Republicans discuss revenues, yet still insist on no tax hikes Update: Kyl’s office responds

posted at 2:40 pm on July 7, 2011 by Tina Korbe

The president and congressional leaders met this morning at the White House to discuss ways to reduce the deficit — and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) says there’s a 50/50 chance a debt limit deal will be reached in 48 hours — but just what the meeting accomplished is not yet clear.

Prior to the meeting, Republicans sent seemingly mixed signals about whether they would be open to “revenue increases” — a term all too often used as a euphemism for tax hikes.

Yesterday, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), the No. 2 GOP senator, said Republicans have agreed to between $150 billion and $200 billion in revenue increases [see updates below]. Today, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the No. 2 GOP representative, reiterated the party’s commitment to no new taxes.

Of course, tax hikes aren’t the only way to raise revenues, and Kyl, especially, promotes the sale of government lands as an alternative to tax increases. He has also proposed increased fees for government services. Cantor has suggested a sort of tax compromise, saying Republicans would agree to close certain tax loopholes as long as those loopholes were offset by tax cuts elsewhere.

These comments make it hard for me to not be cynical about the result of the deficit reduction meetings. How much you want to bet they will net moderate cuts and the least controversial revenue raisers the Republicans can muster, but no more? Procedural reforms — those most important to ensure the country doesn’t run up against the debt ceiling issue again and again — will likely be lost in the shuffle, leaving principled conservatives in Congress with little choice other than to vote against a deal that will ultimately pass. After all, the closer we’ve gotten to the debt ceiling deadline, the less the key players seem to talk about anything other than cuts and revenues. Very few have continued to talk about the debt ceiling itself and, to my knowledge, no Democrats have yet signed on to “Cut, Cap and Balance,” nor have they proposed procedural reforms of their own. (Please somebody tell me if I’m missing something here — I’d love to find out I’m wrong on this!)

In the interest of staying positive, though, I’m going to reflect back on Sen. Ron Johnson’s comments on a conference call this morning and Rush Limbaugh’s impassioned remarks on the subject on his show today (more on that shortly). Too bad neither of them were in the meeting at the White House.

Update: The president issued a brief statement at the end of this morning’s meeting to say nothing has been agreed to and talks will continue through the weekend. Whoop-de-do.

Update: Kyl’s office responded to my story, concerned that this post makes it sound as though Kyl said Republicans agreed to tax increases (as Reuters and others wrongly tweeted). I thought I made it clear the revenue increases Kyl was referring to were land sales and government service fee increases, but just to be sure there’s no confusion about what he actually said, here are his on-the-floor remarks, posted at Breitbart TV.

Of course, I’m far more OK with the revenue increases Kyl’s talking about than I am with tax hikes, but it doesn’t change that I’m disheartened by all the discussion of revenues, in general. I’d rather Republican leadership put Obama on the defensive for not more seriously and publicly discussing procedural reforms like statutory spending caps.

Update: Yet more information from Kyl’s office. These discussions in which Republicans said they’d consider certain kinds of revenue increases — the discussions to which Kyl was referring and to which I was responding — actually occurred during the now-defunct Biden talks.

“What the GOP tentatively agreed to was as part of the failed and now-defunct Biden debt discussions – not part of any current [discussion] between Obama, Boehner and McConnell,” Kyl’s spokesman explains. “Also, the Reuters story you link to suggests that an agreement or deal has been struck. That, too, is not correct.”

In other words, when Reuters reported Republicans had agreed to revenue increases, the wire service was reporting old pseudo-news (i.e. the “news” that, during the Biden talks, GOPers tentatively agreed to certain kinds of revenue increases) and making it sound fresh. I’ve delinked this piece from the misleading Reuters report. I also changed the homepage excerpt to “Reuters takes Kyl’s comments out of context.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

More Agenda 21. Grabbing up as much land as possible.

katy on May 1, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Washington, DC aside, why does the federal government own any land..?

affenhauer on May 1, 2013 at 5:27 PM

Ya know, I think the GOP has stumbled upon a brilliant way to force some budget cuts. First we had it at the FAA, now at Interior:

1) Cut everything by XX%
2) People start screeching
3) You point out that “well, here’s where you could have saved that money”
4) Pass legislation reallocating the would-have-been-wasted funds to actual good stuff
5) Obama signs it.

If Step 2 doesn’t happen, we’ve won. If step 4 doesn’t happen, point out that “the democrats wouldn’t let us reopen the parks!”. If step 5 doesn’t happen, scream and shout that “Obama wouldn’t let us reopen the parks!”

Mohonri on May 1, 2013 at 5:37 PM

The federal government needs to start getting rid of land, not acquiring more, and stop infringing on local economies and communities with their micro-level political power grabs while contributing to the national deficit.

Le bravo, Erika!

More Agenda 21. Grabbing up as much land as possible.

katy on May 1, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Yup. Filthy sob’s.

petefrt on May 1, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Washington, DC aside, why does the federal government own any land..?

affenhauer on May 1, 2013 at 5:27 PM

So they can hire people to manage it.

WryTrvllr on May 1, 2013 at 5:41 PM

And the really sad thing (and if you’re a liberal you would be intellectually dishonest to admit it) the properties would have been LESS developed and LESS crowded and BETTER managed if the gubmint had just kept their grubby paws off….

WryTrvllr on May 1, 2013 at 5:45 PM

deny it…sorry

WryTrvllr on May 1, 2013 at 5:46 PM

Katy got it on comment number one.

tom daschle concerned on May 1, 2013 at 5:47 PM

I suggest either:

1. The US Government sells all its lands back to the states in which the land is located, or

2. The US Government turns over operations to private, competitively bid contractors. Present US park employees would have first dibs on jobs, now private, assuming they are qualified. A small staff of government employees would remain to handle oversight of private companies.

#2 would shift the burden of federal employees from the government to the private secor. This would increase tax revenue because now the government would not have to pay these employees and the private contractor would pay taxes on profits. I expect that the private sector would be more efficient, being profit oriented, than the employees that have now no or little accountability.

If #1 goes ahead, I suggest the sale be contingent on the states adopting #2 making park operations private.

I’d like to see this across the board with as many agencies as possible.

billrowe on May 1, 2013 at 5:52 PM

The federal government needs to start getting rid of land, not acquiring more, and stop infringing on local economies and communities with their micro-level political power grabs while contributing to the national deficit.

That would be giving up power. Not gonna happen. They can’t even get rid of empty buildings that we are paying for, or empty bank accounts with monthly fees. How could this clown troupe ever actually get rid of LAND?

iurockhead on May 1, 2013 at 5:54 PM

And you wonder why “tin hats” believe government is buying up ammunition in order to drive prices sky high.

GarandFan on May 1, 2013 at 5:55 PM

They own most of the West. Why don’t we give it back to the Native Americans? At least they are savvy businessmen and would let energy companies lease it back!

PattyJ on May 1, 2013 at 6:04 PM

Since I cancelled satellite I’m getting reaquinted with OTA TV. Been watching PBS distort history and embellish socialism via a retelling of Ken Burns’ old dust bowl documentary. They are pulling out all the stops to make it as current to events and policy initiatives as possible. Fascinating in a “we need to defund this crap” kind of way.

Having read “The Roosevelt Myth” and seeing how dems are operating right now it confirms what we know about them. Fcae it, they are communists that won’t let us define them as such. Progressive, European socialists, whatever. They want to control people by any means necessary.

DanMan on May 1, 2013 at 6:12 PM

LOVELY picture of the Tetons :)

Jackalope on May 1, 2013 at 6:25 PM

National Park lands sure do make GREAT COLLATERAL for our debt!

Wouldn’t the Chinese love to get hold of some of the natural resources under the ground?

PappyD61 on May 1, 2013 at 6:28 PM

Why can’t I post links on here????

katy on May 1, 2013 at 6:39 PM

the Federal government should sell at least 90% of the land it holds. States hold too much land as well.

forest on May 1, 2013 at 7:08 PM

Why can’t I post links on here????

katy on May 1, 2013 at 6:39 PM

If you are trying to post CNN or CNBC links, HA has judged those sources unreliable and the whole post will be blocked.

slickwillie2001 on May 1, 2013 at 7:49 PM

New Mexico …..dopes are going for a land grab in Taos Co. . Believe me
they can’t manage any of the land they now ” own ” . But call it a National
Monument and the morons cheer . The locals don’t care ( they foul their
turf with trash galore ) not realizing that there are no tax $s for the county
in this grab . These are the good folks that write about how they can hear
their lettuce scream when cut it in their gardens .
Susanna Martinez R Gov. has injected a good bit of sanity in an otherwise
nuts state .
If only they could get the idea that cocktail hour doesn’t start at 11am !

Lucano on May 1, 2013 at 8:27 PM

That’s an interesting photo shot on the home page.

Cleombrotus on May 1, 2013 at 9:25 PM

I live just over the hill to the left of that cover photo. Just love it in the summer. Especially if summer comes on a weekend!

IdahoAl on May 1, 2013 at 10:35 PM

slickwillie2001 on May 1, 2013 at 7:49 PM

Thanks. It was a cbnc link

katy on May 1, 2013 at 11:09 PM

cnbc duh

katy on May 1, 2013 at 11:09 PM

It is tremendously irresponsible for the federal government to be in the business of adding to the federal estate when we can’t even afford to to properly take care of the parks and properties they already own.

FIFY, Erika.

Washington, DC aside, why does the federal government own any land..?

affenhauer on May 1, 2013 at 5:27 PM

There are *some* legitimate reasons, including military bases and ranges. And, I don’t mind a few national parks. One third of the land area of the US, though? Wow.

That would be giving up power. Not gonna happen.

iurockhead on May 1, 2013 at 5:54 PM

BINGO!

GWB on May 2, 2013 at 10:20 AM

The whole idea of these land grabs really frosts me !
Great piece Erika , wish it got more attention .

Lucano on May 2, 2013 at 10:53 AM