leave a Comment:
Past reports were Boehner was a proxy for ATT carrying around ATT checks if you voted in the right way...... Sounds as if this is not about politics, but possibly greed when the whole story is known.
Riley, you speak of past reports. Please provide some link to support this. You have made an accusation, not stated an opinion.
DR:
The Democract party hasnt been liberal since before Clinton! The GOP is responsible for most of the financial disasters we now face. If the last 3 GOP presidents had NOT signed TWENTY deficit riddled budgets AND saddled Obama with a $1.3T deficit, we wouldnt HAVE a DEBT CRISIS! And you people call yourself "conservatives"???
The GOP hasnt been conservative since BEFORE raygun. Deliberately creating a debt crisis in order to force privatizing SS and Medicare?? That is TREASON because this debt endangers our national security, our financial stability and our economic future!
And this version of the GOP needs to be destroyed. They are a clear and present danger to the survival of the country as we know it!!! Just LOOK at what they've DONE!!!
Dr. Stalin,
Don't you worry, the Republican Party is more than capable of destroying itself.
Perhaps you didn't notice what just happened in the recent election.
The Republican party does not need the DNC to assist it in comitting suicide - its doing a fine job all by itself.
The soul of America is the promise of equal opportunity and the military industrial complex, the health care industrial complex, and general polarization trends in income is undermining that fundamental promise because its denying the vast majority of Americans the abiliy to stay healthy, not get pregnant unless they want, and get the education they need to make a decent living.
The RNC does not realize were losing an education war, healthcare should be a regulated utility not a traditional business, Woman should make decisions regarding their own body, and that we do not need to have a traditional military. They need to learn that social public sector spending is not always and "expense" it can and should be a investment that benefit the private sector.
The RNC need a complete makeover. Throw the bums out.
DrKarl...
Need some cheese with your whine?
This type of unsubstantiated fear mongering is just more of the same low IQ crap we always get from a GOP naysayers.
Stop whining, buck up, pay your fair share, and get on with business.
Sounds like the Republicans are still willing to destroy the country just to ensure that Obama is a two term president!
dave,What are you talking about?Presidents in the U.S. can only serve two terms.
LOL! I guess the joke is on them. LOL!
It sounds like Boner got an a$$ chewing from his boss Norquist.
Norquist jammed his hand deeper to control his puppet.
This whole issue was set up by Republicans. They had Obama on the ropes, he would even do a 4 to one deal to a 8 to one deal on spending vs revenue, and the revenue didn't have to come from a rate increase. They won, but actually walked because Grover would not even allow deduction changes. Instead, they decided to leave everything as is until the election, then have forced tax increases and cuts. Even a lot of conservatives like Crystal said take it now, it will never be a better deal.
This, again, the GOP turning away from facts and reality. Be it Evolution, Rape, Iraq, Tora Bora- it's like they just have to take a bad position, even when they win. I suppose the logic was to make Obama look bad, even if they look worse. So now, they really have nuttin. The good news is that signing a pledge to a lobbyist is no longer in style. The recons do have an opportunity to get some spending cuts but they never really cared about that. Families won't notice the difference of a 3% increase on taxable income over 250K. If you actually understand how taxes work it is insignificant.
The scam is the 15% capital gains rate, that only the extremely rich benefit from (the top .01%) by essentially redefining income. That one isn't even on the table. The extremely rich don't take much in wages, if any thus they can make it appear that the Top 1% is people making over 350K in wages while they get millions in capital gains. Then they get the white trash to feel sorry for them. Gotta hand it to Repubs, they will look a fact dead on and say it isn't true and get the dumb ones to believe it.
There should be give and take. I agree with the view point that spending cuts must be in place before it is agreed on rasing taxes on over $250,000 income. If not, the spending cuts will never come. Obama has the chance to stand up to his campaign pledge "I will not raise taxes on people making under $250,000." He can do this right now just come to an agreement about spending cuts. If not, he is not living up to his promise. But then again, why should he, increase evryone's taxes, gives him more money to spend and blame the rebuplicans as usual.... By the way I am an independent that is tired of no one working togethr]er. Mr Obama has chance to do this....notice I said Mr not President, he can't lead the people!
Folks,
The above post by 4moreyearsWTH is a perfect example of why the Republicans lost the election.
Sure, he calls himself an Independent, but then refers to the president as "Mr."
As a Democrat, I'm all for this kind of narrow minded and insulting thinking. It means my side will win again.
I don't accept the premise that spending cuts are necessary at the time. If they are, please tell me which ones will eliminate unnecessary government services. Otherwise, cutting spending while we are in an early phase of recovery from the recession may just worsen things if those cuts result in reduced spending on non-government goods and services. Given the fact that we have the lowest corporate taxes of any major developed nation and historically low tax rates for the wealthy, it makes inherent sense that the government needs revenue both to operate and to begin to pay down the deficit, and the place to get it is from people who have it and who have been getting major breaks for a long time. Of course, there will be compromises, but cuts need to be make with a scalpel, not a cleaver.
To Buck Garcia: "Mister" is the correct title for the President. This goes back to Washington when he was asked what he should be called. Someone suggested "your excellency" and he replied that Mister President would be good enough.
@4moreyears....
Whether YOU like it or not, he is the president, and is addressed as President Obama or Mr President....get over it!
i am tempted to move to his state just to vote him out of office. 98% of small buiness makes less than $250K/yr so he is willing to throuw 98% under the bus ? If this guy understood what a representative democracy is he would understand that he is not doing his job.
Palinban..... then maybe the should NOT back down from any of their demands. We'll go over the cliff but the GOP will be blamed. Americans are in NO MOOD to put up with anymore BS from the GOP! The election PROVED that!
worse yet by his own admission only 50% of the remaining 2% are small buiness? so his giving the middle tax finger to 99%
House Weeper Boehner needs those for hostage taking.
If the tax cuts are not extended for the people under $250k, I will vote Democratic - all choices - on the next round. I really don't know what would be worse; a divided government that can't go to the bathroom or a government of Democrats. Obviously, a Republican controlled government (circa 2002 - 2006) couldn't do anything worthwhile.
Funny. The economy didn't actually start to unravel until 2007-2008. As bad as Bush was, the is plenty of blame to be handed to Mrs. Pelosi, Mr. Reid and idiots like Dodd and Frank who were just as reckless in their actions.
Had enuf....
Did Bush not have a veto stamp?
Bush was an arrogant fool. That did not stop the democratically-controlled Congress, Fannie and Freddie from fostering an environment in which money was lent to people who were not qualified to receive it. And when they were warned of the risk, THEY IGNORED IT!
There is NO WAY any tax rate cuts should be extended for ANYONE before spending cuts are nailed down in stone.
The track record is 100% that spending cuts are promised and then there is NEVER any follow-through.
It's time to put the cuts first. Otherwise it will be the same old lie about promised spending cuts that never happen.
As for generating more tax revenue, it would be much more effective to do this through capping and phasing out deductions for upper income earners so that cash flow is not drained directly from the private economy. Captial in the private economy generally seeks investment for return. If its sent to the government up front then there is less investment going on (i.e. less chance at growing the economy).
In the end, the problem is not that we tax too little. It's that we spend to much. Raising $83B more in revenue doesn't even cover 10% of our current deficit. It's not a sincere approach to fixing anything. All it does it play well in the court of public opinion because on 2% of the people are getting hit for more.
Until the real pain is accepted by EVERYONE the Obama Administration and the mindless zombies who follow it blindly are just fooling themselves.
Losers don't dictate conditions.
Dave, you don't seem to get how this country works.
Our founders were clever. They did not want a society where 50%+1 could dictate to 50%-1. Things were set up such that any majority (unless it was a super-majority) could only move ahead in small steps with compromises slightly in their favor.
The problem with the Obama administration and people like you is that you seem to think that 51:49 (or 52:48) gives you the right to enforce a 97:3 agenda.
NEWS FLASH 1: There were enough winners on the other side of the aisle that you only get a slightly bigger piece of cake.
NEWS FLASH 2: Look at the number of Republicans that were re-elected by 60% or more! They have a mandate to prevent a 1-sided steamrolling of the left agenda from occurring. NOW THAT IS WHAT A MANDATE REALLY IS.
If you want the "minority" to play ball with you then make it worth their while for once and pass some cuts with teeth in them. Otherwise, you and Obama can talk until you are blue in the face because we will not be moving anywhere.
If the cuts are so critical to your line of thinking before relieving the 98% of the coming increase, then just let the cuts in the sequestration take place. Of course you won't agree to this solution, though, will you? Somewhere in that across-the-board cut are several of your sacred cows, and those must be saved at any cost to the rest of us.
If tax cuts are not extended to the middle class some 52% of American voters will blame John Boehner and the GOP.
If tax cuts are not raised on the wealthiest 1% that same 52% of American voters will blame John Boehner and the GOP.
Gee whiz, folks. we just had an election. Some 60% of Americans, yes even those that didn't vote for Obama, think we should raise taxes on the wealthiest 1%.
Sorry, GOP, you lost and if you keep up this nonsense you will lose again.
I vaguely remember when then-presidential candidate Romney referred to corporations as people. It's obvious that Mr. Boehner disagrees.
Here's my question...
Why do we have tax laws for individuals/families and corporations (regardless of their size) all lumped together. People are not corporations, even though like corporations they should pay their fair share of taxes.
The biggest problem we have is that those who can afford to can put their mad-money into investments in Swiss Banks or into investments that allow them to have unfair tax advantages. Those of us who can't afford to do that do not have that luxury. We're busy saving for our retirement, putting kids through college, and hoping that someday we'll be able to retire comfortably.
The difference between the rich 2% and the rest of us is that they don't have toworry about their retirement, their children's college education or whether or not they will be able to retire comfortably. The fact is, they have so much money that these concerns don't even cross their minds.
I'm all for fairness, but what angers me the most is the tax loopholes that are afforded to those people who have the most money. Shouldn't tax fairness benefit those who make the least before those who have so much money that they just don't know what to do with it? We're not asking to live like kings and queens, but it would be nice if our kids could graduate from college without any debt and that we could live comfortably in our old age. All but the top 2% would probably agree with me because they don't make enough money to hide in overseas or off-shore accounts. The greed of this top 2% just astonishes me!
You are wrong when you lump the top 2% in the same group! There are a lot of hard working, honorable people who are not wealthy but ther are also a lot of honorable, hard working people in the top 2%, a fact that you refuse to accept! Not everyone who is wealthy is greedy. I went from nothing to the top 1% of earners but it took me 40 years and almost 15 years of school and training after high school. Plenty of others have benefited from my success. I provide jobs and give plenty to various chatities. I also pay $100,000+/yr in federal income taxes to support your a@@! So keep slamming the "wealthy"!! I hope it makes you feel better!
If you give the Dems what they want, there will be no motivation to compromise. You can then forget any attempt to decrease spending!!!
It is really the top 0.1% that are making out like bandits, but it is a simple fact that the more you make, the more you can afford to give. How much you should give is another question.
Isn't reducing taxes a Republican ideal? Isn't that what their candidate just ran on? Now they don't want to do it because it's a Democrat asking for it. Disgusting.
It's the pressure from their base 1% that would get their taxes raised while reducing the 99%.
They want to be able to hold the middle class tax cuts hostage so they can force the extension for the rich, like they did 2 years ago.
How do Republicans extricate themselves from the disconnect between the statement that higher taxes now will hurt business and the burgeoning economy in the days of higher taxes under Clinton?
They don't. If they pretend hard enough, then it didn't happen.
Why would not the majority of Americans want to increase taxes on the top 2% ie someone else!!?? You guys are all for shared sacrifice as long as someone else is doing the sacrificing. We are all in this together as long as someone else is paying for it! Why does the left continue to say that the majority of the Bush tax went to the top 2% and then fight to the death to allow them to expire only on the top 2%. If they truly went mainly to "the wealthy", allowing them ALL to expire would not harm the nonwealthy!!! They say we can't allow them all to expire because it would harm the fragile economy and then continue to claim the cuts went mainly to the wealthy. So allowing them ALL to expire would harm the economy but allowing the majority (as they see it) to expire would not!!?? You can't have it both ways!!!
They were skewed toward the wealthy, but the amount the middle class got still adds up to quite a bit. Any tax hike can potentially slow a fragile economy, but much less so for the wealthy, because it probably isn't going to change their investment behavior much.
"They were skewed toward the wealthy"!!!??? The CBO said about $80B/yr went to the top 2%. The total was about $380B/yr. I fail to see how allowing 20+% of the cuts to go to the top 2% (the group that currently pays roughly 50% of individual federal income taxes) qualifies as "skewed toward the wealthy"!!!! You continue to drink the Obama Kool-Ade!!
Is it just me or do the Obama Haters, you know those really petty and viscious ones, seem to carry a lot less weight these days than they did before the election?
That's what happens when you lose.
I'll tell you what makes me grin though, the fact that the Republicans may never again win another presidential election.
Yep, it's now about women, Latinos and Blacks. My how the world has changed.
Another example of the Republican hatred of Americans. They view us as a crop to be picked and sold. They are the overseers and we're the fieldhands and they will squeeze us for every last drop of sweat so that they and their fat cat friends never have to do a day's work again.
okay the GOTP does not want to compromise so then i think the house should stay
in session through the holidays rather than leaving on the 14th for their vacation until the first of next year.
they do less work than a lazy dog but still get paid as if they are productive. no budget no pay and by the way they should have less time off, just like the people they represent.
I'll sign on to that... where do we sign!
Lets go off the cliff, until the GOP pulls their head out Norquist's butt!!
Boehner is the worst Speaker in history. We need to clean the House in 2014 and throw all the GOP trash out!
If the administration and those who support it want an economic war, then keep going in this direction and you will have one.
If my taxes go up without legitimate spending cuts happening ahead of (or in parallel with) them, I will lay off every employee I have who is either a democrat or left-leaning supporter to cover the additional costs. I don't need people on my payroll who hurt my livelihood (either directly through their work or indirectly through their support of a government that is anti-business).
I encourage ALL conservative job providers to take such actions and send the message to Washington (and those who are employed through the enterprises that we have worked hard to create) that we will no longer tolerate a fiscally irresponsible, socialist agenda.
You are full of @!$%#. Do what you want. You are not important.
the only people you have working for you is in your head, what a jerk you are
Yeah, because being petty and vindictive is always the mature solution.
@dave - now there's a mature response. what employer in their right mind would keep on an employee that hurts their business?
@harley - when you don't have an intelligent counter-argument just call name, eh?
@jock - not petty or vindictive. More taxes cost something. I can't raise prices so I have to reduce costs. If I have to cut employees and I have equally qualified people with the only difference being that one is hurting our company by supporting the current administration and the other is trying to help is by supporting the alternative just who is the "expendable" one?
Know what side your bread gets buttered on...TRANSLATION: DO NOT SH!T WHERE YOU SLEEP!
Awww, did I hurt your feelings? Do I care? Tell us more bull@!$%#.
@hadenof
What job providers are you referring to? The ones who have had big tax breaks for 10 years and done nothing except pocket the money?
"I will lay off every employee I have".
Right, and you're also a 29 year old Chippendale dancer and heir to some fortune.
If you're going to make up personas, at least make some sense. You'd rather cut off 100% of your income from an employee to save a few percent in a tax increase on that income. Smart, real smart. Tell me what kind of business you're in - I love to compete with 'owners' like you.
well I've had enuf of the wealth not paying their fair share and being a bunch of free loaders.
Do don't put your hand out and pay the same tax rate as the rest of us!
Talk about wanting a free ticket-losers!
Just more of the same Congressional gridlock as before, courtesy of Repugnicans. Before the election, Repugnicans behaved this way to create FUD about the economy and help their prospects for Mutt's ascent. That tactic backfired and inflicted major losses, so now they're just trying to extract some revenge and spite the American voters who sent them packing.
Unless the Republican Governors put pressure on the GOP Congress to pass the Middle Class tax cuts (less than $250,000), they can kiss their jobs goodbye in 2014! Boehner will drive the GOP into the elephants graveyard very soon.
I agree that the Democrats Tax and Spend , however the Republican plan of : Don't tax , but Spend anyway doesn't seem to be working all that well either . Never in our history have we fought even one , much less TWO wars , and cut taxes at the same time . The unpleasant truth folks , is that if we're gonna pay down this huge debt , we probably are gonna have to cut back on everything , Defense DEFINITELY included , and raise taxes on just about everybody , and cut out corporate welfare AND find new sources of revenue ( Hint: legalize pot , tax it up the wazoo . ) and new sources of energy . ( Like it or not , oil is a finite resource )