Posted on 11/04/2011 6:36:15 PM PDT by mnehring
I’m a day late on this but it’s too intriguing not to blog. You can read the actual letter, which is exceedingly tame, on Mike Simpson’s website. Among the signatories: …Ron Paul.
The bad news? If this happens, some people might be paying a little more. The good news? We’ll never have to read another “time for a grand bargain” column from Tom Friedman again. Dude, I think we should take the deal.
A group of 40 House Republicans for the first time Wednesday encouraged Congress’s deficit reduction committee to explore new revenue as part of a broad deal that would make a major dent in the nation’s debt, joining 60 Democrats in a rare bipartisan effort to urge the “supercommittee” to reach a big deal that could also include entitlement cuts…
Among those who signed were several dozen Republicans who had previously signed a pledge promising they would not support a net tax increase. Among the Democratic signers were some of the House’s most liberal members who have opposed entitlement cuts…
Rep. Steven C. LaTourette (R-Ohio) said if he had a nickel for every one of the Republicans who said they supported the letter’s goal but feared how [Americans for Tax Reform President Grover] Norquist would react, “I’d be rich and retired, and we’d have 200 signatures on the letter.”…
[S]everal Republicans who signed the letter were careful to note they were not endorsing a net tax increase — but rather a broad rewrite of the tax code that might close loopholes and lower rates, while still producing more government revenue.
Even more intriguingly, Boehner himself came out today and said “I think there is room for revenues” in the Super Committee’s work while emphasizing that the GOP will only tolerate so much. When his staff was asked where, pray tell, these new revenues would be coming from, an aide suggested “increasing government fees, selling government assets and raising co-payments in government healthcare programs.” I.e. no tax hikes. So that’s that, right?
Six members of a congressional “super committee” have struck out on their own in a new effort to come up with a plan to slash America’s huge deficits before a November 23 deadline…
Aides stressed that the six lawmakers are still in talks with the full super committee and have not splintered off. Instead, they are making an internal effort to try to broker a bipartisan deal.
Significantly, at least two Republican members of the smaller group are willing to consider revenue increases as part of a deficit-reduction plan, one of the congressional aides and a source with direct knowledge of the talks said.
Remember, the Super Committee only needs seven votes to approve a plan; there are six Democrats and six Republicans participating, so either one of those two unnamed GOPers who are open to new revenues could trigger some sort of “grand bargain” proposal involving entitlement reform. And if you’ve got six Democrats agreeing to entitlement reform, they’re going to want something more than “increasing government fees” in return. James Clyburn, one of the Democrats on the Committee, is talking about getting rid of some deductions, but whether that would pass muster with the GOP is unclear. Thirty-three Republican senators sent a letter of their own to the Super Committee today warning them away from trying to raise revenues. Whether they can get the rest of the caucus to go along and join a filibuster might depend on what Boehner and the House GOP do if/when a “grand bargain” makes it to the floor. As it is, Time magazine quotes a Senate source who puts the odds of the Super Committee deadlocking at 75 percent, up from 70 just two weeks ago. Watch this clip of Pat Toomey, another Committee member, talking about the current stalemate and you’ll think that estimate is too low.
Here’s Boehner today doing his “Grover who?” shtick after being asked about revenues. Exit question: It’s probably not a good sign for fiscal conservatives that members of Congress are already working to undo the automatic spending cuts that’ll be triggered if the Committee deadlocks, huh?
You are right, but as we all know, that’s not what they are talking about, especially in light of saying cuts won’t do it.
--------------------------
Rats need to be investigated, jailed, and hounded out of federal elective office and unions stripped of their ability to steal dues from workers paychecks.
Time to upset their 'business as usual' programs in the slime pit called D.C.
Sort of like Herman Cain.
Yes. Too many politicos of all parties are dependent on revenues/debt from government, so we’ll continue to starve the b. With too little manufacturing for sustainable revenues and a currency that will only go down (globalism in business, inflation in producing countries, foreign product prices increasing, and finally, more dollars to get those foreign products).
Remember in the FOX debates I think it was, when the candidates were asked to raise their hands if they wouldn’t support a 10:1 reduction in spending to tax hike?
Cain wanted not to raise his hand; he hesitated and was the last to do so. I for one would take a 10:1 any day.
Unfinished sentence. With too little manufacturing for sustainable revenues and a currency that will only go down, there will be no communist nation rising from the default. ...only freedom.
they must find $1.2 billion and that is all. I’m thinking that Obama may need to raise the debt ceiling before the next election.
"Revenues" means "revenues" to Republicans. It does not have to mean taxes.
Here's just one example: if oil companies lease more federal lands for drilling, that's new revenues but it is not taxes.
Just in case anybody thought the pubbies were looking out for the folks. I guess Boehner and company think its time to eat our peas.
I for one would take a 10:1 any day.
__________________________________________
You are a union shill and not too bright so that’s not surprising.
To retire the national debt:
1) Tax liberals 1% of their income for each IQ point under 100.
2) Charge admission to Newt debating Barack.
Sign that into legislation next week and nobody will accuse Republican’s of caving in on taxes.
Here’s just one example: if oil companies lease more federal lands for drilling, that’s new revenues but it is not taxes.
______________________________________________________________
No that would not be “new” revenues. If there was a new fee on oil drilling or an increase in lease rates then that would be new revenues though.
I don’t want any new revenues of any kind, they would just spend them. Debt would NOT be reduced.
There already are plenty of revenues. CUT SPENDING!
Cut and Run signed it? I thought he said he would not vote for tax increases. Then again the surrender monkey said he was against earmarks, but always puts as many as possible in every bill possible. Does he have one bit of honesty in him?
No flicking way would I turn over the rewrite of our founding document to the current group of people in this nation. You have a 50% chance of getting what you want. Horrible odds.
Let’s just back to the rules already in place in try that first.
Good point. And you are right, I think we need to give the next set of elections a chance. I just don’t have much confidence it’s going to work and if it doesn’t, the next step for the people is a Constitutional Convention. We certainly would need to be certain of the amendments being proposed but remember the great majority of the country is made up of red state territory. The problem is a very small percentage of leftist statists have managed to get control of nearly the entire political process. They have rigged the process as to prevent the limited government system we have from working.
This is where we need a reset. Strict term limits could virtually end the concept of the career (Entrenched is the proper word) politicians. Also things like the commerce clause need to be strictly limited or simply eliminated completely.
It’s a “radical” idea by some standards but the alternative is even uglier. We have already lost the war and total economic collapse is clearly in our future unless massive changes are made to the central government. Those in power are not going to vote themselves LESS power. That is the very reason the framers added the option of a Convention to amend and fix the constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.