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

Let It Burn Bleed?

Galt2009 on November 26, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Why not raise taxes and pile on the regulations – according to the oppressive left, that caused the recession, so the opposite should cause the Obamaeconomy to take off, right folks?

Galt2009 on November 26, 2012 at 11:27 AM

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.

Exactly. Let him own it.

Caiwyn on November 26, 2012 at 11:27 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.

Ed, are you really this naive?

SAZMD on November 26, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Obama wants a bipartisan suicide. I have a real hesitation on giving him what he wants, because the dems will use the “Repubs voted for it to” crap.

portlandon on November 26, 2012 at 11:29 AM

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

I’ve never understood why the GOP has to fall its sword in order to protect the voters from the consequences of their bad decisions.

Jon0815 on November 26, 2012 at 11:29 AM

that cuts over $4 trillion in projected deficits over the next ten years

What exactly is that supposed to do? The national debt is at 16 trillion and Obama will borrow at a least a trillion every year in office.

We need to cut the deficit period and work on lowering the national debt. All this talk at picking at the deficit is ridiculous. We shouldn’t have a deficit to begin with.

darwin on November 26, 2012 at 11:30 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.

Ed, are you really this naive?

SAZMD on November 26, 2012 at 11:28 AM

This.

Although it would be awesome if the R’s just voted present. Technically not helping O but can’t be accused of being obstructionist. And I triple dog dare Obama to try and say that voting present is awful given his voting history.

ChrisL on November 26, 2012 at 11:31 AM

This is the right thing to do, both politically and philosophically. Consider:

1. The GOP lacks the leverage to keep tax hikes off the table. If the GOP held firm on “no new taxes,” Obama would take us off the “fiscal cliff” and the MSM would lay the blame at the GOP’s feet. The key is for the GOP to agree to a compromise and to appear reasonable. The GOP agrees to tax hikes, Obama must agree to spending cuts. That gets you the popular buy-in and messaging necessary to force Obama to follow through on real spending cuts.

2. The real goal of conservatism is to shrink the size of government. You can’t do that through low taxes because Obama will just print money and finance all the deficit spending on the backs of our children. Maybe when today’s Americans are forced to pay higher taxes and to feel the economic “pinch” of those taxes, they’ll be more forceful in demanding lower spending. It worked during the Clinton years. (But, this would require a middle class tax hike, which heretofore is not on the table).

Outlander on November 26, 2012 at 11:31 AM

“new revenues” = tax increases. The GOP is quickly falling into line with obama and capitulating on massive tax increases across the board. There will be no spending cuts, obama’s government will continue to expand, the deficit and debt will continue to grow at an astronomical rate and the GOP will continue to allow obama to do whatever he wants, just as they have over the past four years – NOTHING has changed, NOTHING will change.

Pork-Chop on November 26, 2012 at 11:34 AM

We need entitlement reform, but first we need to insist on a complete rollback of all Obama spending. Cut spending to 2007 levels and then raise taxes across the board to slightly exceed that so we begin paying down the debt. This should be the baseline Republican proposal. Then let Obama argue for more spending and the taxes to pay for it.

rockmom on November 26, 2012 at 11:35 AM

If the GOP thought the Tea Party movements were something in 2010 and 2012, just wait and see if they vote to raise taxes. There will be a tea party candidate in every congressional primary and every senatorial race, and we may even see the possibility of an established 3rd party, with the likes of Palin, Jindal, Martinez, Robio, and Rand Paul leading it.

ConservativePartyNow on November 26, 2012 at 11:35 AM

If they means test SS payments, I’m going postal! The productive members of society have paid and paid into SS., they darn well better get something back.

stenwin77 on November 26, 2012 at 11:35 AM

The Democrats (Tip O’Neil) promised Reagan spending cuts to go along with the tax increases… the cuts never happened…

Khun Joe on November 26, 2012 at 11:36 AM

ChrisL on November 26, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Can a bill pass without 50%+1 votes?

astonerii on November 26, 2012 at 11:37 AM

As everyone can agree, elections have consequences. The wealthiest in this country are not going to like the higher taxes, but so be it…the hikes are coming. This can has been kicked down the road for so long now, that the hikes are written in stone for 2013. That’s some of the bad news

The only good news is the liberals will have a very hard time blaming the Republicans and the wealthy conservatives of not compromising. Oh, they will try when the economy goes down the tubes in the latter half of 2013, but the blame will lie squarely with the Democrats for not yielding on the spending side of the equation. How will this affect the middle class and their tax burden? That’s some more of the bad news.

For Obama’s “fair and balanced approach”, the middle class will be asked to do their fair share later in the year since the wealthy kicked in. All taxpayers will take a hit, regardless of income levels. Notice I am saying “taxpayers” and not workers or citizens. Those who do not pay taxes now or in the past will still get off Scott free. It will be the taxpaying middle class and the wealthy who will see less income in the immediate future.

Do not be fooled. We will not go over a “fiscal cliff” in the coming months. The can will continue to be kicked, there will be no reform for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security or welfare. In fact, as many have said, Obama was re-elected due to his generosity with our money. That generosity will continue. But that looming “fiscal cliff” will still be out there for the eventual day of reckoning.

Folks, when you have idiots Jamie Foxx referring to Obama as “our Lord and Savior”, the country is finished for now. There simply aren’t enough real patriots in this country that care enough to restore it to it’s glory at this time in history. And liberals and Democrats will never accept any blame for the total downfall of the United States of America, which is imminent. I believe the Republican Party is finished, but conservatism will someday rise from the ashes of what was once a great country, stamp out liberalism and bring back America

metroryder on November 26, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Cutting $4 trillion from the projected deficit over 10 years? Peanuts. Absolutely worthless. How about we agree to a balanced budget this year with zero deficit, and then agree that all “new revenue” will go directly toward paying down the existing debt? Then I might get on board with this “grand bargain.”

Shump on November 26, 2012 at 11:38 AM

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.

Honestly, don’t beclown yourself with such contra-intellectualism.

If Congress helps to pass it, they will own the consequences. That’s all of Congress. Both parties.

If past is prologue, Republican’s will become a foil and punchline in every future argument made by Democrats when this thing collapses or becomes untenable.

If we fail to clearly distinguish ourselves with a succinct, logical, factual argument it will be the final nail in our electoral coffin.

But I frankly don’t expect anything positive to come from this. Mr. Boehner never met a principle he wouldn’t throw under the bus for a good photo op.

Marcus Traianus on November 26, 2012 at 11:39 AM

If the GOP thought the Tea Party movements were something in 2010 and 2012, just wait and see if they vote to raise taxes. There will be a tea party candidate in every congressional primary and every senatorial race, and we may even see the possibility of an established 3rd party, with the likes of Palin, Jindal, Martinez, Robio, and Rand Paul leading it.

ConservativePartyNow on November 26, 2012 at 11:35 AM

You just made David Axelrod VERY happy.

This is exactly what Obama is hoping for, to force Congress to cave on a pittance of a tax increase and split the GOP as a result. He has no illusions that an $80 billion tax hike on the wealthy will make a dent in the deficit or the debt, he just wants to see middle class Tea Partiers go on a rampage to defend lower taxes on the rich, cause exhaustive primary fights in every Senate race that the GOP should win in 2014, and enough House races to get Democrats back to a majority.

Thanks for playing right into Obama’s hands.

rockmom on November 26, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Dems won’t budge on entitlement reforms not hpnba happen

Gop will be blamed

cmsinaz on November 26, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Obama wants all taxes to increase so that he then can turn around and offer a “middle class” tax cut.

Republicans will be forced to vote for this and Obama will “rightfully” blame them for not just accepting the “rich” rate to increase before they all went up.

Joey24007 on November 26, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Corker will get his $1 trillion in tax hikes. His $4 trillion in spending cuts, on the other hand, won’t happen.

Steve Eggleston on November 26, 2012 at 11:41 AM

rockmom on November 26, 2012 at 11:40 AM

the counter-argument to this is that we have been following this pro-GOP logic for the last decade and what has it gotten us?

Republican voters put the GOP in the majority of the House and they have done…………………….

ok.

Joey24007 on November 26, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Any Republican in Congress who thinks that

a. Revenue is the problem when it comes to the debt

and

b. Democrats will honor their “end of the bargain”

should have to repeat elementary school.

Joey24007 on November 26, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Go weak kneed. Bend over. Race out of town for the Holiday’s.

It’s Deja Vu all over again.

Mr. Arrogant on November 26, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Cripe Android
Gonna

cmsinaz on November 26, 2012 at 11:45 AM

The last day or so before the election Obooba actually said, “We tried their way, it raised deficits. We tried my way, it lowered deficits.”

Do you think the GOP will escape blame if it all blows up like a bad science experiment, regardless of what they do?

Akzed on November 26, 2012 at 11:45 AM

We need entitlement reform, but first we need to insist on a complete rollback of all Obama spending. Cut spending to 2007 levels and then raise taxes across the board to slightly exceed that so we begin paying down the debt. This should be the baseline Republican proposal. Then let Obama argue for more spending and the taxes to pay for it.

rockmom on November 26, 2012 at 11:35 AM

How about 2000 levels? After all, had spending merely been the 18.2% of GDP it was in 2000 (and 2001), we would have had a surplus in 2007.

Steve Eggleston on November 26, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Dems have no reason to do anything. Republicans are permanently to blame for pretty much everything.

tomas on November 26, 2012 at 11:45 AM

rockmom on November 26, 2012 at 11:40 AM

With all due respect, the perma-minoirty GOP is already split. We may as well make it official before the larger part gets only 20%.

Steve Eggleston on November 26, 2012 at 11:47 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.

No it won’t. The MSM would never sully the reputation of The Obamassiah. It will be all the fault of the Republicans.

GarandFan on November 26, 2012 at 11:48 AM

Yes let’s agree to tax increases next year in exchange for entitlement reform that will take effect 10 years from now when we have 25 trillion in debt.

Wigglesworth on November 26, 2012 at 11:49 AM

The US was the freest land and is now the most stupid of them all.

Corker always acts/looks stupid.

Schadenfreude on November 26, 2012 at 11:49 AM

This is along the line of this issue, just look at what pravda says bho is! They say bho is a ‘communist’!

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/russian-news-outlet-pravda-previously-the-official-press-of-the-ussr-labels-obama-a-communist-in-scathing-oped/
L

letget on November 26, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Corker will get his $1 trillion in tax hikes. His $4 trillion in spending cuts, on the other hand, won’t happen.

Steve Eggleston on November 26, 2012 at 11:41 AM

We have seen this play before and it doesn’t turn out well for us..:(

Dire Straits on November 26, 2012 at 11:50 AM

How to invest well.

Schadenfreude on November 26, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Garrett also reported that entitlement reforms are going to be another difficult aspect of the fiscal cliff negotations, and that Democrats are cautious, including Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., who appeared on ABC’s “This Week.”

Gee, what a surprise, republicans are falling all over themselves to assure everyone that they’ll raise taxes while democrats are saying they wont touch entitlements, guess how this is going to end up? Time to quit letting the republican party play you for chumps.

“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.

The word you’re looking for there, corky, is taxes, not revenue, a**hole.

clearbluesky on November 26, 2012 at 11:52 AM

How about 2000 levels? After all, had spending merely been the 18.2% of GDP it was in 2000 (and 2001), we would have had a surplus in 2007.

Steve Eggleston on November 26, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Hey, I would love that, but I don’t think many would support 2000 defense levels since Clinton effectively balanced the budget in his second term by slashing defense spending. And I would not want to re-litigate the Medicare drug benefit that Bush passed – try telling seniors that just voted 56-44 Republican that now we want to take away their prescription drugs. What we can take away is the Stimulus spending that is now baked into the budget, the huge increases in spending at EPA and Justice and other federal agencies, the 200,000 new government workers, and Obamacare.

The problem is that Bush never asked the country to pay for the wars or the drug benefit. For Republicans to regain credibility with the voters, they must acknowledge this. This is why I favor letting all the Bush tax rates expire.

rockmom on November 26, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Stop worrying about the blame,Let It Burn. its going down anyways so let it. I don’t want kids and grandkids to be dealing with this, hoping that it will continue for their kids. The money has runout, the trap door under our feet has opened, everything will be good until we reach the end of the rope. I am tired of GOP cowards, grow a backbone, if you can’t or won’t fight for the people, then leave you’re worthless and are taking up space.

stormridercx4 on November 26, 2012 at 11:54 AM

I am not a fan of raising taxes on anyone, however at least there might be a silver lining in all this….

Grover Norquist’s influence on the GOP will hopefully be weakened. It is not his influence on taxes that is the problem, it is his support for the Religion of Peace and his need to try to silence anyone who is critical of it in the GOP.

William Eaton on November 26, 2012 at 11:54 AM

This is why I favor letting all the Bush tax rates expire.

rockmom on November 26, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Hear, hear. End the Bush talking points.

faraway on November 26, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Although it would be awesome if the R’s just voted present. Technically not helping O but can’t be accused of being obstructionist. And I triple dog dare Obama to try and say that voting present is awful given his voting history.

ChrisL on November 26, 2012 at 11:31 AM

I think they should vote according to their principles, then we
know where they all stand. We can then vote for or against them in the next election cycle.

Everyone thinks the Tea Party is dead after Romney’s campaign
effectively banished them (and Palin) from his campaign. The rinos
shouldn’t kid themselves, however, the Tea Party is alive and
well. If taxes are raised (is the pope Catholic?!), I suspect
the Tea Party will grow substantially in numbers and activity.
I hope they tackle voter fraud in this off season.

Raising taxes with the high price of living (gas and food, soon
to be skyrocketing electricity, etc.), might be the “clarion” call that citizens need. More taxes and additional dollars taken out of worker checks for Obamacare; less money from those whose hours
are reduced from 40 to 30 hours weekly should help do it.

Amjean on November 26, 2012 at 11:55 AM

We are all Democrats now.

Cindy Munford on November 26, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Dems won’t budge on entitlement reforms not hpnba happen

Gop will be blamed

cmsinaz on November 26, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Yeah, the MSM will have no problem covering this. Republicans want to end Medicare as we know it and let rich guys keep their tax cuts while Obama wants to make the rich pay their fair share as part of a balanced approach to paying down debt.

forest on November 26, 2012 at 11:56 AM

rockmom on November 26, 2012 at 11:40 AM

For too long the GOP has bent. We have cowtowed to the Dems and MSM, so we don’t seem “out of touch”.

The Dems and the MSM are going to say whatever they want and call the GOP every name in the book, EVEN IF THE GOP AGREE WITH THEM 100%!

The saying goes, you’ll either stand for something or fall for anything.

This line in the sand cannot be crossed, or when the Dems force the GOP to comprimise the next time, it’ll be easier for them.

Unless we stand up as conservatives and challenge those in our our party that we are more closely aligned, the GOP, how will we ever be able to challenge the MSM and the Dems?

ConservativePartyNow on November 26, 2012 at 11:56 AM

The problem in the deficit is spending, not a lack of revenue.

Well, for the most part that’s true but not entirely.

Revenues are down to around 15% of GDP when they’ve historically have been at around 18%. A 3% increase would be about $450 billion. That would still leave a $600 billion deficit admittedly but until we get revenues up to their historic average we won’t make a real dent in the deficit.

Here’s a good chart: Tax Revenues as Share of GDP.

SteveMG on November 26, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Question to ask Obama. If times were so good during Bubba’s tenure then what’s so bad about a return to that era’s tax rates for everyone? Haven’t dems for the last 10 years criticized the Bush tax cuts as being evrything from evil to unpaid for and everything in between? Maybe it’s time for some GOP big shot to ask these questions of Obama and the Dems.

xkaydet65 on November 26, 2012 at 11:58 AM

We are all Democrats now.

Cindy Munford on November 26, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Two foxes and one chicken, deciding what’s for dinner.

Schadenfreude on November 26, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Just stick with the last deal: a one time debt ceiling raise and an additional year of the tax cuts.

The Left gets its added taxes… not the way they like it, since it falls on everyone.

The Right gets a debt ceiling that doesn’t move.

Obama wanted this, he can have it along with all those who negotiated for it.

If you didn’t mean for this to be the deal, then you dealt in bad faith and no one will trust you again.

Really, for $2.5 trillion can’t you idiots figure out how to run a government and not run a deficit? I figure you can give the Left a wet dream of cutting the military by 20%, do debt maintenance, run the necessary Constitutional cats and dogs, run SSA and even have a bit left to parcel out to the States to figure out for medical services… you don’t get the M&Ms and Obamacare, but them’s the breaks when you have to live within your means.

Really, doesn’t this address all the ‘cares’ and ‘worries’ presented by the Big Government apparatchiks? So you don’t get an EPA, FBI, DOJ, Energy, Education, Agriculture… so what? Which is more important? All that stuff or funding some medical giveaways and Social Security?

Hard times, tough choices…and keeping your damn word.

I have warm spit that has more honor, integrity and stiffness than what exists Upon the Hill in DC.

ajacksonian on November 26, 2012 at 11:59 AM

cuts over $4 trillion in projected deficits over the next ten years

Oh, well, that is just awesome then! So, we’ll just be another $8 trillion in the hole in the next 10 years, instead of $12 trillion.

LoganSix on November 26, 2012 at 11:59 AM

rockmom on November 26, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Yep! A ton of people will be unhappy about what they use to pay. Didn’t a lot more people qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit and I think the amount for dependents was different also. Was anyone complaining about their “fair share” in 2000?

Cindy Munford on November 26, 2012 at 11:59 AM

rockmom on November 26, 2012 at 11:52 AM

A couple minor points of order here:

- Wars are never funded on a real-time basis, and in this case, it cost roughly the same as Obama’s also-unpaid-for Porkulus.
- Medicare Part D is “funded”, though it is through automatic ta…er, premium increases.

Steve Eggleston on November 26, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Patrick Brennan doesn’t think too much of Durbin’s kabuki dance:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/333952/durbin-runs-away-entitlement-reform-patrick-brennan

onlineanalyst on November 26, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Two foxes and one chicken, deciding what’s for dinner.

Schadenfreude on November 26, 2012 at 11:58 AM

heh, keep humping that chicken

faraway on November 26, 2012 at 12:01 PM

The Republicans, who have absolutely no leadership, are ready to cave again without a budget from the Senate. If Boehner doesn’t tell Reid, not budget it’s cliff time, they need to elect a new Speaker of the House because Boehner keeps allowing the Democrats to scoop him. Good Lord, this guy is 3rd in line to the Presidency and he keeps allowing Reid to dictate the terms. What would he do with Putin?

bflat879 on November 26, 2012 at 12:01 PM

The problem is that Bush never asked the country to pay for the wars or the drug benefit. For Republicans to regain credibility with the voters, they must acknowledge this. This is why I favor letting all the Bush tax rates expire.

Great, when my taxes go up, i’ll send you the bill.

clearbluesky on November 26, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Permanent Minority Status.

We’ll trade a tax increase for permanent $800 billion per year deficits instead of $1.2 trillion.

No.

Either man up and propose a Swedish level of taxation, to fund every last program the United Piglets of America demands or cut the $1.2 trillion per year in spending.

Anything less I will refuse to vote for.

MNHawk on November 26, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Schadenfreude on November 26, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Unfortunately no one cares.

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

I’m tired of defending the rich. Let Obama install whatever rates he thinks are fair. Then keep a close eye on the economy, and see what happens.

We need to re-prioritize. Instead of opposing tax increases for group X, let’s focus on reducing revenues. If Dems want to raise taxes, let them. Let them run on their “we raised taxes” platform.

Eventually, if the top 10%, or millionaires, or whoever want to stop being demonized, maybe they’ll stop voting for Democrats.

hawksruleva on November 26, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Serious question, and then some ranting: if we’re not actually operating under a budget, how do these “cuts” take place? Aren’t we just living from omnibus spending bill to omnibus spending bill? What’s to say that the next spending bill will actually reflect the mandated cuts?

Also, I missed the part in the quote above where he balanced the freaking budget. I’m at the point now where I pop blood vessels in my eyes every time I read about projected cuts over the “next ten years.”

So thanks, GOP, for once again being the Magnificent Party of Somewhat Smaller Deficits. It’s nice that you go on TV and crow about the courage it takes to do that. But really, and I hope you get this someday, I actually blame you more than the Democrats for our current situation when you pull this crap. Because while I’m convinced the Democrats are by and large not accountable for their actions by reason of diminished mental capacity, you should actually know better. But you do the same things.

TexasDan on November 26, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Yep! A ton of people will be unhappy about what they use to pay. Didn’t a lot more people qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit and I think the amount for dependents was different also. Was anyone complaining about their “fair share” in 2000?

Cindy Munford on November 26, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Which brings us to the ultimate Catch-22 – every time the federal tax take has approached 20% of GDP post-WWII, the economy went into a recession until it appeared that the take would remain below the 18.1% post-WWII average for a couple years with a healthy economy.

Steve Eggleston on November 26, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Steve Eggleston on November 26, 2012 at 12:00 PM

You are right of course, but what we are battling is popular perception shaped by the Left/media ovet the last 6 years. That’s why I want the GOP to play some jujitsu here and do what Obama doesn’t expect them to do. He is expecting them to hold to their line in the sand and defend tax rates that most of them weren’t in Congress to vote for in the first place.

I also love Corker’s statement that “this is easy.” It IS easy, and the Republicans need to keep saying it. The media love to tut-tut about how this is so hard and all politicians of all parties need to be noble and compromise and work hard because the problem is so complex. NO IT ISN’T. Cut spending a lot. Raise taxes a little, in ways that won’t hurt job creation. Voila.

rockmom on November 26, 2012 at 12:05 PM

What’s to say that the next spending bill will actually reflect the mandated cuts?

Yes, the next Congress isn’t obligated to enact the cuts.

If say a $500 billion cut in Medicare is passed by this Congress and the Democrats take over two years from now they can rescind those cuts.

And they will.

SteveMG on November 26, 2012 at 12:08 PM

1. The GOP lacks the leverage to keep tax hikes off the table. If the GOP held firm on “no new taxes,” Obama would take us off the “fiscal cliff” and the MSM would lay the blame at the GOP’s feet. The key is for the GOP to agree to a compromise and to appear reasonable. The GOP agrees to tax hikes, Obama must agree to spending cuts. That gets you the popular buy-in and messaging necessary to force Obama to follow through on real spending cuts.

Outlander

So, if Obama takes us over the fiscal cliff, the media will cover for him, but if he doesn’t follow through with spending cuts, the media won’t cover for him?

You guys crack me up. Who is going to deliver this message that forces Obama to follow through with these cuts? MSNBC? The NY Times? On what planet do you think the media is going to allow the GOP to appear reasonable? If that were an option, they’d already be doing that, because there’s nothing unreasonable about keeping the tax rates where they are. Are you guys really that naive?

The problem is that Bush never asked the country to pay for the wars or the drug benefit. For Republicans to regain credibility with the voters, they must acknowledge this. This is why I favor letting all the Bush tax rates expire.

rockmom

Ahh yes, the old “republicans must become democrats to win” strategy that is so popular among some “republicans” these days, lol. Give me a break. Why would any Republican acknowledge a blatant liberal lie? Sheesh, with republicans like you, who needs democrats?

xblade on November 26, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Steve Eggleston on November 26, 2012 at 12:03 PM

It’s not like this is really what I want, I’m just tired of fighting with these people. You can’t convince people about stupid until they are living it and even then they won’t believe it.

Cindy Munford on November 26, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Steve Eggleston on November 26, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Very interesting points..Scary but very interesting..:)

Dire Straits on November 26, 2012 at 12:09 PM

“Three republicans broke from the no new tax pledge; chambliss, lindsey Graham & cong. pete king”. Now corker is being a squish. What do they have in common they are all rinos. WHAT’S WORSE, THREE OF THEM GRAHAM, CHAMBLISS & CORKER COME FROM DEEP RED STATES IN THE SOUTH.

THIS HORSESH*T HAS TO STOP. COMES BACK TO THE BUSH ESTABLISHMENT PICKING OUR NOMINEES. THAT’S WHY THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT PUT SUCH FEAR IN THESE AZZWHOLES!

In those states Georgia, South Carolina & tennessee we have millions of great conservatives to choose from, but the mullahs put up these rino’s. Incredible!

Danielvito on November 26, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Great, when my taxes go up, i’ll send you the bill.

clearbluesky on November 26, 2012 at 12:01 PM

If you voted for Bush twice and voted to keep Tom DeLay running the House, you should be paying more taxes. We all should.

I do not understand why deficits were fine when Bush was President but they’re not fine now. We are losing votes in every election by taking this stance. If everyone’s taxes go up, I have no problem with paying more, as long as a serious whack is taken at the spending and especially as long as the 200,000 workers Obama hired get fired.

All low taxes do in the aggregate is make people comfortable getting more government than they are paying for. We have no hope of convincing average taxpayers that the government is too damn big until we start sending them the bill for it.

rockmom on November 26, 2012 at 12:10 PM

TexasDan on November 26, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Every statement out of a Republican’s Senates mouth should begin with “First we need to pass a budget”…and keep hammering this, constantly, without any let up from every single Republican…they can talk about anything else, but every comment should begin with “The dems have not and cannot pass a budget, they are worthless when it comes to financial control”…no let up.

But, the Republican’s are not organized enough, care enough, to mount a united front…

right2bright on November 26, 2012 at 12:10 PM

I do not understand why deficits were fine when Bush was President but they’re not fine now….

rockmom on November 26, 2012 at 12:10 PM

You don’t understand because you don’t understand…the conservative were against Bush spending, that was his number one failing as President, not using his veto powers…he allowed unbridled spending and that was the beginning of this horrible economy, than add to that Obama’s even worse spending and policies, and you have our economy.

Spending is the problem, under Bush and under Obama…

So to correct you, it wasn’t “fine” under Bush…

right2bright on November 26, 2012 at 12:13 PM

If you voted for Bush twice and voted to keep Tom DeLay running the House, you should be paying more taxes. We all should.

No, i shouldn’t. I didn’t vote for the prescription plan and i didn’t vote to have religious zealots slaughter 3,000 people.

I do not understand why deficits were fine when Bush was President but they’re not fine now.

You know, i’ve seen you comment at Ace’s and you parrot the same democrat talking points over there. Deficits weren’t fine under Bush, see the 2006 election, see the 2008 election. Got any more d talking points?

clearbluesky on November 26, 2012 at 12:14 PM

We talk of not being able to bind a future Congress; but, these politicians (on both sides) could not even bind themselves.

Any course of action for both taxing and spending that does not take immediate effect is simply congressional legerdemain.

You know what might help? An approved budget. Hmm…

Droopy on November 26, 2012 at 12:14 PM

do not understand why deficits were fine when Bush was President but they’re not fine now

Well, they weren’t but there’s a big difference between a $300-400 billion deficit and a $1 trillion deficit.

A $300 billion deficit in a growing economy is about 3% of GDP. That’s manageable.

A $1 trillion deficit in a sluggish economy is about 7% of GDP. That is unsustainable. If we had Bush’s $3-400 billion we could manage that.

Plus add in the entitlement explosion headed our way and it’s simply not sustainable.

SteveMG on November 26, 2012 at 12:15 PM

I do not understand why deficits were fine when Bush was President but they’re not fine now….

rockmom on November 26, 2012 at 12:10 PM

You don’t understand because you don’t understand…the conservative were against Bush spending, that was his number one failing as President, not using his veto powers…he allowed unbridled spending and that was the beginning of this horrible economy, than add to that Obama’s even worse spending and policies, and you have our economy.

Spending is the problem, under Bush and under Obama…

So to correct you, it wasn’t “fine” under Bush…

right2bright on November 26, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Yup

The Republicans became Democrat clones, unrecognizable to me as the same party that Reagan and Newt exemplified.

astonerii on November 26, 2012 at 12:16 PM

I would be embarrassed if I still considered myself a Republican.

How about if for once we have the cuts go into effect now and the new taxes take effect in two years ONLY if the cuts have actually occurred.

Over50 on November 26, 2012 at 12:16 PM

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

Why didn’t anyone think of this before. All we have to do is capitulate on every issue and vote with the democrats. That way we will win. Complete and total surrender. We can hide in our own intellectual Maginot Line and pretend what we do really makes a difference. In lieu of the tax pledge, they can write a new pledge.
“I pledge to completely and totally surrender everything that we stand for and betray all those people who have kept is in power for so long. Henceforth, we will no longer be called republicans, we will be known as repulicrats (or rats for short). Furthermore, as a subsidiary of the democratic party, we promise to strictly adhere to and bow down at the alter of socialism. Anyone not adhering to these principals will be deemed a traitor and enemy of the state.”

bandutski on November 26, 2012 at 12:17 PM

It’s not like this is really what I want, I’m just tired of fighting with these people. You can’t convince people about stupid until they are living it and even then they won’t believe it.

Cindy Munford on November 26, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Very good popint..It is like El Rushbo says..”I don’t fear Obama as much as I fear the folks that voted for him”..:)

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

For the love of God, just vote “present” and let them own it…we are simply avoiding (temporarily) the inevitable…DEFAULT…..

We can’t rebuild it until it’s officially broken and THEY own the failure…They will always have people believing their bullsh*t until it’s proven to everyone once and for all that (just like you’ve always been told) there is no free lunch. Nothing is without cost…

LET IT BURN….

Tim Zank on November 26, 2012 at 12:19 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.

More concrete analysis from the Bald Avenger!! Poll unskewer and pre eminent court watcher!

Obamacare is over!!!!! Um…ROMNEY LANDSLIDE!!!!!!!! Uh-we are still doomed stay tuned!!!!!!

They will roll on taxes. The economy will get better. Hillary will win. You get to eat more sour soup.

tommyhawk on November 26, 2012 at 12:19 PM

tommyhawk on November 26, 2012 at 12:19 PM

If brains were dynamite, you couldn’t blow your nose.

kingsjester on November 26, 2012 at 12:21 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. Meanwhile, the GOP should be able to get substantial entitlement reform as a trade-off, which Dick Durbin offered yesterday.

Two points. First, Durbin is not a man of character or integrity., If the Dems want to discuss how to avoid the fiscal cliff, they need to put forward somebody of honor not yet another filthy Chicago sewer rat.

Secondly, Any entititlement reforms have to come at the same time as tax increases. Shame on the GOP if they simply agree to reform without having clear and specific reductions built in to the plan. That means a lot more work on the part of the rat-eared wonder but now that the election is over the bastard has plenty of time on his hands.

Happy Nomad on November 26, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Go bold and stick to your guns. If you go down atleast do it with dignity…the other way you are just doing what they are with the cliff…delaying the invevitable.

tomas on November 26, 2012 at 12:23 PM

More concrete analysis from the Bald Avenger!! Poll unskewer and pre eminent court watcher!

Obamacare is over!!!!! Um…ROMNEY LANDSLIDE!!!!!!!! Uh-we are still doomed stay tuned!!!!!!

They will roll on taxes. The economy will get better. Hillary will win. You get to eat more sour soup.

tommyhawk on November 26, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Assuming you and Obama are never in the same room, it is safe to say you are the least intelligent creature in any room you inhabit.

tom daschle concerned on November 26, 2012 at 12:23 PM

How about if for once we have the cuts go into effect now and the new taxes take effect in two years ONLY if the cuts have actually occurred.

Over50 on November 26, 2012 at 12:16 PM

You vill be taught another vay…you must not be so logical, it vill cause you great pain…

right2bright on November 26, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Lots of good points and good ideas but, unfortunately, Boehner & Cantor aren’t listening.

They had the Democrats up against the wall the last debt ceiling fiasco and, instead of standing firm and not raising the debt ceiling no matter what, instead they showed us all what a bunch of fools they were when they allowed the Democrats to dupe them into raising the debt-ceiling $2.7 Trillion IN EXCHANGE for the super-duper deficit reduction committee that was doomed to fail before they even held their first meeting.

When I saw just how stupid Boehner & Cantor were, I realized that it was all over. They’re the Republican Leadership and they’re both RINOs who are only there for the photo-ops and stick around long enough to get their pensions. Simply put, neither of them have the balls to NOT RAISE the debt ceiling.

So, they’ll allow themselves to be duped once again by the Democrats and then they’ll tell us that this was the best deal they could get!

Mahdi on November 26, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Fund Your Utopia Without Me.™

Ditto to RWM

Schadenfreude on November 26, 2012 at 12:26 PM

So, they’ll allow themselves to be duped once again by the Democrats and then they’ll tell us that this was the best deal they could get!

Mahdi on November 26, 2012 at 12:25 PM

I agree with every thing you stated except for the word “duped”, they are not “duped” they are complicit.

Duped assumes they are tricked, they had no knowledge and was fooled, I think they know exactly what they are doing, and that is the danger.

right2bright on November 26, 2012 at 12:28 PM

I think I’ve had enough of this ‘Congressional courage’ shinola.

Act like lazy bums.

Don’t pass anything, don’t try to save anything, don’t try to do anything.

Let Obama know that the government will only operate on a budget that he writes up. That is under the debt ceiling. Sit on your butts and do NOTHING to help him.

Vote ‘present’ a lot.

Demand that every unanimous request is objected to and full votes taken.

All bills to be read out. And amendments to bills. And the full bills after amendments.

That includes the budget as presented by Obama.

All of it.

Including appendices and the index.

Act like lazy slugs on every bill.

That takes real ‘courage’ and real ‘fortitude’.

And all you end up doing is saying, once in awhile, ‘I object’. Bring a megaphone.

You will be detested. Despised. Hated. Castigated.

You will bollix up the entire legislative process until it seizes up, solid.

A few courageous congresscritters to sit on their butts, demand everything be gone through, every vote taken in full, everything read out in full… all you need is a thick skin. And patience.

You will actually stop the spending. Not a party, just one cantankerous individual that has had enough of the games. Tell them all a deal is a deal, and you hold them all to it. Just one person willing to be the hated PITA of an A-R congresscritter. One per each House would be even better. Two per House gets tag-teaming. Then things really start to change as things start to shut down.

ajacksonian on November 26, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Every statement out of a Republican’s Senates mouth should begin with “First we need to pass a budget”…and keep hammering this, constantly, without any let up from every single Republican…they can talk about anything else, but every comment should begin with “The dems have not and cannot pass a budget, they are worthless when it comes to financial control”…no let up.

But, the Republican’s are not organized enough, care enough, to mount a united front…

right2bright on November 26, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Yep. I really don’t think it would take that much concerted effort if they would show some discipline and just hammer away. They could easily get a Balanced Budget PAC and start running ads. I don’t care that it’s not election season. Put the Democrat’s failure on producing a budget on full and glorious and continual display. Force the MSM to talk about it by refusing to talk about anything else. Well, except Benghazi and F&F.

TexasDan on November 26, 2012 at 12:34 PM

I’m done with the Republicans if they fold again. They will only get blamed again for not compromising enough when the economy tanks and they won’t have the balls to fight back when the MSM and Obama lies about them. If they fold, I’ll only vote for bold, strong, principled Conservative/Libertarian candidates from a third party who take it to the MSM and uses dumbed down language to educate the uninformed public at the local level. Let the Repubicans go the way of the Whigs.

Decoski on November 26, 2012 at 12:34 PM

right2bright on November 26, 2012 at 12:28 PM

I agree 100%. They know exactly what they are doing. They are more interested in saving their political hide than the welfare of their constituents.

bandutski on November 26, 2012 at 12:35 PM

So, if Obama takes us over the fiscal cliff, the media will cover for him, but if he doesn’t follow through with spending cuts, the media won’t cover for him?

You guys crack me up. Who is going to deliver this message that forces Obama to follow through with these cuts? MSNBC? The NY Times? On what planet do you think the media is going to allow the GOP to appear reasonable? If that were an option, they’d already be doing that, because there’s nothing unreasonable about keeping the tax rates where they are. Are you guys really that naive?
***
xblade on November 26, 2012 at 12:09 PM

You’re exactly right, which is why Republicans shouldn’t make a deal that involves tax hikes today and a vague, wimpy “promise” to cut spending in the future. What I’m saying is that the only deal Boehner should push for is one that contains tax hikes and present-day spending cuts in the same bill. In other words, a true austerity bill.

Outlander on November 26, 2012 at 12:37 PM

I am not willing to further mortgage my children and grandchildren’s economic futures to score “gotcha” points against a President who will be gone in four years.

And the deal these unprincipled ninnies are talking about making is not going to turn out as they blindly anticipate. Real entitlement reform? Not going to happen. Not with this President in the White House and Harry Reid running the Senate. Where is the Republican’s leverage? Even if they think they have some, the other side does not agree. Who won the election? You think these folks are suddenly shy about running roughshod over a few spineless Republicans? In whose fantasy (or nightmare, depending on your point of view)?

When will we stop talking about raising revenues and talk about where those revenues will come from? I know we have an ingrained progressive tax code filled with pretzels of logic, but is no one at all concerned with the lack of equal protection afforded certain groups of people because they hit a certain income level? Why don’t we start with an overall tax increase, including a minimum tax on everyone, not merely Mr. Buffett’s graciously offered up rich folks? I’ll start the bidding at $100, sure a pittance to receive the bounty of America. $8.33 a month to live in the U.S. Is that a bargain or what?

And, finally, it’s not a cliff. And it’s not a disaster. It’s an across-the-board budget cut. States do it all the time. Businesses do it all the time. This is what happens when you over-extend. You get a memo from the Governor announcing a % all-departments budget cut for the next fiscal year. What do you do? You manage. And the government survives.

The question is not who will blink first in this faux OK Corral stand-off. The only question is whether or not the Republican’s will hurt themselves blinking so hard.

IndieDogg on November 26, 2012 at 12:41 PM

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.

Let me get this straight:
So we should abandon fiscal restraint? We should just accept the unbridled spending and the reformation of American government as we know it, constitution be damned?
If you cant beat them, join them? Resistance is futile, you will be assimulated?

paulsur on November 26, 2012 at 12:42 PM

i won’t know HOW to think on this matter until
I hear from Patty Murray.

ToddPA on November 26, 2012 at 12:44 PM

I tell you what, Sen. Corker. Why don’t you and the rest of Hussein Obama’s 40 thieves fix your own fiscal house first, and tighten your own belts, before you force hard-working Americans to pay more taxes to keep you all in the lifestyle to which you have become accustomed.

It’s called being a “good steward” and a “public servant”.

Terms you folks up on Capital Hill seem to have forgotten in the past 20 years, since you signed that pledge.

kingsjester on November 26, 2012 at 12:47 PM

And, finally, it’s not a cliff. And it’s not a disaster. It’s an across-the-board budget cut. States do it all the time. Businesses do it all the time. This is what happens when you over-extend. You get a memo from the Governor announcing a % all-departments budget cut for the next fiscal year. What do you do? You manage. And the government survives.

The question is not who will blink first in this faux OK Corral stand-off. The only question is whether or not the Republican’s will hurt themselves blinking so hard.

IndieDogg on November 26, 2012 at 12:41 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

Comment pages: 1 2