Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had a busy morning yesterday, appearing on NBC, ABC, and CBS to repeat his favorite talking points. For example, viewers got to hear the Republican complain, five times, that the nation has a "massive spending addiction," though the rhetoric has no basis in reality. McConnell also insisted President Obama is "unwilling" to cut spending, suggesting the Minority Leader may be suffering from a poor memory.
Of particular interest, though, were McConnell's thoughts on creating a new debt-ceiling crisis.
For those who can't watch clips online, McConnell remains unembarrassed by the notion of threatening to hurt Americans on purpose to force cuts to Social Security and Medicare -- cuts he expects the White House to initiate in the hopes of making Republicans happy (and giving them cover). But David Gregory also asked specifically about applying new revenues, not through higher tax rates, but through tax reform. McConnell replied:
"Yeah, that's over. I'm in favor of doing tax reform, but I think tax reform ought to be revenue neutral as it was back during the Reagan years. We've resolved this issue. Look, we don't have this problem because we tax too little. We have it because we spend way, way too much. So we've settled the tax issue."
This was an important quote because it suggests the Republican-created crisis is much more likely to get worse before it gets better.
Stepping back and looking at the coming fight in the larger context, a resolution should be relatively simple. Sometime between now and the end of February, policymakers have to work out a deal worth about $1.2 trillion, and the White House has said the agreement needs to be "balanced."
With that in mind, the picture is easy to imagine -- Republicans accept $600 billion or so in new revenue through closed loopholes and deductions, Democrats accept $600 billion or so in entitlement "reforms." The whole deal could come together relatively easily.
Indeed, let's not forget that a month ago, GOP leaders, including House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), were prepared to accept new revenue as part of a bipartisan fiscal deal, and said they wanted that new revenue to come exclusively through tax reform. In fact, as far as Boehner was concerned, policymakers can find up to $800 billion in new revenue to apply towards debt reduction entirely through the reform process, without touching rates at all.
Now, however, we're seeing a sharp shift in posture. As far as McConnell is concerned, Republicans could offer a balanced deal, and could offer hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue to reduce the debt, and did propose this just a few weeks ago, but now the idea is off the table. Why? Because Republicans say so.
Obama is looking for a 50-50 deal; McConnell is demanding a 100-0 deal. There's an obvious resolution, and 24 hours ago, McConnell ruled it out entirely.
Leave a Comment:
If I were McConnell, and thank Gawd I'm not(!), I wouldn't be creatively using the word Neutral in any statement ever lest Gawd strike me dead on the spot..
Anyone else tired of this windbag and his repetitious, boring 'stances'?
He's trying to throw a weight around that he actually no longer has. And that may, hopefully, be diminished with filibuster reform.
His 'one goal' was a giant fail.
In case you hadn't seen it, I really liked this Jonathan Chait post on that topic -- how the GOP gambled everything for 4 years on the single idea that by opposing Obama on everything, they'd guarantee his defeat in 2012 and destroy his legacy -- and they lost miserably. Always brings a smile to my face to think about that ..
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/11/republicans-bet-everything-and-obama-won-it-all.html
Go check out my website and help me defeat Mitch MCConnell for U.S. Senate in 2014.
www.Marksberry2014.com
Mitch McConnell: further proof we let the Confederacy off easy. His ancestors survived to sire him.
Americans do vote with their pocket books, and it does seem the Middle Class electorate is paying much more attention to our political landscape than in recent memory - including 2010 when like 1994 Republicans ran on false and hollow rhetoric (jobs, jobs, jobs).
Mitch's pitch is a bit shrill in 2012,
and I hope Middle Class citizens
won't get fooled again! No no!
Our Congress does have a spending addiction, just as Mitch McConnell has no Scot blood in his ancestry! -Kevo
We just had our Social Security payroll taxes raised, and now they want to reduce benefits?
Why are Republicans so intent on ripping us off?
Haven't you been listening to your compatriots? The payroll tax cut was temporary so you haven't had a tax hike. And yes, if you want benefits in the future, you'd better even out SS taxes and SS benefits.
You can't be ripped off of what you don't have in the first place.
Shooter, I know the payroll tax cut was temporary, but the Bush tax cuts were once thought of as temporary, too.
The payroll tax returning to the old level means that I am taking home $80 less a month from my full time job, and I will find out on Friday how much less I am taking home from my part time job. That is a sacrifice for someone who needs a newer car and has been seeing her savings decrease instead of increase over the past year. There is no reason why we should make these sacrifices now and have our Social Security raided besides.
