Republicans Counter-Offer

[Kathianne]

The Republicans have offered a proposal:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/republicans-make-their-fiscal-cliff-counteroffer/2012/12/03/16f1b75e-3d8e-11e2-8a5c-473797be602c_blog.html


Posted at 04:10 PM ET, 12/03/2012 <!-- For AP News Registry --> <abbr class="updated" title="2012-12-03T21:10:50-0400">Dec 03, 2012 09:10 PM EST</abbr>
TheWashingtonPost <!-- /For AP News Registry --> Republicans make their ‘fiscal cliff' counteroffer By Jennifer Rubin (http://www.washingtonpost.com/jennifer-rubin/2011/02/24/ABbIUXN_page.html)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_982w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/ezra-klein/Images/140238393.jpg
John Boehner
The House Republicans have responded to the president's offer (http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/12/03/Editorial-Opinion/Graphics/Republican_fiscal_cliff_counteroffer.pdf) with essentially the "grand bargain" proposed in the summer of 2011. (This is only fitting since the president essentially gave Democrats his past budget proposal.)


House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement:




In a letter sent to President Obama today, House Republican leaders made a new offer to avert the fiscal cliff centered around a middle ground approach first presented to Congress last year by President Clinton's former White House chief of staff, Erskine Bowles. The Bowles plan, presented in 2011 to the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, is consistent with the framework House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) proposed the day after the election (http://www.speaker.gov/speech/full-text-speaker-boehner-calls-bipartisan-action-avert-fiscal-cliff): a balanced approach of significant spending cuts and new revenues from tax reform with fewer loopholes and lower tax rates. This is another attempt to jumpstart substantive, good faith negotiations toward a bipartisan solution that can be enacted soon, a stark contrast to the unserious proposal the White House put forward last week.


In a document obtained by Right Turn from House Republicans, the plans match up as follows:




President's Deficit Reduction
Tax Rates Increases: $960B
Elimination of Deductions: $600B
Spending Cuts: $400B
New Stimulus/Other
Infrastructure Spending: -$95-425B
Payroll Tax Extension: -$110B
Unemployment Insurance: -$30B
Stimulus Tax Extenders: -$27B
Unpaid for SGR Patch: -$25B
Mortgage Plan: Unknown
Elimination of Debt Limit: N/A
NET SAVINGS: (At most) $1.673T
House Republican Counter
(Based on the Bowles Proposal to the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction)
Deficit Reduction
Revenue through Tax Reform: $800B
Health Savings: $600B
Other Mandatory Savings: $300B
Revision to CPI: $200B
Further Discretionary Savings: $300B
NET SAVINGS: $2.2T


A House leadership aide told Right Turn that "the GOP offer includes more deficit reduction than the White House offer last week, which included hundreds of billions in new stimulus' spending. Our net deficit reduction is $2.2 trillion, but if we were to utilize White House schemes to count (1) previously-enacted Budget Control Act savings, (2) a war savings gimmick, and (3) further interest savings, our proposal would result in $4.6 trillion in deficit reduction savings, much more than theirs."


So we have the potential for a deal that is somewhere between Bowles's plan last year and the president's plan. It is not, however, a matter of simply total savings. The Republicans have included far less revenue, as well as less revenue to be obtained through tax reform. The Democrats have yet to present a substantive offer that looks at systemic entitlement reform. The Republicans have shown that, contrary to the liberal-media meme (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/norquist-still-calling-cadence-in-gop-ranks/2012/12/02/19d6362a-398d-11e2-8a97-363b0f9a0ab3_story.html), Boehner and not Grover Norquist controls the House. (And we expect this is not even the final GOP offer, leaving room for more revenue perhaps.)


We are far from a deal. We're not close, but we are no longer "nowhere." Your turn, Mr. President.

<script type="text/cjs"> var entrycat = ''; </script> By Jennifer Rubin (http://www.washingtonpost.com/jennifer-rubin/2011/02/24/ABbIUXN_page.html) | 04:10 PM ET, 12/03/2012

[jimnyc]

Should be interesting, but I think we're going to see a lot of spending and an increased deficit and national debt no matter what, as those with more power are hell bent on spending their way out, or thinking they will.

[KarlMarx]

solution to the whole thing..... IMPEACH BARACK OBAMA

It's becoming more obvious that the President does not want to negotiate with the Republicans and is willing to send us over the fiscal cliff. To me, that show a willful and deliberate dereliction of his duties to protect the country.

Barack Obama should have been impeached long ago. We can add to the list, Benghazi, among others.

It's time to do it, let's write our Congressmen/women and get the ball rolling.

[Kathianne]

solution to the whole thing..... IMPEACH BARACK OBAMA

It's becoming more obvious that the President does not want to negotiate with the Republicans and is willing to send us over the fiscal cliff. To me, that show a willful and deliberate dereliction of his duties to protect the country.

Barack Obama should have been impeached long ago. We can add to the list, Benghazi, among others.

It's time to do it, let's write our Congressmen/women and get the ball rolling.

I can't think of anything I agree with Obama on. However, so far haven't seen anything impeachable, thought the jury is out with Benghazi and Fast and Furious, regardless of hype.

[aboutime]

solution to the whole thing..... IMPEACH BARACK OBAMA

It's becoming more obvious that the President does not want to negotiate with the Republicans and is willing to send us over the fiscal cliff. To me, that show a willful and deliberate dereliction of his duties to protect the country.

Barack Obama should have been impeached long ago. We can add to the list, Benghazi, among others.

It's time to do it, let's write our Congressmen/women and get the ball rolling.


KarlMarx. Nothing would make all of us happier than seeing Republicans, showing their will to have the Courage to do such a thing. BUT.... The problem is. And I do mean...realistically, and pragmatically. IT would take too long to get the ball rolling, and Literally. We can't afford to do it. Not when Democrats have control of the Senate with the Majority.
Check your copy of the Constitution. Find what is needed to bring Impeachment proceedings to the floor, and what it takes to make it work.
NOT cutting you down. No disrespect intended here, in any way. BUT...Obama, and company know. Impeachment is nearly impossible as long as Harry Reid has the Senate, and the Wicked Witch of the West Coast...Nancy Pelosi is still breathing.

[Kathianne]

KarlMarx. Nothing would make all of us happier than seeing Republicans, showing their will to have the Courage to do such a thing. BUT.... The problem is. And I do mean...realistically, and pragmatically. IT would take too long to get the ball rolling, and Literally. We can't afford to do it. Not when Democrats have control of the Senate with the Majority.
Check your copy of the Constitution. Find what is needed to bring Impeachment proceedings to the floor, and what it takes to make it work.
NOT cutting you down. No disrespect intended here, in any way. BUT...Obama, and company know. Impeachment is nearly impossible as long as Harry Reid has the Senate, and the Wicked Witch of the West Coast...Nancy Pelosi is still breathing.

In short, nothing impeachable.

[aboutime]

In short, nothing impeachable.


Please explain. Since you insist I am wrong. Tell us how there is NOTHING impeachable. Please.

[Kathianne]

Please explain. Since you insist I am wrong. Tell us how there is NOTHING impeachable. Please.

Explain impeachable. I am not insisting you are wrong, that's your interpretation.

[aboutime]

Explain impeachable. I am not insisting you are wrong, that's your interpretation.


Kathianne. There you go again.

Forget it. For some reason. It seems everything anyone says to you, requires an argument of some kind.

Never mind. I'll ask someone else.

[KarlMarx]

In short, nothing impeachable.
The Constitution says "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" is grounds for impeachment. I think the Republicans need to look at Obama's role (or non-role) in Benghazi, Fast and Furious. Also, committing troops without prior Congressional approval should be considered...

I think my prior post was done in the heat of the moment... but.... I think the Republicans should keep their eyes open and commit to having the will to getting rid of the President

Also, if Obama is busy dealing with articles of impeachment, he won't have time to raise our taxes, or come up with more pie in the sky utopian schemes to fleece the Middle Class.....

[red states rule]

Everyone here knows I am no fan of Obama - but based on current events - unless gross incompetence, arrogance, and being totally opposed to capitalism is an impeachable offense; there are no grounds for impeachment.

[red states rule]

The only acceptable counter offer should be a balanced budget be presented to Pres Obama tomorrow. We all know what needs to be done so DO IT!!! We know entitlements are bleeding the nation dry and they cannot be sustained.

[Kathianne]

The Constitution says "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" is grounds for impeachment. I think the Republicans need to look at Obama's role (or non-role) in Benghazi, Fast and Furious. Also, committing troops without prior Congressional approval should be considered...

I think my prior post was done in the heat of the moment... but.... I think the Republicans should keep their eyes open and commit to having the will to getting rid of the President

Also, if Obama is busy dealing with articles of impeachment, he won't have time to raise our taxes, or come up with more pie in the sky utopian schemes to fleece the Middle Class.....

As for the bolded, I mentioned those from the outset, but they have to get proof. So far, no go.

[red states rule]

BTW, if you were able to impeach Obama we would have Joe Biden as President. Wouldn't that be worse then what we have now?

[Kathianne]

BTW, if you were able to impeach Obama we would have Joe Biden as President. Wouldn't that be worse then what we have now?

Now there is a dilemma.

[red states rule]

Now there is a dilemma.

Lets face it Kat - we are f'd for the next 4 years. We survived Carter - we may survive Obama

[Kathianne]

Lets face it Kat - we are f'd for the next 4 years. We survived Carter - we may survive Obama

I don't think we will, at least not unlike Europe.

[red states rule]

I don't think we will, at least not unlike Europe.

The Obama Legacy http://ferrellgummit.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/obamanomics-101.jpg

[Robert A Whit]

Impeach you say?

We forgot Clinton already?

We would need at least 70 rock solid approvers of impeachment in the Senate.

No, it is not that he has not done something that warrants impeaching, but we don't have that many Senators with guts to get the job done is the problem.

[red states rule]

http://www.gingpac.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Obamanomics.jpg

[KarlMarx]

According to a poll from the Washington Post, most Americans believe that, if we should go off of the cliff, Republicans will be responsible.

If that's true, then the Democratic Party has nothing to lose by allowing the Fiscal Cliff to happen. They will get their tax increases, they will get their defense budget cuts, they get to blame the Republicans.... it's the moral equivalent of sex for those people. Why should they consider anything that John Boehner or the House Republicans have to offer?

On the other hand, what if those polls are wrong and this fiscal cliff nonsense back fired on the Democrats? This may be what one person called beginning of the inevitable over reach by the Obama administration, which will in the end, prove to be their undoing.

[KarlMarx]

The Obama Legacy

more like

http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/wp-content/gallery/obama-satire/obama-what-me-worry.jpg

[Kathianne]

According to a poll from the Washington Post, most Americans believe that, if we should go off of the cliff, Republicans will be responsible.

If that's true, then the Democratic Party has nothing to lose by allowing the Fiscal Cliff to happen. They will get their tax increases, they will get their defense budget cuts, they get to blame the Republicans.... it's the moral equivalent of sex for those people. Why should they consider anything that John Boehner or the House Republicans have to offer?

On the other hand, what if those polls are wrong and this fiscal cliff nonsense back fired on the Democrats? This may be what one person called beginning of the inevitable over reach by the Obama administration, which will in the end, prove to be their undoing.

I don't know how far the administration can take it to be a step too far? I just don't get it:

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/12/04/gergen-democrats-would-rather-humiliate-gop-than-solve-fiscal-cliff/


<!-- #header-nav --> <!-- HEADER END --> <!-- Timer: 0.093 --> <!-- SINGLE --> <!-- CONTENT --> Gergen: Democrats would rather humiliate GOP than solve fiscal cliff

posted at 8:51 am on December 4, 2012 by Ed Morrissey


<iframe src="http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?api_key=312482775445602&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&channel_url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.ak.facebook.com%2F connect%2Fxd_arbiter.php%3Fversion%3D17%23cb%3Df37 e4f3f84a74a8%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fhotair. com%252Ffa370c852b977%26domain%3Dhotair.com%26rela tion%3Dparent.parent&href=http%3A%2F%2Fhotair.com%2Farchives%2F2012%2F1 2%2F04%2Fgergen-democrats-would-rather-humiliate-gop-than-solve-fiscal-cliff%2F&node_type=link&width=90&font=lucida%20grande&layout=button_count&colorscheme=light&show_faces=false&send=false&extended_social_context=false" class="fb_ltr" title="Like this content on Facebook." style="border: medium none; overflow: hidden; height: 20px; width: 80px;" name="fbaf6ecedf7b38" id="f23d3be7a1cfd2a" scrolling="no"></iframe>
<iframe data-twttr-rendered="true" title="Twitter Tweet Button" style="width: 107px; height: 20px;" class="twitter-share-button twitter-count-horizontal" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.1354270846.html#_=1354667382924&count=horizontal&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en&original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fhotair.com%2Farchive s%2F2012%2F12%2F04%2Fgergen-democrats-would-rather-humiliate-gop-than-solve-fiscal-cliff%2F&size=m&text=Gergen%3A%20Democrats%20would%20rather%20humi liate%20GOP%20than%20solve%20fiscal%20cliff%20%C2% AB%20Hot%20Air&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhotair.com%2Farchives%2F2012%2F12 %2F04%2Fgergen-democrats-would-rather-humiliate-gop-than-solve-fiscal-cliff%2F&via=hotairblog" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe allowtransparency="true" src="https://plusone.google.com/_/+1/fastbutton?bsv&size=medium&hl=en-US&origin=http%3A%2F%2Fhotair.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhotair.com%2Farchives%2F2012%2F12 %2F04%2Fgergen-democrats-would-rather-humiliate-gop-than-solve-fiscal-cliff%2F&jsh=m%3B%2F_%2Fscs%2Fapps-static%2F_%2Fjs%2Fk%3Doz.gapi.en_US.UGL4_yraPNY.O% 2Fm%3D__features__%2Fam%3DAQ%2Frt%3Dj%2Fd%3D1%2Frs %3DAItRSTOImeXVkThx7WmS2g9dIAXEpHCwkQ#_methods=onP lusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_re nderstart%2Concircled%2Conload&id=I0_1354667382699&parent=http%3A%2F%2Fhotair.com" name="I0_1354667382699" id="I0_1354667382699" vspace="0" tabindex="0" style="position: absolute; top: -10000px; width: 90px; margin: 0px; border-style: none;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" hspace="0" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" width="100%"></iframe>

Via Eliana Johnson at NRO (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/334724/cnns-gergen-says-democrats-trying-humiliate-gop-cliff-negotiations-eliana-johnson), David Gergen comes to the same conclusion that most of us did after the election — that Barack Obama and the Democrats aren’t really interested in solving the massive number of problems in the fiscal cliff coming in less than four weeks. Their priority is to inflict as much damage on House Republicans as possible, and if that inflicts damage on America, well, you gotta break a few eggs to make omelettes, too.

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fZPw4xxPQtI?fs=1&feature=oembed" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="293" width="520"></iframe>


But since this election, there’s been — I think it’s the Democrats are the ones who are really trying to rub it in and almost (ed. almost?) humiliate the Republicans, and that’s not going to get to a bargain. Again, I think it has to be win-win. … You hear among some Democrats right now, and it’s disturbing, that maybe we ought to just take it over the cliff, that’ll, we’ll score political points against the Republicans, that will force their hands in the new year. That is a very, very, dangerous risk.



Is it? Only if the media reports on it. So far, though, the media seems more focused on Republicans and their supposed intransigence, even though John Boehner’s opening offer put the supposed “grand bargain” of August 2011 back on the table — and Obama demanded twice as much revenue with half the cuts in some gauzy point in the future. At least for now, the media is making brinksmanship a relatively risk-free strategy while Obama campaigns rather than negotiates in good faith.

[aboutime]

According to a poll from the Washington Post, most Americans believe that, if we should go off of the cliff, Republicans will be responsible.

If that's true, then the Democratic Party has nothing to lose by allowing the Fiscal Cliff to happen. They will get their tax increases, they will get their defense budget cuts, they get to blame the Republicans.... it's the moral equivalent of sex for those people. Why should they consider anything that John Boehner or the House Republicans have to offer?

On the other hand, what if those polls are wrong and this fiscal cliff nonsense back fired on the Democrats? This may be what one person called beginning of the inevitable over reach by the Obama administration, which will in the end, prove to be their undoing.


KarlMarx. There's only One, real way to find out. And, so what? If they blame Republicans. Nothing new.

If Obama and the Dems allow the CLIFF to occur. They OWN the Economy, top to bottom. Let them try to blame Republicans as much as they want.
Democrats in the House, and Senate are STILL COMING UP for elections.
Let them Commit their Own Political Suicides. It always works that way anyhow.

[KarlMarx]

KarlMarx. There's only One, real way to find out. And, so what? If they blame Republicans. Nothing new.

If Obama and the Dems allow the CLIFF to occur. They OWN the Economy, top to bottom. Let them try to blame Republicans as much as they want.
Democrats in the House, and Senate are STILL COMING UP for elections.
Let them Commit their Own Political Suicides. It always works that way anyhow.

It may be their economy, and it has been for several years, and they managed to blame the Republicans for it

You know... the Republicans are like the family dog... he always gets blamed for someone's bad odor

[Kathianne]

It may be their economy, and it has been for several years, and they managed to blame the Republicans for it

You know... the Republicans are like the family dog... he always gets blamed for someone's bad odor

The real question is when will the dog bite or die?

[red states rule]

Now we know who are some of Obama's economic advisors. You may be right Kat - we may not survive
If this don't beat all.
On Tuesday, President Obama met with liberals including MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell, and Al Sharpton to "discuss importance of extending the Bush middle-class tax cut."
So tweeted (https://twitter.com/jbendery) the Huffington Post's Jennifer Bendery moments ago:

https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/2610862419/4v17ciyg0erwx6uffdvw_normal.jpeg jennifer bendery@jbendery (https://twitter.com/jbendery) <iframe class="twt-follow-button" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/follow_button.html#align=right&button=grey&screen_name=jbendery&show_count=false&show_screen_name=false&lang=en" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowtransparency="true"></iframe>
WH spox says Obama mtg with Maddow, other progressives to discuss importance of extending the Bush middle-class tax cut.

4 Dec 12 (https://twitter.com/jbendery/statuses/276071628658597888)

Reply (https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?in_reply_to=276071628658597888)
Retweet (https://twitter.com/intent/retweet?tweet_id=276071628658597888)
Favorite (https://twitter.com/intent/favorite?tweet_id=276071628658597888)




This was preceded by:

https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/2610862419/4v17ciyg0erwx6uffdvw_normal.jpeg jennifer bendery@jbendery (https://twitter.com/jbendery) <iframe class="twt-follow-button" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/follow_button.html#align=right&button=grey&screen_name=jbendery&show_count=false&show_screen_name=false&lang=en" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowtransparency="true"></iframe>
WH spox: “This afternoon at the White House, the President met with influential progressives...."

4 Dec 12 (https://twitter.com/jbendery/statuses/276071071692763136)

Reply (https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?in_reply_to=276071071692763136)
Retweet (https://twitter.com/intent/retweet?tweet_id=276071071692763136)
Favorite (https://twitter.com/intent/favorite?tweet_id=276071071692763136)




And:

https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/2610862419/4v17ciyg0erwx6uffdvw_normal.jpeg jennifer bendery@jbendery (https://twitter.com/jbendery) <iframe class="twt-follow-button" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/follow_button.html#align=right&button=grey&screen_name=jbendery&show_count=false&show_screen_name=false&lang=en" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowtransparency="true"></iframe>
So... in the last hour, I watched Rachel Maddow, Al Sharpton and Lawrence O'Donnell all walk into the West Wing. MSNBC love fest?

4 Dec 12 (https://twitter.com/jbendery/statuses/276056850724708352)

Reply (https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?in_reply_to=276056850724708352)
Retweet (https://twitter.com/intent/retweet?tweet_id=276056850724708352)
Favorite (https://twitter.com/intent/favorite?tweet_id=276056850724708352)




So now the shills at the most left-leaning, corrupt, so-called "news network" in the land get the President's ear on tax policy.
Exactly how can these folks be trusted to be impartial when reporting on such things?
Oh. That's right. They never were.
Please ignore the previous question.
http://newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/2012/MSDNC_4.gif


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/12/04/obama-consults-msnbcs-maddow-odonnell-and-sharpton-tax-rates#ixzz2EDeeghVU