Corker: Let’s rip the Band-Aid off and make a deal now

posted at 11:21 am on November 26, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

How easy is it to solve the fiscal cliff? Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) says it’s very simple indeed — and this Congress has already had “two practice runs” in addressing all of the issues that will have to get resolved before New Years Day to avoid disaster.  Frustrated by proposals for short-term extensions, Corker wrote his own proposal that cuts over $4 trillion in projected deficits over the next ten years, includes more than a trillion dollars in new revenues, and wants that to serve as an example of how easy it is to resolve the standoff:

As Congress returns to Washington this week with a renewed focus on the fiscal cliff, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said on “CBS This Morning” that Congress has no reason not to act.

“No Congress in history is more prepared to make these decisions,” he said, referring to the legislative body’s major negotiations over the past two years to raise the debt ceiling and reduce spending. “We’ve litigated this; we’ve gone through every single score of every single decision that would have to be made.”

The member of the Senate Banking Committee also wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post today, where he said, “The fiscal cliff is a deadline of the 112th Congress’ making” and that “kicking the can down the road… is misguided and irresponsible and shows a total lack of courage. ”

“What it takes is political courage,” Corker said on “CBS This Morning.”

Corker drafted a bill to cut $4.5 trillion from the deficit. It includes $1 trillion in revenue and reforms to entitlements programs Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

“I don’t know a Republican who has written a bill that has a trillion dollars in revenue… but it’s coupled with real entitlement reform,” Corker said. He said his bill shows that “this is a very easy thing to do technically.”

When asked whether he feels bound to adhere to the “no new taxes” pledge demanded by Americans for Tax Reform’s Grover Norquist, Corker reminds CBS that he’s never made himself subject to it in the first place.  Other Republicans repudiated it this weekend, however.  Lindsey Graham was an unsurprising member of that group, but it also included Senator Saxby Chambliss and Rep. Peter King:

Three big-name Republicans broke with Grover Norquist over the holiday weekend, saying they won’t be bound by their Norquist-sponsored pledges to oppose any and all tax increases.

The moves by Sens. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and Saxby Chambliss (Ga.) and Rep. Peter King (N.Y.) represent the opening steps of a delicate dance for the GOP — and one that could come to define the just-begun talks over the looming “fiscal cliff.”

The question from here is whether this represents a simple trial balloon or the beginning of a movement in which a large segment of the GOP embraces a tax increase as an unhappy reality.

If that were to occur, it would both mark a significant shift in party orthodoxy and also threaten to make the tea party primaries of 2010 and 2012 seem tame.

I’m not so sure it will have that kind of effect.  In the wake of the election, some conservatives are offering the political equivalent of throwing their hands up in the air.  Giving Obama what he wants on tax rates might be the only way to demonstrate the folly of jacking up taxes in a recession/stagnation environment.  The larger disaster of a fiscal cliff might be avoided, but the responsibility for continuing stagnation and rapid growth of debt — which is impossible to avoid in this approach — will fall squarely on Obama’s shoulders.  Meanwhile, the GOP should be able to get substantial entitlement reform as a trade-off, which Dick Durbin offered yesterday.

The problem in the deficit is spending, not a lack of revenue.  The share of federal government spending from the US economy leapt from ~20% to 25% in the last four years, and until we deal with that, we can’t solve the overall problem.  That solution requires entitlement reform, and that might have to be a bigger goal than freezing tax rates at the present level.


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

Comment pages: 1 2

Just wait till bhocare taxes kick in! Those who have no clue about bhocare and what it will do to them are not going to be one bit happy! Along with Bush tax rates getting the boot, a bunch of American’s are going to get the shock of their life! But you wanted it from bho/team and bho/you own it, IMO!
L

letget on November 26, 2012 at 1:00 PM

kingsjester on November 26, 2012 at 12:47 PM

I think a line from the movie “Crimson Tide” sums it up very well. “We are here to preserve democracy, not practice it.” In their mind, it’s alright for them to impose taxes on us that will have no effect on them.

bandutski on November 26, 2012 at 1:01 PM

I’m not so sure it will have that kind of effect. In the wake of the election, some conservatives are offering the political equivalent of throwing their hands up in the air. Giving Obama what he wants on tax rates might be the only way to demonstrate the folly of jacking up taxes in a recession/stagnation environment. The larger disaster of a fiscal cliff might be avoided, but the responsibility for continuing stagnation and rapid growth of debt — which is impossible to avoid in this approach — will fall squarely on Obama’s shoulders. Meanwhile, the GOP should be able to get substantial entitlement reform as a trade-off, which Dick Durbin offered yesterday.

Exactly what I’ve been advocating here and on other sites. Let them own it. Let his voters feel the pain of their vote.

BKeyser on November 26, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Harry Reid already said that entitlements are not a problem and do not need reform. He will not do anything on that front. The Dems will not cut any spending other than the defense sequester; they do not have to give in to anything on spending their SEIU supporters have not interest in that.

The GOP House should pass the Senate bill on retaining the Bush cuts for the 98%, pass a AMT fix and pass Simpson Boles. That will make the Dems decide on these measures. If they veto the Senate bill they own the increase. If they won’t pass the AMT fix, they own the increase, if they won’t pass Simpson Boles, they will not be able to claim they are for deficit reduction with any credibility. Meanwhile the GOP can say they reached for the middle and found noone else there.

KW64 on November 26, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Corker represents exactly what’s wrong with the Republican Party Leadership. They’ll agree to giving the Democrats exactly what they want by raising the debt ceiling in exchange for cuts in FUTURE SPENDING that the Democrats never deliver.

It’s the fool me once and KEEP FOOLING ME OVER AND OVER AGAIN routine that Republicans like Corker fall for time after time.

They have NO PLAN whatsoever of actually paying down the debt. Rather, they just keep digging the hole deeper and deeper.

Mahdi on November 26, 2012 at 1:04 PM

The GOP is hopefully trying to inoculate its self from the blame, they keep coming up with proposals and Obama and the Dem’s are offering nothing.

I think the Dem’s would clearly like to go off the cliff; since when did a Dem not want to raise taxes and cut military spaending?

Tater Salad on November 26, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Maybe it’s time to make the serious proposal to just eliminate all subsidies, handouts, government housing, food tamps and all other forms of assistance and welfare in exchange for just sending out checks of, say, $75,000 annually to the poor. suddenly, “poof” no more poor. No restrictions on the money. Do whatever you want.. but there will be no more subsidies if you waste it. That’s it. Sell it. Seriously.. even ObamaPhone lady would go for this. No more free phones or food stamps or government housing but here’s your ticket to the middle class.

I’m not joking. Have no idea what the numbers are but how much worse could it be? If nothing more, the GOP would finally get the welfare vote and maybe destroy the Democrat party for good. We all know it’s not about the subsidies. It’s more about control.

This would be a bold and creative “throw it against the wall” tactic to see if anything sticks.
Imagine the war that would occur. Democrats would argue against it and Republicans would argue for it. I imagine your typical welfare family is already costing us all this amount anyway.
You could always place a time limit on the checks too. 10 years. 15 years and after that… no more handouts. This is your opportunity to go to school and still have an income. Start a business. Build a house. Call it your own. Whatever you want. If nothing more it would help expose the who fraud of welfare for what it is. Why are we doing any of this anyway? Just send them the freaking checks and downsize government in the process.

JellyToast on November 26, 2012 at 1:06 PM

The party of “No” will get blamed for saying “No”. What is so hard to understand? Protecting the Cayman Island fat cats is not the way to win Ohio in 2016.

ZippyZ on November 26, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Well, one effect of going off the cliff is that the middle class will get nailed with a large tax increase. But maybe it’s time the middle class shared some of the ‘pain’ caused by the policies so many of them voted for. I feel like all these tax cuts have left so many Americans without any significant tax exposure. Combine that with Obama’s ability to borrow $1 trillion a year to finance lavish spending, and we have a country that’s full of people who are totally divorced from ANY consequences of all that spending. The perverse incentives that creates are unsustainable.

Outlander on November 26, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Your definition of “middle class” is those who make $__________
to $___________range?

Amjean on November 26, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Once again, the Republican’s are allowing the dems to set the agenda, rather than being out in front, demanding a budget, demanding cuts in spending, demanding fiscal responsibility, they are allowing the agenda to be set by the dems.

Corker at least is trying to get out in front, but meanwhile, the Republicans are “revolting” against Norquist, at least that is what the MSM is pushing…focus Republicans…focus…

right2bright on November 26, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Protecting the Cayman Island fat cats is not the way to win Ohio in 2016.

ZippyZ on November 26, 2012 at 1:06 PM

I really don’t care about Ohio. Or Iowa. Or any other state right now. You really think that an industrial/coal state like Ohio is going to be more than a smoldering crater by 2016?

Happy Nomad on November 26, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Dire Straits on November 26, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Exactly! When you have Jamie Fox calling Obama our lord and savior, you know we are in deep dodo.

Cindy Munford on November 26, 2012 at 1:14 PM

Your definition of “middle class” is those who make $__________ to $___________range?

Amjean on November 26, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Well, that’s difficult to say, and particularly given varying costs of living around the country. ($50,000 a year would make you middle class in the Midwest but pretty poor in New York). If you had to do it as a country as a whole, I’d take the households in the third and fourth quintiles of income, which in 2011 would be household incomes of $38,521 through $101,582.

Take a look at this Tax Foundation chart comparing the tax obligations of people at varying levels of income under Bush and Clinton. Going back to Clinton tax rates will nail taxpayers under $125,000 a year in income with somewhere between $1,000 and $5,000 in additional tax liability.

Outlander on November 26, 2012 at 1:17 PM

I really don’t care about Ohio. Or Iowa. Or any other state right now. You really think that an industrial/coal state like Ohio is going to be more than a smoldering crater by 2016?

Happy Nomad on November 26, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Actually, Ohio doesn’t have a lot of coal. What we do have is a lot of shale gas. And under the capable leadership of our governor, John Kasich, we are diversifying our base away from heavy industry (cars and steel) and investing more heavily in the medical and technology sectors. We also have insurance companies, some pretty big banks, and other things.

We’d be doing a lot better as a state if it weren’t for the unions and high taxes. But, I know the Republicans here are working hard on both issues.

Outlander on November 26, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Unfortunately, Corker is a Republican, which means Obama and Reid will reject any ideas he advances out of hand. Their intention from the moment they laid the sequestration trap was to ensure we went over the fiscal cliff–and that they would have sufficient Machiavellian grounds to ensure that, unless Obama lost re-election, they would be free blame “Republican radicals” for it.

Since Obama didn’t lose the election, that the damage will be done is a certainty. Either we go through sequestion with Republicans being blamed for their “intransigence” (as explained by Democrats and the media in terms of Marxist class warfare), or Reid/Obama will offer them a “compromise” that’s at least as toxic as the cliff itself.

The only way Republicans can get out from under being blamed (disingenuously, albeit effectively anyway) for the ensuing disaster will be to make a great deal of noise about their objections to whatever poison pills Reid and Obama lay out before them, but call Obama/Reid’s bluff and simply sign off on them anyway–citing the fact that “elections have consequences” and that in November, by re-electing Obama, “the people have spoken.” That’s the only scenario I see them having any chance at all to successfully get out from under being scapegoated for the catastrophe that bother Reid and Obama eagerly want.

The election proved that Republicans simply can’t fight Obama, Reid, and the liberal media combined. If they resist in the face of sequestration, they will be assigned full responsibility for the outcome. That mustn’t be allowed to happen. It needs to be clear that any “compromise” achieved is entirely a Democrat construction. If Obama is allowed to assign Republicans the blame, they might as well dissolve the party altogether. Republicans be as relevant going forward into our brave, bankrupt socialist future as Whigs.

Blacklake on November 26, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Cindy Munford on November 26, 2012 at 1:14 PM

I agree….This will not end well..:(

Dire Straits on November 26, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Who could possibly believe that one penney the government collects is going to go to pay off the deficit. It might not add to the deficit, but we pay out more than we take in, and that is not going to change with this Congress or President. I’m one of those that has “thrown up her hands” and ready to take the plunge. I feel sorry for our young folks.

lea on November 26, 2012 at 1:42 PM

These clowns can’t even pay lip service to balancing the budget IN TEN YEARS. G–damnit!

Just vote present and let the jackasses do what they want. I am so disgusted with the Republican party.

SAMinVA on November 26, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Unfortunately no one cares.

Cindy Munford on November 26, 2012 at 12:02 PM

The chicken does. NO more eggs!

Schadenfreude on November 26, 2012 at 1:43 PM

THE PLAN: “Corker drafted a bill to cut $4.5 trillion from the deficit. It includes $1 trillion in revenue and reforms to entitlements programs Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.”

THE LIKELY REALITY: “…$1 trillion in revenue…”

TeaPartyNation on November 26, 2012 at 2:18 PM

The problem in the deficit is spending, not a lack of revenue. The share of federal government spending from the US economy leapt from ~20% to 25% in the last four years, and until we deal with that, we can’t solve the overall problem. That solution requires entitlement reform, and that might have to be a bigger goal than freezing tax rates at the present level.

The two go together. More spending and more debt adds to stagnation and that leads to less revenue. The problem is both too much spending and not enough revenue. They are not mutually exclusive. The point is you do not have to raise taxes to deal with that…but in this environment, it may come to that.

Terrye on November 26, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Only a liberal poseur like Corker would call this proposal — with over 6 trillion dollars in new debt — “political courage”.

Jaibones on November 26, 2012 at 2:30 PM

TeaPartyNation on November 26, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Actually – it won’t get that either! Revenue projections frmo tax hikes are almost always a mirage. But it will continue to hamper any real growth in the economy, so why not. The people have spoken!!

Zomcon JEM on November 26, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Corker represents exactly what’s wrong with the Republican Party Leadership. They’ll agree to giving the Democrats exactly what they want by raising the debt ceiling in exchange for cuts in FUTURE SPENDING that the Democrats never deliver.

Mahdi on November 26, 2012 at 1:04 PM

It’s amazing that a state as conservative as Tennessee keeps sending losers like Alexander and Corker to the senate.

Alexander is the poster boy for term limits.

bw222 on November 26, 2012 at 2:45 PM

THE PLAN: “Corker drafted a bill to cut $4.5 trillion from the deficit. It includes $1 trillion in revenue and reforms to entitlements programs Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.”

THE LIKELY REALITY: “…$1 trillion in revenue…”

TeaPartyNation on November 26, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Harry Reid has already said “entitlements and not the problem” and won’t be on the table. Republicans battling the Democrats is like a bad middle school team playing the Houston Texans.

bw222 on November 26, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Corker: Let’s rip the Band-Aid off…and pick at the scab until it starts bleeding again…and unfortunately, that’s all it was, a Band-aid, not a solution.

right2bright on November 26, 2012 at 2:56 PM

If Obama has any sense, he has come to the conclusion that recession, if not just around the corner, will come sometime during his second term. Once the “fiscal cliff” is avoided and recession arrives regardless, it will be Obama alone who’ll shoulder the blame. If he is smart, he won’t let this crisis go to waste. He will maneuver politicians over the fiscal cliff and blame the recession on Republicans for their obstruction. Few in the media who have the ears of the nation would contradict him.

Regardless, given that our economy stays above water because of massive federal deficit spending, the result of cliff avoidance can only be a facade of real deficit reduction – in the neighborhood of $100 Billion to $200 Billion annually – out of $1.2 Trillion deficit. Maintaining $1 Trillion in annual deficit spending is Job #1. Never forget that.

Politicians like to quote deficit reduction, etc., in ten-year periods because they backload the hard work. When Corker says $4 Trillion deficit reduction over ten years he’s not saying $400 Billion each year, but more likely $200 Billion the first year and $600 Billion in ten years, averaging $400 Billion. Meanwhile, the next recession will erase all projected reduction through falling revenue and new government social spending initiatives.

shuzilla on November 26, 2012 at 3:16 PM

bw222 on November 26, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Absolutely correct! Corker and Alexander are Establishment Republicans and are as responsible for the profligate spending as the Democrats. The notion that Social Security gets a label as an entitlement is disconcerting. The political hacks confuse the public with semantics….the Payroll Tax is paid by employees and matched by employers and is supposed to go into the SS Trust Fund, and is “earned” by employees and the self-employed! Since Congress has been raiding the SS Trust Fund since the Clinton years, both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for the abuse of their trust! Nothing new about that. Not to mention Obama’s phony Payroll Tax Holiday….another sleight of hand trick to drive the Trust Fund further into debt and ensure even greater need for reform! Just not the reform these monkies are talking about.

My advice to the Corker-types is, “put a cork in it!”

tomshup on November 26, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Without a budget, a cut in projected deficit is meaningless.

shuzilla on November 26, 2012 at 3:56 PM

I heard today that the amount of money generated from the Tax increase will fund the government (at current rates) for about 1 month, so it does not move us from the red to black, so what is the point? If we are going to be solvent, then STOP SPENDING! This is why we broke away from Great Britain, they were robbing us to fund their spending. This is no different: the Progs are robbing the solvent states to pay for their run-away spending to buy votes. It is time for the States to say No Mas, No Mas!

rgranger on November 26, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Here’s what I do not understand: a $4 trillion cut over 10 years is $400 billion per year. We are currently running deficits of over $1 trillion per year. I’m not looking for Washington to solve 40% of the problem.

mid_aged_man on November 26, 2012 at 4:56 PM

As long as the American people are going to let 545 people run (ruin) their lives I guess we make do.

Go off the cliff already. The American people voted for slow growth and stagnation. Give them what they voted for (again).

shar61 on November 26, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Here’s what I do not understand: a $4 trillion cut over 10 years is $400 billion per year

That’s why Ed’s argument that the problem isn’t revenue is wrong.

Sure, spending is a large component but revenues are down to around 15-16% of GDP instead of the historic 18%.

If we can get that back to 18%, we’re talking about another $300-350 billion. If you add the 450 billion in cuts per year with a 350 billion increase in revenue we’re at $800 billion.

A $200 billion deficit in a $16 trillion economy is easily handled.

We can’t ge to zero overnight.

SteveMG on November 26, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Corker just got re-elected and went through the entire campaign without the slightest hint about being willing to vote for higher taxes. That makes him a vile, treasonous SOB. And that’s after he voted for a bloated SCHIP program and to give Russia our missile defense program. What an unmitigated ahole.

devan95 on November 26, 2012 at 5:14 PM

“The larger disaster of a fiscal cliff might be avoided, but the responsibility for continuing stagnation and rapid growth of debt — which is impossible to avoid in this approach — will fall squarely on Obama’s shoulders.”

Keep dreaming, Ed. The GOP could give Obama everything he wants, and when it fails miserably, the MSM will still manage to shift the blame squarely to the GOP. :)

gravityman on November 26, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Frustrated by proposals for short-term extensions, Corker wrote his own proposal that cuts over $4 trillion in projected deficits over the next ten years, includes more than a trillion dollars in new revenues, and wants that to serve as an example of how easy it is to resolve the standoff:

Deficit spending over the next decade will be in excess of 10 trillion. So we cut 4 trillion of those dollars and increase revenue by 1 trillion. That still leaves a 5 trillion dollar deficit on top of the current 16 trillion in debt. Sorry but even that is an F-.

Math is really hard isn’t it

chemman on November 26, 2012 at 6:11 PM

That’s why Ed’s argument that the problem isn’t revenue is wrong.

Sure, spending is a large component but revenues are down to around 15-16% of GDP instead of the historic 18%.

If we can get that back to 18%, we’re talking about another $300-350 billion. If you add the 450 billion in cuts per year with a 350 billion increase in revenue we’re at $800 billion.

A $200 billion deficit in a $16 trillion economy is easily handled.

We can’t ge to zero overnight.

SteveMG on November 26, 2012 at 5:01 PM

The problem is NOT revenue in the sense that during decent economic times we have the funds available to pay our nation’s bills.

When our politicians screw everything up with too many costly regulations, such as forcing banks to give loans to people who can’t pay them back, ending in massive foreclosures, and other
regulations that force businesses to close or layoff employees,
the country ends up in a recession and revenue goes down.

Raising our taxes (revenue) is not the answer. Citizens should
not have to pay more because our government is stupid and out of
control.

The government needs to have a budget and stick with it. I suggest
a 10% reduction in all government departments. See where that
brings us.

One of the “revenue” (tax) issues is that with Obama as president
we will take even longer to get out of this mess (no matter what
the corrupt press tells us). Small businesses were not hiring
or spending money for improvements; most were waiting
for Obama to be voted out. Now we have four more years of his
failing policies and I don’t see things improving much, if at all.

The other issue I want to point out is that if taxes are raised,
our government will just spend more. That is the way it has always
been and will be in the future. I am against any tax increase.

Amjean on November 26, 2012 at 6:11 PM

JellyToast on November 26, 2012 at 1:06 PM

It’s funny you should suggest the idea of just giving everyone $75k annually and getting rid of every other entitlement and subsidy program (the whole “Living Wage” idea, which some ultra-liberal Dems have suggested). A friend of mine during the ObamaCare debate did an analysis of what it would cost for the government to just flat-out buy every person in the US a decent insurance policy… seems like the simplest solution to making sure everyone is insured, right? His calculations were that every single person in the US could get a perfectly good health insurance policy… not just the supposed 45 million who don’t have one now, but every single person in the country… for LESS than the projected costs to the federal government of ObamaCare, which is supposedly aimed at making sure everyone gets decent coverage.

Doing some quick math though tells me that 300 million people at $75k each would be roughly $22.5 trillion per year. I don’t think we could afford that even if we went full on communist and confiscated everything this country produces in a year and just gave everyone $75k. I think our entire economic activity for a year is somewhere in the $15-16 trillion range? We’re still about $6 trillion short.

gravityman on November 26, 2012 at 6:15 PM

“I’m tired of defending the rich.”

If you’re using rhetoric like they already have you. It’s called “obamanese”.

ncjetsfan on November 26, 2012 at 6:16 PM

WTF-ever.
It takes courage to make people independent.
IT’s easy to promise free stuff to people when someone else is paying for it.
Until you start dealing with the real problem: ENTITLEMENTS i.e. Sociali Security & Medicare, nothing will stop the bus.

Badger40 on November 26, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Caving now on their Grover Norquist pledge, after having used it to get re-elected. I am so sick of this g–damned GOP being so spineless, so timid and so stupid that I may vote third party next time. Let it burn, let it burn. Maybe after this country bottoms out, it will regain its senses. But I am convinced that like Europe, we will have to bottom out first.

petefrt on November 26, 2012 at 8:16 PM

I am so disgusted with the Republican party.

SAMinVA on November 26, 2012 at 1:42 PM

You know a very nice letter sent to the RNC would make you feel a lot better. Especially if you explain how you are going to send money commensurate with the job the Rs are doing inside the beltway to actually stop the spending.

Make sure you tell them as soon as they get the bleeding stopped, you’ll be glad to consider sending MONEY supporting the RNC for such a spectacular job they are doing getting NEW competent conservative thinkers elected.

belad on November 26, 2012 at 10:14 PM

The Dems are not offering any spending cuts but the 50 billion dollars a year being cut from defense and they sure are not offering entitlement reform. Just pass Simpson Boles and watch how they don’t do anything to pass it and then you will see my point. Meanwhile Obama is demanding 1.6 trillion dollars in income tax increases and 150 billion in business tax increases. To heck with that. They offer nothing and demand the world all the while continuing to destroy our future with trillion dollar deficits. Just pass the 98% Bush tax cut extension the Senate passed, add an AMT fix and go home. We will see them next year on the debt ceiling increase and during the budgeting process for 2014 only pass discretionary programs at 80% of current funding so they match what the defense department has been cut. If they don’t pass something then they will shut down the government and while we may get blamed, they cannot claim Dems are the party pushing deficit reduction anymore.

KW64 on November 26, 2012 at 10:18 PM

Either the Republicans are evil genius’s or are complete idiots…..
I am thinking the latter.

Letting the Bush tax rates expire for the high end will stop
dead in it’s track any growth that we had.

The democrats have produced a PR campaign of painting the high end earners
as “rich people” who can afford to give a little more.

It is wrong – it WILL hurt and in many cases destroy small business……

Not to mention all the Obamacare taxes, higher capital gains tax and that pesky “death tax”.

The collected taxes will do nothing to trim the deficit.

How will the democrats explain 10% unemployment and another “great depression”?

redguy on November 26, 2012 at 10:33 PM

…c u t
s p e n d i n g
F I R S T…!!!

KOOLAID2 on November 26, 2012 at 10:39 PM

I am a Tennesseean and voted for Corker. Just fired off an email to him.

I am proud to be labeled an obstructionist. Why do we allow Pelosi and Reid to proclaim that no offer will be accepted that does not include raised revenue? Why don’t we make the same announcement that no offer will be accepted that includes raised revenue? Why don’t we decline any offer that does not include a balanced budget?

Why don’t we start with the hypothetical that there will be no new taxes or revenue EVER AGAIN, and we need to make do with the money we collected in the last fiscal year. Someone propose a budget plan that is not comprised completely of parlor tricks, smoke and mirrors.

Can someone direct me to the members of congress that are talking sense, upholding their promise to fight more spending, and who are voting no to any solution without a budget? We need to be promoting those folks and championing some common fiscal sense.

red villain on November 26, 2012 at 11:43 PM

Can someone direct me to the members of congress that are talking sense, upholding their promise to fight more spending, and who are voting no to any solution without a budget? We need to be promoting those folks and championing some common fiscal sense.

red villain on November 26, 2012 at 11:43 PM

There are none, if there ever were in my lifetime. The GOP has given up the fight. There’s no pretense towards being the party of small government. The sooner you accept that and forge ahead, the better off you’ll be.

gryphon202 on November 26, 2012 at 11:51 PM

Make sure you tell them as soon as they get the bleeding stopped, you’ll be glad to consider sending MONEY supporting the RNC for such a spectacular job they are doing getting NEW competent conservative thinkers elected.

belad on November 26, 2012 at 10:14 PM

The problem isn’t with individuals. The problem is with the GOP. We should just let it wither on the vine and go the way of the Whigs.

gryphon202 on November 26, 2012 at 11:52 PM

So we will be back to 550 billion dollar deficits?

AshleyTKing on November 27, 2012 at 1:11 AM

I am SO VERY GLAD that I didn’t send one penny to the RNC after their sorry performance this past election. Screw ‘em!

HiJack on November 27, 2012 at 3:39 AM

These folks are merely out to save their political necks. The Dems have long understood that the more candy-the more sinful it is, the more votes you’ll get. We’ve tossed out God, (the only source of goodness,truth, and our rights) we’ve idolized money ourselves (that fiscal conservative/social liberal contradiction) first ignored the culture war and still expect folks to do the right thing. That is my definition of insanity.

Democracy is over – voters are but prostitutes who will sell their freedom for guilt-free anything. The left has won,

Don L on November 27, 2012 at 4:22 AM

Can someone direct me to the members of congress that are talking sense, upholding their promise to fight more spending, and who are voting no to any solution without a budget? We need to be promoting those folks and championing some common fiscal sense.

red villain on November 26, 2012 at 11:43 PM

Great question!! Where is Rand Paul? Jim DeMint? And all the
“supposed” new conservative Tea Party electees? Does anyone remember what happened to the 2010 conservative electees? Not
hardly a peep. They got entrenched into Washington political life very easily and fell into the rabbit hole. And forgot who brought them to the dance! Hello! Anyone out there?! Where is Paul Ryan – isn’t he a proclaimed budget hawk?

Where are the young guns? Remember them? Cantor, Ryan and
the guy from California. –What a joke.

I could go on and on.

All we need is one person with the courage of conviction to stand up to the lot of them; a large voice.

Amjean on November 27, 2012 at 6:24 AM

Taking names! These creeps that run as conservatives to get re-elected only to betray their constituencies must be destroyed.

redware on November 27, 2012 at 6:47 AM

Doing some quick math though tells me that 300 million people at $75k each would be roughly $22.5 trillion per year. I don’t think we could afford that even if we went full on communist and confiscated everything this country produces in a year and just gave everyone $75k. I think our entire economic activity for a year is somewhere in the $15-16 trillion range? We’re still about $6 trillion short.

gravityman on November 26, 2012 at 6:15 PM

Didn’t say our whole population. Just the poor. So if 300 million people cost us the first year 22 trillion, lets drop that down to say 37 million people or so. Then you are looking at a cost of say around 6 trillion or less. I think it would pay for itself.

But this isn’t a serious proposal in the sense that it would eliminate poverty. It’s a serious proposal to destroy the Democrat party and eliminate the welfare state.

Here me out. You offer this proposal in exchange for eliminating all welfare agencies and subsidies. Every single one of them. Government housing turns private. You offer poor people a true transition to the middle class. Say no one can take the offer longer than 10 years. Maybe after 10 you drop down half income for a year or two. Whatever… play with this thing a little.

The idea is to change the political and cultural landscape. We are in a freaking war for survival. We need some new creative ideas that change everything.

OK.. The Democrats play Santa because people like getting freebies. Then use that against the Dems! People are ignorant? Than use that for our advantage! Make the Obamaphone lady feel like she’s getting short changed by Obama!

But there’s another side to this.. the money has no strings! No government regulations! No more control from government agencies! And how are we any worse off? Yeah.. some people would sit on the rears but some people are going to build a business, buy a house.. invest in their futures and they are going to want to protect those investments once the money stops!

I read this story of a battle between two nations. Sorry.. don’t remember the names of either but it was along time ago. The one army was ruthless and very strong. The other was much weaker. They came together in a battle but the much weaker army won… by creativity! They played parade music during the battle. They found out that the other army’s horses were trained to march/dance in parades and always played the same song. So.. in battle.. they played that song and all the horses were out of control. They danced instead of charging and they last the battle.

It’s a poor analogy but my point is we need to start thinking outside the box and getting creative. Let the Democrats argue against giving people checks while the GOP argues for it. We will be no worse off and will save ourselves money while eliminating agencies and government power and might just help a lot of people realize what it’s like living without government agencies and regulations. Isn’t this what welfare was suppose to be anyway? A hand up not a handout? A 10 year salary in exchange for a life time of services. Someone prove that this would be worse than what we have today. And meanwhile.. while the welfare vote floods to the GOP side.. we can begin repairing the damage done to our country!

JellyToast on November 27, 2012 at 6:49 AM

The larger disaster of a fiscal cliff might be avoided, but the responsibility for continuing stagnation and rapid growth of debt — which is impossible to avoid in this approach — will fall squarely on Obama’s shoulders.

Still confused, are we? Precisely who is it that will place this blame squarely on Obama’s shoulders as opposed to Republican shoulders? Will it be the media, who have so honestly placed the blame for our current situation where it really belongs? Oh, wait.. But this time will be different, right? This same media won’t be sliming GOP candidates in 2014/16 with the blame for the still-crappy economy, while telling us that the Dems will be the ones to ‘fix it’, right?

Please put down the crack pipe.

Midas on November 27, 2012 at 8:09 AM

I’m more convinced every day, unfortunately, that this will not end well – but it will end, and only after the shooting begins.

Midas on November 27, 2012 at 8:22 AM

I’m more convinced every day, unfortunately, that this will not end well – but it will end, and only after the shooting begins.

Midas on November 27, 2012 at 8:22 AM

I may be guilty of tunnel vision or poor imagination (though I doubt it in this case), but I really cannot see any other endgame than one side forcing the other to surrender at the point of guns and whips.

Who the surrendering party will be, I don’t even want to speculate.

MelonCollie on November 27, 2012 at 9:05 AM

THE PAPPY PLAN.

1. Seal the border.

2. 10% across the board spending CUTS……not fake stuff, REAL CUTS.

“Fair” and “shared sacrifice”.

Anything else is just same old same old.

PappyD61 on November 27, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Cutting $4T off projected deficits over 10 years is a joke.

The American people WANT to be taxed. The “fiscal cliff” is a misnomer. Let the tax cuts expire so everyone–not just the rich–pays the higher taxes they voted for.

EddieC on November 27, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Cutting $4T off projected deficits over 10 years is a joke.

The American people WANT to be taxed. The “fiscal cliff” is a misnomer. Let the tax cuts expire so everyone–not just the rich–pays the higher taxes they voted for.

EddieC on November 27, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Sorry, but this is a GFY moment. I pulled the lever next to Mitt Romney’s and Paul Ryan’s names specifically in the hopes of getting rid of Obama. Don’t thump your chest and tell me about how you think I should be punished because the GOP consists of a bunch of feckless sell-outs, douchebag.

gryphon202 on November 27, 2012 at 9:23 AM

The “Fiscal Cliff” is political fiscal responsibility avoidance rhetoric. Automatic cuts are the only way to get Washington under control. Politicians will never come together to solve tough problems if the solution is detrimental or demagogical with voters. Automatic cuts, even with tax increases, avoid the political baggage.

essequam on November 27, 2012 at 9:29 AM

THE PAPPY PLAN.

1. Seal the border.

2. 10% across the board spending CUTS……not fake stuff, REAL CUTS.

“Fair” and “shared sacrifice”.

Anything else is just same old same old.

PappyD61 on November 27, 2012 at 9:17 AM

****of course this would require two things from the gop that they don’t have.

1. LEADERSHIP

2. Someone that could connect and communicate, unfraid, CONSERVATIVE values.

PappyD61 on November 27, 2012 at 10:20 AM

None of these bastards can be trusted to act responsibly or with any degree of validity. Let it crash down around our ankles then we’ll sort through the rubble and begin rebuilding a moral, credible democracy. The communists currently running this country cannot be reasoned with or expected to relinquish any part of their Marxist State. Further compromises will just drive the country further and further into the socialist slime pit.

rplat on November 27, 2012 at 1:13 PM

When I consider the current state of American economic madness, the election just passed to me feels like that moment in the movie where you realize that the old world is dead, it’s not coming back, and the only way forward is through.

JoseQuinones on November 27, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Just wait till bhocare taxes kick in!
letget on November 26, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Misread that as bohica taxes for some reason.

agmartin on November 27, 2012 at 2:50 PM

All we need is one person with the courage of conviction to stand up to the lot of them; a large voice.

Amjean on November 27, 2012 at 6:24 AM

Yes, and that would be Sarah Palin. You described her perfectly. A person with the courage of conviction to stand up to the lot of them. And this time, lets all get behind her instead of falling for the BLM spin on her.

Mirimichi on November 27, 2012 at 6:56 PM

All we need is one person with the courage of conviction to stand up to the lot of them; a large voice.

Amjean on November 27, 2012 at 6:24 AM

Yes, and that would be Sarah Palin. You described her perfectly. A person with the courage of conviction to stand up to the lot of them.

Mirimichi on November 27, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Yeah, she stood up so well she got run out of office over ethics investigations in the remotest state in the Union, and switched to being a talking head on TV.

Get over your Palin-Savior complex, bucko.

MelonCollie on November 27, 2012 at 9:39 PM

Since Congress has been raiding the SS Trust Fund since the Clinton years, both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for the abuse of their trust! Nothing new about that. Not to mention Obama’s phony Payroll Tax Holiday….another sleight of hand trick to drive the Trust Fund further into debt and ensure even greater need for reform! Just not the reform these monkies are talking about.

My advice to the Corker-types is, “put a cork in it!”

tomshup on November 26, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Um, unless I’m off my nut, Lyndon Baines Johnson was the first president to preside over the robbing of the Social Security Trust Fund, in order to pay for his Great Society. They have been robbing it ever since, while rending their clothes and crying,”Social Security is going bankrupt!”

Reminds me of the line in Cold Mountain.
“They say this war is a cloud over the land! But they make the weather and then they stand in the rain and say, ‘Shit, it’s raining!”

Tenwheeler on November 28, 2012 at 1:14 PM

THE PAPPY PLAN.

1. Seal the border.

2. 10% across the board spending CUTS……not fake stuff, REAL CUTS.

“Fair” and “shared sacrifice”.

Anything else is just same old same old.

PappyD61 on November 27, 2012 at 9:17 AM

You DO KNOW how Congress defines cutting spending, right?

Federal spending is predicated on every budgeted item increasing by a predetermined rate, every year, forever, etcetera…

Congress defines cutting spending as reducing the amount of that yearly increase, rather than reducing the actual amount that was spent the previous year.

Unlike how people in the real world do it.

If I cut spending on something I spend less than I did on it previously. I don’t decide to reduce the amount of an increase I have planned.

No wonder the federal Government is so screwed up.

Term limits.

Tenwheeler on November 28, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Comment pages: 1 2