Congress arrived at another fiscal impasse today: Both Republican participants in deficit negotiations led by Vice President Joe Biden chose to drop out of the talks, citing differences on the issue of tax increases.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s (R., Va.) announcement this morning that he would not be attending the group’s meeting scheduled for that afternoon came as a surprise to many observers, as he had previously said that the talks were yielding “some progress.” Cantor told the Wall Street Journal, however, that Wednesday’s meeting was far more contentious than past sessions, and that talks had repeatedly stalled over the tax issue. “At each meeting, it has become a little more difficult to ignore that divide,’’ he said.
Advertisement
Despite his decision to exit the talks, Cantor said he remained optimistic that a meaningful deal was possible. He called on President Obama to assume a bigger role in the talks in an effort to break the deadlock. “I believe it is time for the president to speak clearly and resolve the tax issue,” he said. “Once that is resolved, we have a blueprint to move forward to trillions of spending cuts and binding mechanisms to change the way things are done around here.”
House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) told reporters he sympathized with Cantor’s decision. “I know the frustration that he feels when Democrat members continue to want to bring tax hikes into this conversation and insist that we’ve got to raise taxes on the American people,” he said at weekly press briefing. “A tax hike cannot pass the U.S. House of Representatives. It’s not just a bad idea; it doesn’t have the votes, and it can’t happen. . . . The American people don’t want us to raise taxes.”
The speaker stopped short of endorsing Cantor’s move, citing the urgency of reaching an agreement to alleviate uncertainty in the marketplace. But that will only happen once Democrats accept the reality of the situation. “I understand why [Cantor] did what he did, but I think those talks could continue if [Democrats] are willing to take the tax hikes off the table,” Boehner said. “We don’t have any more time to lose.”
He also urged President Obama to get more involved in the talks, especially if negotiators are to reach a deal by early next month, as the White House has requested. “If we’re going to meet that timeline, the president is going to have to engage,” he said. “I would expect to hear from him.”
Shortly after Boehner’s press conference, Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.), who had been representing Senate Republicans in the Biden talks, announced that he would be dropping out as well. Speaking on the Senate floor this morning, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) reiterated his party’s position that tax hikes are “a poison pill” to any potential deal to reduce the deficit. “We know that a tax hike would never make it through Congress,” he said. “Not because of Republican opposition — but because of Republican and Democratic opposition. We’ve already had the votes to prove it.”
McConnell was referring to the “tax deal” orchestrated during the lame-duck session in December to extend the Bush tax rates across the board through 2013, a measure that passed with significant bipartisan support in both chambers. President Obama even hailed its passage as a boon for the national economy. McConnell questioned the motivations of Democrats who continue to insist on raising taxes. “There’s one of two things going on here,” he said. “Either someone on the other side has forgotten that there’s strong, bipartisan opposition in Congress to raising taxes, or someone involved is acting in bad faith.”
Democratic leaders, meanwhile, first learned of the defections just as they were leaving a meeting with President Obama at the White House. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.), ranking member on the House Budget Committee and participant in the Biden talks, told reporters he was “disappointed” in Cantor’s decision, but acknowledged “strong disagreement” between the two sides in the negotiations. He suggested that Republicans opposed to any kind of revenue increase whatsoever — through eliminating tax loopholes and subsidies, for example — were simply not serious about reducing the deficit.
Great! Talks are dangerous because it's an opportunity for Democrats to beat up our guys and try to make them compromise, i.e., raise taxes. We don't need to move towards the Democrats' position because the public supports us.
"In fact, even Republicans haven’t exactly been able to agree on what constitutes a “tax increase”
Yea, keep playing games.
Our government is on a path to self-destruct taking all of us with it. "Business as usual" always means government is growing at a pace faster than inflation. That program has to end one way or another, if Mother Nature ends it the result will be much harsher than if we do.
If the cost for serious spending cuts is getting rid of tax loopholes and subsidies, which we should do anyway, why the hell not? Conservatives shouldn't be opposed to the idea of raising tax revenue in general.
Rightlibertarian wrote: "Conservatives shouldn't be opposed to the idea of raising tax revenue in general."
This conservative is (opposed that is). I want programs and departments slashed and eliminated. I want less tax dollars going to the federal government. More resources means they find more ways to interfere in our lives!
Reagan's starve the beast plan didn't work. If Leviathan gets less taxes, it'll just "borrow" more money.
What's wrong with killing ethanol subsidies? Or with reforming the tax code to close loopholes and end destructive economic incentives, even if this raises revenue? It's still good for the country, and our fiscal crisis is unprecedented. Once we get our debt to a sustainable level, sure, we can lower taxes.
I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but their won't be a deal for drastic spending cuts without a rise in tax revenue. Would we really be better off adding trillions of dollars in debt every year, than if we stopped Big Business from using tax loopholes? In fact, if we close these loopholes, we can lower rates, and people like you and me will actually pay less taxes!
Anyone who thinks we need to "raise revenue" to pay for this pathetic slovenly federal basket case is ill in the head. We borrow $188 million every hour, what a joke this gov't and it's leaders are.
How can we explain to people who don't even know what planet they're on that any tax put on the economy comes with a cost. It's hard when no one ever passed Econ 101.
Money doesn't, despite Democratic remonstrances to the contrary, grow on trees. Jack makes iron balls. He needs something from Joe, who farms green beans (haricot verde, for the ivy league set). Unfortunately for Jack, Joe has no need for iron balls. So, Jack is screwed.
Luckily for us, some genius has proposed a system, based on mutual agreement, which has determined that Jack may be paid in note (vouchers, ducats, gold bars, it matters not) form, and, if he needs green beams (haricot verde), he hands Joe a sufficient amount of these notes for Joe to give him his friggin' beans!
No matter how one raises taxes, it lands on either Joe or Jack. There is noone else. Jenny, who makes sure that Joe's beans are safe to eat, must get paid, but who pays her? She produces nohing, no matter how she exerts herself. All she does is steal from Joe or Jack, the fruits of their labor, in return for certifying that Jack's bean are "safe", whatever that means. Joe doesn't want her, nor does Jack, but she has become the most important person because if you screw with her, the Seals will eventually get you. Why is that so?
In addition, say from the wit of an evil troll (or the whit of Ben Bernanke), these same representative pieces of paper come floating out of the sky (or from dat box dat 'bama keeps in duh Whitehouse), without the fact that it represents actual product value that somebody actually wants (not like unwelcome government interference, which must be paid for, no matter whether we think it is worth anything at all), who in his right mind trusts that the note in question has any actual value?
Bernanke is puzzled? He is not. He is puzzled as to how he can explain being so stupid without actually looking incompetant or even deceitful, when anyone who understands what I just wrote must think his actions make him culpable in the greatest fraud of all time.
The only question, at this point, is who paid for this idiousy? The Chinese? Wow! Dedicating your entire work product for the last 20 years to the destruction of your greatest enemy is draconian, at the very least. Not impossible, given their record, but iffy.
I think that it is the usual thing. People are idiots. Not all, but a significant majority. When we guide them to the promised land, they go. But when we guide them to destruction, beware! After all, they are not lemmings.
I think we are all really tired of pampered, sinecured professors who have never done any one thing that actually "made money". All they are is leaches, sucking from the work of others. I never met a rich man when I was young who failed to impress me with his perpicacity. I have met many today who really have no clue why anyone would pay them at all.
I stand with China. We are already defaulting on our debt, by any ancient standard. Idiots who think they can manage that will not save us.
Many people have always said that a war every so often is good, as it rewards actual success and punishes charlatans. Perhaps it is not war, but any particular crisis, if great enough, will do. Harvard professors can pontificate ad nauseum, but when the rubber hits the road, all that is swept under the bridge.
Obama and the "Democrats" (whatever that means) have not the slightest intention of fixing they problem. Their very existence depends on growing the cancer that is government and public employee unions.
Their adoption of that model means that the situation has become a matter of either the U.S. as we've known it until now survives, or the Democrat party in its current form survives. Both CANNOT.
I choose the U.S. as the surviving entity, and if that means the total destruction of the "Democrat" Party, so be it. Through its unbelievably anti-American agenda and far-left extremist positions, it has become a far greater threat to the existence of the United States than any terrorist group or foreign nation ever could.
The negotiations between Democrats led Joe Biden and GOP Congressional leaders are designed to give President Obama plausible deniability regarding any deal they arrive at. The GOP should let this go until it is clear that Biden can bind the president, or Obama himself gets involved.
Oh great...now this may get turned over to the weepy Boehner who showed us his negotiating prowess this Spring.
Of course the lib/progs pursue tax increases. They have 50% approval even before you lay out the plan as only half of Americans pay ANY federal income tax.
If anybody pays a tax to support government, EVERYBODY should pay a tax to support government.
My support for the FAIR (national sales) tax to replace the income tax is growing precisely because every citizen gets to hate taxes and scrutinize spending...a flat tax EVERYBODY pays would be a good 2nd choice except too many report no income.
What I can't understand is why congress is insisting that the president weigh in. The responsibility to vote on the debt increase and any proposed cuts is fully in their purview. Congress, historically, has always squawked about their authority and being an equal branch of government. Yet when the potato gets hot, they always want the sitting president to wade in and act like the only adult in the room. I would like Congress to do what the constitution requires of them and take this ball and run with it.
Of course the ante is upped because they've arbitrarily tied spending cuts to this bill. Fine and good. While closely related, they could also be tackled separately. Of course putting the full faith and credit of the US on the line increases the stakes. Yet if these idiots do something that ultimately crashes the stock market and makes the train hop the tracks, it's on them. It doesn't have to go down this way, but apparently we're on the road to Abilene. Buckle up.
"What I can't understand is why congress is insisting that the president weigh in."
Because the party in charge of the WH will not let the party in charge of the House do what they are supposed to do. The voters spoke, but the Dems are not listening. And yes, both parties are guilty of playing politics, but in this instance, the party in charge is doing their job.
I understand what you're saying, but the Repubs are not abdicating their leadership. To the contrary, they are being quite bold. They have a plan, they have the majority in the House, but the opposition will not let them do their job. I hope they pay the price for that next November.
Follow
