With the Super Committee almost certainly headed for failure (the practical deadline is tonight, while the actual deadline is Wednesday, and no deal has been formed) Jon Kyl said today that the reason was the Democrats’ refusal to tackle spending cuts without hiking taxes.
“In Washington there are folks who won’t cut a dollar unless we raise taxes,” Kyl said on Meet the Press, noting that the Republicans had a $640 billion deficit reduction plan that the Democrats had rejected.
“This was not about extending the Bush tax cuts,” Kyl added. “It was about trying to do entitlement reform on the mandatory side of the budget. Now when our Democratic friends made it very clear that they weren’t going to do anything without raising taxes, we then turned to what is the best way to derive revenues? Is it to allow the current code to expire and have the biggest tax [increase] in the history of our country? No.”
“We thought that the better way to do that was to limit the deductions and credits, the so-called loopholes, derive the revenue that way, and in doing so, you could both reduce some of the rates and have enough revenue to actually apply to deficit reduction and that amount was $250 billion dollars,” Kyl concluded.
Does that mean the trigger will go into effect and the Department of Defense will face severe cuts?
“We do have the opportunity, even if the committee fails, to work around the sequester, so that we still have 1.2 trillion dollars in savings over 10 years,” Kyl answered. “Now that will require work on Congress’ part and some agreement, but I can’t imagine that, knowing of the importance of national defense, that both Democrats and Republicans wouldn’t find a way to work through that process so we still get the 1.2 trillion in cuts but it doesn’t all fall on defense.”
John Kerry vehemently argued that the Republicans had caused the stalemate by insisting the Bush tax cuts remain.
“[The] most significant block to our doing something right now, tomorrow, is their insistence, insistence, insistence on the Grover Norquist pledge and extending the Bush tax cuts,” he said.
Clearly Purple Heart and Tax Cheat on Yachts Kerry is reading from a DNC talking point. Patty Murray said the same trope on Candy Croley.
If the dems spent as much time on the people's business as they do on trying to get the upper hand in power, think what could be accomplished.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow is it "cheating" to put your boat wherever it's cheapest? If moving to another state to avoid Massachusetts taxes is cheating, half of New Hampshire is "cheating."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Lord works in mysterious ways. I agree with Jason.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's not cheating at all. In fact, it would be idiotic to do anything other than what Kerry continues to do with that boat.
However, that doesn't make him any less of a cretin than he is.
Rather than owning up to the real reason why he decided to anchor his sailboat someplace other than MA, his hack spokesman said that he was keeping in RI because of "maintenance and charter" issues.
Actually, that's partially right - if he repairs or charters his vessel while in MA waters, then he owes the all the taxes that would be due if actually registered his boat there.
Why doesn't Kerry just admit that it's about taxes, and nothing else? That would be the thing to do if the man had any character whatsoever.
PS - Before 2010, Kerry wouldn't have been able to charter that Sailboat at all because of a very old law called the Jones Act. Essentially, before changes were made to the Jones Act, vessels that had their keel laid someplace other than the US, could not be used for cargo or passenger service (like a charter), and could only be used for personal service. Now, there's an exception for vessels (not coincidentally) that are just about the same size of Kerry's yacht, and anything smaller.
If Kerry had purchased just a wee bit larger boat, he wouldn't have been able to charter it, while in US waters.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJason, You do know that a NH resident working in Mass will have to pay Mass income taxes don't you?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's not cheating, but it certainly is hypocritical.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDemanding higher taxes for others, but using every loophole available to cut your own.
All this kvetching over cutting what amounts to pennies annually from the federal budget. We are $15 trillion in debt, and Congress can't find a way to cut a measly $120 million a year for a decade?
Ridiculous.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJason,
Don't you find it ironic that Kerry is always calling for higher taxes but he avoids paying taxes by moving his boat? That's the point, guy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, that's not ironic. If he called for a tax on first class plane tickets, then flew coach, would that be hypocritical (or "ironic")? He's avoiding a luxury tax by not having a luxury.
Cheating would be if Kerry was getting a luxury without paying the tax. Kerry's driving to Rhode Island to use his boat, like every other Bostonian who doesn't want to keep his boat in Boston.
Massachusetts is a high tax state with an expensive coast line. Rhode Island is cheaper, but it's further away from Boston. It's a pretty normal trade-off for people who live in a city: Doing things nearby is expensive and things get cheaper the further you drive.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOk, so a rich liberal who constantly advocates higher taxes at the same time is using tax loop holes to avoid paying the higher tax in Mass is in no way ironic, curious, funny, to you?
See, this is why you are an Obama supporter. You just not that bright. Liberals want big government and higher taxes forced on others but they always seek to avoid those very things in their personal lives.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat Rhode Island and Massachusetts have different tax rates is not a "loophole."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs Kerry running for president? Why are you going out of your way to defend him?
He's rich enough to pay the taxes in his own state,...he can afford it. This is the logic he uses when he advocates higher taxes...we can afford them.
I don't understand why you want to defend him, as a true Obama liberal. He was avoiding paying the higher tax, and you love paying higher taxes to support our good and generous government, right? Are you anti-government now? :)
I own you.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah, but it's tacky from a person who thinks it's justdandy for the rest of us to pay up, and pay up, and pay up.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI disagree. Kerry is a Mass resident and draws services from the Mass government. He made a conscious choice to avoid paying a tax to his state. He is one of the rich who the government needs to carry more of a fiscal burden, isn't that what we keep hearing? But yet, he chooses not to do his part.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis whole Supercommittee cluster.... is ridiculous.
Firstly, the supercommittee is probably un-Constitutional, or if not, then extremely undemocratic - whatever happened to "no taxation without representation"? Neither my Representative nor either of my Senators (thank God) are on the supercommittee. Where is my voice in this debate?
Secondly, we have deadlines that aren't deadlines, just like the debt ceiling deadline. These "deadlines" are arbitrary dates picked to keep the MSM in a tizzie and perpetuating two of the Left's main talking pints - partisanship keeps anything from happening & it's really only GOP partisanship that counts.
Thirdly, projecting out 10 years is designing a fantasy-land, complete with unicorns & leprechauns sitting on pots of gold. Since nothing this Congress decides binds any future Congress, any deal can only last until January 2013.
Fourthly, with annual deficits at $1,500 billion (& growing), cutting only $120 billion from each year's $3,000+ budget is past being laughable - it is downright shameful.
How anyone, from Reps. & Sens. to ordinary citizens, cannot realize that our problem is with spending, not taxing, is totally beyond my comprehension. Taxing millionaires at 100% would net us a whopping $70 billion. Wow! 4.6% of last year's deficit (around 2% of budget) and both the budget & deficit grow every year. The problem is spending and its evil twin, base-line budgeting. This congress should cut next year's budget by 10% from this year's actual spending - not 10% from next year's "proposed" spending. Let's hold these spend-a-holics accountable at election time. Cut the size of government 10% each year during your term or you are out!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is why getting upset about the political process or truly caring about the election is meaningless. This debate is absurd. It's difficult to cut $120 billion per year? Seriously? After we just increased the budget by almost a trillion dollars a year a couple years ago...and now they can't find $120BB? The fact that conservative congressmen can't even make the case to the American people that this is absurd spells our doom.
Take any group of 10 small business people. They would have the cuts done in an afternoon. Identify 12 agencies or departments (including defense) and cut $10BB each year across the board. No one would even notice.
It doesn't matter who gets elected. I won't give a dime to any politician. Instead, I am putting my energy into the only thing I can control--creating a happy, peaceful family with responsible kids and continuing to grow my own business.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMs. Trinko:
Once again our shrewd GOP leaders were snookered by a bunch of known con artists. The Dems undestood that it was to their advantage to drag this out and set up this ridiculous committee as another means by which they could prevent the fight that has long been coming. Now, that the committee is failing, the default is in favor of big spenders and tax increasers. Wow! What a surprise.
We don't need to hear from the Republicans who are complaining now. They went along with this and are about to find themselves sharing the blame when taxes go up one more time. When will they learn? As long as there are cocktail parties to attend in Georgetown and money to be made by being a long-term denizen of the Hill, my guess is never. They just want political cover not real reform. The GOP thinks citizen dissatisfaction is aimed at the Democrats. They are half right; it is aimed at almost everyone up there who still thinks that managing this Republic is some kind of game. I think a lot of incumbents will be in for a shock next year and that may be the only way to make real progress in our effort to renew trust in our institutions and actually make freedom the centerpiece of our Republic once more.
Good riddance and Godspeed,
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDan Hoffman
$1.2 T in deficit reduction over 10 years averages to $120 B per year (ignoring dynamic effects). That in itself is a joke when the ANNUAL deficit is larger than the total. The idea of cooperating with Democrats to solve, even partially, the economic situation generated by D.C. is worse than a joke; it's a farce.
Observe, unfortunately, that no Republican hitting the airwaves about this today has said anything about the link between freedom and prosperity, reductions in spending and protection of private property from confiscation. Probably they haven't the understanding; almost certainly they lack the courage.
The entire effort was doomed to fail. Only a complete change in philosophy in D.C. will begin to solve this problem. That won't happen with the current crew.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShorter Kyl:
The "supercommittee" failed because we refused to compromise on taxes even while asking for big concessions from Democrats.
But don't worry! We will work in Congress outside of the "supercommittee" where we will again refuse to compromise on taxes while asking for big concessions from Democrats.
I am sure that will work!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse----------------
One wonders how long it will take for Senator Kyl to face reality.
Insisting that Democrats refrain from taking even more money they have no right to confiscate isn't asking for a concession. It's doing what Republicans were elected to do - stand guard against people with an insatiable lust to take money not their own.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse