Skip to comments.Boehner counterpunches Obama’s cliff offer
Posted on 12/03/2012 4:19:34 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Last week, the White House tried (or at least, tried to appear like they were sincerely trying) to grease the skids on the fiscal cliff negotiations with a proposal that included $1.6 trillion in new taxes and the virtual elimination of the debt ceiling — a proposal to which Republicans responded with open laughter.
On Monday, the House GOP counter-offered their own jumping-off point, calling for $800 billion in new revenue via tax-code reform and spending cuts and entitlement reforms that would trim off a couple trillion from the budget. Looks like Mary Katharine and Guy Benson came pretty close to calling it, with some variation. Via The Hill:
House Republican leaders have made a counteroffer to President Obama in the fiscal cliff negotiations, proposing to cut $2.2 trillion with a combination of spending cuts, entitlement reforms and $800 billion in new tax revenue.
The leaders delivered the offer to the White House on Monday with a three-page letter signed by Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), and four other senior Republicans, including Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the partys just-defeated vice presidential nominee.
Republican officials said the offer was based on a proposal outlined by Erskine Bowles, the former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, in testimony last year before the congressional supercommittee on deficit reduction. That offer is distinct from the widely-cited Simpson-Bowles deficit plan released two years ago.
And, in Boehner’s own words:
With the fiscal cliff nearing, our priority remains finding a reasonable solution that can pass both the House and the Senate, and be signed into law in the next couple of weeks. The best way to do this is by learning from and building on the bipartisan discussions that have occurred during this Congress, including the Biden Group, the Joint Select Committee, and our negotiations leading up to the Budget Control Act.
For instance, on November 1 of last year, Erskine Bowles, the co-chair of your debt commission, presented the Joint Select Committee with a middle ground approach that garnered praise from many fiscal watchdogs and nonpartisan experts. He recommended that both parties agree to a balanced package that includes significant spending cuts as well as $800 billion in new revenue.
Notably, the new revenue in the Bowles plan would not be achieved through higher tax rates, which we continue to oppose and will not agree to in order to protect small businesses and our economy. Instead, new revenue would be generated through pro-growth tax reform that closes special-interest loopholes and deductions while lowering rates. On the spending side, the Bowles recommendation would cut more than $900 billion in mandatory spending and another $300 billion in discretionary spending. These cuts would be over and above the spending reductions enacted in the Budget Control Act.
This is by no means an adequate long-term solution, as resolving our long-term fiscal crisis will require fundamental entitlement reform. Indeed, the Bowles plan is exactly the kind of imperfect, but fair middle ground that allows us to avert the fiscal cliff without hurting our economy and destroying jobs. We believe it warrants immediate consideration.
If you are agreeable to this framework, we are ready and eager to begin discussions about how to structure these reforms so that the American people can be confident that these targets will be reached.
As Jim Pethokoukis points out, by the White House’s own calculations, $800 billion is in the ballpark of doable:
Consider the example of a $25,000 cap on itemized deductions, which some claim would raise in the range of $1 trillion or more from high-income households:
- Limiting the cap to those with incomes over $250,000 leaves only $800 billion in revenue. A $25,000 cap that applied to all households would raise taxes by an average of $2,400 on 17 million households with incomes below $250,000 ($200,000 for singles). Treasury estimates show that about 40 percent of the revenue from such a cap would come from these households. Thus, the amount of revenue that could be raised from taxpayers making more than $250,000 is only about $800 billion.
The Democrats have been insisting that major entitlement reform is not on the table, and their desire to not go over the fiscal cliff is becoming highly suspect. They’ve been rabble-rabble-rabbling about how Republicans need to introduce a concrete negotiating platform of their own, so here it is, and Republicans have now officially outlined the specific concessions they’re willing to make on increasing revenue (which is, by the way, a huge concession in and of itself that Democrats have hardly deigned to notice). Will they finally come to the table in good faith?
Update: I’m going to further ponder my own exit question here — Guy Benson has more on the politics of it all, and as he points out, the Republicans need to get crackin’ on getting the media to sit up and take notice. They’ll have to come in loud and clear that they’ve produced a mature, serious plan that has something for everybody, avoiding both the fiscal cliff and the extent of economic damage that we’d see with Obama’s plan — so the Democrats can feel free to quit pointing fingers any time now.
oblama already turned it down.
The house has a plan. Let Ryan do the talking. Get out of the way Boehner.
Whatever the House offers will never be good enough. Obama’s plan is 1) either complete control, or 2) send the economy over the cliff and blame the Republicans.
This country needs 536 new folks in DC. That is the only solution to the mess the incumbents have created.
If we wanted to see live theatre, we would buy a ticket to a play.
Even better. Just pass it and create a message for all GOP members to take back to town halls celebrating Christmas and the Holidays. Then leave DC. Let the Senate and WH act.
Counterpunch? Look at this article. Looks like Mr. Boner is not counterpunching, but being sucker punched.
The Boehner Fiscal Offer (Agrees with 60% of Obama plan )
http://www.redstate.com ^ | December 03 2012 | By: Daniel Horowitz
Posted on Monday, December 03, 2012 5:45:12 PM by Para-Ord.45
Here are two things to keep in mind with regards to Boehner’s budget offer. First, when you begin negotiations agreeing to 60% of the demands of the other side and fail to offer a bold contrast on the other 40%, you are headed for an outcome that is 80-90% favorable to your opponent. Second, when you need to outsource your budget plan and entire view of government to Democrat Erskine Bowles, you are relegating yourself and your party to irrelevancy.
oblama already turned it down
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Anything that is not word for word is automatically turned down.
Don’t forget that idiot hairy reeeed stated that if Romney were to win that HE wouldn’t be trying to work with him.
eyedigress (#3)you really don’t expect a politician to give up a little of his (at least in his own mind) power for the good of the country do you?
Saw an excellent article today saying that in this country you need a license to be a Doctor, Lawyer, Engineer, Truck Driver etc etc etc but all it takes to be a politician is the ability to lie on your feet and buy enough votes to win, absolutely NO license, qualifications, experience or even a permit required.
Just pass it in the House and be done with it. Let Numbnuts and Hairy Reed attack all they want.
WE DO TOO. Hold on to him as long as you can, what a blessing to see such GRIT for a change.
Who ya callin’ a grit?! /regional humor
Why is this so difficult. It was the “Bush tax cuts for the rich”. Heard that for 8 f’ing years. Republicans should now stand up and say they are letting the “Bush tax cuts for the rich” expire and that is their tax increase on the wealthy.
Force the Dems to say, “wait, Bush’s tax cut was for everyone.”
Then Republicans vote to make the Bush tax cuts permenant.
That’s how you win fights.
Raising taxes by 2,400 on 17,000,000 households is 40.8 billion. If that's only 40% of the total, then the total is 102 billion not 1 trillion. So they must be talking about the next 10 years, not per year. Pretty piddly. The real problem is not deductions or anything like that, but spending.
Even if they gave him everything that he wanted and worded exactly as he wanted, Obama would still turn it down, blame the Republican party as the party against the middle class and what ever other label he can throw into the mix. Obama is in a position of strength. If he does nothing taxes go up anyway, bush taxes, AMT tax, Obama care taxes start to kick in, and on top of it he has a government shut down he believes the stupid people of this country will blame the republicans with the help of the media. Obama sees his chance to overthrow what is left of our republic and turn it into a socialist quasi fascist dictatorship with the elites on both sides ultimately supporting when the dust settles.
What region and what does it mean? Now I will just apologize in advance of your answer. hahahahaha.
Didn't know there was another meaning, laughing so hard now, excuse me. lol
Okay, Mr. EQAndyBuzz. But why are your comments addressed to me and why the profanity? What gives, Mr. EQAndyBuzz?
Just kiddin’ ya. 8>)
STOP IT..;) I love a good laugh and that was it for tonight.