« | »

Patty Murray Says ‘Don’t Fear The Fiscal Cliff’

From the Financial Times:

Don’t fear fiscal cliff, says Democrat

By Robin Harding | November 11, 2012

A leading Democratic senator has said her party should be willing to go off the fiscal cliff in order to secure tax rises on the wealthy, raising the stakes in year-end budget negotiations.

The Democrats are willing to risk anything and everything to punish "the wealthy." (And the wealthy are anyone who makes more than a Senator or Representative.)

“If the Republicans will not agree with that, we will reach a point at the end of this year where all the tax cuts expire and we’ll start over next year,” said Patty Murray, who was co-chair of last year’s deficit supercommittee, on ABC’s This Week. “And whatever we do will be a tax cut for whatever package we put together. That may be the way to get past this.”

In other words, if the Republicans don’t agree to increasing the rate on the wealthy they will just let all of the Bush tax cuts expire. Which of course was always the plan. After all, the Democrats really want to raise everyone’s taxes. But they want to be able to blame the Republicans for it.

Which was the real reason they created the fiscal cliff in the first place. For, lest we forget, it was the Democrats who insisted on making the Bush tax rates ‘sunset’ after ten years in the first place.

The Washington senator is one of the most senior figures from either party to suggest that temporarily going off the fiscal cliff could be an acceptable way to break the impasse over fiscal policy. Her hard line could strengthen the negotiating position of Democrats but frighten markets…

Remember how we were told that we needed to reassure markets? That it was only the doubt that Obama might not get re-elected that was holding them back?

Going off the cliff would have the political advantage of letting Congress vote for tax cuts, after they go up automatically at the end of the year, rather than voting for tax rises now…

And that will fool everybody, too.

[T]here were signs that Republicans are backing away from a head-on confrontation over the Bush tax cuts on higher incomes. Bill Kristol, the influential editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, said the party should consider taking the fiscal deal proposed by President Barack Obama.

“I don’t really understand why Republicans don’t take Obama’s offer to freeze taxes for everyone below $250,000, make it $500,000, make it $1m,” said Mr Kristol on Fox News Sunday. “Really? The Republican party is going to fall on its sword to defend a bunch of millionaires, half of whom voted Democratic and half of whom live in Hollywood?” …

Apparently Mr. Kristol is unaware that half of the small businesses in America would have their taxes raised under Obama’s plan. But what does he care? His "magazine" is in the habit of losing a million dollars a year.

Unfortunately, not all small businesses can get away with doing that.

This article was posted by Steve on Monday, November 12th, 2012. Comments are currently closed.

8 Responses to “Patty Murray Says ‘Don’t Fear The Fiscal Cliff’”

  1. River0 says:

    We should let them have their way, and the disaster will be all theirs. As with ObummerScare, conservatives should keep their fingerprints off all legislation that isn’t principled. When the inevitable catastrophe unfolds, we can say, “I told you so!!!!” with complete moral authority.

    The Demonicrats won by playing Santa Claus to every interest group, and until their bag of goodies runs out, we can’t compete with them. Unless we mimic all their pandering, they’ll win with all low-income groups. That’s what the ‘immigrants’ want, and the Demonicrats have been giving it to them since the Irish potato famine in 1840’s.

    In a house full of children, strict Dad and Mom can’t compete with St. Nick.

    We and the EU must collapse before the collective will sees the truth.

  2. JohnMG says:

    Look at the picture of that skank and then ask yourself why you should believe anything that comes out of her mouth. She was defeated in her last elective effort and managed to steal her way back in. Everything about her is illegitimate, and if you were to examine her legal documents you’d probably find that her birth was, too.

    Democrats are disgusting people, and when they want to be particularly nasty they trot out the most obnoxious of their partisans to rub everyone’s nose in the crap they create. Who will we hear from next, Al Franken?

    The word ‘Democrat is enough to gag a buzzard on a gut wagon.

