Why would any conservative vote against a $4.1 trillion tax cut?
To address Republican concerns that Plan B does not undo the scheduled $500 billion cuts to Defense spending, Boehner has also scheduled a vote on a bill from House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis. Ryan’s bill not only replaces the Defense spending cuts with other cuts to domestic spending, but also shrinks government even more. “This bill replaces the sequester for one year with responsible spending cuts, that protect our national security, and provides an additional $200 billion in savings over ten years, Majority Whip Eric Cantor spokesman Rory Cooper told Politico. “This is yet another step House Republicans have taken this year to address the real fiscal problem in Washington, which is spending.”
So not only does Plan B cut taxes by $4.1 trillion, but it also now preserves the $1.2 trillion in cuts Republicans fought for last year. And it cuts another $200 billion in spending. “The speaker’s plan is the best we are going to do and I think people recognize that,” Rep. Bob Turner, R-N.Y., told National Review.
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
I am still waiting for the Reagen cuts to be implemented and the southern border fence to be completed.
trs on December 20, 2012 at 12:24 PM
Why? Because democrat always promise tax cut tomorrow for spending increases today, but tomorrows tax cuts never materialize.
SWalker on December 20, 2012 at 12:24 PM
Because IT WILL NOT be the 4.1T in cuts, IT never is! They ALL LIE and use fuzzy math to try and get what they want!
L
letget on December 20, 2012 at 12:28 PM
Republicans, quit being morons… why defend a country that will soon come to hate you?
ninjapirate on December 20, 2012 at 12:30 PM
Or more like, tax increases today, for spending cuts tomorrow (which never materialize).
This 500 billion tax cut is actually a 4.1 trillion increase. Just like baseline budgeting means a spending cut is always a spending increase.
Fenris on December 20, 2012 at 12:30 PM
Because it still raises taxes on millionaires.
Bitter Clinger on December 20, 2012 at 12:33 PM
Fraud and liar. Neither plans reduce the size of government. They simply just reduce, a tiny bit, planned increases in spending. Our debt will still and the interest payments will also grow. The whole thing is a scam.
MoreLiberty on December 20, 2012 at 12:33 PM
T
No tax cut involved. All it will do is cancel the increase in taxes due to the sun setting of the Bush era tax code. It will do nothing about the taxes in Otaxacare so in reality our taxes will increase anyway just not as much.
chemman on December 20, 2012 at 12:40 PM
Because it’s not a cut based on current tax rates, it’s a cut based on the new and
improvedincreased tax rates after 1/1.Lost in Jersey on December 20, 2012 at 12:41 PM
If this deal had something like any tax increase can only be implemented after all spending cuts have been completed, I’d be impressed.
Dongemaharu on December 20, 2012 at 12:44 PM
Aargh! There are no tax cuts in any of the proposals. None. This is why people hate politicians. What they’re talking about is keeping the same tax rates that have been in effect for the past 10 years! No one will pay less in taxes next year than they did this year. But because tax cuts might go up, keeping them where they are is called a tax cut.
Hey, I’ve got an idea! Why don’t we project taxes to go up to 99% on everyone next year, and then we can call this a 75% tax cut!
Shump on December 20, 2012 at 12:50 PM
Indeed. Higher tax rates are coming, one way or another, but this gambit puts the onus squarely on Obama and the Dems. They reject it, they may very well end up raising rates for everybody.
changer1701 on December 20, 2012 at 12:55 PM
Best deal the Rs can get.
Illinidiva on December 20, 2012 at 12:57 PM
I don’t think anything the r’s bring up even ALL bho wants will make bho happy? And will dingy ding dong harry even bring it up for a vote? And if so, will bho veto it just so he can blame the r’s anyway? This whole thing is for bho to get cliff hanging and blame r’s? This is a stall as with everything bho does, think F&F and benghazi!
L
letget on December 20, 2012 at 1:08 PM
The simple fact is, 0bama WANTS to destroy the economy, thus he will never make any kind of deal that doesn’t advance this agenda.
Rebar on December 20, 2012 at 1:10 PM
No deal is the best deal. Obama won’t accept it and we’re still compromising with ourselves.
alwaysfiredup on December 20, 2012 at 1:22 PM
Because it’s the spending, stupid!
Mitoch55 on December 20, 2012 at 1:31 PM
Political cover.. so yes it is really important
Illinidiva on December 20, 2012 at 1:36 PM
Yes, but on January 2nd when the Democrats propose it, it will be a tax cut. And then, they get to be the tax cutters and the Republicans will be the champions of high taxes for the middle class? That’s not a winner politically.
besser tot als rot on December 20, 2012 at 1:47 PM
I think letting Obama’s proposal pass out of the House is the best thing to do. Going over the cliff is going to let the Democrats come in and look like the middle class tax cutting heroes. And make the Republicans look like the party of the rich. At least something like this will help in the argument against that, but it still probably won’t do much. If I were Boehner, I’d pass a bill making the 200/250 and below rate permanent and then leave town. That is what Obama campaigned on and what he said he wants; if he doesn’t accept it (which I don’t think he will), there is no way to spin it. And, it is likely better than what we are going to get if we wait until next year when the Democrats get to pretend to be the tax cutting champions of the 98%.
besser tot als rot on December 20, 2012 at 1:52 PM
If the pubs look like they’re only looking out for the rich, they’re sunk. When you’re in a hole, stop digging. All that purity to ideology is nice and dandy, but you need to win first.
tommy71 on December 20, 2012 at 2:03 PM
Depends on what they are. If they make our tax code more progressive I would argue they should be voted against. I am in the tax area where taxes are a moderate pain in the butt, I want my taxes raised a little bit and EVERYONE below me raised A MASSIVE amount, particularly those who earn money and pay nothing in taxes.
astonerii on December 20, 2012 at 2:10 PM
If he’s not going to accept anything, the House may as well pass something the Dems proposed themselves this past spring and let them explain why, suddenly, that’s not good enough and going over the cliff is preferable.
changer1701 on December 20, 2012 at 2:14 PM
Only in Washington would someone say that not allowing taxes to increase is a tax cut.
john.frank on December 20, 2012 at 2:39 PM