Associated Press
When Sen. Bob Corker, a prominent Republican lawmaker, said yesterday that he's prepared to throw in the towel in the fight over taxes, it was widely seen as a step away from the current GOP strategy. A closer look, however, reveals a far more troubling gambit.
Just hours before the White House meeting, Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, said on "Fox News Sunday" that a small but growing group of Republicans had begun considering acquiescing on tax rates so that the negotiations could shift to entitlement programs.
Mr. Corker, a member of the Banking Committee who had presented a deficit-reduction plan of his own, said that if Republicans gave in to the president's chief demand, then "all of a sudden the shift goes back to entitlements, and maybe it puts us in a place where we actually can do something that really saves the nation."
Putting aside the dubious notion that the United State is doomed without entitlement cuts, Corker seems to endorse the growing Republican realization that President Obama is very likely to win the tax fight. GOP leaders hoped its extortion tack -- accept tax breaks for the wealthy or everyone's taxes go up -- would force the White House's hand, but the plan is clearly failing.
So, as a practical matter, with Republicans starting to fold on taxes, is the broader standoff nearing an end? Not really -- what many of the reports have omitted is what else Corker said in the same interview.
Indeed, for all the attention the tax fight is getting, the Tennessean's comments on the debt ceiling were far more provocative, and infinitely more alarming.
From the transcript:
"The shift in focus and entitlements is where we need to go.... Republicans know that they have the debt ceiling that's coming up right around the corner, and, the leverage is going to shift, as soon as we get beyond this issue. The leverage is going to shift to our side, where hopefully we'll do the same thing we did last time and that is if the president wants to raise the debt limit by $2 trillion, we get $2 trillion in spending reduction. [...]
"[T]he only way the debt ceiling, I think, is given up is if the president comes to the table, talks with Speaker Boehner about real entitlement reform. Without that, there's no way in my opinion the debt ceiling is going to be going up. So then you go into January and February, with the negotiation about spending reductions which is where we want to go."
Corker certainly wouldn't say so explicitly, but what he's describing is a plan predicated on trading one hostage for another. For months, the Republican offered the White House a specific threat: "Give us what we want or we'll raise middle-class taxes." It's increasingly unlikely that GOP lawmakers will follow through on this threat.
Now, however, there's a new extortion line to replace the old one: "Fine, forget taxes. Give us what we want or we'll hurt the country and crash the economy on purpose."
This is not a step in a more constructive direction.
Leave a Comment:
Have we really discovered a tax cut the Republicans will not enthusiastically vote for? GOP lawmakers in Congress are demanding more tax cuts and more breaks for the billionaires and mega-corporations of this country, but hard-working middle-class Americans don;t deserve a break? Do Republicans understand that 3/4 of the US economy is built on consumer spending, spending by folks that would benefit from a payroll tax cut? Where's Grover Norquist, huh? The GOP can never be described as being the "party of tax cuts" again if they block this. - progressive
Try this on for size... the Republicans let the Bush rates for everybody lapse, and then trade the debt ceiling for all the Bush rates. Plus spending reductions that go into effect immediately. 5% across the board.
Are you including Defence spending in that 5%? Cause you know thats a dog that won't hunt
Shooter - I don't think that would even pass the House.
You're just fishing for a straw man.
They'll never, ever, ever even talk about military spending. Only things that hurt people who vote Dem. Help the rich, screw the poor (and the "different") -- that's all Rs care about.
The only politically feasible way to cut spending is across the board. Getting into fights about programs is the road to nowhere. Leave those to less interesting times. So yes, that includes defense. I and some other conservatives will be just fine with leaving the rest of the world to fend for itself for a while.
What is wrong with you folks? Ignore the hemorrhoid.
So...Tax rates stay the same, the debt ceiling - which has been a non-issue for forever until the GOP decided to hold the full faith and credit of the US hostage - stays the same, and Republicans get across the board 5% spending cuts....
You don't know what the word "negotiate" means, do you? Try it on for size? You're proposing clown shoes. They don't fit.
"(Shooters) just fishing for a straw man."
You Fish for Red Herring,
.
Beware: Bridge Out -Sarchasm Ahead!
Stand firm, Republicans! Because on Nov. 6th you clearly won a MANDATE. And I ain't talkin' about a chance for dinner and a movie with another fella. . .
The GOP is getting desperate. The economy is improving, and they haven't done anything recently that they might point to to take credit for that. The old lines about "job-creators" and whatnot has worn thin, and the people are beginnning to recognize this hostage stratagy for what it is.
Once they concede on raising taxes on the rich, I think it'll be hard for them to regroup and hold firm on other issues.
Don't be so sure. They still have their core values: opposition to the New Deal and Great Society programs: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, voting rights, equal rights, etc.
Just what do Republicans hope to gain by making life miserable for their key consistuency. Man, cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is going to sound great to those angry white men living on Social Security, whose health insurance is provided by Medicare and who look forward to living out their final years in the nursing home paid for by Medicaid.
Yes, but:
Remember, Ron, this is the same group of folks who have been voting against their own best interests for decades!
Not to mention that in some areas, the lights in the trailer houses go on courtesy of the TVA. That would be a New Deal program still in effect.
When are the Republican's partners in business step up to say 'Hey- crash the @!$%#ing economy again and we're all screwed'?
Like Obama is pitching his tax plan hard to the American people, he needs to pitch his economic plan in regards to the debt limit to business and the corporate world. Get them on his side, even if only temporarily.
And, at the end, there is the 14th amendment- Republicans who worship the Constitution facing off against a Constitutional amendment. Heh.
He's been doing that for 2 weeks. It's up to those business leaders to exert their influence now.
I asked this before and got no answer here.
If Pres. Obama did go and use the 14th Amendment or Trillion dollar coins to let us ignore the debt limit,
how wold the Repubs in Congress respond?
a] Sue in court? Which Pres. Obama would ignore if he lost.
b] Roll over and give in?
c] Block even more legislation?
d] Refuse to pass any more appropriations bills until Pres. Obama resigns? If the bills for 2013 are all passed, as they should be, the ones for 2014 are not.
e]All of the above?
I am starting to get serious non-christian thoughts about these republicans...
No Entitlement cuts and call them on the Debt Ceiling.
If they follow through hang the results around their GOTP necks.
Please remember that the majority of Congressional Republicans are in very safe seats. Enough of their constituencies only get their news from Fox that they will blame Obama for the results, and if they go along with the Democrats they'll get primaried.
So "hang the results around their GOTP necks" isn't going to work.
Safe seats means they can "save the nation" by scuttling it's people?
Is that what "safe" entails, and what "save" means?
I would like to see Pres. Obama address both the House and Senate on Live TV with this type of proposal:
You want to cut entitlements to decrease spending? Fine. Your own salaries, and medical and retirement benefits will be decreased the same percentage points that you propose to cut from Social Security, Medicare and medicaid. You will also do away with the entitlement of voting for your own pay increase. Workers do not get to vote themselves a pay increase every year. It is time for you to understand that the people who vote for you are the ones paying your salary and you owe it to them to cut your wages and entitlements by the same proportion that you cut theirs. In fact, if you are very serious about decreasing spending without raising taxes, then I suggest you cut your salaries, benefits and future entitlements by 50 percent, with no loopholes to raises, for the next decade before you bring any proposals for decreased spending to the table. At least then you can show the people who voted you in that you take managing their tax dollars seriously. I suggest you start now."
Sigh - well, I can dream anyway...
@Jontara -- Nice dream, which might have a chance of working -- if only most of the people in Congress and the Senate were not wealthy enough that their government salary is not a big or even moderate part of their income. As far as I can tell, relatively few people can afford to run for these positions without a pretty decent independent income which will support them having homes in both their home district and in DC. They have to be able to afford all the travelling and entertaining that the job normally entails. If you don't need either the money nor the benefits, threatening to cut them won't matter all that much.
Don't assume that this is just your Republican Senator (or Representative) that's ready to go after Medicare and other entitlements.
Dick Durbin is one of my Senators. He has continually talked about Medicare reform as a solution to the budget problems. Funny, I don't remember any major changed to Medicare in the last 12 years that would have caused these problems.
TO RACHEL. What's the chance of getting Durbin on your show to ask him why he was willing to throw money at Wall Street and give money to corporations, but wants to balance the budget on entitlements that DIDN'T cause the problem?
WRITE OR CALL your representatives and senators.
"Funny, I don't remember any major change to Medicare in the last 12 years that would have caused these problems."
I assume this is snark. I would point to Medicare part-D as being in the last 12 yr. and being part of the problem.
But, it was passed by Bush and the Repubs. So, it is not the Dems fault.
The Repubs always ignore the fact that it is not too late to begin paying for Part-D. All we need is a new "fair" tax that pays for it. The Repubs passed it in the 1st place, they should be willing to pay for it now. But, of course, they are not. To their sick/twisted minds it is better to cut Medicare by substituting a voucher.
Also, let Medicare negociate with the drug companies. Also, believe the CBO report that Obamacare will help hold down the growth in medical costs for the whole nation, including Medicare.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Republicans in the house don't care what happens they know their seats are safe and the only thing that makes them nervous are primary challenges from their right.
As far as the "Cliff" goes they will let it happen and then vote to bring the rates back down. The President ends up looking bad and they get to vote for a "Tax cut" and keep everyone in the bubble happy
When did it become "American" to penalize success?
When did it become "American" to not pay your fair share?
Shooter, never.
It's not wanting to make money it's wanting to make ALL the money
Shooter- it is the view that taxes are 'punishments' that is wrong.
Taxes are how America says America. How we pay for roads, schools, and our military.
If you see that as a punishment, you and your kind are in the wrong country.
When did it become 'American' to disregard 47% of *Amercia?
When did it become humanitarian to do whatever you damned well please without giving something back to your country while you clearly have the means to? When did it become altruism to scapegoat the poor and indigent, cut mental health programs or not fund any at all, let veterans fall to PTSD, drug abuse, financial despair and homelessness?
Those are some good follow-up questions to your post Shooter. Of course, the main focus of Americans right now is why are we "punishing" the well to do?
Sorry guys but this is punishment, revenge, retribution, whatever you want to call it.
Largenose, the rich pay their fair share, and part of yours too. What makes you so special that anyone deserves to shanghai someone else into taking care of them?
Angel, there actually was a time that making money and being a success was a good thing. It's why immigrants came here. Now they are leaving. Think that's a good thing?
Dragoon, you know very well that the 1% contributes some 17% of the income. Does that sound like ALL to you? For that matter, whatever they make has no effect on yours or anyone else's financial situation. I expect more from you than the party line.
Fug, we're talking here specifically about extra taxes on the rich, not whether taxes are necessary. Strawmen need not apply.
Trollop, hysteria is not helpful.
Why not just demand that every single person with a problem become a ward of the state? Heck, a trillion dollars would get every household $10,000. Think that would take care of things?
Largenose, the rich pay their fair share, and part of yours too. What makes you so special that anyone deserves to shanghai someone else into taking care of them?
...
Fug, we're talking here specifically about extra taxes on the rich, not whether taxes are necessary.
While it may be your opinion that the rich pay their "fair share", that is not the view of the majority of Americans, who rightfully, IMO, see the lower-than-what-you-and-I-pay tax rates paid both on capital gains and high incomes as unfair.
There are no "Extra" taxes.
C'mon, folks. Wise up.
1) Ignore hemorrhoids.
2) Understand it's about income AND wealth. Then look at the gains over the last 30 years. Then consider the failed conservative economic policies that brought it about.
It's time for the Republicans and their failed ideas and policies that caused the problems across the world to just get the hell out of the way and let the reality-based grownups clean up the fu king mess they've caused.
largenose, you would be wrong about that. You are conflating Romney and Buffet, and the other hedgies as typical. They aren't representative of the 1%, they make their money via capital gains. Actual income is taxed fully. If you have a problem with Romney then lobby against the "carried interest" provision.
Meanwhile, the majority of Americans have no idea what the 1% pay. Do you? I doubt it.
Shooter
It's not a matter of who pays what it's a matter who SPENDS what. The top 1% might contribute that much to tax review but they don't spend money on goods and services (really how many car elevators do you actually need).
I am talking about Mentality and with this group of people they don't seem to want to "Spend" (read:invest) on anything that has either any kind of risk or lacks a return in currency (roads and bridges). You can call it whatever you want but it's still the way reality and the economy works.
Gad, No that is not how the economy works. The rich do not put their money in mattresses or mason jars buried out back. They put in savings, CD's, bonds, stocks, et. al.
And you would be wrong about not investing in roads and bridges. Why, right here in DC we now have roads parallel to 95 and 495 owned in part by Fluor. On the other hand it is absolutely true that rich people expect their money back plus interest, which problematic in the Obama environment. So they hoard.
Have you heard the expression "going Galt"?
You people deserve the hemorrhoids. Enjoy the experience.
^Maybe he can change his screen name. I can change mine to hysteria!
AAAWWWW Discusted has a poopie diaper
Shooter - the thing with wealth being concentrated into a very few hands is that people revolt - it has happened throughout history. Taxes, when collected from all and applied wisely for all to benefit, actually allows people to stay stable and not feel the need to revolt. People who are successful are successful not because of money - but because of their character, their values and their outlook toward themselves and others(and in some cases, lack there-of). Take away all the money tomorrow and the people that have qualities of success will remain successful - those who don't will fall.
This is pretty funny. Are you trying to tell me that free food, free education, free medical, free phones, shelter subsidies, transportation subsidies, and best of all free money.... is going to lead to revolt?
Bring it on. Considering the biggest problem for the poor these days is obesity, the revolt will likely poop out by the end of the block.
I expect all those Tea Partiers to disrupt town halls across the nation with their "Hands off My Medicare" signs.
Yeah right. How sad. I mean it's sad for democracy because anyone who really did vote for Republicans because they were opposed to Medicare cuts has been duped.
How often do you hear a conservative fess up to being duped by their own leadership?
No matter the outcome, the conservative spin machine will manage to make the right look like victims when the truth about conservative antics is revealed. As in past post-elections, the conservative propaganda machine soothes the masses with patriotic Republican self-justification, which conservative voters gladly swallow in order to pretend their votes aren't really being used against them.
It's a nice self-perpetuating circle of utter uselessness.
Entitlements are not the problem, the 1% is the problem, has been the problem, will always be the problem is problematic , They broke the economy now, they need to fix it, without using the Middle Class and the Poor again in order to give themselves that big bonus. Sorry, no more bonuses for you. Just plenty of pretty pink slips that have come from binders and binders of women who have been passed over and added to the pile. Ironically, it is quite similar to the piles of bodies in Germany during the Hitler years. Pretty soon, you'll be able to hear, bring out your dead, bring out your dead, for reals. Believe me when I say the men in the white coats are coming, and it's not gonna be pretty. If they don't stop acting with their exclusive egos, then they can expect some added presents for Christmas, just like they did to all the Middle Class, I'm not kidding they better pay for it this time, start calling your rich buddies, or they will be up the creek without a paddle. They seem to forget that they are on the losing team, they have lost because they are lost, and they're not thinking clearly, as far as I can tell, they are not making any sense, someone needs to point this out to them if they have any chance of saving the now shameful Republican party.
Sorry, but I've paid my entire early to adult lifetime into my "entitlements". F-you GOP, I want my money's worth or my money back! Please deluge yourselves with whatever you'd like so that we may go off of your fiscal cliff (BS) and maybe, just maybe, your ROIC eats @!$%# and dies this time too. God damned Plutocrats..
You haven't had your coffee yet have you?
^In the middle of it, thanks.
(; - )
In case you haven't heard, on average retirees are now taking out significantly more in benefits than they paid in. That doesn't compute.
The answer is mute, are you having any problems getting that yellow tint out of your hair?
My retirement plan is die. Where do you work jes33, must be a magical retirment plan there?! I've paid in for 35 years now, I'll take what I can thank you very little. I assume that it will provide hospice care at that point? I would love to know, what do you plan on doing for your end game jes33?
Must be in the liberal water. Trollop and angel both have quite a load in there diapers too. Obama must have screwed up this time when making the wine.
When calculating how much people have paid into SS, we need to account for inflation, which is what the SS Administration does when it calculates how much each person gets. When I got my SS a few years ago, I was told that the amount I would receive was based on the salary that I made at a University in 1966 when I made an annual salary of $5,000.00. That was a lot of money in 1966. I bought a three bedroom two bath house with living room, den, kitchen, utility room, and two car garage on a big lot for $16,000.00; a new Ford car with payments of $79.00 per month; gas was $.25 a gallon (in Texas); a rump roast could be bought for $.79 a lb.
I may be getting back more numbers now than I paid in then, but I am not getting more in purchasing power.
And one thing that no one seems to consider about retirees is what they contributed to our economy and country with the work we did, with what we actually produced which cannot always be measured in money.
I agree. I will be old enough for medicare at the end of this year so, of course, they are trying to change the eligibility age on me. If they do raise the age will it go into effect immediately or will I get in under the wire? I sure was looking forward to not having to pay $125 out of each pay check for healthcare soon.
I would like the senate and house explain to the average worker why they get to pay in only 6% of their salary into a seperate retirement account and then be able to draw 80% percent of their salary once they retire? Even after only serving one term? The math does not compute.
My impression was that the Democratic view of adjusting the Medicare situation was to raise the FICA charges to cover all income (i.e., not to have a cut-off number) and to have a means test for receiving benefits (which would affect the wealthy).
But I've been wrong before . . .
It seems to me that you are right, in part.
You got 1st part right. And I might want to add a very small tax on "Capital Gains" to go toward Soc. Sec. and/or Medicare. (0.1% or even 0.01%)
But, progressives (most of them) do NOT want to means test entitlements.
We are afraid that this is going to make it easier for Repubs to cut them later (much later, after everyone gets used to them being "welfare", which is just for the poor.)
A means test is fair. You know, the wealthy have paid in their entire adult lives too. But to libs I guess that doesn't count. It is the dems money that they have paid in and deserve to get back, but it isn't the wealthy people's money. Arguments here are sometimes very weak.
The wealthy did not pay in on all their money; only on that below the cap, which is pocket change to many of the wealthy.
""Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge. "Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again. "And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?" "They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not." "The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge. "Both very busy, sir." ":Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it." "Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude," returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?" "Nothing!" Scrooge replied. "You wish to be anonymous?" "I wish to be left alone," said Scrooge. "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there." "Many can't go there; and many would rather die." "If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population." Seeing clearly that it would be useless to pursue their point, the gentlemen withdrew. Scrooge resumed his labours with an improved opinion of himself, and in a more facetious temper than was usual with him." -Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol
Sadly, Ebenezer Scrooge is alive and well, and sitting in Congress.
Entitlements in terms of Medicare, etc. are not the problem with our country. Political patronage is the problem. Money buys favors or position. You contribute to a campaign, well then find my son or daughter or, or, or, a position in your administration. There was a report about how Petraus brought in all of his people into the CIA, and they weren't liked very much. This happens everywhere, in every state in the Union and on many levels. Even in the Lincoln Whitehouse, the senator from Ohio is offered a Post Master General position if he votes for the 14th amendment. Just like lobbyist we must rid our running of gov't of the political patronage. Every 4 years it's a cluster f&*(. That's how all of the tax payers money gets miss used. That's why successful American's loath paying taxes, because they have no control over how & why taxes are used in the managing of our country.
The biggest entitlement that should be cut are the salaries of the Congress. How is it that Congress votes on their own pay? that they are paid even after not holding that office (speaker Gingrich!) Law makers are so far removed from the reality of the average American life. Obama is trying his best to continue to relate to the American people through their letters and pushing for policies that address their needs. Most people Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian are fiscal conservatives. We want to see our roads, our communities well cared for and managed with our taxes. But the top tier of government officials give themselves pay increases, while the rest of the people who really do the work, get topped off after 10 years of 4% raises, every 4 years (elections) is the battle of whether they will get a cost of living raise. Some folks go years without any increase or any chance for advancement.
These are the entitlements that need to change - political patronage.
Hey Corker... So what's the big deal? The nation is fine.. It's pretty used to raising the debt ceiling by now...
Who raised the debt ceiling most often? Ahhh. fodder for the cannons...
1. NUMBER OF TIMES UNDER REAGAN: 17 times or Once every 5 months: 1981, 1981, 1982, 1982, 1983, 1983, 1984, 1984, 1984, 1985, 1985, 1986, 1986, 1987, 1987, 1987, 1987
2. NUMBER OF TIMES RAISED UNDER BUSH: 7 times or Once every 13 months: 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2008.
3. NUMBER OF TIMES UNDER CLINTON: 4 Times or Once every 24 months: 1993, 1993, 1996 and 1997.
4. UNDER OBAMA: 2 Times or Once every 15 months: 2009 and 2010.
Reload...
The Debt Ceiling has been Raised 102 times since 1917 ...kittyreporter.wordpress.com/.../the-debt-ceiling-has-been-raised-102-.. .Jul 14, 2011 – The Debt Ceiling has been Raised 102 times since 1917 ...
Who raised the debt ceiling? - The Washington Post www.washingtonpost.com/...raised...debt-ceiling/.../gIQA7TIvEI_gra... Jul 14, 2011 – Since 1980, the debt ceiling has been raised 39 times.
US debt ceiling: how big is it and how has it changed? | News ... www.guardian.co.uk › News › Datablog Aug 2, 2011 – The debt ceiling has been raised 103 times since 1944 • It has been raised 51 times by Republicans, 52 times by Democrats
Debt ceiling in play again - May. 22, 2012money.cnn.com/2012/05/22/news/economy/debt-ceiling/index.htm May 22, 2012 – The first limit, established in 1917, was set at $11.5 billion, according to the Committee ... How many times has the ceiling been raised? Since March 1962, debt ceiling increases have been enacted 76 times, according to the ...
There you go, using facts!