  3. 4USA says:

    The Democrats are are more Marxist than anything else. They are destroying wealth in this country for power, not posterity and the “soak the rich” strategy is aimed at subjugating the citizenry, and that is all. If they taxed everyone at 100% and took every dollar of our GNP, it wouldn’t be enough to keep up with what they are spending. We are watching an economic coup. Read about what that involves and you’ll understand immediately. Once we have no property, we belong to the government. Our standard of living will fall through the floor (think Haiti for some areas) and we’ll have less freedoms than anyone else on earth. We will be utterly destroyed by our enemies….from within.

    This election was a fraud and no one is doing a damn thing about it because we are already in the threshold of totalitarianism. When Biden said to “gird you loins,” he wasn’t joking. We are effectively become subjects and Obama is king. It’s why Michelle said a year ago, “I like the sound of ‘your highness.'”

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Like Russia and Germany, you can take all the money from the people one time and one time only.

      The slow leeching of the socialist party has now reached a crescendo and the socialists are seeing this as their perfect opportunity to grab the wealth, once and for all. Having independent thinkers coming up with ideas like a better way to make guitars and quality yachts is just wrong to them. Therefore only they must be permitted the outlets of creativity by doling out the needed funds to properly utilize butterfly farts and to stop the earth from getting warmer.

      The number one goal of any bureaucracy is to perpetuate the bureaucracy. No more, no less.

  4. Mithrandir says:

    It seems the U.S. flag has 1 star on it: Washington D.C.

    I am not a big fan of seceding, but it’s more and more clear that the country is too big for 1 size fits all legislation. Do citizens in Texas have common ground with those in New York city? Does the Iowan farmer share common values with those in San Francisco? No.

    The whole idea was to give states, with large and differing populations, the opportunity to regulate themselves closer to home. However, they have shirked their constitutional responsibilities as far as education and health care, not called ANY constitutional conventions to challenge Washington, so now we are at where we deserve to be: ruled by Washington representatives to us.

    Patty Murray is just another example of continued mishandling of our financial affairs for political opportunism.

  5. captstubby says:

    “In historical US political theory, a ‘federal’ system was one of a central government with limited delegated powers, with all other powers not delegated nor otherwise restricted from, belonging to the states (and the people thereof). The states are sovereign in most areas, and generally speaking, the central government may only rarely reach out into the lives of the citizens of the sovereign states. This notion of federalism brought us the phrase (heard often when I was young, but rarely now as there is no context for it) “Don’t make a federal case out of it.” That is, make the dispute so large that the central government had jurisdiction over it.”

    “A national government, on the other hand, placed full power in the central government with states being, effectively, administrative divisions. Generally speaking, these administrative divisions are similar to counties in US States—they have some delegated power, but they can be trumped by the state government (assuming nothing in the state constitution stands in the way).

    The Founders worked out a complex system of checks and balances that, in their view, would protect individual liberty and promote freedom. The three branches of the Federal system were meant to balance each other. The tripartite system balanced a popularly elected House, a Senate with members appointed by the State Legislature and a President elected by representatives appointed by the States (the ‘Electoral College’). In addition to this arrangement the Constitution provided for a federal government with strictly limed powers delegated by the States and reserved all other powers to the states, or to the people (c.f 10th Amendment).”

    in 1913 the passage of the 17 Amendment [the direct voting U S Senators.]
    upset the balance.
    before passage, there was a 64% turn over in the Senate.
    they were the Voice of their States,
    and answer only to them.
    not Special interests and huge reelection contributions.
    and was not a “second House Of Representitives.”
    there was no Senator For Life.

  6. Rusty Shackleford says:

    “Bill Kristol, the influential editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, said the party should consider taking the fiscal deal proposed by President Barack Obama.

    Indeed, anything to push their agenda. Not only should elected officials get their marching orders from pundits (influential or otherwise) but the proposal this article speaks of received exactly ZERO votes from both democrats and republicans in the senate.

    Now, whisper in my ear again?

    • untrainable says:

      When exactly did Bill Kristol become “influential” in the minds of the mainstream media? Was it when he called the Muslim Brotherhood a mostly secular organization? Or was it when he started agreeing with Obama on fiscal policy?

      I only have one question. When did Bill Kristol change his party affilliation from Republican to “Mindless Obamaton”. I must have missed the memo.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »