GOP makes $2.2 Trillion Counteroffer to Obama - includes revenue increases

[cpwill]

House Republican leaders on Monday made a counteroffer to President Obama in the fiscal cliff negotiations, proposing to cut $2.2 trillion with a combination of spending cuts, entitlement reforms and $800 billion in new tax revenue...

Republican officials said the offer was based on a proposal outlined by Erskine Bowles, the former chief of staff to President Clinton, in testimony last year before the congressional “supercommittee” on deficit reduction. That offer is distinct from the widely-cited Simpson-Bowles deficit plan released two years ago....

The Republican counteroffer does not include an increase in the debt ceiling, but a GOP aide said the party remained open to negotiating additional borrowing authority for the Treasury before the end of the year. The nation is expected to reach its borrowing limit by mid-February at the latest.
Republican officials said their offer amounted to $4.6 trillion in deficit reduction when compared directly to the White House offer, which they emphasized was more than what the White House had put on the table.


In its own deficit plan, the White House counts legislation that has already been enacted, savings from future interest on the debt, and savings from the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Republicans do not count those as new savings, so their offer amounts to $2.2 trillion in future deficit reduction....

Worth noting - that $800 Bn is the amount that the CBO said we would get from repealing the Bush tax cuts on upper income earners.

 

[donsutherland1]

Worth noting - that $800 Bn is the amount that the CBO said we would get from repealing the Bush tax cuts on upper income earners.

The letter outlining the proposal can be found here:

http://www.speaker.gov/sites/speaker.house.gov/files/documents/letter_to_wh_121203.pdf

It essentially offers the 2012 House Budget Proposal (Fiscal Year 2012 Budget | Budget.House.Gov "Ryan budget"--coupled with the concept of the tax reform offered in the Bowles-Simpson report.

 

[Rapunzel52]

Worth noting - that $800 Bn is the amount that the CBO said we would get from repealing the Bush tax cuts on upper income earners.

If we can believe the CBO as they can only score figures they are given. If it is true, then that means taxes will be raised on everyone., which Obama said he would not raise taxes on the middle class, of course that's a lie too...but just sayin'

 

[Rapunzel52]

I think we've been waiting for those 2.5 dollars in spending cuts for 1 dollar of spending since Bushy 1. Hasn't happened yet and it won't happen now. If Obama does not deal he wins it all and can blame it on the Republicans. No deal and Obama gets tax hikes on everyone, Bush tax cuts gone, and most likely the debt ceiling will disappear.

 

[Bob N]

Worth noting - that $800 Bn is the amount that the CBO said we would get from repealing the Bush tax cuts on upper income earners.

Your article from the Hill also included excerpts that I would like Speaker John Boehner to elucidate:

...In its own deficit plan, the White House counts legislation that has already been enacted, savings from future interest on the debt and savings from the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Republicans do not count those as new savings, so their offer amounts to $2.2 trillion in future deficit reduction....

...The $800 billion in new tax revenue matches what Boehner offered Obama during their 2011 negotiations for a grand bargain. Republicans are keeping to their opposition to tax rate increases, and aides said Monday they believe that $800 billion can be raised from the wealthy through other means, which their offer does not specify...

...Pfeiffer faulted the GOP for raising rates on the wealthy and sticking the middle class with the bill....

..."Their plan includes nothing new and provides no details on which deductions they would eliminate, which loopholes they will close or which Medicare savings they would achieve," Pfeiffer said." While the President is willing to compromise to get a significant, balanced deal and believes that compromise is readily available to Congress, he is not willing to compromise on the principles of fairness and balance that include asking the wealthiest to pay higher rates...."

 

[head of joaquin]

The letter outlining the proposal can be found here:

http://www.speaker.gov/sites/speaker.house.gov/files/documents/letter_to_wh_121203.pdf

It essentially offers the 2012 House Budget Proposal (Fiscal Year 2012 Budget | Budget.House.Gov "Ryan budget"--coupled with the concept of the tax reform offered in the Bowles-Simpson report.

What a joke. Just more fictional deduction cuts that rich people can't use anyway due to AMT.

It's clear the GOP isn't serious. All they care about is preserving tax cuts for billionaires and making sure working Americans pay higher taxes and get less services.

 

[Catawba]

Worth noting - that $800 Bn is the amount that the CBO said we would get from repealing the Bush tax cuts on upper income earners.

The difference being the Democrat's plan asks more of the rich as opposed to the GOP's plan to ask more of the middle class and seniors.

 

[upsideguy]

If we can believe the CBO as they can only score figures they are given. If it is true, then that means taxes will be raised on everyone., which Obama said he would not raise taxes on the middle class, of course that's a lie too...but just sayin'

No... its a tax rate increase AND a limitation on deductions to upper income earners. It is the same number the Cons are supporting, except the Cons do not want the tax rate increase.

 

[upsideguy]

What a joke. Just more fictional deduction cuts that rich people can't use anyway due to AMT.

It's clear the GOP isn't serious. All they care about is preserving tax cuts for billionaires and making sure working Americans pay higher taxes and get less services.

The are angling to go off the "cliff" as well. This is their feeble attempt to look as if they are negotiating, when they really don't want a deal. By waiting until after the automatic expiration of the temporary tax relief enacted in 2001/03 and extended in 2010, the Cons do not have to make any affirmative vote that would raise taxes (on the 2%). Instead, they get to vote affirmatively of r tax cut for the lower 98% early in 2013.

 

[lpast]

Id bet its DOA

 

[specklebang]

Both sides are very vague on where their portion is coming from. Neither side plans to give anything up. The concept of centrism and compromise has been completely lost.

Just for fun, from Intrade:
The US debt limit to be raised before midnight ET 31 Dec 2012
33.6%
CHANCE
Last prediction was: $3.36 / share
Today's Change: -$2.00 (-37.3%)

Looks like fewer and fewer people think we'll find a solution. Our politicians are really letting us down.

 

[Catawba]

The are angling to go off the "cliff" as well. This is their feeble attempt to look as if they are negotiating, when they really don't want a deal. By waiting until after the automatic expiration of the temporary tax relief enacted in 2001/03 and extended in 2010, the Cons do not have to make any affirmative vote that would raise taxes (on the 2%). Instead, they get to vote affirmatively of r tax cut for the lower 98% early in 2013.

I guess that is why they created the cliff in the first place.....its cover.

 

[Republic Now!]

Both sides are very vague on where their portion is coming from. Neither side plans to give anything up. The concept of centrism and compromise has been completely lost.

Just for fun, from Intrade:
The US debt limit to be raised before midnight ET 31 Dec 2012
33.6%
CHANCE
Last prediction was: $3.36 / share
Today's Change: -$2.00 (-37.3%)

Looks like fewer and fewer people think we'll find a solution. Our politicians are really letting us down.

Well, this and the Obama's offer thread tells the tale. The discussion is no longer about what we should do, or finding common ground, or figuring out what's best, it's criticizing the other side and marginalizing their desire to find a solution.

If the people are like this, why should we expect politicians to be any different?

 

[specklebang]

Why do you say it is the people, not the politicians? I think people are more reasonable if given a chance. Politicians are in show-biz 24/7.

I can tell you right now that none of them speak for me - does anyone speak for you?

When we vote, we get very little choice. For all the chaos it might cause, I think we'd be a lot better off if we had multiple parties so we could get someone to be reasonable. What's going on is as childish and embarrassing as the election that preceded it.

Well, this and the Obama's offer thread tells the tale. The discussion is no longer about what we should do, or finding common ground, or figuring out what's best, it's criticizing the other side and marginalizing their desire to find a solution.

If the people are like this, why should we expect politicians to be any different?

 

[Republic Now!]

Why do you say it is the people, not the politicians? I think people are more reasonable if given a chance. Politicians are in show-biz 24/7.

I can tell you right now that none of them speak for me - does anyone speak for you?

When we vote, we get very little choice. For all the chaos it might cause, I think we'd be a lot better off if we had multiple parties so we could get someone to be reasonable. What's going on is as childish and embarrassing as the election that preceded it.

Look at this thread.

Also, your last paragraph is a load of crap. There are plenty of options out there, but people are so scared of the "other side" that they vote for the lesser of two evils.

 

[specklebang]

You seem to be agreeing with my "load of crap". I'm confused. Tell me more about these options that I overlooked.

Look at this thread.

Also, your last paragraph is a load of crap. There are plenty of options out there, but people are so scared of the "other side" that they vote for the lesser of two evils.

 

[Republic Now!]

You seem to be agreeing with my "load of crap". I'm confused. Tell me more about these options that I overlooked.

You said there is very little choice, but there are plenty of choices. People are simply more concerned with the evils of the other side than actually agreeing with their own.

 

[specklebang]

And I repeat. We have (IMHO) very little choice. We have 2 positions, almost diametrically opposite and that's the representation we get.

Nobody holds the middle.

You said there is very little choice, but there are plenty of choices. People are simply more concerned with the evils of the other side than actually agreeing with their own.

 

[Republic Now!]

And I repeat. We have (IMHO) very little choice. We have 2 positions, almost diametrically opposite and that's the representation we get.

Nobody holds the middle.

Except for all the third party options people forgo because they fear the other side...

 

[Catawba]

And I repeat. We have (IMHO) very little choice. We have 2 positions, almost diametrically opposite and that's the representation we get.

Nobody holds the middle.

I would disagree. I think that both parties are only degrees different to the right and left of center, with the Libertarian party and the Green party as the parties that are diametrically opposed. Since most of Americans prefer the center, it is little surprise to me they receive majority support.

 

[tererun]

You know what would make that even better? if they slapped some tax increases onto the rich. Then we could actually have a real conservative budget instead of a pretend conservative budget which still spends lavishly and wastefully on the rich. hey, if we all have to buckle our belts and pay down our debt then the rich can tone down their spending too.

 

[RLWSNOOK]

Both sides are very vague on where their portion is coming from. Neither side plans to give anything up. The concept of centrism and compromise has been completely lost.

Just for fun, from Intrade:
The US debt limit to be raised before midnight ET 31 Dec 2012
33.6%
CHANCE
Last prediction was: $3.36 / share
Today's Change: -$2.00 (-37.3%)

Looks like fewer and fewer people think we'll find a solution. Our politicians are really letting us down.

I could be wrong, but aren't the debt ceiling and the fiscal cliff two different things? I know democrats want to lump the debt ceiling in with the fiscal cliff, but a deal could get done on the debt ceiling and not on the fiscal cliff (or the other way around)...

 

[CalGun]

I'm glad to see the liberals on the forum hate the idea of cutting the deficit 2.2 trillion over 10 years including 800b in new tax revenue; maybe now we can just realize obama wants to send the nation into a depression after all by leaping over this mythical cliff.

 

[cpwill]

The difference being the Democrat's plan asks more of the rich as opposed to the GOP's plan to ask more of the middle class and seniors.

Ah.

Firstly: I almost wish they would. Just as Republicans were the first party to come clean and be honest with the American people about the need to grab the third rail, someone needs to come clean and let the American people know that we already have the most progressive income tax structure in the industrialized world. The oh-so-sacrosanct middle class isn't paying for the benefits it wants, and we need to be honest that all things come with a price tag.

Secondly: Sort of Bitter-Sweetly, this charge of yours is (as near as I can tell) incorrect. Perhaps you can demonstrate to me where you are getting this from.

 

[cpwill]

You know what would make that even better? if they slapped some tax increases onto the rich. Then we could actually have a real conservative budget instead of a pretend conservative budget which still spends lavishly and wastefully on the rich.

Actually you will notice that the Republican proposal includes reducing expenditures on the wealthy - particularly in the form of entitlements. Which is as it should be - millionaires do not need Social Security or Medicare.