Democrats look for up to $1 trillion in new tax revenues this year
“We’ve done about $2 trillion. I thought $4 trillion is the goal we should reach. I think we’re about half way there. We need another $2 trillion,” said Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over tax reform.
He said the $917 billion cut under the Budget Control Act passed in the summer of 2011 combined with $620 billion in revenues from Tuesday’s tax deal and interest savings adds up to about $2 trillion.
Cardin said the ratio of spending cuts to higher tax revenues “should be about even” in the next deficit-reduction deal passed by Congress.
Sen. Jon Tester, a centrist Democrat from Montana who won a close re-election in November, set out similar parameters.
He said the broad goal for deficit reduction should be in the $4 trillion to $5 trillion range and “we should strive for [a] one for one” ratio of spending cuts to additional tax revenues.
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
Republicans need to start stating that Liberals want to tax their 401k’s… College savings… Pensions… The Math says they need to go where the money is.
brewcrew67 on January 7, 2013 at 10:59 AM
I don’t understand why Obama is seeking to raise taxes when he insists we don’t have a spending problem.
John the Libertarian on January 7, 2013 at 11:00 AM
So basically the Dems want an extra $100 billion a year in new taxes on top of the $62 billion they just got in the fiscal cliff deal(not to mention the end of the payroll tax holiday). And that’s in addition to the $50 billion a year that Obamacare has just started levying. Exactly how much money do they think they can keep taking out of the private sector without completely tanking this economy?
Doughboy on January 7, 2013 at 11:00 AM
Crap. That’s a 10 year notion. It’s really 100 billion, which is barely a cut in the rate of increase. They call it baseline budgeting.
I call it complete bull$hit.
platypus on January 7, 2013 at 11:00 AM
What do they need this money for? Where is the budget?
ctmom on January 7, 2013 at 11:03 AM
Pass real cuts. Tie it to the debt ceiling. Tell Harry he either takes the deal or the next offer will have even bigger cuts.
Screw ‘em.
trigon on January 7, 2013 at 11:03 AM
is there that much left to squeeze out of the productive class?
tom daschle concerned on January 7, 2013 at 11:04 AM
I hate the term “revenue” in the context of taxes. To me it refers to income earned, not stolen.
A thief doesn’t go through the wallet just stolen to count his “revenue”.
kurtzz3 on January 7, 2013 at 11:05 AM
we’re already far above Clinton tax rates now, with caps on deductions and the Obamacare surtaxes
Time for idiots on our side to begin articulating this a little better
We have higher taxes than during the Clinton era, with 50% more spending
Tax revenue is not the damn problem
How hard is that to go to the public with?
thurman on January 7, 2013 at 11:08 AM
Heh heh heh, and just wait until you see the reaction from the idiots who were all upset about the payroll tax returning…
Sekhmet on January 7, 2013 at 11:09 AM
No. But when you’re dealing with a bunch of crooks who’ve conned their way into office(or into reelection) by promising a bunch of constituencies all these goodies, they have to be paid for somehow.
Doughboy on January 7, 2013 at 11:13 AM
Dems looking for 1 trillion in new taxes. Republicans helping them find it. It is official, both parties now represent higher taxes.
Panther on January 7, 2013 at 11:14 AM
And, no doubt, Republicans will fall all over each other, AGAIN, to pass whatever tax increases dear leader demands.
Pork-Chop on January 7, 2013 at 11:15 AM
Welcome my friend, welcome to the Kleptocracy.
BigGator5 on January 7, 2013 at 11:17 AM
If the government isn’t spending too much, then why do they need so much in taxes?
Good Lt on January 7, 2013 at 11:19 AM
Doubtful. The whole point of caving on the 400 grand figure was to take the tax issue off the table and also prevent us from going over the cliff. The GOP ain’t gonna give Obama anymore tax hikes. Maybe if he’s willing to drastically cut spending(kinda like that $10 in cuts for every $1 in new taxes hypothetical at one of the primary debates last year). But since we know that’ll never happen, we’re stuck in another stalemate.
Doughboy on January 7, 2013 at 11:24 AM
You want to know what I look for, the idiots in D.C. to stop looking at my wallet and thinking it’s their our damn piggybank.
D-fusit on January 7, 2013 at 11:29 AM
And you can tax the rich only so far…
No, this is going to come out of the pockets of the poor and low information voters.
They were warned about this sort of thing.
Voting on hatred, spite and not being able to research has its costs, and now those costs will be paid and our economy lose yet another trillion in economic power to be squandered by government.
ajacksonian on January 7, 2013 at 11:48 AM
Think I better start looking for a cheaper place to live.
gophergirl on January 7, 2013 at 11:48 AM
You could always move to the neighborhood Obama’s half-brother lives in. I hear you can get by on 20 bucks a year in those parts.
Doughboy on January 7, 2013 at 11:52 AM
Thing is, it’s so cheap because there are no doctors there to bill you, no utilities to pay for, no police/fire services, no grocery bills because the few pathetic markets there are all barter-based…
MelonCollie on January 7, 2013 at 11:57 AM