« | »

‘Super Committee’ May Push Back Deadline

From a feigning surprise Associated Press:

No deficit deal in sight despite prods by Obama

By DAVID ESPO – AP Special Correspondent
November 14, 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) — Despite prodding from President Barack Obama, members of Congress’ supercommittee concede no deal is in sight to meet their goal of $1.2 trillion or more in deficit savings over the next decade.

Instead, with only 10 days remaining until a Nov. 23 deadline, the panel is divided along partisan lines and Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., said Sunday the six committee members of his own party "have not coalesced around a plan."

The Democrats can’t agree on how much to raise taxes?

Obama mentioned his own unsuccessful negotiations with Speaker John Boehner in passing at a news conference in Hawaii on Sunday where he urged the members of the committee to show more flexibility. "It feels as if people continue to try to stick with their rigid positions rather than solve the problem," he said.

This from a man whose every solution to every problem is to raise taxes.

"There’s no magic formula. There are no magic beans that you can toss on the ground and suddenly a bunch of money grows on trees," Obama added. "We got to just go ahead and do the responsible thing." …

This is rich, coming from a man who believes that tax money grows on trees.

In an offer they said marked a significant concession, GOP members on the panel offered last week to raise taxes by $250 billion over a decade as part of an overhaul of the tax code that simultaneously would cut the top rate from 35 percent to 28 percent.

Democrats swiftly rejected that as a tax cut for the wealthy in disguise

Good. The Republicans should not be raising taxes at all. Least of all in exchange for some tax overhaul that will never come — or that will be quickly undone.

The GOP is trying to give away their biggest asset in the 2012 elections.

But [Rep Jeb Hensarling of Texas, the Republican chairman of the committee] seemed to suggest in an interview Sunday that the two parties could find a way around the fast-approaching Thanksgiving deadline by coming to an general understanding with respect to raising new revenue, without actually having to agree on a process, amount of specific remedy.

"There could be a two-step process that would hopefully give us pro-growth tax reform, which by the way, every other bipartisan effort that has said that some revenues have to be raised in this method," he told CNN in an interview

In other words they would just ignore the deadline by pretending to have reached some kind of agreement when there is none. And notice that this plan includes the Republicans conceding on new taxes, no matter what. The ‘stupid party’ strikes again.

Obama said twice over the weekend Congress shouldn’t count on being able to change the automatic spending cuts that would take effect beginning on Jan. 1, 2013.

About $450 billion in cuts would come from defense and the same amount from domestic accounts, with savings on interest payments making up the balance of a $1.2 trillion total.

Republicans, joined by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, say the Pentagon couldn’t sustain reductions of that magnitude, and Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., said there would be a "lively debate" in Congress on changing which programs the cuts would affect…

Make no mistake. This is exactly the position that Obama and the rest of the Democrats wanted to put the country in. Slash defense even more or raise taxes.

We saw it going in. Why didn’t the Republicans?

This article was posted by Steve on Monday, November 14th, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

6 Responses to “‘Super Committee’ May Push Back Deadline”

  1. River0 says:

    We are living under a tyranny of incompetence unlike anything ever seen in America before. It’s caused – or at least aggravated by – the razor thin majorities that appear in every election. We’re cursed by an inability to gain solid majorities behind competent people.

    We desperately need a solid conservative presidential and Congressional majority to repudiate the brainless, infantile, malicious, and corrupt ‘progressives’.

    • proreason says:

      incompetance isn’t the word I would choose. Cowardice maybe. Or obfusucation. Perhaps self-interest. And certainly, deliberate and deflective.

    • River0 says:

      You’re right, and it can all be described as degrees of corruption and outright malice.

  2. Mithrandir says:

    Super Committee: The slow-road to dictatorship.

    Obama has lamented several times he envies the the communist Chinese as they don’t have to deal with a pesky congress.
    Campaigned that he wouldn’t “do an end around congress” like George Bush did with signing statements and executive orders……then does the exact same thing.

    Democrats have said on occasion this year they would like to suspend elections to get things done.

    The gerry-rigged failures, so that The Tea Party can get the blame for gridlock, and to show that democracy doesn’t work.

    The FEMA concentration camps that have popped up around America, Hmm, what do we need those for? –strange that FEMA camps pop up just in time for the horrible economy and public unrest.

