Obama’s new fiscal cliff offer: Instead of $1.6 trillion in new revenue, how about $1.4 trillion?

posted at 8:01 pm on December 11, 2012 by Allahpundit

First I thought, “Wait, aren’t he and Boehner supposed to be getting closer to a deal? This doesn’t sound close.” Then I thought, “Aha — he’s trying to drive a hard bargain on tax revenue so that he can concede on it later in exchange for stuff he really needs in the package, like a new round of stimulus spending and a debt-ceiling increase.” But then I thought, “If his demand on revenue is just a smokescreen, though, why float a new number? Why not just sit on $1.6 trillion so that his eventual concession to Boehner on this point looks even more magnanimous?”

Dude?

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and President Obama have exchanged new offers in the negotiations over the “fiscal cliff.”…

Boehner’s office would not provide any details of the offer.

The Boehner offer came in response to a new White House proposal put on the table after Obama and Boehner met face-to-face on Sunday.

The new Obama offer contained $1.4 trillion in revenue, down from $1.6 trillion. Boehner in his new offer remained at $800 billion, a source confirmed.

Maybe … this is a spur to get Congress to take up tax reform? Even when the two sides are in concession mode, they’re so far apart on revenue that only a complete rethink of the tax code might bridge the gap in a mutually satisfactory way. Or maybe I’m kidding myself here and O really does want to go over the cliff, with his new $1.4 trillion a token concession meant to show how supposedly “reasonable” he is while knowing that the GOP will never agree to it. Although in that case, how to explain the fact that a source tells CNN the White House initially considered dropping its offer to $1.2 trillion before backing off to $1.4 trillion instead? Are they trying to reach a deal or not?

In related news, none of this matters because it’s all occurring outside the impenetrable cocoon of fiscal denial in which most Americans live their lives:

– Voters oppose, by 59 percent to 40 percent, raising the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 67. There’s a gender gap on that issue, with women more opposed to raising the age, perhaps reflecting their longer life expectancy.

– Voters oppose cutting overall spending for Medicare, by 74 percent to 23 percent.

– They oppose cutting spending for Medicaid, the program for the poor, by 70 percent to 26 percent.

– They oppose reducing the federal tax deduction for home mortgage interest, by 67 percent to 29 percent.

– They oppose eliminating the tax deduction for charitable contributions, by 69 percent to 28 percent.

Lest you think it’s Democrats driving the entitlement side of those numbers, note that a majority of Republicans opposes each of those measures also, per McClatchy. The one and only fiscal proposal to draw majority support among the general public was, you guessed it, tax hikes on the rich.

Exit question: Is “let it burn” the only way to crack open the cocoon? Watch Rand Paul make the case, LIB-style, for tax hikes at 2:19.


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

Obama and Boehner make fools Einsteinian.

Schadenfreude on December 11, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Boehner’s office would not provide any details of the offer.

He’s as transparent as Obama. May they break, like glass shatters.

Schadenfreude on December 11, 2012 at 8:04 PM

Wow, Boehner really is holding Obama’s feet to the fire. I thought he would cave giving Obama 99% of what he wanted, but this looks like he’s going to hold out for 88%.

Way to go Boehner! /

sharrukin on December 11, 2012 at 8:07 PM

And STILL no Budget, and no heat on Harry Reid for failing one of the core costitutional duties of the Senate.

rayra on December 11, 2012 at 8:09 PM

Is there any method of letting it burn that results it me getting to watch the Obama voter in line ahead of me react in shock when her food stamp card is declined.

I want to see it really burn down. As in no debt ceiling hike burn down.

jhffmn on December 11, 2012 at 8:10 PM

Cavuto, kidding around with (God willing), the next POTUS…

JohnGalt23 on December 11, 2012 at 8:12 PM

Is my opinion clear enough or need I state it more-strongly?

We will never address what ails our nation until we cut this crap out. It begins with you, I, and everyone else. It begins with we the people demanding that those who we choose to associate with and those who we elect to office hold a higher moral standard and when they fail if they are in a position of power they be immediately removed and replaced by someone else. If they are an associate then we must cease association until their behavior changes.

A nation and her people are only as moral and ethical as those who reside within it demand of those who lead, and especially those who instruct our youth.

More: The real problem with America, morality.

tom daschle concerned on December 11, 2012 at 8:12 PM

So I guess China is still in our future.

Electrongod on December 11, 2012 at 8:13 PM

Let. It. Burn.

Nobody wants to give up a damn thing to get the fiscal house in order, so…

Let. It. Burn.

predator on December 11, 2012 at 8:14 PM

Yo, Barry. Just pass it out of the Senate already.

besser tot als rot on December 11, 2012 at 8:14 PM

My brother sent this to me, and it makes the “Tax the rich” meme go away.

“K.I.S.S.

I have the answer as to how the republicans can put the disaster of raising the taxes on the rich behind them.

1. Pass one bill that makes the “Bush tax cuts” permanent on all those who earn less than $250,000

- then -

2. Pass a second bill that makes the “Bush tax cuts” permanent on all those who earn MORE than $250,000

This would force either the Senate or the President to block/veto the legislation and would take the “taxes must go up on those making more than $250,000″ argument out of the equation. All of the other issues could be addressed at a future time with the “Republicans are only for the rich” argument off the table.”

belad on December 11, 2012 at 8:17 PM

Cavuto, kidding around with (God willing), the next POTUS…

JohnGalt23 on December 11, 2012 at 8:12 PM

Amen.

besser tot als rot on December 11, 2012 at 8:19 PM

Let. It. Burn.

Nobody wants to give up a damn thing to get the fiscal house in order, so…

Let. It. Burn.

predator on December 11, 2012 at 8:14 PM

I understand where you are coming from, but if we go off the cliff in a few months the Democrats will be pushing tax cuts for 98% of the people. That means Republicans will either have to say no to a tax cut or they will just end up being where they would be if they went along with the hike right now. Sometimes all the choices are bad. Plus the whole country would blame them for the ensuing mayhem. America’s fiscal house is not going to get in order until the American people decide they would rather have a balanced budget than free stuff.

And Obama does not care about the American people. I can not understand how sane people could vote for the man.

Terrye on December 11, 2012 at 8:21 PM

I miss the Bush recession when gas was $1.75 a gallon, unemployment was below 5% and the Fed government spent money in the billions instead of trillions.

jawkneemusic on December 11, 2012 at 8:22 PM

…pull the ears off that clown!…he doesn’t listen….

KOOLAID2 on December 11, 2012 at 8:22 PM

You know, there’s nothing like a New Years bonfire to lift the spirits.

Curtiss on December 11, 2012 at 8:23 PM

I feel sick to my stomach thinking about whats to come. He absolutely is perfectly happy going over the cliff. He’ll play golf and sleep like a baby on his Hawaiian vacation. I dont even think he cares about his own party either. He’s a complete idealogue and narcisist.

ldbgcoleman on December 11, 2012 at 8:24 PM

Dear Lord help us.

gophergirl on December 11, 2012 at 8:24 PM

My brother sent this to me, and it makes the “Tax the rich” meme go away.

belad on December 11, 2012 at 8:17 PM

That’s what I’ve been pushing. Republicans get credit, or at least share in the credit, for passing the middle class tax cuts. I would also make Obama specify the cuts he wants to spending and entitlements. He won’t, of course, so then just let it burn.

GCM on December 11, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Has The Emperor offered any specifics on how he thinks that revenue should be raised? Yeah, I didn’t think so. He will leave that up to Boehner and the Republicans making them the tax collectors.

The next “compromise” will be to settle for a trillion in new tax revenue to match the trillion in “spending cuts” Dear Leader has already agreed to make. The “spending cuts” where he agreed to save a $100 billion a year by not fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the next ten years.

The bottom line on these “negotiations” is that Comrade Chairman Obama wants to raise enough revenue from the “wealthy” to pay for the interest on the four trillion plus he plans to borrow in the next four years.

The only fly in this ointment is he may need to borrow a lot more than four trillion. However, the masses will not notice. The media will keep them distracted with misinformation, propaganda, and various “entertainment” products.

farsighted on December 11, 2012 at 8:33 PM

Terrye on December 11, 2012 at 8:21 PM

Perhaps you and I have a different view of what L.I.B. means. I tend to look at it from this perspective.

Before you read the post, should you choose to, let me insert one of the key statements from that post:

We need to start disassociating conservatism from the GOP. We’ve tried it for 30 years. It hasn’t worked.

We’ve tried to save the country from the folly of expanding liberalism and the country said, “we don’t want to be saved”. Let It Burn just means letting them have what they want and rebuilding later.

I no longer care about “blame.” The administration and they’re willing dupes in the press will “blame” conservatives no matter what. Let them have everything they want. It will collapse. History has proven that. Then the survivors who rise from the ashes of “Let It Burn” will set things right.

And who will those survivors be? The makers or the takers?

I’m betting on we, the makers, to be the ones who rise. The takers can’t even care for themselves. They don’t want to; they’ve never had to; they
don’t know how.

We win.

Just my opinion.

predator on December 11, 2012 at 8:33 PM

And STILL no Budget, and no heat on Harry Reid for failing one of the core costitutional duties of the Senate.

rayra on December 11, 2012 at 8:09 PM

yup .. however in Dingy Harry’s defense ya gotta give the guy a little time
come on .. it only been what 5 maybe 6 years …. cut him some slack
/s

conservative tarheel on December 11, 2012 at 8:36 PM

Rand Paul is easy on the eyes – just saying.

msmveritas on December 11, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Rand Paul is easy on the eyes – just saying.

msmveritas on December 11, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Oh yeah he is

gophergirl on December 11, 2012 at 8:38 PM

Yes, 200 billion less tax hikes but….400 billion more in spending and making the entire USA a forced labor camp to unions.

jukin3 on December 11, 2012 at 8:39 PM

Rand: $3-million study of monkeys is key to deficit. But first: Something about the “reporter” and comic books. Possibly part of the monkey study. Glad I watched that.

kunegetikos on December 11, 2012 at 8:39 PM

belad on December 11, 2012 at 8:17 PM

yup .. sounds good …. I was of the persuasion of giving Obama all the taxes
he wants … nothing on Debt ceiling … and no continuing resolutions on
the budget .. make the senate go on the record …

conservative tarheel on December 11, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Obama’s new fiscal cliff offer: Instead of $1.6 trillion in new revenue, how about $1.4 trillion?

Boehner: DEAL!

xblade on December 11, 2012 at 8:41 PM

LET IT CRASH!

Then we’ll find out what’s really important.

GarandFan on December 11, 2012 at 8:47 PM

Harry Reid will denounce it (two bills, one for the 98%, the other for the 2%) as a “stunt” & the pressies won’t say a word.

Our side has misplayed this so badly that there’s not much we can do other than give Obama his way re “The Rich” ….

Here’s where I think we are:

1) Pass the tax cuts for the 98% – nice & clean, don’t give Dems any chance to torpedo it.

2) Let the Bush cuts go away for the 2%. “We don’t think it’s a good idea, but Democrats do – we’ll give the President his way on this issue and we’ll see how it turns out.”

3) Start the argument: “Taxes are going up on the 2%; the Rich are now paying their fair share.” Keep saying it over & over & over again; give the Democrats the choice – agree (in which case we then say “but it’s not enough to balance the budget”) or disagree (in which case we say “Wait a minute … this is what you wanted and it’s not enough? What amount is their “fair share”?).

4) Continue the argument & make Democrats own it: “We’ve given you what you want on taxes but we still have these problems. Even if you Democrats all the rich people and took all their stuff, there still isn’t enough to pay your bills.”

BD57 on December 11, 2012 at 8:47 PM

Here’s where I think we are:

1) Pass the tax cuts for the 98% – nice & clean, don’t give Dems any chance to torpedo it.

2) Let the Bush cuts go away for the 2%. “We don’t think it’s a good idea, but Democrats do – we’ll give the President his way on this issue and we’ll see how it turns out.”

3) Start the argument: “Taxes are going up on the 2%; the Rich are now paying their fair share.” Keep saying it over & over & over again; give the Democrats the choice – agree (in which case we then say “but it’s not enough to balance the budget”) or disagree (in which case we say “Wait a minute … this is what you wanted and it’s not enough? What amount is their “fair share”?).

4) Continue the argument & make Democrats own it: “We’ve given you what you want on taxes but we still have these problems. Even if you Democrats all the rich people and took all their stuff, there still isn’t enough to pay your bills.”

BD57

So basically, cave to the dems. Sorry, but no thank you. You don’t win by continuously surrendering, and debating on the dems terms. Number 4 is especially laughable. Either tax cuts stay the same for everyone, or they go up for everyone. If Obama is more concerned about class warfare and needlessly attacking the rich than protecting the middle class and the poor, make him and the democrats own that.

xblade on December 11, 2012 at 9:00 PM

I’ll take the swampland instead, thanks.

Philly on December 11, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Just tell Obama – We are going to let it burn.
And don’t talk to him until after the 2014 elections……

redguy on December 11, 2012 at 9:09 PM

Originally I thought the Republicans should just embrace Simpson-Bowles and dare Obama to reject it, but this idiot in chief who never accomplished anything in life is just being an a-hole now, so put forth a flat tax proposal and go home. Don’t be that idiot hanging around the bar past last call hoping to take somebody, anybody home.

Daemonocracy on December 11, 2012 at 9:14 PM

Here’s where I think we are:

1) Pass the tax cuts for the 98% – nice & clean, don’t give Dems any chance to torpedo it.

There are no “tax cuts”. Obama – in his mind – thinks keeping the Bush tax rates are a tax cut.
There are not. These are the rates everyone has been paying for almost 12 years.

2) Let the Bush cuts go away for the 2%. “We don’t think it’s a good idea, but Democrats do – we’ll give the President his way on this issue and we’ll see how it turns out.”

Again – this would be a tax hike on rates that have existed for almost 12 years.
Americans don’t understand economics. The democrats have lied about this for 60 years.
Even JFK knew that slashing rates would lead to a healthy economy. Obama wants higher rates
so that he can crow that the Republicans have been on the wrong side of this issue.
Don’t give Obama anything. The Republicans will get the blame no matter what.

3) Start the argument: “Taxes are going up on the 2%; the Rich are now paying their fair share.” Keep saying it over & over & over again; give the Democrats the choice – agree (in which case we then say “but it’s not enough to balance the budget”) or disagree (in which case we say “Wait a minute … this is what you wanted and it’s not enough? What amount is their “fair share”?).

The Republicans have been saying it. The public now believes the democratic lies….
The Republicans should let the Bush tax rates expire so that everyone pays more.
I mean let’s all be patriotic!

4) Continue the argument & make Democrats own it: “We’ve given you what you want on taxes but we still have these problems. Even if you Democrats all the rich people and took all their stuff, there still isn’t enough to pay your bills.”

BD57

Again – don’t “give” Obama anything…..
That way when everyone is paying more the Republicans can say for 6 months – “Where is the money?” – Sorry Mr. President – we don’t need to raise that debt limit. Let’s wait another 6 months for all that tax money to flow in. After all – you & the democrats said we need a “balanced approach”.

BD57

redguy on December 11, 2012 at 9:21 PM

10 Dumbest Uses of Your Tax Dollars in Stimulus Bill

http://www.darwinsmoney.com/dumb-stimulus-bill-spending/

1. Forest Service to Replace Windows in Visitor Center
Closed in 2007 (Amboy, WA) – $554,763

2. “Dance Draw” – Interactive Dance Software Development
(Charlotte, NC) – $762,372

3. Ants Talk. Taxpayers Listen (San Francisco, CA) – $1.9million

4. Town Replaces New Sidewalks With Newer Sidewalks
That Lead to Ditch (Boynton, OK) – $89,298

5. Scientist Attempts to Create Joke Machine (Evanston, IL) – $712,883

6. Jamming for Dollars (Atlanta, GA) – $762,372

7. DTV “Experts” Plug Boxes Into a Wall (Buffalo, NY) – $350,000

8. Museum With 44 Annual Visitors Gets Funding for Bug Storage (Raleigh, NC) -$253,123

9. Reducing Menopausal Hot Flashes Through Yoga (Winston-Salem, NC) – $294,958

10. Stimulus Funds Going to the Dogs (Ithaca, NY)505 – $296,385

These were just 10 that I enjoyed; for the full report and list of 100 such nonsensical uses of money, see the original reports:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/CNBC/Sections/News_And_Analysis/_News/__EDIT%20Englewood%20Cliffs/StimulusPt1.pdf

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/CNBC/Sections/News_And_Analysis/_News/__EDIT%20Englewood%20Cliffs/StimulusPt2.pdf

redguy on December 11, 2012 at 9:26 PM

This is soooooooooooo SCROTCHED!

Dealing with Fluking Slippery Snakes!!

canopfor on December 11, 2012 at 9:29 PM

xblade on December 11, 2012 at 9:00 PM

On top of it, all of these proposals that involve, passing ‘x’ this way, or splitting ‘x’ from ‘y,’ or passing ‘y’ but not ‘x’ in ‘z’ manner all with the aim to “make the Democrats own” their own stupid ideas are flawed coming out the gate. They all rely upon a media propaganda machine that has gone in the past four years from blatantly left-leaning to something that would make Baghdad Bob blush suddenly becoming honest enough to hold Democrats accountable for anything.

If that were possible, then every news network would have a running counter of the days since this nation’s government has passed a budget. If anybody were held accountable, then the multiple scandals surrounding Solyndra, Benghazi, and Fast and Furious would mean Reid and Pelosi would have given Obama the hard news about a certain impeachment Bill Timmons et. al. gave Nixon in August 1974. If the public were more concerned with Obama’s weak leadership and partisan stunts than with the uninterrupted flow of their government handouts, President-Elect Romney would still be basking in the glow of his twelve point, 400 electoral vote victory.

This isn’t the sort of crap that can be fixed with a bit of innovative leadership and deal-making even if Boehner did have such an ability in him. This is a poison deep within our system that won’t end until the fools are forced to face some hard truths about how the economy works. This isn’t about a stunt that determines who gets an upper hand among 535 legislators and a clusterfark of an executive branch. This is about 65 million fools nationwide that voted their nation into slavery because their minds are too preoccupied with free lunches, consequence-free fornication, and a divide and conquer mentality that allows the government to split Americans among the lines of race, gender, faith, and income. Hard lessons like these aren’t taught with quick legislative stunts. America will be incredibly lucky if it means only the 2010s are a lost decade….

Gingotts on December 11, 2012 at 9:49 PM

Does anyone really believe that there is one iota of difference between a republican and a democrat? If so, you have to be delusional and there is absolutely no help whatsoever for you. These two parties MUST be abandoned in order to bring America back to what it once was.

air_up_there on December 11, 2012 at 9:51 PM

Question. If we are never going to get cuts necessary to actually reign in the year to year deficits, let alone the national debt, then how exactly are we moving forward towards a prosperous future in which America lives within its means?

It seems that extending the middle-class tax cuts under the false premise that expiring the tax cuts for the wealthy will fix anything is a smoke screen accomplishing exactly nothing.

If people want to have a society of dependence and social programs supporting our growing elderly population and poor, why not send them the bill?

Encarn on December 11, 2012 at 9:56 PM

And STILL no Budget, and no heat on Harry Reid for failing one of the core costitutional duties of the Senate.

rayra on December 11, 2012 at 8:09 PM

Sad, but true. And remember that Joe Biden is President of the Senate. He, too, has failed to perform one of his core Costitutional duties.

In calendar year 2009, Democrats controlled significant majorities in both the House and Senate, and controlled the Presidency. Budgets cannot be filibustered. Democrats could have passed any budget that they wanted for Fiscal Year 2010.

Democrats failed to pass a budget for FY 2010.
Democrats failed to pass a budget for FY 2011.
Democrats failed to pass a budget for FY 2012.
And Democrats have YET to pass a budget, even as we are now in FY 2013!

In calendar year 2010, Democrats controlled significant majorities in both the House and Senate, and controlled the Presidency. Budgets cannot be filibustered. Democrats could have passed any budget that they wanted for Fiscal Year 2011.

Had Democrats passed a budget for FY 2011 that kept outlays (spending) to the same $ totals as Bush and the Republicans had in the FY 2004 buget just sevem years earlier, there would have been a SURPLUS in FY 2011!

It’s true.

Revenues in FY 2011 were $2.30 Trillion
Outlays in FY 2004 were $2.29 Trillion

Check the numbers yourself…

Budget numbers directly from the White House Office of Management and Budget

If Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi had limited FY 2011 spending to the same $2.29 Trillion that Bush and the Republicans produced in FY 2004, then FY 2011 would have had a surplus of $0.01 Trillion ($10 Billion).

A buget surplus. Even better than a balanced budget.

Instead, the Democrat majority spending in FY 2011 was up more than $1.31 Trillion over FY 2004, a spending increase of more than 57% from the Bush-Republican level of just seven years earlier, resulting in that hypothetical $0.01 Trillion surplus instead becoming a very real deficit of $1.30 Trillion in FY 2011.

What, exactly, did we gain from that $1.31 Trillion increase in spending?

What, exactly, did we gain from the spending increase from $2.29 Trillion in FY 2004 to $3.60 Trillion in FY 2011?

When Obama and the Democrats use the word “balanced”, it almost always followed by the word “approach”, and what it means to them is RAISING TAXES.

You won’t hear Obama and the Democrats use the word “balanced” followed by the word “budget”. They have no intention of undoing the massive spending increases that have occurred since they took majority control of the House and Senate in January 2007. They have no intention of balancing the budget.

Just more taxes and more spending.

=============================================

Total income tax share (percentage):

In 1986 (the 6th year of Ronald Reagan Presidency), the top 10% paid a Total Income Tax share of 54.69%

In 1989 (1st Year of George H. W. Bush Presidency), the top 10% paid a Total Income Tax share of 55.78%

In 1993 (1st Year of Bill Clinton Presidency), the top 10% paid a Total Income Tax share of 59.24%

In 1997 (5th Year of Bill Clinton Presidency), the top 10% paid a Total Income Tax share of 63.20%

In 2001 (1st Year of George W. Bush Presidency), the top 10% paid a Total Income Tax share of 64.89%

In 2005 (5th Year of George W. Bush Presidency), the top 10% paid a Total Income Tax share of 70.30%

In 2009 (1st Year of Barack Obama Presidency), the top 10% paid a Total Income Tax share of 70.47%

Check the IRS numbers yourself (start at cell F183 and go down the column).

=============================================

A “balanced approach” does not mean constantly shifting more and more of the tax burden onto 10% of our citizens.

A “balanced approach” would begin by cutting spending back to the levels of the FY 2004 budget that was passed by a Republican House, Republican Senate, and Republican President.

A “balanced approach” would make the Bush Tax Cuts permanent, since revenues went UP each year for four straight years after the passage of the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts. Raising tax rates now will LOWER revenue, not raise it. Higher tax rates will mean more people unemployed and less total income tax revenue collected.

ITguy on December 11, 2012 at 11:40 PM

Have Boehner call O’bilgerats bluff.

Suggest a tax cut for the middle class. Tax rates the same for the >250K. Whopping tax raise for Buffet.

It’s not like O’bitumous has even the slightest interest in helping this country. He is trying to bankrupt it. The sooner we hit rock bottom, the sooner we can recover.

Let it burn. But feed the fire.

WryTrvllr on December 12, 2012 at 12:08 AM

bituminous

WryTrvllr on December 12, 2012 at 12:08 AM

Seems like this entire charade (including O’s relection) could have been avoided if the GOP LOSERship just didn’t bite on kicking the Bush tax cuts can down the road. Good chance they’d all be looking for a job right now… Just saying…

drfredc on December 12, 2012 at 12:59 AM

Why does Obama need $1.4 Trillion? Didn’t he end Bush’s unfunded wars?

ctmom on December 12, 2012 at 7:47 AM

Why does Obama need $1.4 Trillion? Didn’t he end Bush’s unfunded wars?

ctmom on December 12, 2012 at 7:47 AM

Indeed.

In FY 2004 (October 1, 2003 – September 30, 2004), we were fighting in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and our TOTAL (on-budget + off-budget) outlays were $2.29 Trillion.

In FY 2011, revenues were $2.30 Trillion, and we could have had a budget surplus if the 2010 Democrat House, Democrat Senate, and Democrat President had passed a budget for FY 2011 and kept spending to the same $ amounts as the Republican House, Republican Senate, and Republican President did in the FY 2004 budget.

Instead, FY 2011 actual outlays were over 57% bigger than FY 2004 outlays… an increase of $1.31 Trillion to a total of $3.60 Trillion.

And that $1.31 Trillion Democrat increase in spending meant that instead of having a $0.01 Trillion surplus in FY 2011, we had a $1.30 Trillion deficit.

The problem is NOT revenues, which went UP after the passage of the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts.

The problem is spending.

Let’s start by cutting the over $1.3 Trillion that Democrats have added to spending.

ITguy on December 12, 2012 at 8:14 AM