With Vice President Joe Biden set to meet with congressional leaders on Capitol Hill this afternoon (4 p.m.), Democrats still don’t have a clue as to how they’re going to cut spending, and don’t appear any closer to drafting a concrete proposal to bring to the negotiating table with Republicans.
There is, however, one thing they all seem to agree on:
“Show me the money, show me the revenue,” Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.) told reporters following a Democratic conference meeting. “People like me fortunate enough to have done okay should — must — pay more for their share of this society.”
Sen. Tom Harkin (D., Iowa) said he was “greatly disappointed” with the White House for conceding too much to Republicans on spending cuts. “To take revenues off the table is unacceptable,” he said.
Sen. Tom Carper (D., Del.) joined that chorus as well, insisting that “revenue” be considered as part of the negotiations.
On the House side, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) suggested earlier today that Democrats “stand ready to meet with Republicans halfway on this.” Others on the Democratic side have suggested this as well, although it is unclear exactly what they mean by “halfway,” because they also claim to have “already cut” $40 billion by failing to enact President Obama’s 2011 budget proposal. The House Republican plan cuts $61 billion from actually enacted 2010 levels. When pressed to be more specific, Pelosi said “I’m not going to say [a] number, because I’m not approximating or conceiving or stipulating to any number.”
When asked if Democrats were close to coming up with a plan, Lautenberg said: “I think we’re close to believing that we do.”
UPDATE: Chatter on the Hill is that the White House plans to offer just $6 billion in additional cuts, on top of the $4 billion already enacted as part of a short-term CR through March 18. The rationale being: $6 billion + $4 billion + $40 billion “already cut” = $50 billion, half way to GOP’s “Pledge to America.”
UPDATE II: From Mark Knoller: “WH puts House GOP budget cuts at $102.3-billion. And WH says it so far agreed to $48.8-billion & is willing to go another $6.5billion.”
Obama's 2011 budget calls for spending over $12,000 per man, woman and child in the country--$50,000 for a family of four. Tell me again why we need more revenue and not spending cuts?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFrank "Show Me the Money!" Lautenberg: Living proof that there should be a mandatory retirement age for senators.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBottom line for me is:
What do I get in return for my money?
The answer to that is not satisfactory to me therefore I have a problem with tax increases. If I was shown a positive, fiscally responsible return it wouldn't be an issue.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLautenberg, what an embarrassment. He's fighting to ban chew for MLB players..last time I checked there is no MLB team in NJ. Maybe he should focus on the people on NJ.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRE: "stand ready to meet with Republicans halfway on this"
Guess what, San Francisco Nancy? The window for Democrats to meet halfway closed about 5 months ago. Perhaps you should have used your position of power - when in power - to foster an environment of "meeting halfway".
Alas you did not. Elections have consequences. You fail.
Now please, Madam Speaker, shut your pie hole and let the adults get to work.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy doesn't someone offer an amendment to the tax code that allows these guys who say they are not taxed enough to voluntarily pay extra tax if they want too? Why is it these people have to impose their thoughts/definitions of discretionary income and what I do with it on me?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRE: "Why doesn't someone offer an amendment to the tax code that allows these guys who say they are not taxed enough to voluntarily pay extra tax if they want too? Why is it these people have to impose their thoughts/definitions of discretionary income and what I do with it on me?"
Why make a law when all you have to do is provide a web link? :D
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse...so is a "Gift to the United States Government" tax deductible?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAbout the only good thing Massachusetts Republicans have managed to do is get an option put on state tax returns which allows liberals like Lautenberg to put their money where their....."hearts" are; they can pay an older, higher, income tax rate if they want.
The result? Less than 1/2 of one percent have ever elected to do so and, I believe, John Kerry is among those in the MAJORITY.
These is another one of the idiotic rhetorical games liberals have employed. They know they'll never pay more and know no one will ever challenge this "claim". Why not give them the federal option and then disclose which congressmen elect to pay at some higher, federal, rate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCall it the "Lautenberg Exception".
Dear Sen. Lautenberg,
If it is true that you MUST pay more taxes than you are currently required to pay, here's instructions on how to do so. It's put up or shut up time -- and time to leave the rest of us alone.
From the Treasury Direct web site:
___________________________________
How do you make a contribution to reduce the debt?
There are two ways for you to make a contribution to reduce the debt:
You can make a contribution online either by credit card, checking or savings account at Pay.gov
You can write a check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it's a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to:
Attn Dept G
Bureau of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188
___________________________________
Link: External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe have just got to memorize this refrain: that retaining the current tax rates has reduced revenues by an average of just $68 billion/year over the next 10 years. The Dems have turned President Obama's December 2010 tax deal into the source of all deficit spending. $68 billion/year is a lot, but the lack of that revenue is hardly responsible for all the deficit spending and budget cuts we're facing.
The $68 billion/year average figure comes from the President's own 2011 budget. It represents the increased revenue that would come from expanding the 28 percent bracket and reinstating the 36 percent and 39.6 percent bracket; reinstating the personal exemption phaseout and limitation on itemized deductions for taxpayers with income over $250,000 (for married couples) and $200,000 (for single taxpayers); and imposing a 20 percent capital gains and dividend tax rate for those above those income thresholds.
$68 billion/year vs. the trillion dollar deficits the Dems intend to deliver: not even close!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSorry, but you are a M**ON if you believe keeping tax rates UNCHANGED causes a reduction (or an increase) in revenues.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse