ABC News' George Stephanopoulos devoted a good chunk of "This Week" to discussed automatic sequestration cuts yesterday, and asked Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) for his prediction. The Republican congressman said President Obama came up with the sequester -- a claim that simply isn't true -- before saying his caucus is "prepared to negotiate on redistributing the cuts."
It led to this exchange:
STEPHANOPOULOS: And you're saying all cuts. Republicans are accepting absolutely no revenues?
COLE: No. Look, absolutely none. The president's accepted no spending cuts back in the fiscal cliff deal 45 days ago, so you get all -- no spending cuts back then. Then you're going to get no revenue now.
Around the same time, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who appears to spend more time on Sunday shows than in the Senate, said he's open to some revenues as a way to replace the sequester, but added, "[W]e have raised taxes. Why do we have to raise taxes again?"
Of course, by that logic, there's no reason not to ask, "We have cut spending. Why do we have to cut spending again?"
It's troubling that Republican policymakers have such short memories, and seem to have no idea what policies they voted for as recently as 2011. It's one of the more breathtaking examples of willful ignorance in recent memory.
But if we assume that lawmakers like Cole and McCain are sincere, and they literally can't remember the basics of recent budget policy, then it's probably worthwhile to set the record straight.
In 2011, Democrats and Republicans agreed to between $1.2 trillion and $1.5 trillion in spending cuts, depending on how one tallies the numbers. The cuts included no new revenue.
In 2012, Democrats and Republicans agreed to a deal that raised revenue by about $650 billion. The new revenue included no new cuts.
In 2013, Republicans are saying they remember what happened in 2012, but the 2011 policy has been blocked from memory.
This is crazy. Folks like Cole and McCain keep saying the 2012 deal didn't include spending cuts, so the sequester has to be 100% in the GOP's favor now, without exception. Why? Because Republicans haven't gotten spending cuts.
Except they already did get spending cuts. Indeed, the cuts from 2011 were twice as big as the revenue from 2012. [Update: Greg Sargent has some very helpful charts that help drive the point home.]
Even if the parties agreed to an entirely balanced agreement this month to replace the sequester -- roughly $600 billion in revenue and $600 billion in cuts -- Republicans would still be getting the much better end of the deal. The total for the entire package, negotiated in parts over the course of two years, would be over $4 trillion in debt reduction -- with a cuts-to-revenue ration of about six to one.
For that matter, Obama isn't calling for "tax increases"; he's calling for new revenue through closing tax loopholes and ending certain tax deductions. As recently as last month, Republican leaders said such a policy doesn't count as a "tax increase," though it's suddenly become outrageous now that the president agrees.
This really isn't that complicated. Either Republicans have a child's understanding of fiscal policy, the memory capacity of a goldfish, or they think Americans are fools. At this point, I'm no longer sure which, though I'm open to suggestions.
Leave a Comment:
They don't have the limited memory capacity of goldfish.
This weekend a minister's breakfast prayer included the fact tithing is 10% for all and taxes should reflect the will of God by simplifying the tax code and that everyone should have skin in the game. He stated it is immoral to tax those that succeed at a huge percentage increase. Even though a flat tax would increase my personal taxes, which I currently pay no federal income taxes, I tend to agree. If everyone paid a percentage of their earnings they may hold the feet of legislators more to the fire stating "Hey, why are you wasting my hard earned money on something so unnecessary?"
In my opinion, the government asking for more taxes while wasting our money on things like NasCar and giving billions to corporations that rack up 10's of billions in profits per quarter like Oil subsidies, is true insanity.
First . . . what a minister says at a weekend prayer breakfast should have absolutely nothing to do with setting tax policy -- or any public policy for that matter.
Second . . . Congress should do the right and reasonable thing without being threatened.
The book "The Family" says that the group that hosts all these annual National prayer breakfasts is the group that ran (or is it runs?) the infamous house on C-Street.
Its called by several names, one is The Family, hense the title. It was founded to undo the New Deal in 1936 (or 1037) by a rich guy. His son still runs it.
It brainwashes college age men (women should do the cleaning) at other houses they run. The teaching is based on a very selective reading of the Bible (almost totally the Old Testament), this gives it stature.
If the "teaching" doesn't 'take' they throw you out, if it does they help you rise in your career, maybe to run for office later. Many of our Democratic 'leaders' have been thru the program. All of their Repub 'leaders' have.
One of their more outrageous positions is -- "If you had raped 3 little girls, you might think that we would not accept you. On the contrary, if you join us we know that God has forgiven you, because we have forgiven you." Also, God intends the rich to get richer, and once you are one of God's "elect" nothing you ever do in the future is a sin (and by joining us you become elect). [Note they said "little girl", I they did not say "young girl", a term that can apply to Monica Lewinsky at age 22.]
Don't believe me? Look it up.
That is very interesting, thanks for the history lesson. What floors me is "Why does this and previous Presidents allow this organization to speak at the National Prayer Breakfast?"
Yet another great example of Government gone awry!
@FDH
You got it a little wrong. "The Family" hosts these prayer breakfasts.
I think the question should be, "Why doesn't this President [or previous Dem Presidents] just not go or better, start a new one and go to it?"
Either Republicans have a child's understanding of fiscal policy, the memory capacity of a goldfish, or they think Americans are fools
All of the above.
Or #4: they are fools.
First, great political insight. You must have really put a lot of thought into that.
Second, let me get this straight. Democrats agreed to 1.2T of "cuts" in 2013, and now that the Rs are trying to hold them to their agreement, the Rs are "fools." No, the foolish thing would be to re-open that agreement.
Third, look at federal spending. Over the last decade, it grew steadily at 5.8% per year. Over the next decade, the CBO says it will grow 4.1% per year (assuming the sequester occurs). That spending growth may not be as much as you'd like, it may not be as much as you'd expected, but only in the Orwellian world of Washington is it a "cut."
They are not elected representatives of the American people in their respective districts and states!
They are circus clowns shilling for people disposed to living big in Banana Republics and other off shore financial configurations!
It takes not a cynic to see right through these gents of the nether! -Kevo
So what we have here is a bunch of cranky old white guys with severe cases of CRS (can't remeber S***)
Romnesia - It worked then and if I remember right it'll work now, sure seems wonderful to have Congress working in this non-problem again, they will surely find a non-solution, they always do.
If Congress succeeds - They still have a job.
If Congress muddles along - They still have a job.
If Congress fails again and again - They still have a job.
This is a power cycle.
Budget cuts? What budget cuts? As usual the cuts weren't real while the taxes were. These are just evidence exhibits "x" and "y" documenting why the left can't be trusted.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/02/06/fact-check-harry-reid-deficit-reduction/1895903/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/many-2011-federal-budget-cuts-had-little-real-world-effect/2013/02/09/11938e3e-6bc6-11e2-a396-ef12a93b4200_story.html?hpid=z1
Yeah, the GOP sucks at negotiating, because they haven't got a clue about fiscal/economic policy...Good thing, too, since implementing all their nut-job ideas would send this country even deeper into recession than they've already driven it.
Sorry bud, but Republicans have been around for only two of the last four years. And no, make work jobs bills won't fool anyone into thinking happy days are here again.
shooter242
June 11, 2012 at 6:54 am
I’d like to encourage more trollery on left wing sites. Specifically pushback on common memes such as identified by Jonah Goldberg as unchallenged cliches. It can actually work, and it can actually change the course of debate.
For instance, I always challenge “the rich take too much of the pie” meme. There is no pie, no one decides who gets what, and the “pie” is a measure of contributions to a total. Ergo the rich don’t take they contribute. It’s been gratifyingly effective.
Try it you’ll like it. Don’t curse and keep the personal insults to a bare minimum, don’t allow moving goal posts or distractions. Ignore trollish responders, and be four times more civil. They hate that.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/12/11/president-obamas-record-and-proposals-cutting-spending
So swerver, which part of that gives you trouble... a contrary opinion, or someone being civil about it?
Shooter, you're perfectly wecome to join us and show yourself to be a fool.
As you so often do.
"It's troubling that Republican policymakers have such short memories, and seem to have no idea what policies they voted for as recently as 2011."
What's really troubling is that these people, that have neither experience as "legislators" nor an understanding of what their jobs actually entail, nor do they have reading for comprehension are hold public office! What's troubling is that these people probably haven't taken the time to read the legislation that they vote on and have NO understanding of what's happening - beyond the talking points that they've been given.
What's troubling is that the current crop of GOTP are so dumbed down on the very basics of government, it's CIVICS 101 - and they're failing. Most of these people should have tried running for head dog-catcher before they ran for public office - they might have been a bit better at their jobs!
Americans wake up - these people belong no where near public office - they are NOT servants to your communities, they are the whores of the Oligarchy.
A lot of name-calling, no analysis. Is this how liberals think?
I vote for D) all of the above.
What do you expect from the representatives of the 1%? While people pay with their lives and hard earned cash, they play games of chicken with each other and our lives...
Sorry libs, but counting the wind down of the wars isn't a spending cut. Counting moving $716 B from Medicare to Obamacare isn't a spending cut. Obama has added $5 TRILLION to the debt in his first administration. By the end of his second, he will have accumulated more debt than all previous Presidents combined.
So spare me the "we've already cut spending" meme. It simply is typical liberal fantasy. We have a spending problem. No matter what that numbskull Pelosi says.
I find it interesting that winding that the wars is 'not a spending cut'. Every President that has presided over the end of a war uses it to rein in the Defense Budget. But now...forget it Obama! Oh but that would be Eisenhower and Nixon...I guess they're just RINOs right?
Thanks for the demonstration of what a drooling moron you are, boy. Now get back to WackoWorld and go back to fornicating your sheep, boy, you're behind schedule.
If you spend less money on something and use that opportunity to reduce the agency's budget, of course it's a spending reduction.
What utter nonsense. You need to go back and take Math 101, let alone Econ 101.
Option D: All of the above.
And let's hear it again for Obama's masterful handling of the idiotically-named "fiscal cliff" where he turned the irresponsible temporary Bush tax cuts into the even-more-irresponsible permanent Obama tax cuts getting just 18% of them back and allowing Republicans to claim not only that he raised taxes but that he's gotten all the revenue he's going to get for that oh-so-liberal-and-progressive program he has where he pretends to fight for investments in various research, education, climate change, etc.
Way to go, Big O! Even W couldn't make them permanent.
You can't run a country like this. Then again, these guys aren't interested in running a country...except if it's into the ground.
Feature, not bug. Ruining the government is very helpful in creating nihilistic, libertarian neo-Confederate banana republic dystopias, the objective of their 1% benefactor overlords.
They and their backers want the U.S. to be the new cheap labor capitol of the world. We did elect the better choice, ya know.
Yes, so it is a feature.
And yes, a continuation of W was still better than Romney, which would have been complete disaster.
Republicans are hell bent on taking down the US economy and the world economy along with it. Then they can say see, see what Obama has done. Elect us we'll take care of you. We'll fix the economy we'll fix Social Security, we'll fix Medicare and we'll "fix'em" good. You wo'nt have to worry about any of them anymore. Yes and thats what scares me..
Yes, they won't have to worry about them anymore because they won't exist.
I hold the media responsible for much of this. Yes I think Congress should DO THEIR JOBS but the media doesn't even QUESTION comments like these. They nod their heads and move on to the next contentious question. Especially when another member of the PANEL questions the comments, the hosts says 'yes well...in OTHER PLACES in the 'news'...' See you host of Meet The Press.