Video: Senate Dems to announce sequester-replacement plan today

posted at 9:21 am on February 14, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

So what will this new plan for deficit reduction look like?  Ten years of cuts get turned into ten months of tax hikes and cuts in equal measure. The tax hikes in the plan equal that gained by Barack Obama in the January standoff for the rest of this year.  The cuts fall mainly in defense spending and agricultural subsidies. Will that fly?  Only like the domesticated turkey that it is:

CBS News has learned that the Senate Democrats’ long-awaited plan to avert the sequester, being announced by Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash, Thursday, would replace the 10-year sequester for the rest of 2013 — 10 months — with $120 billion in spending cuts and new tax revenue, split 50-50.

Most of the revenue would come from implementing what’s known as the Buffett Rule, named after investor Warren Buffett. The rule would cap deductions and loopholes for millionaires so they pay at least 30 percent of their salary in taxes. Senate Democrats tried and failed to pass the Buffett Rule last year.

The spending cuts would come from eliminating agriculture subsidies and from trimming the defense budget, though not as drastically as the sequester would.

Republicans have said all along that they will not provide any more revenue in a sequestration replacement. They provided Obama with $60 billion in new annual revenue already (at least in static-analysis terms) in the New Year’s Day fiscal cliff deal, with almost nothing in spending cuts. Furthermore, they don’t have to do anything.  They can just stand pat and wait for the sequester to hit, and they get their spending cuts — actually, just cuts in the rate of spending increases — without having to hike taxes any further, especially for a new version of the AMT that Congress just finally fixed after more than four decades of having to deal with its ill-considered structure.

And if Democrats really wanted to tempt Republicans, the cuts would have come from somewhere other than defense.  Given a choice between tough cuts to the Pentagon and no tax hikes, or slightly-less tough cuts and taking another $60 billion a year out of this foundering economy, most Republicans will choose the former over the latter.

Besides, the Senate has to pass its version first.  Boehner has made it clear that he won’t be negotiating outside of normal order this year.  Let the Senate try pushing through the second tax hike of the year, and let the House pass its own version of sequester replacement, and then a conference committee can negotiate as the system is designed.  Until the Senate actually acts to pass budgets, this is nothing more than a press release.


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

Prediction: If Obama uses the word “balanced”, it will NOT be followed by the word “budget”.

If Obama uses the word “balanced”, it will be in combination with the word “approach”, or “way”, and what he really means is that he wants more tax hikes and no real cuts to spending. When he talks about “cuts”, he will talk about them over a 10 year time period (even though he is forbidden by the Constitution from serving past January 20, 2017, less than four years from now), and he will be talking about cuts to baseline increases (which means they aren’t real cuts at all).

ITguy on February 12, 2013 at 2:02 PM

That wasn’t very hard to predict, and here is Obama’s one and only use of the word “balanced” in his State of the Union 2013 speech…

broad-based economic growth requires a balanced approach to deficit reduction, with spending cuts and revenue, and with everybody doing their fair share. And that’s the approach I offer tonight.

He has no interest in a balanced budget. His interest is in Socialist taxation policies to force some pay more (what he considers their “fair share”) while he redistributes their wealth to others (“spread the wealth around”).

Obama, as both Senator and pResident, has been a part of the Democrat majorities that are now responsible for the SIX BIGGEST DEFICITS IN U.S. HISTORY (FY 2008 – 2013, and Democrats have held 2+ of the House, Senate, and Presidency all six of those years).

ITguy on February 14, 2013 at 9:24 AM

How could anyone be against “revenue” and a “balanced approach”?

forest on February 14, 2013 at 9:27 AM

Only in Washington can “across the board cuts” means you leave entitlements alone and make 50% of those cuts in the military.

matd on February 14, 2013 at 9:27 AM

I am sure the Democrats will eventually get around to a 75% tax on those evil rich folks. It’s working so well for France.

sharrukin on February 14, 2013 at 9:31 AM

I doubt the Dems even have enough votes in the Senate to pass this on a simple majority. The GOP will unanimously oppose it and I suspect there are at least 6 red state (farm state) Democrats that want nothing to do with this either.

LukeinNE on February 14, 2013 at 9:32 AM

No. What else ya got Patty?

DanMan on February 14, 2013 at 9:32 AM

CBS News has learned that the Senate Democrats’ long-awaited plan to avert the sequester, being announced by Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash, Thursday, would replace the 10-year sequester for the rest of 2013 — 10 months — with $120 billion in spending cuts and new tax revenue, split 50-50.

Most of the revenue would come from implementing what’s known as the Buffett Rule, named after investor Warren Buffett. The rule would cap deductions and loopholes for millionaires so they pay at least 30 percent of their salary in taxes. Senate Democrats tried and failed to pass the Buffett Rule last year.

Another $60 billion in tax hikes? Is that just for this year? Where the hell is that gonna come from? Not the Buffett Rule. Every analysis done on that farce has concluded it would net the government around $4 billion a year at best. They already taxed people making 400 grand or more. And they already ended the payroll tax holiday. Extended the 39.6% rate to people making 200 grand(as Obama originally wanted) would only net another $20 billion a year. That still leaves $40 billion they need to come up with.

Doughboy on February 14, 2013 at 9:33 AM

Are we talking millioniares or those making $250K? Nothing means what it used to anymore.

ctmom on February 14, 2013 at 9:33 AM

Are they serious? This is laughable

gophergirl on February 14, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Those obstructionist gop
-lsm

cmsinaz on February 14, 2013 at 9:36 AM

I am sure the Democrats will eventually get around to a 75% tax on those evil rich folks. It’s working so well for France.

sharrukin on February 14, 2013 at 9:31 AM

I wouldn’t be surprised if they went for 45-50%, possibly in this proposal. They can’t come up with $60 billion in new revenue unless they either soak the rich or drop the threshold to people making 100-150 grand a year. And that’s when they risk a slaughter in next year’s midterms. This is why we’ve been clamoring for the GOP to force the Dems to put any sort of budget proposal on record. Once that happens, even some low-information types will freak out from the details.

Doughboy on February 14, 2013 at 9:38 AM

Are we talking millioniares or those making $250K? Nothing means what it used to anymore.

ctmom on February 14, 2013 at 9:33 AM

Good point, what the hell is a millionaire? I’m guessing my dad (farmer) and mom (teacher) make somewhere in the neighborhood of $85,000 a year combined, but if we’re talking net worth, they’re north of $10 million because of farm land.

LukeinNE on February 14, 2013 at 9:39 AM

What are the chance that any of the news readers actually understand that there is NOTHING being cut other than the rate of GROWTH?

dirtseller on February 14, 2013 at 9:41 AM

…Duck the Femocrats!
.
.
OT/
.
.
HAPPY
VALENTINTINES
DAY!!!
TO
THE
LOVELIEST
WOMEN
IN
AMERICA!
.
.
THE HOT AIR GIRLS…!!!

XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOX

KOOLAID2 on February 14, 2013 at 9:43 AM

Remember when Democrats won the elections in 2006 and 2008 in large part by criticizing Republican deficits and promising to be fiscally responsible with A New Direction committed to “Pay As You Go” budgeting – no more deficit spending?

Over the past decade, the Republican controlled Congress took our nation in the wrong direction. Too many Americans are paying a heavy price for those wrong choices: record costs for energy, health care and education; jobs shipped overseas; and budgets that heap record debt on our children. For millions, the middle-class dream has been replaced by a middle-class squeeze…

Democrats are proposing a New Direction for America…

With integrity, civility and fiscal discipline, our New Direction for America will use commonsense principles to address the aspirations and fulfill the hopes and dreams of all Americans. That is our promise to the American people….

Our federal budget should be a statement of our national values. One of those values is responsibility. Democrats are committed to ending years of irresponsible budget policies that have produced historic deficits. Instead of piling trillions of dollars of debt onto our children and grandchildren, we will restore “Pay As You Go” budget discipline.

Budget discipline has been abandoned by the Bush Administration and its Republican congressional majorities. Congress under Republican control has turned a projected $5.6 trillion 10-year surplus at the end of the Clinton years into a nearly $3 trillion deficit– including the four worst deficits in the history of America. The nation’s debt ceiling has been raised four times in just five years to more than $8.9 trillion. Nearly half of our nation’s record debt is owned by foreign countries including China and Japan. Without a return to fiscal discipline, the foreign countries that make our computers, our clothing and our toys will soon be making our foreign policy. Deficit spending is not just a fiscal problem – it’s a national security issue as well.

Our New Direction is committed to “Pay As You Go” budgeting – no more deficit spending.

And Nancy Pelosi January 4, 2007 when she became Speaker of the House:

After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: pay-as-you-go, no new deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.

- New Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 01/04/2007

“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.

- Barack Obama July 3, 2008

The last Republican-majority budget (passed by a Republican House, Republican Senate, and signed by a Republican President) was passed in 2006 for Fiscal Year 2007 and resulted in a Fiscal Year deficit of less than $161 Billion. The total national debt at the end of FY 2007, on 09/30/2007, was $9,007,653,372,262.48 ($9 Trillion).

By the end of FY 2013 on 09/30/2013, after six straight years of Democrats holding the majority of power in the budgeting and spending process, the total national debt will be over $17 Trillion.

The Democrat majorities (including Obama as both Senator and pResident), have done the exact opposite of keeping their promises of fiscal discipline and “no more deficit spending”… they have created the 6 Biggest Deficits in US history, and will have added more than $8 Trillion to the total national debt (nearly doubling it from $9 Trillion to over $17 Trillion) in just 6 Fiscal Years (FY 2008-2013).

What started as promises of “no more deficit spending” (in 2006 and early 2007) turned into promises to “cut the deficit in half by the end of [Obama's] first term”, to now “Nothing I’m proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime”.

I.E.:
——————————————-
From 2006 & 2007 promises of “no more deficit spending”…
To 2009 promises to halve deficit spending by January 2013…
To February 2013 promises not to increase deficit spending…
…All while creating the six biggest deficits in U.S. history, with no end in sight.

ITguy on February 14, 2013 at 9:43 AM

I am sure the Democrats will eventually get around to a 75% tax on those evil rich folks. It’s working so well for France.

sharrukin on February 14, 2013 at 9:31 AM

I actually wouldn’t be surprised in the slightest.

You know who WOULD be surprised? Liberals. They assume everything will remain static when they raise taxes.

Washington Nearsider on February 14, 2013 at 9:44 AM

Aren’t there other cuts the Pentagon can make before going after ships in the freaking Persian Gulf?

ctmom on February 14, 2013 at 9:44 AM

Washington Nearsider on February 14, 2013 at 9:44 AM

Surprised by the resulting fall-out, that is.

Washington Nearsider on February 14, 2013 at 9:44 AM

ITguy
Good times

PAYGO yeah
———————

Right back at you koolaid2 :)

cmsinaz on February 14, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Pay no attention to the wildly spinning debt clock behind the curtain.

mchristian on February 14, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Another liberal economic band-aid worthless solution for an economic wound that needs major surgery.

rsherwd65 on February 14, 2013 at 9:47 AM

lol they will balance it with more taxes and not cuts. Fools if you think otherwise.

watertown on February 14, 2013 at 9:47 AM

I wouldn’t be surprised if they went for 45-50%, possibly in this proposal. They can’t come up with $60 billion in new revenue unless they either soak the rich or drop the threshold to people making 100-150 grand a year. And that’s when they risk a slaughter in next year’s midterms. This is why we’ve been clamoring for the GOP to force the Dems to put any sort of budget proposal on record. Once that happens, even some low-information types will freak out from the details.

Doughboy on February 14, 2013 at 9:38 AM

Won’t happen because the Democrats aren’t that stupid. They will lie, and lie, and lie, then blame Republicans who will trot out a few dingbats to say that they theoretically might support a 50% tax in the interest of bipartisanship. Then the GOP will retreat on that while the media runs around shrieking and flapping their arms about it. They might enact such taxes, but they won’t campaign on them.

Seriously I think the end of the money train is coming in the next few years. I just don’t see where it is going to come from.

sharrukin on February 14, 2013 at 9:48 AM

You know who WOULD be surprised? Liberals. They assume everything will remain static when they raise taxes.

Washington Nearsider on February 14, 2013 at 9:44 AM

Yup. They always expect that people will just calmly sit there while they loot their pockets and bank accounts.

What’s amusing is the outrage that the taxpayer doesn’t cooperate in their own mugging. Unpatriotic will get thrown around by folks who despise patriotism.

sharrukin on February 14, 2013 at 9:51 AM

lol they will balance it with more taxes and not cuts. Fools if you think otherwise.

watertown on February 14, 2013 at 9:47 AM

They might make the claim, but it cannot be balanced at the rate we are spending no matter how much they raise taxes.

mchristian on February 14, 2013 at 9:51 AM

Won’t happen because the Democrats aren’t that stupid.

sharrukin on February 14, 2013 at 9:48 AM

It’s not a matter of being stupid. The GOP is at the point where enough of them have had it with the endless continuing resolutions that even a wimp like Boehner has said he’s leaving it in the Dems’ hands to propose an actual budget before the debt ceiling expires in May.

Doughboy on February 14, 2013 at 9:51 AM

The Republicans will agree to most of any Democrat plan.
Thank you, Bend Over Boehner.

Current crop of Republicans like big govt. as mush as Democrats.

albill on February 14, 2013 at 9:54 AM

SEQUESTER ON!!

Bitter Clinger on February 14, 2013 at 9:56 AM

This is why we’ve been clamoring for the GOP to force the Dems to put any sort of budget proposal on record. Once that happens, even some low-information types will freak out from the details.

Doughboy on February 14, 2013 at 9:38 AM

yes x 1000

Harry Reid knows this and has played his hand well. Time for the house to call.

DanMan on February 14, 2013 at 9:56 AM

What’s amusing is the outrage that the taxpayer doesn’t cooperate in their own mugging. Unpatriotic will get thrown around by folks who despise patriotism.

sharrukin on February 14, 2013 at 9:51 AM

Yeah, the hard reality is that if you want to raise taxes and have the revenue from those taxes be halfway predictable, you have to raise income taxes on the middle class. I’m a single male in the 15% bracket. If they raised my top rate to 30%, I’d be mad as hell, but I wouldn’t stop working because a smaller paycheck is still better than no paycheck, food stamps and welfare.

That’s where we’re going, even though they’d never tell us that.

LukeinNE on February 14, 2013 at 9:57 AM

What’s amusing is the outrage that the taxpayer doesn’t cooperate in their own mugging. Unpatriotic will get thrown around by folks who despise patriotism.

sharrukin on February 14, 2013 at 9:51 AM

I love that part. Veep Biden already laid the ground work when he called paying taxes ‘patriotic.’

Of course, no one challenged him by asking if 47% of the nation are, by definition, unpatriotic…

Washington Nearsider on February 14, 2013 at 9:58 AM

The GOP is at the point where enough of them have had it with the endless continuing resolutions that even a wimp like Boehner has said he’s leaving it in the Dems’ hands to propose an actual budget before the debt ceiling expires in May.

Doughboy on February 14, 2013 at 9:51 AM

Yeah…sure.

I will believe that six months after I see it. The GOP has little credibility either in the department of courage, or in keeping their word. They talk a storm and rarely deliver.

sharrukin on February 14, 2013 at 9:59 AM

Patty Murray. ’nuff said.

Jabberwock on February 14, 2013 at 10:01 AM

Of course, no one challenged him by asking if 47% of the nation are, by definition, unpatriotic…

well if the election is an indicator I’d say it’s closer t 53%

DanMan on February 14, 2013 at 10:01 AM

I’m a single male in the 15% bracket. If they raised my top rate to 30%, I’d be mad as hell, but I wouldn’t stop working because a smaller paycheck is still better than no paycheck, food stamps and welfare.

That’s where we’re going, even though they’d never tell us that.

LukeinNE on February 14, 2013 at 9:57 AM

The rich have lawyers, assets overseas, assets in other forms, and can always leave if need be.

As you say the middle class can’t.

sharrukin on February 14, 2013 at 10:01 AM

gee..their solution is TAX HIKES and DEFENSE CUTS…….

how about NO? IT is time to bring this down and stand pat…enough of this BS…grow a spine and crash the system and start over….so tired of illegal aliens and lazy stupid americans living off the group of us who work and pay more and more taxes….let it fall….

SDarchitect on February 14, 2013 at 10:02 AM

Of course, no one challenged him by asking if 47% of the nation are, by definition, unpatriotic…

Washington Nearsider on February 14, 2013 at 9:58 AM

It’s unsustainable and I think they will have to print money in one form or another and even Trillion Dollar Coins will start looking good when they are facing no more cash for the leftist crowd.

sharrukin on February 14, 2013 at 10:03 AM

So this is FEbruary and this is the 2nd tax increase planned for 2013. Rs or Cons. need to keep reminding public every time dems propose a new tax. Every single bill with new revenues should have the word tax added to it.

earlgrey133 on February 14, 2013 at 10:04 AM

Another $60 billion in tax hikes? Is that just for this year? Where the hell is that gonna come from? Not the Buffett Rule. Every analysis done on that farce has concluded it would net the government around $4 billion a year at best. They already taxed people making 400 grand or more. And they already ended the payroll tax holiday. Extended the 39.6% rate to people making 200 grand(as Obama originally wanted) would only net another $20 billion a year. That still leaves $40 billion they need to come up with.

Doughboy on February 14, 2013 at 9:33 AM

It’s over 10 3/4 years (as I’m assuming that, like the Clinton tax hike, it will be retroactive to the beginning of the calendar year and scored through the end of FY2023). While it won’t be even a drop in the federal bucket, it will be another nut-shot to the economy.

Steve Eggleston on February 14, 2013 at 10:05 AM

$60B in revenue increases? Isn’t that what we spent on the Sandy porkfest that the majority of the Pugs voted for? Have to make it up somewhere I suppose…

Mr. Arrogant on February 14, 2013 at 10:05 AM

Msdnc already blaming gop for the sequester….the gop voted for it
….polls show gop will get the blame for the cuts (which skewed poll?)
Puhleeze

cmsinaz on February 14, 2013 at 10:05 AM

The Democrats look ridiculous. Sequester was a placation of the GOP/Tea Party to begin with, since they couldn’t agree to even reduce the rate of growth (much less just plain reduce) in spending, and so it’s no surprise the reality isn’t something they like very much. But, come on, some spending restraint (even a little bit) has got to be possible, for crying out loud!

MTF on February 14, 2013 at 10:06 AM

Already blaming gop for not giving more money to the children
awwwwww

cmsinaz on February 14, 2013 at 10:07 AM

“this is nothing more than a press release.” Perfect.

HiJack on February 14, 2013 at 10:07 AM

How could anyone be against “revenue” and a “balanced approach”?

forest on February 14, 2013 at 9:27 AM

Well, sequestration it is.

Revenue and balanced approach have been so over-used as dog whistles for “tax increases” and “more tax increases” that they are meaningless. The Dems have to fundamentally change their approach and propose something other than more taxation to be taken seriously and this Senate scheme is decidedly unserious.

Happy Nomad on February 14, 2013 at 10:07 AM

The funny (like a clown; related, I hate clowns) thing is the millionaires will already be paying more than 30% of their income in federal taxes.

Steve Eggleston on February 14, 2013 at 10:08 AM

Dems spinning this big time on lsm….

cmsinaz on February 14, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Aren’t there other cuts the Pentagon can make before going after ships in the freaking Persian Gulf?

ctmom on February 14, 2013 at 9:44 AM

For the Navy alone, sequestration includes-

Cancelling most of the Blue Angels apperances at air shows.
Cutting steaming and flight hours for ships and planes.
Cancelling CONUS exercises.
Furloughing civilian employees for 22 days.
deferring scheduled maintainence including that for two aircraft carriers.

Happy Nomad on February 14, 2013 at 10:12 AM

Steve Eggleston on February 14, 2013 at 10:05 AM

It’s all just political theater. I’d respect the Democrats more if they were proposing rate hikes for the whole country, the implementation of a VAT, etc, because at least then we’d know they were serious about debt reduction. Of course they know such a course of action would result in their party having a serious shortage of seats on Capitol Hill come January 2015, so instead we get this charade.

LukeinNE on February 14, 2013 at 10:12 AM

Dems spinning this big time on lsm….

cmsinaz on February 14, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Which means they think they will be crushed if sequestration comes to pass (which it will). Back in 2011 they were so sure that the GOP would cave by now that they thought they were pretty damned smart. Too bad reality had to kick in.

Happy Nomad on February 14, 2013 at 10:13 AM

” If they only had a brain ” the republicans would be out there screaming
from the rooftops , holding press conferences , getting face time on tv …
……. anything to expose these jokers for what they are .
Yes the naysayers will say it won’t get coverage but damn it , try .
Every day , every day , every day .
I’m tired of the defeatist attitude and the whining .
Stand up for the Constution !

Lucano on February 14, 2013 at 10:13 AM

KOOLAID2 on February 14, 2013 at 9:43 AM

Aw, thank you, Koolaid2! xoxox back at ya!

chelie on February 14, 2013 at 10:15 AM

These liberals and all these games they play remind me of North Korea. Same game, over and over….with no resolution in sight. Just more escalating madness.

search4truth on February 14, 2013 at 10:16 AM

For the Navy alone, sequestration includes-

Cancelling most of the Blue Angels apperances at air shows.
Cutting steaming and flight hours for ships and planes.
Cancelling CONUS exercises.
Furloughing civilian employees for 22 days.
deferring scheduled maintainence including that for two aircraft carriers.

Happy Nomad on February 14, 2013 at 10:12 AM

Of course the Navy green biofuels program will survive.

sharrukin on February 14, 2013 at 10:16 AM

It’s all just political theater. I’d respect the Democrats more if they were proposing rate hikes for the whole country, the implementation of a VAT, etc, because at least then we’d know they were serious about debt reduction. Of course they know such a course of action would result in their party having a serious shortage of seats on Capitol Hill come January 2015, so instead we get this charade.

LukeinNE on February 14, 2013 at 10:12 AM

I wouldn’t respect the vermin more but at least they would be honest with the American public. They got their tax increases last month but still they want more with virtually nothing else as part of the “plan.”

Looking forward to Boehner’s response.

Happy Nomad on February 14, 2013 at 10:17 AM

LukeinNE on February 14, 2013 at 10:12 AM

A vat is a killer tax is a killer . Please don’t give them any ideas .

Lucano on February 14, 2013 at 10:17 AM

Of course the Navy green biofuels program will survive.

sharrukin on February 14, 2013 at 10:16 AM

Good point. :(

Happy Nomad on February 14, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Boehner has this smug, shit-eating grin of a poker player who just got dealt a pair of kings after lost a couple of close-call minor hands, and foresees a revenge. Now watch the flop for aces…

Archivarix on February 14, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Let’s see…

Republicans get:
Self-congratulation on the “positive optics” of being open to compromise.
A promise of spending cuts that will never happen.

The WorldProgs get:
Permission to confiscate more wealth from people who honestly earned and saved said wealth.
To spread any negative consequences from the deal because it was a “bi-partisan effort”.
To weaken America’s military.
To punish Red State agriculture by removing subsidies, but leaving regulations in place.

It’s clearly the boilerplate good stuff that usually gets passed. If they throw in the sentence: “Congress recognizes that John Boehner is a swell guy loved by all”, it’s through the House like a hot knife through butter.

ROCnPhilly on February 14, 2013 at 10:19 AM

I could vote for VAT in exchange for killing the 16th Amendment.

Archivarix on February 14, 2013 at 10:19 AM

A vat is a killer tax is a killer . Please don’t give them any ideas .

Lucano on February 14, 2013 at 10:17 AM

I agree but LukeinNE’s point is sound. As I posted above, this Senate “plan” is a decidedly unserious attempt to deflect the wrath of the American public when sequestration hits by proposing tax increases and accounting gimmicks.

Happy Nomad on February 14, 2013 at 10:20 AM

But, this is what Obama demanded…sequestration…Obama did not want to be forced to make a decision.

So…let’s get this sequestration going…today…right now.

About damn time the GOP grew some stones and proved to the world that the emperor has no clothes.

GOP…make it happen…and give Obama ALL the credit.

Whatever it takes.

It will be awesome!!!

coldwarrior on February 14, 2013 at 10:20 AM

But, this is what Obama demanded…sequestration

coldwarrior on February 14, 2013 at 10:20 AM

Every single GOP speaker needs to drive this point into the ground. Obama DEMANDED the sequester as a condition of the last cliff bill.

He’s getting his way. What’s the problem?

Washington Nearsider on February 14, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Boehner has this smug, shit-eating grin of a poker player who just got dealt a pair of kings after lost a couple of close-call minor hands, and foresees a revenge. Now watch the flop for aces…

Archivarix on February 14, 2013 at 10:18 AM

I just hope that poker is the game that is being played. Past experience is that the GOP shows up to a poker game prepared to play “Go Fish.”

Happy Nomad on February 14, 2013 at 10:22 AM

I am sure the Democrats will eventually get around to a 75% tax on those evil rich folks. It’s working so well for France.

sharrukin on February 14, 2013 at 9:31 AM

They won’t be stopping at 75%. Or, the ‘evil rich’.

trigon on February 14, 2013 at 10:23 AM

Every single GOP speaker needs to drive this point into the ground. Obama DEMANDED the sequester as a condition of the last cliff bill.

He’s getting his way. What’s the problem?

Washington Nearsider on February 14, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Obama demanded sequestration and he’s getting it because the GOP isn’t saying “no” but reaching across the aisle to give him the bipartisan support he is constantly demanding.

It’s going to hurt me personally but sequestration really is the only thing that makes sense in supporting. It’s hardly enough but it shows which party is serious about deficit reduction and which party wants to continue in the role of Santa Claus.

Happy Nomad on February 14, 2013 at 10:25 AM

Archivarix on February 14, 2013 at 10:18 AM

What was that Obama said a while back?

“Don’t call my bluff” or something?

If the Obama wants to play big boy poker…we should be more than happy to oblige.

He’s holding a pair of threes…and the rest are junk.

Time to go all in.

coldwarrior on February 14, 2013 at 10:26 AM

More taxes? Huh. It’s almost as if DC is infested with lots of tax and spend libs.

changer1701 on February 14, 2013 at 10:27 AM

They won’t be stopping at 75%. Or, the ‘evil rich’.

trigon on February 14, 2013 at 10:23 AM

Nope. It will get worse and we will see more headlines like this…Depardieu Accepts Offer Of Russian Citizenship To Escape Higher Taxes

sharrukin on February 14, 2013 at 10:28 AM

sharrukin on February 14, 2013 at 10:28 AM

Ya govaru po russkie.

Might be an option worth exploring.

Ever imagine the Russians would be schooling the United States in the merits of low taxes?

coldwarrior on February 14, 2013 at 10:32 AM

Ever imagine the Russians would be schooling the United States in the merits of low taxes?

coldwarrior on February 14, 2013 at 10:32 AM

When the ChiComs schooled the ObamiNation on the virtues of capitalism, I knew that day was coming.

Steve Eggleston on February 14, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Ever imagine the Russians would be schooling the United States in the merits of low taxes?

coldwarrior on February 14, 2013 at 10:32 AM

The world is getting stranger by the day.

Ya govaru po russkie.

I had to look that up. “I speak Russian”?

Yeah, could come in handy.

sharrukin on February 14, 2013 at 10:36 AM

It’s all just political theater. I’d respect the Democrats more if they were proposing rate hikes for the whole country, the implementation of a VAT, etc, because at least then we’d know they were serious about debt reduction. Of course they know such a course of action would result in their party having a serious shortage of seats on Capitol Hill come January 2015, so instead we get this charade.

LukeinNE on February 14, 2013 at 10:12 AM

They’d spend it all and then some.

Steve Eggleston on February 14, 2013 at 10:38 AM

More taxes? Yeah, that’s just what this economy needs. And has anyone explained to Democrats that you don’t reduce a deficit by spending all the “new” money you hope to rake in?

GarandFan on February 14, 2013 at 10:40 AM

Counter with Obamacare repeal…

hillsoftx on February 14, 2013 at 10:41 AM


Senate Democrats tried and failed to pass the Buffett Rule last year.

Actually, it was the Republicans — they tried to pass a law which allowed those who want to give more to the Government to do so without additional tax liabilities. The beneficiaries of this new law would have included the rich — of which Warren Buffet is certainly a member.

unclesmrgol on February 14, 2013 at 10:41 AM

But, come on, some spending restraint (even a little bit) has got to be possible, for crying out loud!

MTF on February 14, 2013 at 10:06 AM

Why would you believe that? Baseline budgeting insures that the budgets will increase every year.

chemman on February 14, 2013 at 10:44 AM

It’s all just political theater. I’d respect the Democrats more if they were proposing rate hikes for the whole country, the implementation of a VAT, etc, because at least then we’d know they were serious about debt reduction. Of course they know such a course of action would result in their party having a serious shortage of seats on Capitol Hill come January 2015, so instead we get this charade.

LukeinNE on February 14, 2013 at 10:12 AM

Why would you believe that? Give them more revenue and they will just spend more. The dems haven’t given us any reason to believe otherwise.

chemman on February 14, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Lucano on February 14, 2013 at 10:17 AM

Oh, I agree, I certainly don’t support a VAT. It is, however, an indisputably highly effective way for the government to rake in a load of taxes.

LukeinNE on February 14, 2013 at 10:50 AM

So Boehner has 2 weeks to practice his chin quivers and his eyes filling with tears. He really believes that is how victims react when they’ve been played. He simply doesn’t realize that we the people don’t buy into his theatrics any longer. Should be interesting to watch his reaction when that finally dawns on him.

MONACO1121 on February 14, 2013 at 10:51 AM

They’d spend it all and then some.

Steve Eggleston on February 14, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Why would you believe that? Give them more revenue and they will just spend more. The dems haven’t given us any reason to believe otherwise.

chemman on February 14, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Point taken, guys. If they proposed those things, I’d believe they were serious about raising revenues in meaningful way. My main point was that the Buffet Rule and hiking taxes by 3 points on the rich as a way to raise real revenue is a farce. That they’ll continue to increase spending way faster than GDP is kind of a given.

LukeinNE on February 14, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Oh, I agree, I certainly don’t support a VAT. It is, however, an indisputably highly effective way for the government to rake in a load of taxes.

LukeinNE on February 14, 2013 at 10:50 AM

And it’s 1 easy tax to raise !
I knew you got it .

Lucano on February 14, 2013 at 11:00 AM

I’m just so tired of the ridiculous, childish antics of Democrats. Believe me when I say that I’m not always happy with Republicans either… but Democrats have become intolerable. It’s like they’re spoiled, little children turned loose in a candy store, recalcitrant and nonsensical.

They KNOW that Republicans have no intention of raising taxes again. They also KNOW that they could strip “the rich” of every dime and still not have enough to fund their reckless spending spree for more than a single year, if that. Again, we find them engaged in Class Warfare for the purpose of socialist ideology and the empowerment of the state.

They seek to eliminate any challenge to their own authority, and they perceive the so-called “rich” as a threat. The wealthy have the ability to reach the low-information voter. They own the media and advertising companies, and so far… they’ve played along with socialist Democrats voluntarily. They’re wined and dined, convinced of the altruism of “the cause”, manipulated by their own guilt over enjoying more success than their brethren, and incentivised by regulatory policy. But that’s a serpent whispering sweet-nothings in their ears. It’s goal is their impotence.

These people are in a position to save the liberty of us all. Democrats know that if they were ever to turn on them, they’d be ruined. Thus far, the very targets of socialist policy are collaborating with the theft of their own public influence. If they don’t stop them soon, they won’t be able to.

Murf76 on February 14, 2013 at 11:16 AM

The lib talking heads are still blaming the gop for voting for dear leaders sequester so they need to fix this themselves …..

cmsinaz on February 14, 2013 at 11:27 AM

gophergirl on February 14, 2013 at 9:36 AM

if only it was that, ’tisn’t

mickytx on February 14, 2013 at 11:50 AM

There is no reason for the GOP to cave – but never fear – they will. Boehner had no business caving before, but he did. We are SCREWED people. No one in Washington DC represents We the People. That’s a phrase that is over and gone.

katablog.com on February 14, 2013 at 11:58 AM

The wealthy have the ability to reach the low-information voter. They own the media and advertising companies, and so far… they’ve played along with socialist Democrats voluntarily. They’re wined and dined, convinced of the altruism of “the cause”, manipulated by their own guilt over enjoying more success than their brethren, and incentivised by regulatory policy. But that’s a serpent whispering sweet-nothings in their ears.

Murf76 on February 14, 2013 at 11:16 AM

Spot-on.

ITguy on February 14, 2013 at 12:13 PM

chemman on February 14, 2013 at 10:44 AM

correct but this is ‘ensure’, heavy on the certainty.

wonderful

mickytx on February 14, 2013 at 12:22 PM

Murf76 on February 14, 2013 at 11:16 AM

The essence of progressivism.

coldwarrior on February 14, 2013 at 12:22 PM

/sarc tags mostly included

ne’er assembly required

mickytx on February 14, 2013 at 12:23 PM

The rule would cap deductions and loopholes for millionaires so they pay at least 30 percent of their salary in taxes.

LOL

What a joke. Those evil millionaires aren’t smart enough to change how they’re paid!

ButterflyDragon on February 14, 2013 at 12:43 PM

Which means they think they will be crushed if sequestration comes to pass (which it will). Back in 2011 they were so sure that the GOP would cave by now that they thought they were pretty damned smart. Too bad reality had to kick in.

Happy Nomad on February 14, 2013 at 10:13 AM

I think the Dems thought this would be on the Republican President’s lap. Now they don’t know what to do.

cptacek on February 14, 2013 at 2:00 PM

I have some small hope that the GOP won’t cave this time, because if the GOP is good at anything other than caving, it’s doing nothing and all they need to do is nothing. I’m not holding my breath, though.

Will the GOP be blamed regardless of what happens? Of course.

toby11 on February 14, 2013 at 2:11 PM

Good point, what the hell is a millionaire? I’m guessing my dad (farmer) and mom (teacher) make somewhere in the neighborhood of $85,000 a year combined, but if we’re talking net worth, they’re north of $10 million because of farm land.

LukeinNE on February 14, 2013 at 9:39 AM

You have to follow their “decade rule” logic, by which all revenues and “savings” are presented.

By rights, if you make $100K a year, that is a $1 million dollars in revenue! You are a defacto Millionaire!

can_con on February 14, 2013 at 2:13 PM

Do not forget that the sequester is the price that was paid for the August 2011 debt limit increase. President Obama had a September 14th 2012 deadline to outline his version of the cuts and told Mitt Romney it wasn’t a problem, and that layoff notices would not need to be sent out during the Presidential Campaign.

This cut, not implemented yet, is for the LAST debt limit hike, not the one Obama wants NOW.

Fleuries on February 14, 2013 at 2:31 PM

The rule would cap deductions and loopholes for millionaires so they pay at least 30 percent of their salary in taxes.

The “millionaires”, who truly are millionaires, most likely don’t have this thing called a “salary”. They have things known as “interest income”, “capital gains”, “dividends”, “kick-backs” and so on and so forth.

Obama himself is a millionaire, but he doesn’t earn $1M in salary. So he wouldn’t be paying this tax. But rest assured, if his salary was over $1M, he’d gladly be paying this tax.

Bite me.

BobMbx on February 14, 2013 at 6:46 PM

More class warfare unicorn poop from the Dems – shocker.

On another note, that pic of Nancy on the front page is just gorgeous. She hasn’t looked that smoking hot since she guest starred on The Walking Dead.

CorporatePiggy on February 14, 2013 at 8:19 PM

Looking forward to Boehner’s response.

Happy Nomad on February 14, 2013 at 10:17 AM

Personally I’ve had quite enough of Boehner rolling over and purring for Obama as the Marxist in Chief destroys America.

RJL on February 14, 2013 at 10:27 PM

There’s a program called the Defense Cooperation Account where you can donate money directly to the DOD. If all these Democrat politicians really cared so much they could throw a couple million towards national defense. Odd that they don’t…
http://comptroller.defense.gov/Unsolicited_Donations.pdf

DeathtotheSwiss on February 15, 2013 at 12:21 PM

Comment pages: 1 2