Democrats on the 12-member “supercommittee” have presented their Republican colleagues with a plan to cut the deficit by $3 trillion over the next decade. Not surprisingly, it includes a massive tax increase and hundreds of billions in new spending. The Hill reports:
Democrats on the congressional supercommittee this week presented Republicans with a plan to cut the deficit that included billions of dollars in stimulus spending, aides told The Hill.
In a private meeting of the deficit panel Tuesday, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, presented a proposal backed by a majority of Democrats on the panel that includes trillions of dollars in tax increases. The revenue would partially cover stimulus spending for the economy, aides said.
More than 50 percent of the deficit reduction in the plan would come from tax increases, one source said.
Sources tell NRO that Democrats want at least $300 billion in new stimulus in line with President Obama’s latest jobs proposal. GOP leaders have made clear that any supercommittee plan that includes tax increases would be unacceptable, and any request for additional stimulus is sure to be a non-starter among Republicans in both chambers. So what, exactly, are Democrats trying to accomplish? From the Washington Post:
Democratic aides, meanwhile, privately expressed little hope that a big deal is possible. They said Senate Democrats might be setting the stage to paint themselves as good-faith negotiators and to lay blame for the failure to reach agreement at the feet of Republicans.
Of course, what else would you expect from a group of lawmakers that hasn’t passed an actual budget in nearly three years?
Short Andrew Stiles:
"So, any plan that doesn't include complete capitulation by Democrats would be a non-starter. So, why don't Democrats just capitulate already?"
Response:
"Any plan that doesn't include tax increases or some stimulus is addition to spending cuts is a non-starter. Why don't Republicans just capitulate already?"
I don't know how conservatives got it into their head that they can force people to agree with them. Republicans are not the only one's capable of saying no. Democrats don't care about your sacred pledge to the mighty Grover Norquist. We happen to think your pledge to uphold the Constitution is more important.
I predict the "supercommittee" fails and we see some very hefty cuts to defense spending as a result. The only way the Republican party is going to change until it loses an election quite badly and realizes that more extremism isn't what the American people want.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I don't know how conservatives got it into their head that they can force people to agree with them"
-If we have we picked it up from Obama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRE: "I don't know how conservatives got it into their head that they can force people to agree with them."
Being correct has its advantages.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKeeping running towards the football Charlie Brown. I am sure Lucy won't pull it away.
You can think you are as right as you want. No compromise means no deal. Period.
If you don't like it, too bad.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe stand for less spending, lower taxes, less government. You're surprised?
If only we could force everyone to agree with that, but I suspect enough do.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo... you now have less spending, lower taxes and less government than any time in the last 60 years.
That ain't working. We have a jobs crisis and without demand for goods and services those who could create jobs won't. So... now what do you propose?
(I'm guessing it's even less spending, even lower taxes and even less government)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHaving more regulations = less government. You are too dishonest to live in the same society with.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou can stand for whatever you want. Don't expect our side to say "yes" to it when we disagree and your side is unwilling to compromise.
The idea that policy results will be 100% conservative when conservatives only control the House of Representatives borders on delusional.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow does a demand that any solution must include taxes, show a willingness to compromise?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow does insisting that only the other side must sacrifice its priorities to reduce the deficit show a willingness to compromise?
Sorry, if there isn't a balanced solution, the the supercommittee should fail.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn David's world, there is no such thing as a tax rate that is too high. Especially when other people have to pay it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow is reducing spending and keeping taxes low 'extreme'?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBecause other people who are also represented in Congress want a more balanced solution and there is no willingness to compromise.
If you like action movies and your wife likes romantic comedies, it is extreme to go watch action movies only during every movie night.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow does demanding more taxes for every problem indicate a willingness to compromise?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut every single time the Republicans have compromised and agreed to trade tax increases for spending cuts, the tax increases happened, the spending cuts didn't.
And every Democrat proposal is for immediate tax increases, with promises of cuts several Congresses down the road.
The only way Republicans should agree to "compromise" is if the spending cuts are immediate and tax increases happen down the road.
Which Democrats will never agree to, because they do not seriously intend to ever cut spending.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShorter David "Bipartisan means capitulating in every way to the liberals."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo put this in terms for the average citizen, you are highly overextended and in debt in your personal budget so you sit down and look at your budget and come to the realization that the only sane path is to ask your boss that your salary be doubled so that you can go out and spend even MORE than you are right now.
This is not sane. This is not rational. There is no other way to view this than to realize that the left wants the "supercommittee" to fail and blame the right. Fundamentally the left does not believe in any cutting at all. They are not interested in dealing with debt, they just want redistribute wealth and spend ever more money.
I frankly am coming to the conclusion that the only way for sanity to return would be to give the left everything they want and let it all fail.
The government simply cannot raise taxes high enough to enact and maintain Obamacare, Medicare, Social Security and pay down debt in any real way. the left and many of their fellow travellers will not realize it until it collapses...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf conservatives wanted the supercommittee to succeed, they would have to start by first admitting that compromise is necessary. Yes, that means your tax pledge. Conservative policy preferences are not inherently superior to liberal policy preferences. At least not in Congress when liberals have the power to say no too.
In any case, the supercommittee failing is a better outcome than an unbalanced deal that doesn't include tax increases and some stimulus spending.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf the Democrats had wanted the super committee to work, they would have to start by first admitting that compromise is necessary.
Instead they start with a demand for a huge tax increase to pay for even more useless spending.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow do tax increases AND stimulus spending solve any part of the issues at hand?
If the left was proposing tax increases and a spending freeze I would see the logic. I wouldn't like it but it would make sense given the task at hand. But raising taxes AND raising spending simply sounds like rearranging the furniture...Just trying to look like they are doing something but really not.
I just don't understand this fascination with compromise. It makes the assumption that both ideas are viable and of equal merit.
If someone suggests that they amputate my right leg at the hip but we reach a compromise to only amputate at the knee we should applaud the compromise?
Compromise for the sake of compromise is stupidity but for some reason people have this idea that it is key to everything.
Are conservative policy preferences inherently superior to liberal policy preferences? Well based off of what were are seeing from liberal policies enacted in the US, the answer is yes.
Stimulus spending - Fail
Obamacare - Fail
Exorbitant pensions for public employees - Fail
Look across the Atlantic to see how well a social democracy functions. The examples are numerous.
Government is running out of other people's money. We ignore the warnings of Greece and Italy at our own peril.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse