Orszag: Yeah, the White House has less leverage in the spending fight now

posted at 11:21 am on January 3, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

As I wrote earlier this week, the fiscal-cliff deal was mostly a win for Barack Obama, but only a temporary victory fought on one issue.  By delinking the tax debate from the spending debate and keeping the debt limit out of the fiscal-cliff deal, Republicans at least allowed themselves the chance to fight another day for spending cuts and entitlement reform.  Whether they can successfully negotiate real reform is another question, of course, but even Obama’s former OMB director acknowledges that the White House now has significantly less leverage to prevent budget reform now that taxes are off the table.  Peter Orszag tells CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin that Obama may have won the week but lost the quarter by agreeing to that split (via the RNC):

SORKIN: But you know the president. The president said that he will not negotiate for example on the debt ceiling. This is a nonstarter. Is that a nonstarter or is that the beginning of a negotiation?

ORSZAG: Well I don’t know that that statement actually frankly matters that much. Because they’re going to have to negotiate over replacing the – you know the sequester was only delayed by two months. So you’re going to have to negotiate over that. You’re going to have to negotiate over the appropriations bill for the funding the daily operations of the government. So if you’re negotiating over those things, and the debt limit’s kind of thrown in, you can say you’re not negotiating over the debt limit but there will be negotiations in February and March.

SORKIN: Who’s got the leverage in all this? I mean when you look back at what just happened over the past three days do you say the Democrats won? Do you say the Republicans won?

ORSZAG: I think — my own perspective at least is I think the White House in this second best world won that round, but they, by not insisting that the debt limit be tied that to the package, it’s entirely possible they’re going to win the week and lose the quarter. And we’ll see, you can’t – you don’t know yet until you see how February and March plays out, and I think there’s no doubt that they have somewhat less leverage than they did in the round just completed.

This is why liberals were not entirely happy with the outcome of the fiscal cliff deal, either.  While Democrats had the political advantage on the “fairness” issue on taxes, Republicans almost certainly have an advantage when it comes to federal spending, at least in principle.  And now that the Republicans gave way on taxes, there will be more political pressure for Democrats to demonstrate moderation by agreeing to some meaningful reforms on spending.  That doesn’t mean that Harry Reid will accommodate that in the Senate, but it gives Republicans an advantage if and when it comes down to a government shutdown over the debt limit and spending approvals — especially since Reid and his Democratic majority in the Senate hasn’t passed a normal budget in almost four years.


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

By delinking the tax debate from the spending debate and keeping the debt limit out of the fiscal-cliff deal, Republicans at least allowed themselves the chance to fight another day for spending cuts and entitlement reform.

Pay close attention: notice how the conservative says “entitlement reform,” not “entitlement elimination.”

Dante on January 3, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Neal Boortz for Speaker.
http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2013/jan/03/if-i-were-speaker-house/

Lay the cards out on the table for the American people to judge. Talk over the media.

onlineanalyst on January 3, 2013 at 11:24 AM

…By delinking the tax debate from the spending debate and keeping the debt limit out of the fiscal-cliff deal, Republicans at least allowed themselves the chance to fight fold/surrender/cave another day…

FIFY

Liam on January 3, 2013 at 11:28 AM

There is no doubt in my mind that the GOP will screw this up. Royally.

Mr. Arrogant on January 3, 2013 at 11:29 AM

Obama just won his re-election. He’s got his big speech coming up to the nation later this month.
After that, the party will begin to sizzle. Reality sets back in.

We’re in the midst of the left celebrating and pushing their so called mandate, but reality has a way of catching back up. And Obama is not running again unless he deems it.

JellyToast on January 3, 2013 at 11:30 AM

Orszag: Yeah, the White House has less leverage in the spending fight now

Spending fight? What spending fight?

ShainS on January 3, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Pay close attention: notice how the conservative says “entitlement reform,” not “entitlement elimination.”

Dante on January 3, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Conservative, n: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others. Ambrose Bierce

Archivarix on January 3, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Time for hardball in the spending fight. Queue up some commercials with an Obama look-a-like pushing young adults off of a cliff.

WashJeff on January 3, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Prepare for the Democrat parade of victims who will starve in the streets if the evil Republicans don’t allow more spending.

RedRedRice on January 3, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Totally o/t, but pretty awesome and MKH will love the first pic:

Je t’aime Bacon! The Bacon Eiffel Tower…and More Foodie Fabus

My fave’s Saint Basil’s, but the London skyline made of veggies is purty kewl, too.

Resist We Much on January 3, 2013 at 11:35 AM

Just watch to see if bho gets on AF1 daily going to various states to get his face before the public to stir up support for anything he wants? bho said he planned to do this because this has worked for him in the past! bho just can not stand to be in dc! bho has to spend millions more on his leaving jetting around the US!
L

letget on January 3, 2013 at 11:35 AM

And now that the Republicans gave way on taxes, there will be more political pressure for Democrats to demonstrate moderation by agreeing to some meaningful reforms on spending.

Where will this pressure come from?

Night Owl on January 3, 2013 at 11:35 AM

Prepare for the Democrat parade of victims who will starve in the streets if the evil Republicans don’t allow more spending.

RedRedRice on January 3, 2013 at 11:33 AM

A lot of those victims could use some starvation…

Archivarix on January 3, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Wise Indian chief say: Never trust man who wears dead muskrat on head.

Travis Bickle on January 3, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Totally o/t, but pretty awesome and MKH will love the first pic:

Je t’aime Bacon! The Bacon Eiffel Tower…and More Foodie Fabus

My fave’s Saint Basil’s, but the London skyline made of veggies is purty kewl, too.

Resist We Much on January 3, 2013 at 11:35 AM

That stadium made of snacks is pretty awesome too. I got a panic attack just think about having enough people over to require something like that!

Totally OT: Can we, as citizens, sue Harry Reid for not producing a budget? I’m just curious.

Night Owl on January 3, 2013 at 11:39 AM

This should be interesting. Personally, I always thought the debt ceiling was the worst hostage ever given the global implications. You get the IMF, the ECB, the credit agencies all of that, while for taxes and budgets, it’s more containable. If repubs think the kitchen was too hot too handle last week, just wait when you have Chinese starring you down on money you owe them.

keep in mind that: IT IS FOR THE PREVIOUS BILLS. Medicare, Wars,tax cuts, social programs liabilities, etc….

2 things:

1) Saw Schummer on Madow last night….their plan is “If Republicans walk in the room trying to negotiate the debt ceiling, we tell them: thank you for coming, but you can leave the room now” He said that Dems united in that plan. See what you learn by tripping? lol

2) Remember the campaign event he held at the WH?

The president warned Americans at a hastily assembled campaign-style event at the White House that conservatives would try to force him, as part of the upcoming standoff on raising the nation’s borrowing authority, to slash spending on programs Democrats support. If they want cuts, he added, Democrats would demand new revenues.

“If they think that’s going to be the formula for how we solve this thing, then they’ve got another thing coming,” he said.

PASS THE POPCORN!!!

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on January 3, 2013 at 11:41 AM

Totally OT: Can we, as citizens, sue Harry Reid for not producing a budget? I’m just curious.

Night Owl on January 3, 2013 at 11:39 AM

Unfortunately, I don’t think so. Impeachment is probably the only option and, of course, conviction/removal would go nowhere in Reid’s dictatorship, the Senate.

The stadium is awesome.

Resist We Much on January 3, 2013 at 11:43 AM

After reading this WaPo analysis, and some of the disgruntled lib commenters, I can’t help but hope that Obama and his minions were so fixed on the goal of getting Republicans to break their no-tax-increase pledges that they’ve backed themselves into a corner.

Drained Brain on January 3, 2013 at 11:44 AM

PASS THE POPCORN!!!

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on January 3, 2013 at 11:41 AM

Well, I think the R’s have done as much tax increasing as they are willing to do. We’ll see.

Night Owl on January 3, 2013 at 11:44 AM

Well, I think the R’s have done as much tax increasing as they are willing to do. We’ll see.

Night Owl on January 3, 2013 at 11:44 AM

Republicans have never cut spending or lowered taxes. They love spending and taxes just as much as the other wing of the Establishment War Party does.

Dante on January 3, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Republicans have never cut spending or lowered taxes. They love spending and taxes just as much as the other wing of the Establishment War Party does.

Dante on January 3, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Republicans have never lowered taxes?

See Calvin Coolidge, Ronald Reagan, and George W Bush…for 3.

Resist We Much on January 3, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Republicans have never cut spending or lowered taxes. They love spending and taxes just as much as the other wing of the Establishment War Party does.

Dante on January 3, 2013 at 11:47 AM

If just being in DC is what causes this problem, wouldn’t it follow that the people you think should lead us will fall prey to the same problem?

Night Owl on January 3, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Does anybody really expect the GOP to win this battle? There have been no signs of it since 2008. They have not schooled themselves one bit on how to beat Obama. They use the same failed tactics and consultants. I certainly hope they do. Boehner is so uninspiring on so many levels.

Charm on January 3, 2013 at 11:53 AM

PASS THE POPCORN!!!

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on January 3, 2013 at 11:41 AM

I’m not sure which way you swing but if your hoping the R’s fall flat on their face in trying to negotiate spending cuts, your probably going to want extra butter on that popcorn.

[sigh]

WisRich on January 3, 2013 at 11:54 AM

That will only work if the GOP has a house leader who is a tough guy and not a fold guy.

William Eaton on January 3, 2013 at 11:55 AM

Republicans have never cut spending or lowered taxes. They love spending and taxes just as much as the other wing of the Establishment War Party does.

Dante on January 3, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Just a little history lesson:

* Tax rates were massively increased in 1917 on all income levels.

* 1918 saw another increase in all rates.

* The 1920s started with extremely high tax rates and an economic depression.

* Real GNP fell every year from 1919 to 1921 with a total fall of 16% over that three-year period.

* GNP declined 6.9%.

* 18% deflation.

* Wholesale prices fell by 36.8% (the worst since the Revolutionary War and worse than any year during the Great Depression).

* Unemployment spiked to 11.7%.

* The stock market fell by 47%.

* Business bankruptcies tripled.

* Business profits fell by 75%.

* Automobile production declined by 60%.

* Total industrial production declined by 30%.

HARDING AND COOLIDGE CUT TAXES (Revenue Acts of 1921, 1924, and 1926)

* The combined top marginal normal and surtax rate fell from 73% to 58% in 1922, and then to 50% in 1923 (income over $200,000).

* In 1924, the top tax rate fell to 46% (income over $500,000).

* The top rate was just 25% (income over $100,000) from 1925 to 1928, and then fell to 24% in 1929.

* The GNP averaged 7% from 1924 to 1929.

* Between 1922 and 1929, real GNP grew at an annualised rate of 4.7% and the unemployment rate fell from 6.7% to 3.2%.

* Between 1922 and 1928, the average income for those earning more than $100,000 increased by 15%, but the number of “rich” quadrupled.

* In the same period, the number of taxpayers earning between $10,000 and $100,000 increased by a staggering 84% and the number of taxpayers reporting income of less than $10,000 fell.

* Unemployment fell by more than 50% and by 1923, unemployment was 2.4%.

But tax rates are only part of the story. Tax cuts increase revenue. Spending more than total tax receipts will always lead to deficits. Harding and Coolidge understood that government spending retards growth, so:

* Harding cut spending, which was $6.3 billion in 1920, to $3.2 billion in 1922.

* In 1920, the national debt was $25,952,456,406.16.

* In 1928, the national debt was $17,604,293,201.43.

* Even though tax rates were cut, the national debt decreased by $8,348,163,204.73 or 47.42%.

* Income increased, especially for the lowest tax brackets.

Resist We Much on January 3, 2013 at 11:55 AM

I took a lot of abuse (and gave soome too) over the weekend on taxes. Looks like I am going to get to say I told you so. Now I will go farther. What you fanatics fail to see is that while spedning wasn’t addressed Obama actually lost on taxes. He wanted 1.6 trillion; Boehner was willing to give 800 billion; and the deal only gave $600 billion. Obama could have let all the tax rates revert if he wanted to. He is the one who caved not Boehner.

I would like to suggest that this a marginal win for the Republicans. Now that the tax fight is over Congress has to work on spending and the public is more aligned with the Republicans on this than the they are with Obama.

The idea that you could work a a comprehensive agreement in the two weeks before Christmas was childish pipedream. But both bases are political children

jerryofva on January 3, 2013 at 12:01 PM

I want to remind everyone that in the Spring of 2011 when conservative members of the house were saying that a debt limit increase/spending cut ratio of 1:1 that was being discussed was not necessary because if the cuts were there then the money was immediately available. Remember that Jeb Hensarling? Somebody has that video.

By June they went silent. By the end of July Obama was threatening to withhold Social Security checks and thus was born the sequestration deal that came from the WH and was approved on a very bipartisan vote. That agreement turned into the fiscal cliff as parroted by the media and politicians.

You have almost squandered the entire 2010 election that gave you the house back. We are not going to take this any longer. Cut the damn spending! It is your last go ’round GOP house. If you fail I strongly suspect you will never hold a majority again.

DanMan on January 3, 2013 at 12:04 PM

By delinking the tax debate from the spending debate and keeping the debt limit out of the fiscal-cliff deal, Republicans at least allowed themselves the chance to fight another day for spending cuts and entitlement reform.

Hahaha, good one, Ed.

Kissmygrits on January 3, 2013 at 12:04 PM

If Boehner is re-elected?????

gop DEAD

DEAD DEAD DEAD DEAD DEAD DEAD DEAD DEAD DEAD DEADER!!!!

PappyD61 on January 3, 2013 at 12:09 PM

This is why liberals were not entirely happy with the outcome of the fiscal cliff deal, either.

lol…yeah sure….they’re just friggin’ heartbroken.

While Democrats had the political advantage on the “fairness” issue on taxes, Republicans almost certainly have an advantage when it comes to federal spending, at least in principle.

Hilarious!!

Kindly name one person in GOP a “Leadership” position with principles.

And now that the Republicans gave way on taxes, there will be more political pressure for Democrats to demonstrate moderation by agreeing to some meaningful reforms on spending.

Pressure by whom?…The MSM? GOP Leadership? – Yeah…I’ll hold my breath.

WTF has happened to you? There was a time that you knew better than this.

Tim_CA on January 3, 2013 at 12:11 PM

Rush is back !

Mr. Arrogant on January 3, 2013 at 12:11 PM

By delinking the tax debate from the spending debate and keeping the debt limit out of the fiscal-cliff deal, Republicans at least allowed themselves the chance to fight another day for spending cuts and entitlement reform.

I think this misses the real point. The GOP should have never allowed themselves to be maneuvered into a manufactured “fiscal cliff” crisis in the waning hours of the 112th Congress. They should have never adopted the rat-eared wonder’s words about “raising taxes on the rich” instead of talking about punishing success. They should have passed Simpson-Bowles a couple of months ago and wished their Senate colleagues happy holidays. But most importantly, the House GOP negotiations should never have been the cozy little group it became instead of Boehner putting the whole thing through the committees as it rightfully should occurred.

If the GOP wants to re-strategize and start winning these confrontations again, the leadership vote really is a no-Boehner.

Happy Nomad on January 3, 2013 at 12:17 PM

At the very least the “rich paying their fair share” is no longer a talking point for Obama. The gop must hammer spending now and remind everyone how much taxes have already been raised.

Ellis on January 3, 2013 at 12:18 PM

Mr. Arrogant on January 3, 2013 at 12:11 PM

YES he is and great to have him back! He isn’t all that thrilled with the dc bunch is he?
L

letget on January 3, 2013 at 12:18 PM

How is it that the left still -$16T in debt- cannot acknowledge that budget reform is both needed, and would be a win for anyone willing to engage in it? Shameful.

BKeyser on January 3, 2013 at 12:18 PM

Jeeze Ed, you’re delusional if you think there’s any pressure on Obama regarding the debt.

Hey everybody, in a month or two, get ready to hear a lot of, “This isn’t the hill to die on” crap.

Dongemaharu on January 3, 2013 at 12:20 PM

Resist We Much on January 3, 2013 at 11:55 AM

Some tax rates may be cut, but taxes can still increase. All you’ve mentioned are top tax rates.

Tax cuts increase revenue.

Revenue = taxes.

Dante on January 3, 2013 at 12:25 PM

The Congress and Senate need to go back to televised floor debates on every bill they vote on. Every state should be represented on the record. No more closed door negotiations with controlled leaked information to the media. I hope Boehner was serious when he said he would no longer have one-on-one negotiations with Obama. The Democrats only agenda is to destroy the Republican Party.

By the way, I hope all the middle and lower class liberals who Obama promised no tax increases are happy with their next paycheck.

lea on January 3, 2013 at 12:26 PM

If repubs think the kitchen was too hot too handle last week, just wait when you have Chinese starring you down on money you owe them.

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on January 3, 2013 at 11:41 AM

I have no idea what you’re talking about. We’re going to borrow from the Chinese to pay them interest on what we owe them?

Why don’t we cut spending, don’t raise the debt ceiling and still pay the Chinese what we owe.

darwin on January 3, 2013 at 12:29 PM

I hope Boehner was serious when he said he would no longer have one-on-one negotiations with Obama.

lea on January 3, 2013 at 12:26 PM

Since he made the same “promise” when he took the speaker’s seat….what do you honestly think the odds are this time?

Boner has to go.

Tim_CA on January 3, 2013 at 12:29 PM

The GOP’s to do list:

1) Only raise the debt limit if the President agrees, as he has previously done, to the “chained CPI” on SS and some modest changes to Medicare. Get at least $1T.

2) Let the sequester happen, the Dept. of Defense has got to be able to streamline some of th eprograms and find the savings. to not do so would be an admission that they are as waistful as the rest of the government.

3) Get a guarantee the Senate will pass a budget. This will change the baseline going forward.

Tater Salad on January 3, 2013 at 12:30 PM

Sorry; so long as Boehner is speaker and the GOP have no balls, the WH has all the leverage it needs.

Midas on January 3, 2013 at 12:31 PM

I hope Boehner was serious when he said he would no longer have one-on-one negotiations with Obama.

lea on January 3, 2013 at 12:26 PM

Pfft. Big deal. Let me know when he says he’ll have no negotiations with Obama.

Dante on January 3, 2013 at 12:34 PM

At the very least the “rich paying their fair share” is no longer a talking point for Obama.

Ellis on January 3, 2013 at 12:18 PM

You don’t know Obama very well, and haven’t been paying attention apparently.

What we just saw was, in Obama’s words, “the rich BEGIN to pay their fair share”… see, we’re not there yet. And we still have all of those ‘millionaires and billionaires’ – you know, the ones that earn $250k – that have yet to BEGIN to pay their fair share yet…

You haven’t seen the last of this talking point, bub.

Midas on January 3, 2013 at 12:35 PM

Ed, I tend to agree with you on this; how’s Obama going to ask for more taxes with any credibility after his current victory lap he has taken.

All future negotiations need to be on spending, not taxes.

Tater Salad on January 3, 2013 at 12:35 PM

After reading this WaPo analysis, and some of the disgruntled lib commenters, I can’t help but hope that Obama and his minions were so fixed on the goal of getting Republicans to break their no-tax-increase pledges that they’ve backed themselves into a corner.

Drained Brain on January 3, 2013 at 11:44 AM

They were, and they didn’t even get that. The Tea Party conservatives still voted against the tax increase and it passed with mostly Democrat votes in the House.

So, to recap, Obama got only half the new revenues he was insisting on from Election Day right up to 3 days ago, and he didn’t make most of the House Republicans vote for it. And he got no coupling with a debt ceiling increase and still has to fix the sequestration and figure out how to avoid another credit downgrade.

I’m scratching my head wondering why people are calling this a huge defeat for Republicans.

rockmom on January 3, 2013 at 12:36 PM

This line of thought is predicated on two things:

1. That Obama actually plays by some sort of rules. Excuse me while I snicker.

2. That the Repubs can muster up a pair between themselves. Not likely.

Both sides of Congress like bringing home the bacon. The Repubs may not be in love with entitlements like the Dems but they fear voting against them will bite them in the ballot. They are weak on this and that essentially makes the ‘Pubs and Dems two sides of the same coin.

Unfortunately the average voter will not be aware of how disastrous this spending problem is until it literally hits home. Which will, of course be a little late.

ghostwalker1 on January 3, 2013 at 12:36 PM

You haven’t seen the last of this talking point, bub.

Midas on January 3, 2013 at 12:35 PM

I agree he will TRY to make it a talking point, it’s just going to be much harder to do while he is taking his victory lap. The GOP needs to seize on his “Mission Accomplished” moment.

Tater Salad on January 3, 2013 at 12:37 PM

I took a lot of abuse (and gave soome too) over the weekend on taxes. Looks like I am going to get to say I told you so. Now I will go farther. What you fanatics fail to see is that while spedning wasn’t addressed Obama actually lost on taxes. He wanted 1.6 trillion; Boehner was willing to give 800 billion; and the deal only gave $600 billion. Obama could have let all the tax rates revert if he wanted to. He is the one who caved not Boehner.

I would like to suggest that this a marginal win for the Republicans. Now that the tax fight is over Congress has to work on spending and the public is more aligned with the Republicans on this than the they are with Obama.

The idea that you could work a a comprehensive agreement in the two weeks before Christmas was childish pipedream. But both bases are political children

jerryofva on January 3, 2013 at 12:01 PM

This was never about the money. $80B/yr is peanuts relative to our spending and debt. The GOP lost because they failed to make a case to the American people why Obama is wrong on the purpose of, and need for, this tax increase. American’s now incorrectly believe the rich should pay a little bit more, and that will solve our problems.

This issue is about the effect of tax rate increases on behavior. If you want less of something then we know instinctively to tax it. That is why it makes so little sense to increase tax rates on the job providers. We don’t want less of them. They could have achieved the same tax revenue targets by closing other loopholes. The close-loophole approach would have incentivised the behaviors we desired, which is to make wise business decisions, and de-incentivised the behaviors we don’t desire, which is for the government to meddle by selectively handing out tax incentives which skews the market.

STL_Vet on January 3, 2013 at 12:39 PM

Boehner has a chance to redeem some credibilty if he will carve out all of the BS in the Sandy relief bill.

Tater Salad on January 3, 2013 at 12:39 PM

I’m scratching my head wondering why people are calling this a huge defeat for Republicans.

rockmom on January 3, 2013 at 12:36 PM

It may be sinking in. Between the media poking the hornets nest and our echo chamber here we tend to get a littled side tracked somethimes. Yes, I’m guilty too.

DanMan on January 3, 2013 at 12:40 PM

What we just saw was, in Obama’s words, “the rich BEGIN to pay their fair share”… see, we’re not there yet. And we still have all of those ‘millionaires and billionaires’ – you know, the ones that earn $250k – that have yet to BEGIN to pay their fair share yet…

You haven’t seen the last of this talking point, bub.

Midas on January 3, 2013 at 12:35 PM

If he tries to run an election-style campaign calling people who make $250,000 – 400,000 millionaires and billionaires, even the liberal media will laugh at him. And if he proposes more rate increases on the top bracket, everyone will ask why he didn’t call for that to begin with. I also don’t see any Democrats on the Hill spoiling for another fight on taxes, except maybe Harry Reid, and he is the biggest loser of all right now.

rockmom on January 3, 2013 at 12:40 PM

At the very least the “rich paying their fair share” is no longer a talking point for Obama.

Ellis on January 3, 2013 at 12:18 PM

How can it be? Here’s staunch conservative Senator Tom Coburn:

“The characterization is no matter where we raise taxes, what’s going to happen wit the money? We’re going to grow the government with it. We’re not going to reduce the deficit, because we refused to solve the bigger problems like saving Medicare, insuring Social Security Disability (SSI). We’re not going to use that money to do anything except continue to grow the government.

So, the characterization is that we’re wanting to protect — what we’re wanting to do is to make sure we have a dynamic economy. And I have no problems, I’ve been out there for a long time with saying those who are making more ought to contribute more, but where does that money go?”

Notice the lie regarding taxation as a “contribution” instead of theft.

Dante on January 3, 2013 at 12:40 PM

Grow some gonads GOP, Obama can’t spend what you don’t give him.

Tater Salad on January 3, 2013 at 12:41 PM

If he tries to run an election-style campaign calling people who make $250,000 – 400,000 millionaires and billionaires, even the liberal media will laugh at him.

rockmom on January 3, 2013 at 12:40 PM

Not to sound like an ass….but do you read much?

Has the MSM EVER laughed at the idea?

Please…don’t kid yourself (you sound like Ed).

Tim_CA on January 3, 2013 at 12:44 PM

Every time he brings up tax increases the gop needs to remind him, and the media and public, that he already got those and they are not part of the discussion. It is time to discuss spending and Obama now owns any economic issues that arise because he is not willing to negotiate the real issues of spending and entitlements. Will the gop manage this well, I have my doubts but they do have much more leverage and need to not even acknowledge tax increase talk. I wish I could negotiate the chump because everytime he brought up taxes I would just say you already got your tax increases, now back to spending and entitlements.

Ellis on January 3, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Boehner has a chance to redeem some credibilty if he will carve out all of the BS in the Sandy relief bill.

Tater Salad on January 3, 2013 at 12:39 PM

Tater…the “BS” is pork to get the votes…he WILL NOT carve out any of it.

Tim_CA on January 3, 2013 at 12:47 PM

If he tries to run an election-style campaign calling people who make $250,000 – 400,000 millionaires and billionaires, even the liberal media will laugh at him.

rockmom on January 3, 2013 at 12:40 PM
Not to sound like an ass….but do you read much?

Has the MSM EVER laughed at the idea?

Please…don’t kid yourself (you sound like Ed).

Tim_CA on January 3, 2013 at 12:44 PM

For all who think Obama will come back for the $250,000 number on taxes, don’t hold your breath. A majority of his votes come from CA, MA, NY, NJ, MA and CT where $250,000 – $400,000 is middle class. The Senators in those states were the ones who were glad this was raised.

Tater Salad on January 3, 2013 at 12:48 PM

The crocodile has taken a big bite out of its prey, and here we are thinking that the second bite might be taken out of the crocodile.

Dream on. We had our chance to stick it to the Democrats — fracture them — with Plan B, but it didn’t gel. Now we are on defense for the next four years.

unclesmrgol on January 3, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Every time he brings up tax increases the gop needs to remind him, and the media and public, that he already got those and they are not part of the discussion. It is time to discuss spending and Obama now owns any economic issues that arise because he is not willing to negotiate the real issues of spending and entitlements.

Ellis on January 3, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Did you see the fiscal cliff bill? There was so much lard in it that everyone voting for it slipped and slid all the way to their desk.

Fat chance that any form of fiscal responsibility will return. We still have MILK SUBSIDIES, for cryin’ out loud!

unclesmrgol on January 3, 2013 at 12:51 PM

For all who think Obama will come back for the $250,000 number on taxes, don’t hold your breath. A majority of his votes come from CA, MA, NY, NJ, MA and CT where $250,000 – $400,000 is middle class. The Senators in those states were the ones who were glad this was raised.

Tater Salad on January 3, 2013 at 12:48 PM

lol…I’ll remind you about this in about 2 months…but your optimism is refreshing.

Unfounded…but refreshing.

Tim_CA on January 3, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Dante on January 3, 2013 at 12:25 PM

Under Harding and Coolidge…

Revenue Act of 1921: Rate cuts from 1921 to 1922

Revenue Act of 1924: 1925 rates, which you can compare to 1922 rates in 1921 Act link above.

Revenue Act of 1926: 1927 rates, which you can compare to 1925 rates in the 1924 Act link above.

Revenue does come from taxation, but it does not mean that taxes were raised. Harding and Coolidge cut taxes across-the-board and the economy exploded. More people became wealthy and America had a semblance of a middle class for the first time. A poor man might have been paying $28 on $700 of income or 4% under Wilson, but he very well may have seen his income rise to $8,000 under Coolidge. His tax bill would have increased to $400, but his income soared by 1,042.9%. So, his taxes only increased because he moved into a higher tax bracket. If his income remained the same, this his tax rate was reduced from 4% to ~1.4%. What would you have preferred?

Now, you were also saying something about Republicans never have cutting spending?

Reminder: Harding cut spending, which was $6.3 billion in 1920, to $3.2 billion in 1922.

Resist We Much on January 3, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Dante on January 3, 2013 at 12:25 PM

Just to be clear, I am in no way defending the Republican party. Instead, I am merely stating the truth. The historical record does not support your claim that “Republicans have never reduced taxes or spending.”

You were all upset yesterday that I made the erroneous assumption that you were a libertarian because anarcho-capitalism is a form of libertarianism. I stand corrected by you. You are just an “anarcho-capitalist” and I have offered my apologies and sloppy smooches; however, if I must be “corrected,” then so must you.

Resist We Much on January 3, 2013 at 1:07 PM

If he tries to run an election-style campaign calling people who make $250,000 – 400,000 millionaires and billionaires, even the liberal media will laugh at him.

rockmom on January 3, 2013 at 12:40 PM

Why? He’s been calling individuals making $200,000 and couples earning $250,000 “millionaires and billionaires” since he declared his candidacy in February, 2007. The assh0le media didn’t laugh at him between then and yesterday, when he signed the “fiscal cliff” legislation.

Resist We Much on January 3, 2013 at 1:11 PM

You are dreaming you think the current leadership will do anything short of talk talk and then assist the Dems in bending US all over the barrel, well at least the part of US that still try to work for a living.

If the Repubs were serious they would pass a BALANCED budget first NOW slashing and burning everything short SS (specifically SS for the elderly). Make O reject then counter, stand strong, shut the whole think down by defaulting if they cannot match a balanced budget or accept your balanced budget. By the way for the slow you cannot pay off a deficit if you don’t first balance (aka make enough to pay your current bills).

We are borrowing 40 cents on every dollar every moron even the worthless on welfare understand that is not sustainable (they just plan on gettin dersz firh).

The idea repubs cannot explain the idiocy of borrowing 40cents on every dollar they are worthless.

C-Low on January 3, 2013 at 1:42 PM

By delinking the tax debate from the spending debate and keeping the debt limit out of the fiscal-cliff deal, Republicans at least allowed themselves the chance to fight another day for spending cuts and entitlement reform.

Pay close attention: notice how the conservative says “entitlement reform,” not “entitlement elimination.”

Dante on January 3, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Entitlement elimination? We’re so far from a discussion of entitlement elimination that it’s absurd to even bring it up. But if it ever does happen, it will take the path of multiple entitlement reforms first before entitlement elimination could even be discussed. The only reasonable discussion at this point is to push limited entitlement reforms, which will be hard enough.

tom on January 3, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Resist We Much on January 3, 2013 at 11:55 AM

Some tax rates may be cut, but taxes can still increase. All you’ve mentioned are top tax rates.

Tax cuts increase revenue.

Revenue = taxes.

Dante on January 3, 2013 at 12:25 PM

Are you like those reporters who still can’t grasp that a business can make more money by lowering their prices.

tom on January 3, 2013 at 1:57 PM

. . . . . the characterization is that we’re wanting to protect — what we’re wanting to do is to make sure we have a dynamic economy. And I have no problems, … I’ve been out there for a long time with saying those who are making more ought to contribute more, … but where does that money go?”
.
Notice the lie regarding taxation as a “contribution” instead of theft.
.
Dante on January 3, 2013 at 12:40 PM

.
There’s got to be some way those two emboldened lines don’t contradict … but I haven’t found it, yet.

listens2glenn on January 3, 2013 at 2:45 PM

PASS THE POPCORN!!!

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on January 3, 2013 at 11:41 AM

…NO THANKS!…we all know it pops out of your A$$…!

KOOLAID2 on January 3, 2013 at 2:55 PM

Dante on January 3, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Dante on January 3, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Dante on January 3, 2013 at 12:25 PM

Dante on January 3, 2013 at 12:34 PM

Dante on January 3, 2013 at 12:40 PM

.
Ron Paul still isn’t the best choice for POTUS.

listens2glenn on January 3, 2013 at 3:10 PM

Do not go after social security and medicare at this point… Go after the Welfare State and the parasites who are living by the taxpayers money… Republicans should make the Welfare queens parasite the face of the democrat party and ask the voters if they want their tax money to go to her… Rile up the emotions of the voters… Nothing will rile up the producers than going after the Welfare state and its parasites… Also go after non essential government agencies and department such as the EPA, the department of Labor, Housing and Urban developement department, Human and health services, Energy department, etc…

mnjg on January 3, 2013 at 4:02 PM

After reading this WaPo analysis, and some of the disgruntled lib commenters, I can’t help but hope that Obama and his minions were so fixed on the goal of getting Republicans to break their no-tax-increase pledges that they’ve backed themselves into a corner.Drained Brain on January 3, 2013 at 11:44 AM

Nah. This is their version of Br’er Rabbit and the briar patch. The GOPe will fall for it and give the Donks the raised debt ceiling with new pork thrown in as a bonus.

AH_C on January 3, 2013 at 6:08 PM

By delinking the tax debate from the spending debate and keeping the debt limit out of the fiscal-cliff deal, Republicans at least allowed themselves the chance to fight another day for spending cuts and entitlement reform.

And it is only this sort of posting by Mr. Morrissey that keeps me viewing this site. That is exactly correct. All the time people were yelling and hollering at Boehner, he was actually playing this in a pretty smart way. He knew the Democrats would have some momentum coming out of a successful election cycle and he knew they had the most momentum on a “tax the rich” issue. So he managed to cut that issue out by itself AND push the Democrats back ($400K rather than $250K)while at the same time preserving the Bush tax cuts permanently for most people. AND, the Republicans can also restore those cuts for the upper brackets at some later time when the political winds change.

Boehner played this about as well as he could have under the circumstances, salvaged two of the three major points to be fought another day, and stemmed the Democrat advance on the one front where he decided to fight.

This was actually VERY smartly played, politically. Republicans have maintained their leverage for the debt ceiling and budget continuing resolution issue.

Unemployment is now going to become a huge issue. The end of 2012 was kind of a fluke in that we had political campaigns hiring thousands of temporary workers and as that was winding down, we had the hiring season for Christmas temps. Amazon alone hired 50,000 temporary workers over the holidays. Those jobs go away now. Because of Obamacare mandates, those layoffs are happening at the same time that small businesses are laying off or cutting back hours. We are going to see hundreds of thousands of people without jobs in February that were working in December. Things may take on a different political shine by then.

crosspatch on January 3, 2013 at 6:21 PM