Why? Because they've been working since 1932 to reverse the results of the 1932 election and all that followed.
And Obama is damned determined to help Republicans make starve-the-beast a success.
Republicans, D.C. villagers and some Democrats- I doubt that my fabulously wealthy Democratic Senator, Dianne Feinstein, would hesitate to condemn old people to a diet of catfood and styrofoam. I have a hard time accepting the fact that bread costs between $4 and $5 at my local supermarket. I live in the SF bay area. Food is unbelievably expensive. The idea that a chained CPI is anything more than a way of condemning old people to death by starvation is ludicrous. And it's unnecessary. The gov't borrowed the Social Security surplus of approximately $3trillion to pay for Iraq, Afghanistan and tax cuts for the rich and they don't want to pay it back.
Spending is only an issue when Democrats are in the White House. There are no lies or catch phrases that change this reality.
Let's see... Bush deficit $300 billion. Obama deficit $1300 billion. Do you see the difference there? Look closely.
Shooter, Bush kept the wars in Afganistan and Iraq off the books. Obama put them on. Instantly fools like you were fooled.
Bush's final quarter (2008CQ4) deficit was $350 billion in one quarter, and that include at least one pre-crash month.
Since that last quarter of the Bush Administration, deficits have been consistently shrinking.
And yet Obama's yearly deficit is STILL bigger than the cost of the Iraq war. Worse it was Democrats that pushed subprime loans and decided derivitives were to be kept off the books. Yes, I know Obama inherited a crappy economy from Obama, but you have to play the hand you're dealt.
Just what has Obama done to cause such large deficits, Bull?
when Pres. Obama took office in 2009, his projected budget had a $ 1.4 T deficit, the budget that Bush had proposed had a $1.3 T so there wasn't much difference there. In fact the 2009 budget is basically Bush's responsibility, it had been going for four months when President Obama took office. According to Forbes and Market Watch, Obama has had the smallest deficit increase since Eisenhower. Reagan had an 8.7% increase from'82-'85. BushII '02-'05 7.3%, '06-'09 8.1%. Obama '10-'13 1.4%. Clinton's and BushI's deficit increases were between Reagan's and BushII's. So it appears that all the republican talk is just that, Talk, no basis of facts, of course facts have little to do with political discussions. When republicans speak of spending they are speaking of SS and Medicare-Medicaid. If it is for defense they can't spend enough.
And it just continues.
- http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/01/we-dont-have-spending-problem-we-have-aging-problem
- http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/12/washington-doesnt-have-spending-problem-it-has-healthcare-problem-period
Nothing else needs to be said.
Your right they keep increasing the defense budget, giving massive corporate welfare and borrowed from SS trust and their answer is cut SS but dont touch corporate welfare or the defense budget.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-gibson/cut-corporate-welfare-not_b_2421340.html
@D.C.: He made the Bush tax cuts PERMANENT.
Sorry DWIA, but your whining is getting just a bit old. No Congress is barred from reversing the actions of any previous Congress. The only possible exception would be if some legislation had been ruled un-Constitutional. Income taxes are Constitutional.
Once the economy has improved, there's nothing to stop either the present ot the next Democratic President from raising the rates on lower incomes. That's assuming that with a better economy, we even need to raise them.
It's not as if Democratic Presidents have never raised taxes before. I seem to recall someone doing so in the 1990s...
They claim they have given all the new revenue in the Fiscal Cliff deal they are going to. Admittedly that deal was mostly about ending tax cuts, so they are miffed that it didn't slash medicare or medicaid (or some other program for the weak or helpless). I would remind everybody that the Fiscal Cliff deal was a tax only deal so it isn't surprising spending cuts weren't included. The next two rounds (the continuing resolution and sequestration) give us ample time and opportunity for an even handed approach.
I have an idea where to cut, how about cutting every program in the 4th district of Mississippi?
How about an actual reduction in spending instead the phantom cuts in increase Democrats proffer?
You all have gotten all the tax revenue you're going to. Enjoy!
How about closing the 82 Airborne Division stationed at Fort Polk near De Ritter Mississippi? I think that is in the 4th district of Mississippi and the congresscritter there would be happy to support the move because he wants to vote for hurricane relief in New Jersey but can't without offsets.
Ron...How about eliminating the PORK in the Hurricane Relief bill so that politicians on both sides of the aisle can vote on a bill that actually if for its intended purpose.
just saying,,,
I talked about pork in the bill the other day. I am not opposed to eliminating pork, but we need to make sure that it is really pork. One man's pork is another man's vital project.
In this case the Congresscritter from the 4th district of Mississippi won't vote for Sandy Hurricane relief without offsets. I am proposing some offsets.
What is rich is the 4th district of Mississippi is ground zero just about every hurricane season.
Ok shooter
Put your (our) money where your mouth is...What would you cut? Give me 5 examples
Easy, 5% across the board. No politics, no arguing about pet projects, no whining about diminished increases. More importantly, the managers/bureaucrats that can't find five percent to cut without ANY decrease in service should be fired.
After that, it's time for zero based budgeting. When the entire sum of personal income tax paid yearly, is less than the deficit... you have a spending problem not a tax problem.
Blankman that sounds good - except that domestic programs (child nutrition, education, elder-care) cannot afford to take those cuts - they've already been cut enough. But how about we start with 10% of the "Defense" budget - I mean WE already have enough weaponry to blow up the planet 10x over, not to mention that if you put 7 of the industrialized west together we still have out-spent them! I'm not talking about our Military, I'm talking about Contractors currently in Afghanistan, weapons systems (Boeing, Haliburton, McDonnell Douglas, et.al), cut out some of that pork and we can pay down the debt much quicker.
This is the problem...I ask you to make specific recommendations and you reply with generalities.
A 5% across the board cut wouldn't work out because as Zora pointed out a lot of programs have already been cut by way more than that while others have been expanded. The Abrams Tank upgrade program as an example and I won't even go into the new fleet of Aircraft carriers and submarines that are on the table.
The other thing I will mention is that one of the problems with "Spending" is that a lot of the ridiculous things that get put in earmarks are put in by Republicans...remember the bridge to nowhere?
There isn't one simple easy answer. The problem lays with congress and the fact that part of their job is to make sure that their constituents and their contributors are kept happy.
You want to fix spending reform campaign finance rules.
Sounds like a familiar proposal that seemed to not work... remember Herman Cain? Anyway, you talk about firing this person and all in your response. Here are facts, George W. Bush wrote a check with all the tax cuts that he wouldn't have to cash. Shooter, you must make over $400k a year or something because you have no grasp of reality for those who are not in that class.
Given that basketball boy consistently misses from the free-throw line, how does one expect someone who believes that 2+2=22 to come up with anything?
It's really very helpful of McConnell to put this out now rather than later, since the Senate is yet to take up rules for the 113th Congress.
And he's made it as clear as can be that he's going to filibuster any resolution of the debt ceiling mess that doesn't meet his non-negotiable demands. Not that he'll tell us what those demands are, of course.
What a friggin' traitor to Americans! This dude is a real piece of work! Hey Kentuckians you should be so proud that the guy you sent to represent you refuses to pay for bills racked up under his watch! Pompous @sshole!
Southerners have never believed in paying their debts - they just vote for another con artist to rip off the Yankees.
D. C. Sessions , I hope you are right .
Alas, I make no predictions. What Reid brings to the Senate is likely to be a major disappointment, but it's not like he hasn't been warned.
Our main goal is to make Obama a one term President. What. Oh. Never mind.
And a fanatical devotion to the Pope!
On MTP alone, McConnell used the phrase 'Obama needs to LEAD' when talking about issues of the purse. REALLY? I thought that was YOUR job McConnell. Every time he opened his mouth it was to blame the President for the fact that the Congress is so dysfunctional. Honestly does he think the 'American people' can't see what he's doing? Or because he doesn't get a rise out of the MEDIA does he think he's getting away with something? The Sunday shows have become a joke. We need more hosts that just laugh in their lying faces. How about MEET THE PEOPLE?
Yeah, it would be nice if Obama lead -- by pointing out the fact that we don't have a spending problem.
And where was Democratic response that, no, we do not in fact have a spending problem? Answer: nowhere to be found. Any wonder why the Democrats always lose when it comes to what people think? It's because the Democrats just can't be bothered with the messiness.
Here's all you need to know:
- http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/01/we-dont-have-spending-problem-we-have-aging-problem
- http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/12/washington-doesnt-have-spending-problem-it-has-healthcare-problem-period
It'd be nice if, for once, a Democrat actually tried to take its side int the argument.
This was a television show, not a floor debate.
Even more important then when it comes to educating the public, wasn't it then? Or do you have a hard time with those sort of concepts?
Sunday television interview shows do not have any kind of even-handed requirements, and the interviewers rarely interject. Next week they might invite Chris Van Holland, who will then explain the Democrat position. If you are looking for balance, Sunday morning is not the place to loook, they have John McCain more often than his own wife does...
We should keep in mind that the MSM is there to make money, not to inform. Look at who owns most TV networks and you'll see the profit motive at work.
Uh, huh. Wanna bet he won't bother to take something clear-minded like a chart something of the sort in Drum's piece? You ever see Democrats make a clear case on The NewsHour? You don't need to answer those. The answer is no. If he tries to do anything, he'll get lose in the weeds, and even people who watch will still come away thinking it's spending. There's a reason. Democrats are clueless, too. At least for the most part. Ever note that when Biden "debated" Ryan in the VP debate he was blaming the economic downturn on the Bush tax cuts? Interesting. Then the Obama Administration made the Bush tax cuts permanent for 98% of tax payers and took 82% of the revenue off the table. That ever make you think: Hmmm, why? So it would actually make the rest of the upcoming negotiations even tougher to do something responsible and NOT betray Democratic voters and supporters?
Lebowsky Dude;
...they have John McCain more often then his own wife does....
LOVE IT!!!
He dodged every specific, so the fella has nothing to stand on. Anyone who thought the coddling of the extremist base would not go on to the very last minute is dreaming. We have literally made brinksmanship part of the process, and the price is sky high. This kabuki dance will continue, there is no way a single elected Republican will own a Medicare or Social Security cut, they simply want to float manure...
Um, we just watched some stats on what the Bush tax cuts cost, on Rachel's show. So I wouldn't exactly say spending is under control. I think During a recession we should have stimulus and tax breaks for the middle class. But I also expect Congress to figure out how to cut spending when the economy improves.
I'm liking the Robert Reich rule. http://robertreich.org/
Reduce the costs of health care. Period.
And close those darn loopholes. Quit with the pork, where it really is pork. This last bill apparently doled out to Hollywood and some other industries that aren't hurting. Really? Come on. Any oil company still getting breaks is fair game. Of course, this means eliminating all the breaks your local government gives to industries in your town.
As soon as the recession dies down, some brave soul is going to have to eliminate the Bush tax cuts altogether, and do something about the cost of healthcare.
The charitable contributions to churches should not be allowed. The government is supporting the churches by lost revenue. The Mormon's recently opened a shopping center in Salt Lake City that cost over $6B to build. Romney deducted millions given to the Mormon church.
Ron Byers, Fort Polk is in Louisiana.
As I have stated before, republican spending means SS and Medicare, end of story. It is ludicrous to blame the only programs that are fully funded for causing the deficit. SS recipients got a 1.7% COLA, which part of it was taken back by the increase in Medicare. There are still several increases that haven't been charged to SS recipients. There is going to be a major effort by the GNOP to gut SS and Medicare.
Did you know that the US Government still subsidizes the growing of tobacco? There are so many government programs that should be cut. We need to see that some of the subsidies for a lot of industries cut, such as oil. Let's cut waste and fraud before we start on people programs.
Thanks. I am pretty sure DeRitter is in Mississippi. A friend of mine used to be the Episcopal priest there. It is just across the line, I guess.
if we are going to cut spending which seems to be what the ignorant in this country want so badly... then we can,, we can start with cutting the defense budget which accounts for over half of all federal spending. so called entitlements account for about 6 percent ...
Let's cut the "excess welfare" the South gets from the rest of us, close all military bases in the South, cut off the tobacco subsidy. All those "independent" folks down there don't like government spending, let's stop spending on them.
comes down to this..... we have automatic sequestrations that occur on March 1 they pushed it off two months till then but it didnt go away. only way that is prevented is GOP and the DEM have to agree on a budget and to stand there and say no new revenue only cuts to entitlements will be accepted is foolish. I agree we need budget cuts but defense is bloated and we can cut aid to other countries to bring the budget in line with no cuts to SS. Why are we sending billions in aid to other countries when were struggling here?
I'd take you more seriously if you had a tenth-clue what you are talking about regarding foreign aid, which is something around 1% of the budget. Lefty morons are sooooo much more embarrassing than righties.
Foreign aid in most cases is nothing more than bribery to keep those countries as friends of the USA...we can take THAT money and use it to create jobs which will help the US Economy.
Conjobs are so clueless to Economics 101
Why is it that McConnell has no problem with cutting our "paid benefits" that came from taxes we paid, but has a problem raising taxes on those on "corporate welfare"?
Help me defeat McConnell , go to my website and support our campaign to defeat Mitch McConnell. You'll be glad you did!
www.Marksberry2014.com
end the tax exemption for churches since they all see to want to have a say in politics...
I like it, I like it a lot!!!
Cut the F-35, which doesn't work and doesn't have an actual mission if it did, and get rid of $1.5 trillion in deficit spending.
The very best way to increase revenues is put Americans back to work. They work, they spend money, businesses see sales and profits rise and the Economy heals itself and MORE Taxes come into the Treasury. THEN, cut Corporate Welfare. The Oil Companies have been raking in CWelfare for over 30 years while making BILLIONS in profit each Quarter. Cut off any Company that sends jobs overseas from ANY Tax Breaks or even bidding on any Govt Contract. If you do not hire Americans you DO NOT benefit from the American Tax Code.
Questions I would would ask Sen. McConnell. Senator, when you voted 11 times to raise the debt ceiling under GW Bush did you seek cuts on entitlements. Atthat time did you care about the future of the big 3 when you voted yes 11 times.Senator when you retire you will receive full benefits from the Gov,at anytime will you feel that congress can cut you entitlements.
The Blaming Finger is swinging wildly around the four corners of
the United States of America these days. Yes, that Accusatory, Wagging, Bony
Finger - shakes it self in front of Every American’s Face with vim and vigor -
indignation and rancor. Yes, there’s enough Blame Pudding to go around for
Everyone. But it won’t solve the Economic Problem (most Empty calorie desserts
never do) - it won’t feed the Hungry WereWolf (ManBeast) beginning to raise Its
Brutish Head and Howl away inside some of Us. No, Blaming never
does.
Our Chickens have come Home to roost and the WereWolves
have been put in charge of guarding, protecting and salvaging the Hen House! Is
that the Fear Monger Boogie playing distantly in the background? Is that Chicken
Little squawking to the Fear laden tune?
We have been Conditioned to Be
Consumers. Modern Westerners Globally have been Conditioned to live on Credit
and the magical, fast, childish, ‘gotta have it now’ inclinations stimulated
within the Flash and Spend realms of Credit Card Land. No delayed
gratifications. No learning the Patience and Other Lessons that come through the
processes of Saving to buy what We Think We want or need (homes, automobiles,
things with bling...etc.).
Compound that (with interest) with political,
legal, business and banking Cannibalistic Greed (believe it or not, there are
healthier, more balanced forms of free market Greed), and, of course, it leads
to a steady increase of Excess and eventual Accession to Recession/ Depression.
It’s all about Energetic Balance.
As the Oceans ebb and flow, as Yin is
to Yang, as Light is to Dark, so, too, flow (or jerk around depending upon Who
or What’s doing the manipulating) the Cycles and Currents of Social Economies.
They, too, move with Energies directly and indirectly effecting and affecting
Them. What We Put into Them or Take Away From Them is what we will get
back.
If American Taxpayers give into a ‘bail out’ mentality, Nothing
will Gained - Nothing will be Learned - Much will be lost - and the Ones
responsible for Orchestrating this Catastrophic Imbalance of Power, unEthical
and imMoral Behaviors, Betrayal of National and Global Trust will be rewarded
for these despicable and ignoble behaviors and only come back for more. That’s
what happens when behavior gets rewarded. The culprit (or culprits) come back
for MORE! While balancing Our Economic situation We must include measures which
deter the Wrongdoers, hold Them accountable for Their Actions (or nonActions),
and seek forms of restitution to assuage and Pay Back the American Taxpayers
whose Trust They have Betrayed.
This has nothing to do with Conservatism
or Liberalism. It has Everything to do with Capitalism Run Amuck! Capitalism,
like everything else, has Its Energetic Light and Dark Aspects, Checks and
Balances. Benevolent Capitalism tends to serve the Needs of the Majority within
a Society. Cannibalistic Capitalism destroys Everyone! Dog Eat Dog (WereWolf Eat
WereWolf) feeding frenzies are inevitable - even perpetuated.
We - as
Thinking - Enlightened Beings in a Democratic Republic can Transform this Energy
and restore Balance, but it will require Enduring and Persevering through the
Lessons and Energies of the Cause, Effect and Consequence Ripple Effect We have
stimulated and allowed to malignantly expand.
We must put the Blaming
Finger to Rest! It diverts Our Attention and Intentions from the real Work that
must be done. It’s maniacal Blame Game is a waste of Our precious Energies and
Time!
I wonder if McConnell is moderately demented.
Ellyn
Moderately demented?