    Now the ridiculous, unconstitutional super committee, that is also designed to fail. The more frustrated the American people get, the worse things are…..when things get to the brink of destruction, the people will be BEGGING for a dictatorship. The democrats only hope the stars line up, and they are in charge when it happens.

  3. tranquil.night says:

    Daniel Horowitz@Redstate with a full briefing on the Coburn proposal: http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2011/11/15/senator-coburn-the-agony-of-a-pragmatic-conservative-amidst-inflexible-liberals/

    Besides the Green and Ethanol programs he’s identified, which are important but peanuts [edit: thanks to Jazz Shaw for the spell check lol] compared to what he’s really proposing, this is nothing but a total cave to more redistributive taxes and means testing programs into which people have paid their whole lives.

    [Senator Coburn] asserts that Social Security was never intended to be a universal insurance program, but “a safety net for low-income earners.” He concludes that “returning the purpose of the program to a need-based service instead of one available universally may help keep Social Security solvent for future generations.”

    There are several problems with this approach.

    First, Social Security was never sold as a welfare program for low-income earners. In all of FDR’s speeches, he referred to the system as a universal insurance program for all retirees. In a 1936 campaign speech, FDR promised that payroll taxes would be “held by the Government solely for the benefit of the worker in his old age.” He referred to Social Security as an insurance program numerous times throughout the speech, concluding that “in effect, we have set up a savings account for the old age of the worker.” This description of Social Security cannot possibly be misconstrued to define a transfer program similar to Medicaid and Food Stamps.

    Second, since the inception of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) in 1972, we already have a means-tested program for retirees. That program costs us $56 billion a year and is already funded by general revenues, 36.7% of which comes from the top 1% of earners. If we have SSI for the poor, why should we double-dip on wealth redistribution by turning Old Age and Survives benefits into a means-tested program? Moreover, it is precisely low-income earners who are the only true beneficiaries of the current Social Security system. According to most studies, middle and upper-income earners actually lose money off the program, when the expectation for reasonable interest returns is factored in.

    Third, collecting payroll taxes from millionaires without granting commensurate benefits is ostensibly a massive tax increase. Such a proposition would also inject more progressiveness and redistribution into a system that is already one of the most progressive in the world. Presumably, the good senator opposes an outright increase in the top marginal income tax rates. So why would he support this de facto increase of the payroll tax. Or put another way, if he believes that making the rich pay more is a fair and perspicacious way to deal with the debt, why not directly raise taxes on the rich?

    Because this is neither well-intentioned nor pragmatic. I don’t know anyone in the middle to upper income brackets that has ever expected to see their Social Security because they’ve always inherently understood how screwed the program is. That still doesn’t make it right to just step in and take what was promised because the program’s administrators finally sank the boat. If Senator Coburn believed in the principles he espouses in his books and when the cameras are on, he wouldn’t always be the first to fold on them in high-stakes negotiations. Something happened to this man over the course of his political career because the guy who wrote “How D.C. turns outsiders into insiders” and once fought Newt Gingrich for straying too far from the Contract with America in the 90’s has somehow become one of the Republican’s foremost pseudo-Cons. Hopefully he’ll hold to his word as he did with his House career and not run for re-election in 2016.

  4. tranquil.night says:

    (via Erickson: http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/11/15/while-you-were-distracted/)

    Politico – 11/13/11 – Rep. Jeb Hensarling “we believe that frankly increasing tax revenues could hurt the economy, but within the context of bipartisan negotiations with Democrats, clearly they are a reality,” he said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

    Yes, the Republicans who back in June were telling us they would hold the line on tax increases have decided that they must have tax increases. Otherwise the defense budget will be cut. Except the defense budget will be cut only if the GOP actually lets the defense budget be cut. As Jim DeMint recently pointed out, Congress cannot, in fact, bind future Congresses to any cuts [but new spending is A-OK, in fact it’s written into each year’s budget baseline].

    Now the question of the day: do Republicans really think if they approve these tax increases that this time, unlike every other time, Democrats will actually cut anything?

    Psst, the Establishment only pretends to care about cuts anyway. Punt, punt, punt and cave until the threat of retribution from the base is nullified, then it’s easy to see how relieved they are to once again be able to happily sit back and submit to their friends the Dims.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »