Earlier today, House Speaker John Boehner offered the Democrats a proposal: Allow the Bush-era tax cuts on those earning more than $1 million to expire, while preserving those tax cuts for everyone else. The White House quickly rejected that proposal.
It turns out that Boehner’s proposal was one that Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats’ majority leader in the House, had offered back in May.
And yet the Democrats rejected it.
If it wasn’t clear before today, it’s abundantly clear now that the Democrats’ position in the fiscal cliff standoff is primarily political, not economic. Boehner’s proposal did not touch entitlement spending, saving that fight for another day. It only attempted to preserve the current tax rates for everyone making less than $1 million. The Democrats’ rejection of that proposal exposes the fact they are still interested in more than merely a counterproductive tax hike on certain wealthier Americans. They’re interested in that too, obviously, but they remain interested in the three things that have driven their side of the discussions since Obama’s re-election: Slashing defense to bare bones, spending more money via a stimulus to build up more loyalty to the Democrats, and dividing Republicans by forcing them into a vote that ends up raising taxes.
Until the Republicans on the Hill understand that those are the Democrats’ main goals with regard to the fiscal cliff, they won’t get anywhere. Today, at least, Boehner’s Plan B exposed the Democrats a bit. Unfortunately, too few Americans are really paying enough attention for today’s gambit to have done much good.
It’s okay. What goes around comes around. And that includes the media. Journalism? Pshaw. Just a fancy word for liberal political bias.
Republicans have acted honorably. No more can be asked. If this nation has issues in the future with its debt, we will know one side did their best, while the other pursued goals that most likely only the passage of time will reveal the true motivations of, for they make no sense at this time if they are not merely for pure factional gain, even if that gain is merely to make one’s opponents wince.
Which may be all that it is about. Nevertheless, from a statesmanship perspective they are questionable. At any rate, Republicans have acted with honor, and these things are important, should more decisive action ever be needed. Which given the widespread demagoguery by the liberal intelligentsia of anything non-liberal, white and/or Southern these days, is a very real possibility.
As an additional comment–when I was in second or third grade, I insisted my mom make me a Civil War uniform for Halloween. She used corduroy for the jacket. In a “Mom”ish-sort of way, she made me a private, though I had sorta wanted seargent stripes. We used a picture out of my World Book Encyclopedia as a guide. The musket I had acquired on a trip to Williamsburg, I think. The day of the Halloween party, my dad had to go to Stone Mountain to buy a replacement “plastic” kepi, because the one I *assured* him I had couldn’t be found, and was probably rent beyond repair anyway if it could have been. Grumbling a bit, he went. Once he got there, he had to call to verify which one I needed. So I told him.
The Union blue one.
I was about nine years old. I loved American history, and I loved America.
I say this so that when I then say that if a new civil war comes I am gladly going to take up arms against the left, everyone understands. You can push good people too far. I wish Barack Obama well on whatever he considers “compromise”.
I understand completely. I also love the Civil War era, and have since seeing North and South and The Blue and the Gray on TV as a kid. I succinctly plowed through all three of John Jakes books when I was in fifth grade. I went on to read more serious and scholarly stuff from there. I have an enduring fascination with the generals.
I would always say that I fall out on the side of the North up until about six or seven years ago when I also started to become more politically aware. Now, while no one of any conscience can sympathize with the cause of slavery, I sympathize deeply with the cause of freedom and self-determination and states’ rights.
If things come to a head in the worst way, I know which side my husband and I will be on. Let’s all pray it’s not necessary.
Many years ago, my paternal grandmother said that we were distant relatives of the great Confederate general, Robert E. Lee.
A few years ago, one of my teenaged children mentioned this bit of family lore to some of her fellow students at her very liberal public high school. One of the assembled students chastised my daughter by saying,”Is that really something to be proud of?”
Lee, of course, resigned his U.S. officer’s commission so that he could return to Virginia to defend states’ rights. But, in today’s liberal canon, Lee’s status as a slaveholder relegates him to eternal damnation—at least in the “enlightened” and brainwashed minds of the left.
The pretended compromise was a fake. GOP offered more taxes if President would agree to “$850 billion spending cuts over a ten year period”. What? Eighty-five billion per year? That’s a tiny fraction of current spending. And, furthermore, what makes anyone who is conscious believe that future Congresses over the next nine years will be held to that reduction. That is why the compromise was a fake and why all the President’s offers are fake: taxes now in exchange for tiny little spending cuts that are aggregated over a longer period to make them seem like something they’re not. Ten percent cuts in every Federal department would be a good start. What!!! Ten Percent!!! Yes, because the Federal government is borrowing 40% of each year’s spending. Ten percent is only a good start the goal is .. anyone? Forty percent cuts this year and every year. Until we get the federal budget deficit under control and the federal debt paid down a bit … okay, paid down a lot.
Ir pretty much exposes how unserious the White House is, though, doesn’t it? It’s just too bad there’s no one to really pay attention or report it that way.
Ike, ’10% Fed cuts’ is a nice start. Yes, start.
Of course the ‘compromise’ was fakery by Barack Kardashian, Reid and company. As was Uhblame-O’s previous 2 ‘budget bills’ which received ZERO votes, collectively.
Not to mention Uhblame-O’s most recent sorry excuse of a bill won’t be voted on for yellow-teethed Reid is aware of it being atrocious. Though this didn’t stop Mr. Cowboy Poetry Days demagoguing the GOP post-decision on the Democratic-led Senate not voting for said ‘bill’!
The Illiberal and RINO ‘elected representation’ collective never ceases to amaze.
It’s a simultaneously sad, pathetic and nauseating laugh a minute.
NONE of their decisions are based in reality, functionality nor need. It encompasses emotionally-laden, counterproductive nonsense.
There is NO WAY to discuss in a lucid manner with the hope of coming to a resolution/ accord with someone whom displays mostly-emotional vested dogma(s) they adamantly defend.
Whereas sadly MANY of our neighbor’s, colleagues, relatives etc., function on that emotional plane.
Strangeways here we come..
$85G? You’re telling me that the left rejected $0.085T in cuts plus increasing “debt limits” further than the eye can see that the RINOs offered, when the budget obviously needs to be cut by the $1.3T per year that they’ve been over-spending, and the debt limit needs to be reduced until at least 80% of it has been paid off.
The so-called Republicans seem to be racing to see which one can wimp out the worst.
3 razzberries for former speaker Boehner.
shutting down the fed gov’t is the starting point.
It should be the starting point and the ending point and most of the points in between.
Not actually shunting it down but shutting down it’s obscene spending binge.
OK you jackwagons, listen up here’s what you need to know. This isn’t about making things fair. It’s about hiding all the costs of Obamacare behind the costs of going over the fiscal cliff. Probably gonna work too. Just another example of how dumb the Repubs really are.
The proper jackinology is jackanapes.
As prose, I liked jackwagons better.
If these piss-ants can’t come to any agreement on the paltry issue of taxes just imagine what the next really big fight will be like – the one where these ass-clowns will be discussing the raising of the national debt. I vote we don’t allow any more tax raising on anyone – and no more moving the debt ceiling.
Lets go off the cliff. Both of them. Really!
Why do some feel it ‘necessary’ to misrepesent facts even when they sometimes are largely irrelevant? The “letter” being referenced back in May from Pelosi was NOT an official House Democrat proffer. It was however, a Pelosi strategy to test and prove a point in the midst of the GOPs rigid Grover Norquist no-tax pledge position. Her letter was scoffed at and flatly rejected by leadership of the House GOP.
If you recall at the time, the GOP was steadfast in representing a large percentage of small businesses would be caught in the tax snare at the $250K level. Pelosi ignored small business IRS data and floated a much higher number to test the GOPs $250K declaration and objection.
It was an informal probe testing the GOP and in no way was it a democrat drafted democrat position.
That said, according to Pelosi today, she thought a standalone bill from the GOP side positioning a tax rate raise on income above $1M would pass the House, though she was not ready to state conculsively that it would. The probelm is that no such standalone bill will be coming to the floor from the GOP side so it will not be considered independently. Some balanced parity in spending cuts remains the only ‘real’ obstacle to the negotiations and who know where negotiated points that will end up much less, how such a bill on the floor of the House would end up. There are splits on both sides!
So, why doesn’t Pelosi go to Boehner and guarantee him enough Democrat votes to get the damned thing passed? That would be too much like bi-partisanship and all that other crap Democrats always throw around when they just want Republicans to do whatever they want done, no?
“Boehner’s proposal did not touch entitlement spending, saving that fight for another day. It only attempted to preserve the current tax rates for everyone making less than $1 million.”
Boehner should have gone with the $250,000 cut off and made out of control so called “entitlement” (which people are NOT entitled too) spending the issue. The vast majority of Americans make less than $250,000 a year, but are not on opulent welfare.
You can not be the party of millionaires as your main issue and expect to win very many elections.
And don’t forget they sacrifice babies, too… :eyeroll:
We are head over heels in debt because the federal government spends way too much, not because it taxes too little, but also not because it taxes too much either.
Bob Woodward said something very perceptive, If I may paraphrase a bit he stated that Obama could blame going over the “Cliff” but just for a few months. He states from past observations that reasonable or not, the majority of voters blame a bad economy on the man at the top. It is true that the economy has been bad but if the Bush tax cuts go away, a lot of people are going to get real surprised. Revenue will drop exponentially and even government jobs will not be safe. Helicopter Ben will be at the end of the QE effectiveness. Yeah here is your unemployment check, quick, go cash it all and buy a loaf of bread. What your Obama cell phone doesn’t work anymore because the cell phone company laid everyone off?
Does the Republican Party stand for raising taxes? Yes! Does the Republican Party stand for increased government regulations, yes! Does the Republican Party stand for treason by the Executive Branch? Yes! Screw the Republican party…they stand for nothing!
It is pointless for Boehner to negotiate any further. After what he’s seen this far, he should realize that anything Obama might not offer in spending reductions is simply a lie. Obama is obviously not negotiating in good faith; consequently, there’s no point in continuing this charade. Fasten your seat belts, ladies and gentlemen . . .
Kinda reminds one of the Peanuts cartoons with Lucy, Charlie Brown, and the football. Unfortunately, it is the nation that will fall on its collective ass when 0 pulls back the football this time.
Any “compromise”, according to Obama, must include draconian defense spending cuts, tax increases, and a promise to “look at” entitlements “later”. (The same way he promised to “look at” nuclear power but has never done anything to actually implement its use, I suspect.) Plus another round of “stimulus”.
If the “cliff” is gone over, we get…
… Draconian defense spending cuts, tax increases, and a promise to “look at” entitlements “later”.
And, most likely, another round of “stimulus”, by Executive Order.
Obama’s definition of “compromise” is “STFU and do as I say”. And he has set things up so that no matter what happens…
…He gets the same results either way. Those being the results, and power, he wants.
It’s a “heads He wins, tails you lose” situation”. And there is no point in fighting a battle you cannot win.
Give him what he demands. And when it comes crashing down, let the MSM explain why it was Everybody Else’s Fault, Not The Messiah’s.
Let them just try.
clear ether
eon
10% cut in the defense budget is hardly draconian, it ought to be cut by at least 30%! Our bloated military budget, which is larger than the rest of the world’s combined, only encourages wild, reckless, irresponsible, unconstitutional military adventures in places that we have no business being, and the best way to put a stop to it is to see to it that the current, and future, Presidents are financially incapable of playing GloboCop.
That’s the point at which a serious negotiator would counter with:
Eliminate “entitlements” now;
reduce tax rates by 10% beginning in FY2013,
reduce federal spending over the next 10 years, and
pay off 80% of the federal debt within the next 30 years.
If, after four years, the electorate is not aware that President Obama’s definition of “compromise” is “capitulate,” Lord have mercy on their soul.
John Boehner has joined the ranks of the Rinos. I doubt he will be reelected. He has apparently been force fed chairman o’s book of philosophical sayings. Page 1 states, “I won”. All following pages say the same thing.
Just WALK AWAY!
Bammy don’t want a deal.
Sen. Rand Paul on Your World with Neil Cavuto on Fox News – 12/19/12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbTkVqZ8EKA