Getty Images
Last week, the Obama administration presented congressional Republicans with a formal offer in their ongoing fiscal talks, and challenged GOP leaders to come up with a plan of their own. Today, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and the House Republican leadership sent a letter to the White House that's been described as a "counteroffer," but that's not quite correct.
House Speaker John Boehner on Monday sent a counter offer to President Obama to avoid the looming fiscal cliff that raises $800 billion without increasing tax raise tax rates on top earners and makes $1.4 trillion in cuts and reforms to entitlement and discretionary spending programs.
Boehner's offer does not outline how to deal with a country fast approaching its debt limit and sequestrations' across-the-board spending cuts.
So, what's the pitch? Under this proposal, Republicans would keep all of the Bush-era tax rates, but accept $800 billion in new revenue. How? Through "through pro-growth tax reform that closes special-interest loopholes and deductions while lowering rates."
From there, the GOP leaders want to cut $600 billion from Medicare and Medicaid; cut $300 billion from mandatory programs; cut $200 billion by changing the consumer price index; and then cut another $300 billion in further discretionary spending.
To call this a "counteroffer" is to strip the word of meaning. Under the GOP plan, Republicans get the more than $1 trillion in spending cuts Obama already gave them; Republicans get the entitlement cuts they want; Republicans get hundreds of billions of dollars in additional cuts to programs they haven't identified; and Republicans get all of the Bush-era tax rates they've prioritized.
This isn't a "counteroffer"; it's a Christmas wish list written by kids without access to calculators.
But Democrats would get $800 billion in new revenue, right? Well, no, probably not -- Boehner says he can get the money by closing "loopholes and deductions," but we know that's not true. Either GOP officials would start forcing the middle class to feel the pinch, or they'd fall far short of $800 billion.
What's more, notice that the Republicans' letter doesn't actually include real details. Sure, some numbers are thrown around, but I can just as easily write a letter to the Speaker promising to raise $18 gajillion by selling unicorns to Bigfoot -- the numbers don't mean anything unless they're backed up by substantive policies.
Postscript: In case you were wondering -- I was -- the letter makes no reference to GOP leaders' willingness to consider extending unemployment aid, extending the payroll tax break, raising the debt ceiling, or investing so much as a penny in economic growth policies.
One should generally be reluctant to make broad assumptions, but I suspect the Republicans' silence on these issues suggests they're not open to the possibility.
Leave a Comment:
What gets me is Republicans want to get away with anything they can. They don't want to pay what they need to pay, they always want us, the middle class to take care of things. Then starting next year, for the money Congress is making for taking a seat, they only want to work 150 some days when there is 356 days in a year, on top of that they will also get 2 weeks of vacation in the summer and for the holidays. How fair is that! Boehner just doesn't get. WE THE PEOPLE ARE TIRED OF CONGRESS' BS. WORK FOR THE PEOPLE NOT YOURSELVES. I WILL NEVER GO REPUBLICAN FOR HOW SELFISH THEY ARE. I WILL DIE BEFORE DOING THAT.
IRS figures show the top 1 percent of earners take home 16.9 percent of the nation's total income, but pay 36.7 percent of the nation's income taxes. The top 5 percent take home a little more than 31 percent of the total income but pay almost 59 percent of total taxes. And finally, the top 10 percent take home a little over 43 percent of the total income, but pay more than 70 percent of all income taxes.
[...]
The President does not mention another factor in the fairness equation. Close to half of American workers pay no federal income tax at all.
[...]
The Administration often points to the ultra-wealthy who sometimes pay lower rates because they have a lot of deductions. But the averages for all groups paint a more accurate picture. For instance, the top 1 percent pay an average tax rate of more than 24 percent; the top 5 percent a little more than 20 percent. The top 10 percent, about 18 percent. For the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers, the average rate is 1.85 percent.
You socialists want to create real revenue?
How about stop sending so much foreign aid to countries that hate us? or stop it all together, let them suck off the UN's teet.
How about stop spending on useless wasteful programs like studies to find out how lonf it takes a insect not even indigenous to our country to climb a tree?
ETC, ETC, ETC.......
Us "socialists" are quite willing to go back to the tax rates in effect under Dwight D. Eisenhower, when the highest maginal tax rate was 91%. The economy was booming, wages and profits rose, all in all a very good time, economically, was had by all.
Or are you goning to call a man, who besides serving two terms as President, was also a five star General of the US Army, some sort of socialist?
Is that what today's GOP has been reduced to?
I know, rhetorical question...
Jonny, you're obviously quoting something, care to share the source? I'm going to bet it's a GOP-skewed PoS article that's a blight on the concept of journalism.
The problem is that the Congressional Republicans think that the American public is made up of fools, and that they have control over us. The fact that Republicans are still in control of the House does not mean that they are in control. They are not. They are the ignorant, uninformed, out of touch people. I want them sent home to do whatever they do without any power.
The Republicans have already walked of the cliff and bump their heads. They feel, they don't have to answer to the 98% just the 2% and they were elected to the office by the 98%. WHAT'S WRONG WITH THEM???????????????
The same could me said about every single liberal in Congress.
the GOP by counteroffer meant to say "wishful thinking". 800 billions in a "lets hope" we get revenues? Is that how you make a budget? I'm going to go a bank, ask for 1 million dollars and tell them "I'm hoping I can multiple this 10 times and pay you back".
Whereas Hussein keeps spending on failed social programs and not worried about how to pay for it.
Sucks that badly for you that Willard wasn't elected, does it?
Good.
No need to counter their "counter offer". Tick tick tick (or hmmmmmm if electric) goes the clock. Howard Dean said it right when he stated that we should go over the cliff/curb/slope. It's hard medicine. However, it's good effective medicine. Reality can suck at times.
but I can just as easily write a letter to the Speaker promising to raise $18 gajillion by selling unicorns to Bigfoot -- the numbers don't mean anything unless they're backed up by substantive policies.
In my opinion there are NO substantive policies regarding the deficit. All the talk is now focusing on the tax increase on the wealthy which would generate $1.6 Trillion in new revenues. Sounds good when it is phrased like that, but that total is over ten years - which comes out to $160 Billion a year. And that is about 10% of our current annual deficit. Is this supposed to be the biggest part of these negotiations/avoiding the fiscal cliff? Cut back 10% of our current deficits? Oh, that's right. there is also on the table around another $1 Trillion or so in spending cuts - again over ten years - so that would knock off another 10% (actually less than 10% of our current $1.3 Trillion deficit). OK, so considering the current deficit is running at a pace of around $1.3 Trillion, a 20% reduction would mean we are STILL over the $1 Trillion amount for our annual deficits. Steve you jokingly mention the amount of a gajillion and that actually isn't a joke to me, because all this wrangling in DC will result - at best - in bringing our deficits down to an even $1 Trillion a year. So we may actually have to raise our debt ceiling someday up to a gajillion. What a joke. It is really amazing at how so many cannot notice the basic math involved here. They are talking about reducing the deficits by a pretty small percentage and most folks think that once this "deal" is done everthing will be OK. At this pace in the 10 years mapped out on these proposals we will STILL be adding anther $10 Trillion or so to the debt.
What Liberal is worried about the math while they continue to add Government programs and then add Illegals to the Government dole as well....
I don't think someone from a party that cannot do math, tell dems about how they should do their math?
Re. You must learn to clean up your own house first before telling others how to clean up their house. Comprendre?
$1.6 trillion in increased taxes to help reduce the deficit is a more concrete proposal that $800 billion in closed tax "loopholes" and "deductions" to be determined a later date.
If Speaker Boehner and his confreres wish to be taken seriously, all they need to do is identify which $80 billion per annum of those tax deductions and loopholes will be closed. Unless or until he does so, he doesn't have a plan - just a wish list.
Something like 75%, or greater, of the deficit is due to providing funding for Iraq, Afghanistan, Medicare Part D, the Bush tax cuts and the effects of the Great Recession.
We've all but left Iraq, are preparing to leave Afghanistan, and both those actions will result in reduced costs (and reduced deficits). The costs for Medicare Part D could be reduced right now, but Republicans in Congress won't allow Medicare to make deals with the pharmacy companies to reduce the costs of the drugs.
If we let all the Bush tax cuts expire that could very easily tip the economy back into another recession and we'd be worse off than we are now in regards to the deficit. However, if we retain the tax cuts on all income below $250,000, while allowing those cuts to expire on income above $250,000, the deficit is directly decreased, even if not by a huge amount. Maintaining the tax cuts for all income below the cut-off ensures that those who spend their money, even if only because they have to, will have that money to spend.
And it's that money, not any actions by mythical "job creators", that actually drives and expands our economy. A growing economy means growing Federal revenue and as Federal revenue increases, the deficit decreases - at least, as long we keep Republicans away from the nation's "credit card".
How do I say this delicately? I want to see some blood in the water. I want to see some rendered flesh, preferably from some serious flogging. I want to see chumming with raw, Republican meat. These clowns don't want to deal with what happened at the beginning of last month. They expect us to stick our fingers in our ears, close our eyes, and begin chanting "La la la la la la" until they've complete the sleight of hand and implemented the policies they so foolishly believed the election of Mitt Romney would give them the mandate to do. They're living in Fantasyland and want to convince us we're part of the ambience. We must NOT let them get away with this.
63 deleted, sullyman2112 posting:
You're suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor.
Wow,
the FAUX Snooze troll count just shot up! jonnymoses and now sillyman2112!
I didn't know this was a circle jerk, I'll have to pull down my Kenyan/liberal/socialist pants and flog away..
This is not a valid counter offer. It's like you negotiating for a house the seller is asking 100K ,you offer 95 and their counter offer is 110. Instead of meeting you in the middle they harden their position. They actually want to raise the age for medi-care eligibility and not consider reducing the bloated military budget , incredible . I say if they don't budge then go over the cliff !
The only thing that is bloated and getting fatter is those on Hussein's Government dole, Everything from food stamps to welfare and now...socialized medicine NONE of which has any basis in the Constitution. Whereas..the Military actually has it's powers from the Constitution. You are just one more drain on the system.
It is not the federal government that is at fault, it is the confrontational TEA-Republican's holding up any legislation beneficial to the president as they are still trying to keep him from winning the election. The TEA-Republican's think they won. They lost decisively! Let's look at the numbers. On Taxes - 60% said taxes should go up on the top-tiered 2%. Here's some numbers to consider when you negotiate: Hispanic voters, 71% to 27% over GOP candidate Mitt Romney. Let's look at the numbers. On Taxes as 60% would accept taxes to go up on the top-tiered 2%, 65% on an immigration pathway, 93% black voters, Puerto Ricans 83-17 percent margin, Obama won 73 % of the Asian vote! Obama won 71 % of the Hispanic/Latino vote! Obama won 55 % of the women's vote! Obama won 67 % of the youth vote! It wasn't even close! The 2014 Mid-Term election is a-coming!
It's time for the public to get involved. Every member of the TEA-Republican parties will be responsible!
John Boehner's office in Ohio: 513-779-5400
Phone numbers:
Eric Cantor - 202-225-2815
Mitch McConnell 202-224-2541
John Boehner 202-225-6205.
It is now up to the public to get involved and send your Senators and Representatives an email, text, letter and call their offices to tell them their responsibility is to the voters and not special interest puppeteers.
Senators http://www.senate.gov/general/...
Representatives http://www.house.gov/represent...
Come on, you know you want to!
We are tired of the back-stabbing and failure to protect the American worker/wage-earner/middle class! Call your Senator and Representative and tell them to get to work or you will fire them!
With record unemployment DOUBLE the number of Americans on food stamps, HOW is that "protecting the American worker. You are a babbling fool that is participating in the attempted downfall of America as every economical number continues downward.
scott-3860658, you're suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor.
Argh! Can the Republicans get their act together before they send the world into a another recession?! If the fiscal cliff was solely the USA's problem it'd be none of my concern but American spending cuts will hinder the rest of the world's recovery.
Actually...American banking industry has separated themselves from Europe to avoid the financial disaster shockwaves there that Hussein so badly wishes to emulate....
Actually, Bryan, (scott's inanities aside), the "rest of the world" has more than enough to worry about with its own responses to the ongoing Fiscal Crisis, without getting too worked up about ours.
The majority of the spending cuts included in the Sequestration plan will really have a negligible effect on other Countries. Our Defense spending (one of the larger cuts) is largely kept "in house", and the cuts to entitlements will only impact spending on "imports" (which may be either positive or negative, depending on the price point of the import) as many will have less to spend.
Those who travel outside the U.S., will likely STILL be able to travel outside the U.S. Their spending is not likely to be significantly effected by reductions in entitlements.
In my best Charlie Mingus, Fables of Faubus imitation ...
"Name me a handful that's ridiculous, Rachel Maddow.
Boehner, Norquist, Cantor
Why are they so sick and ridiculous?
Two, four, six, eight:
They brainwash and teach you hate.
H-E-L-L-O, Hello."
What's the difference between 1959, the Arkansas jokers, and this group in Congress now? Nothing. Absolutely nothing!
"I'm gonna knock you out.. Mama said knock you out."
Begin letter:
blah, blah, blah… Medicare…
blah, blah, blah… $800 million….
To borrow from Rick Santorum
Not just a snob, but harmful to the country
It should be very clear to all, these people want to kill Medicare, then SS.
oops, meant $800 Billion...
You lost this is a Romney Plan, It's not going to happen and the Republican's will continue to lose seats in the house, Let's go over the Cliff and screw the Republican Puts's .
Ugh- they really think we are stupid! They get the biggest tax breaks and loopholes!
It really is not surprising that so many people are so confused on all these "fiscal problems" we face.
Don't get me wrong, I truly enjoy watching Rachel, and many of the other offerings from NBC/MSNBC, but on tonight's show, Rachel, herself, committed a horrible error involving a "mismatch" of concept and terminology.
From the "A" block - 03 December 2012
The DEBT did not "go away" under President Clinton.
DID NOT!
What "went away" was the "ANNUAL DEFICIT". Clinton's LAST THREE Budgets ended up with SURPLUSES (1998, 1999, 2000); MEANING that for those three years, the Government took in more money than it spent. That money, COULD have been used to "pay down the debt", but IT WAS NOT. It instead, became the BASIS for George W. Bush to propose that "Americans" should get a "rebate", in the form of LOWER TAXES (and he sent us all checks to prove it, remember?).
It is essential that WE ALL keep the terms clear in our minds:
A Surplus results when the Government takes in more money than it spends in any given year. Surpluses CAN be used to "pay down the DEBT" or, they can be used to pay for anything else that the Government chooses to pay for with them.
The Deficit is the result of the ANNUAL BUDGET taking in less money than the Government spends FOR THAT YEAR.
The DEBT is the accumulation of REPEATED DEFICITS, resulting in the Government needing to "borrow money" (or, sell bonds or other instruments) in order to FUND those items that it didn't take in enough money to pay for.
The DEBT CEILING is the upper limit of DEBT that the Government is allowed (by the House of Representatives) to carry at any given time. Because DEBT accrues INTEREST, the limit MUST BE RAISED occasionally (to cover the increase due to accrued interest, or additional Annual Deficits) UNLESS the DEBT is "paid down" (reduced).
The "Fiscal Cliff" is the DATE at which the Sequestration Deal, agreed to by Congress and the President, is due to "kick in", resulting in MANDATORY CUTS in Defense, Entitlement Programs etc; AND increases in Taxes, in order to "balance the budget".
A "Balance Budget" is simply a budget that provides for the same amount of money to be taken in (Revenue) as the Government intends to spend (Expenditures). It IS NOT magic! It WILL NOT reduce the DEBT! It does not insure that there is no fraud, waste or abuse.
The "Bush Tax Cuts" are set to expire around the same time as the "Fiscal Cliff" is supposedly reached, but MAY, or MAY NOT be the only TAX INCREASE on the table. It may be handled separate from the sequestration, it is not inextricably TIED to the "Fiscal Cliff" discussion.
Hope I've been able to clear up some of the misunderstandings I've seen on this thread, and elsewhere.
Thank you for your lucid and clear explanation. I have a minor quibble even though I agree 99.9% with your explanation.
A balanced budget should pay off the debt eventually. A balanced budget includes paying off the borrowed money and loans are structured to have an end date. It takes many, many years, and I doubt if the debt would ever get down to zero. A certain amount of debt is okay, 20% of GDP sure looks good from here.
Some people are under the impression that a balanced budget means the entire debt is paid off and that is wrong. You can have a balanced budget and still owe money on your house and your car.
UM , President Clinton had a Balanced budget and a Surplus of Cash for America ! Until the republicans got into the system Illegally - TWICE !!!!!!!! OH , Now America is in debt AGAIN , thanks to the Republicans and their Outrageous Spending Antics ; as They Are Well-Known to do !!!!!!! And , Now , Just Look At US Today , Once Again ! Yeah , Thanks Repubs/tp For What you do for America and then PROJECT and Place the Blame on Someone Else - How TYPICAL of You !
Eddie,
President Clinton never had a "balanced" budget.
Don't take my word for it, look it up.
President Clinton's budgets for 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997, all ran in the red.
His budgets for 1998, 1999, and 2000 all had surpluses.
Read the definition of a "balanced budget" that I provided above. A "balanced budget" has neither a shortfall, nor a surplus.
Also, those years of surpluses, were annual budget surpluses. The debt remained, and continued to accrue interest.
Again, look it up, don't take my word for it.
James,
I agree with your "quibble" in theory, but, unless I've missed something, the current structure of our Annual Budgets provides funding for the "servicing" of our Debt in the same way that many people "service" their personal loans. What this amounts to is making "minimum payments" that actually only pay off the accrued interest and fees. The "principal" remains into perpetuity.
I could be wrong, (you'd have to get "deep in the weeds" to find the real information on that) but that is my understanding.
Clinton was credited with paying off WW11 debt, but we still had debt from Reagan. I'll help folks look it up.
http://zfacts.com/p/1195.html
http://zfacts.com/node/130
The Rs DO want to run up debt, so they can cut (goal is elimination) Medicare, SS, Child Food Programs, etc. Starting with Reagan. Star Wars spending MIC, arming the rebels is what McCain kept saying. Warring does stimulate economy, (WW11 was recovery after years of Great Depression fallout) but we are not eager for more wars. We are going to defend ourselves and keep up foreign vigilance, but we do not want more wars.
I "think" Michael and I agree, but I think the balanced budget of Clinton can have a pass, although they were surpluses. If we want to be completely accurate, we have to say surplus, which Bush spent, and ran up debt some more.
The interest adds to the debt. It's a good thing interest is low now.
I think we need to get on track, but the second link explains why economic stimulus would be helpful for economy. But the RW wants to cut, which hurts economy while chipping at the millstone with a spoon.
I think the thing to do is not cut too much, but we definitely can find some places to cut, where least harmful to economy.
Obviously, we must raise tax rates on upper incomes since they have enjoyed low rates and not helped the economy.
The debt is going to be a heavy weight for a very long time.
Even Ryan plan didn't balance for 20 years, right?
Anybody that says not to raise debt ceiling is saying we will default to the world. We cannot do that, it's devastating if they try that again.
We Needn't fall for their re-purpossing of words that they want Us to fall for , They are just simply re-constructing the word-game for their own benefit and They actually think that WE Believe Them - These tax-incentives are Nothing More than Tax "Entitlements" for the wealthy , and thats it, plain and simple , but They want Us to view it in a Completely different light ; of which is nothing more than a Ploy , a Diversion for Them to manipulate and Distort the True Facts as to what They Are Reaping from the American People ! So If They Want to Attack Entitlements - Well , Let them Attack Themselves First !
Flat Out ~ If I Wasn't CLEAR - These gwb tax-breaks for the wealthy ARE ENTITLEMENTS !!
12+Years Of Entitlements for the wealthy !!!!! And What has been done for JOBS within America's Borders ? NOTHING !!!
Yes ; Trickle-Down OR Trickle-ON , All of US Working people ????
Is there a methadone for greed? Because these guys are as addicted to money and tax cuts as a junkie addicted to heroine. I wonder if their eyes roll up back into their head when the suck all the money out of a pension fund and fire all the workers.
Let Us Not forget that the trees in Michigan are Just the right height !!??
Hillary Rodham Clinton for President and Elizabeth Warren for Vice President 2016 ! YES ! PLEASE ! COME-ON !
"I can just as easily write a letter to the Speaker promising to raise $18 gajillion by selling unicorns to Bigfoot -- the numbers don't mean anything unless they're backed up by substantive policies."
AMEN and well said
.