I am hearing that the official final word (i.e. announcement of failure) from the supercommittee is imminent. In the meantime, here is Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.) candidly outlining the Democratic position on MSNBC this morning (Hint: it involves a giant tax hike and no meaninful changes to entitlement programs):
On taxes:
Kerry: If you fail…you’re guaranteed, unless it’s changed, a major tax increase on January 1st of 2013, when the Bush tax cuts expire.
On “painful” entitlement cuts:
Kerry: The fact is there were cuts, and incidentally, when you say ‘cuts,’ it was slowing the rate of growth. It was not a cut to a benefit; it was a slowing of the rate at which it is growing.
Late last year, Democrats reluctantly agreed to extend the Bush tax rates on all levels of income. President Obama himself admitted that “you don’t raise taxes in a recession.” But Democrats have always been wary of referring to the expiration of the Bush tax rates as a “major tax increase,” preferring the class-warfare configuration of “extra tax cuts” for the rich (emphasis mine). Kerry seems to have slipped off message.
"Kerry seems to have slipped off message."
Perhaps Teresa "cut" his allowance?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKerry can talk all day about what's going to happen on 1/1/13 - but my guess is that his party will be in the minority and all bets are off. Let the tea party quote this socialist in particular as the election approaches - it should help their position.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKerry: We proposed difficult, unpopular cuts and the Republicans wouldn't step up!
By the way, the cuts we proposed were no big deal, so MSNBC viewers should not be upset at me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKerry's tax increase is NOT guaranteed, if we replace the President, hold the House and get a Republican majority in the Senate.
Talk about a guy whistling past the graveyard.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt will take a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, not just a simple majority.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOn one level that is true, but effectively it seems to take 60 votes to accomplish anything in the Senate these days.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Kerry: The fact is there were cuts, and incidentally, when you say ‘cuts,’ it was slowing the rate of growth. It was not a cut to a benefit; it was a slowing of the rate at which it is growing."
Just out of curiosity, how many times have Dem emminentos actually acknowledged something like that with respect to entitlements?
Jungle John strikes again?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMonsieur Kerry may have slipped off message....but, dang, he's still French-looking as ever.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShould have tossed this bum and his fake medals into a foreign ocean when we had the chance.
What a poseur.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSomebody check Lurch's batteries ..... I think he may need a jump start.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIntersting that Mr. Flip Flop himself is now saying that slowing the rate of growth is not a cut. When Regan was President and he proposed to slow the rate of growth in Social Security benefits the Democrats, led by scary kerry screamed like a siren: "The President is cutting your benefits." No wonder kerry wanted war medals, then later didn't want them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLike the emperor, the SuperCommittee has no clothes. It was destined to failure.
However, Kerry's statement re: major tax increase is a gift to the Republicans. While Obama and Dems have given them a plethora of issues, they had better run a good campaign, or they'll lose the upcoming election. They have to go on the offensive immediately, regardless of what's happening in the primaries. Time to raise money and get the message out: Obama is ruining the country, and here's how he's doing it: 1...., 2....., 3...., etc., etc.
I don't have a lot of confidence that they have the cajones to do this.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAbsolutely love this. MSNBC anchor trying to save a little integrity in case someone off the Kool Aid is watching, "Can you give me any specifics on these 'painful cuts.'?" Kerry: "When I said cuts, I didn't mean cuts. I actually meant the opposite of cuts." #EpicFail. How did he win the nomination? Well, also, how did McCain. #Fairness.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm pretty tired of the way taxes are talked about.
If there was Republican control of all three branches, and they slammed through a maximum tax rate of 15%.. and after a more balanced (or Dem-heav) government came in, they were interested in letting that tax cut expire, yes that's raising taxes, but the context is INCREDIBLY important.
There's a major difference between letting unfunded bush tax cuts expire - having the rates return to Clintonian levels, and raising taxes to a historically high level.
Taxes would still be historically incredibly low for the developed world.
If you think it's just a slippery slope, two can play at that game. What if the GOP slammed through a bill getting rid of federal income taxes? Crazy, yes, but for the sake of argument. Ever raising them above 0% is undoubtedly raising taxes, but you can't refer to raising a tax rate from 0% to 5%, the same as raising them from 28% to 33%, the same as raising them from 65% to 70%. The numbers we are talking about ARE important. Not just the concept.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse