South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint has the same problems with the tax deal that I do – and he’s decided they’re show-stoppers (Hugh Hewitt via Reuters).
I’m glad the President recognizes that tax increases hurt the economy. I mean, I guess that’s progress. But frankly, Hugh, most of us who ran this election said we were not going to vote for anything that increased the deficit. This does. It raises taxes, it raises the death tax. I don’t think we needed to negotiate that aspect of this thing away. I don’t think we need to extend unemployment any further without paying for it, and without making some modifications such as turning it into a loan at some point. It then encourages people to go back to work. So there’s a lot of problems with it. I mean, and frankly, the biggest problem I have, Hugh, is we don’t need a temporary economy, which means we don’t need a temporary tax rate. A permanent extension of our current tax rates would allow businesses to plan five and ten years in advance, and that’s how you build an economy.
DeMint even went far enough to say he was OK with shifting the discussion to next year. Of course, Boehner would be Speaker and DeMint would have more friends in the Senate.
I think it’s more likely that DeMint will try to add spending reductions and some rate permanency to the deal first (Harry Reid trying to do favors for his state’s casinos opened the door for that). The Club for Growth has the same objections DeMint does. This could get very interesting, and could lead to an even better deal.
How does DeMint say we should balance the budget? What cuts should be made ?
this is little more than empty rhetoric – more talk and less action from the very folks who say we are spending too much.
How many ways can someone say we are spending too much and NOT SAY what cuts are necessary?
The 2001 & 2003 Tax Cuts have NOT paid for themselves and the budget went into deficit at the time those tax cuts were made and has stayed in deficit since then.
Since that time – every Republican – every year has said that we spend too much rather than tax too little but none of them say what cuts should be made to balance the deficit.
I call that fraud.
Let me make sure I have this, Larry.
Any time any Republican says he won’t back a bill without offsets, he’s a “fraud” unless the offsets are north of a trillion.
Really?
I also find curious that you have refused to support *any* reduction in discretionary spending that’s not in defense (at least, not on this blog you haven’t); it’s all cut the Pentagon and raise taxes for you.
Oh, and one more thing: Federal Revenue in FY01 (before the tax cuts took effect) = $1.99T. Six years later, Federal Revenue was $2.57T.
[...] DeMint looks a lot smarter this [...]
D.J. – how many times have I got to say that I support BOTH of the deficit commission plans OR ANY OTHER PLAN that balances the budget – PERIOD.
How come you don’t support ANY PLAN?
How come the Republicans don’t support ANY PLAN?
that’s why I call them FRAUDS – because they talk the talk – for 10 years now but they have yet to offer a plan to balance the budget.
You are correct about Part D – funded from General Revenues. Mea Culpa.
@Larry: how many times do I have to tell you? The Bush taxx cuts did NOT lower revenue-always 19% of GDP.
DJ – I believe you but the point is that we went into deficit – and the Republicans did nothing about it.
THAT’s the POINT.
I don’t care what the theory is nor whether or not revenues were produced or not but what did we do when our spending exceeded our revenues?
Ya’ll are fixated on what the effect of tax cuts is or is not without once dealing with the results – whether or not we spend more than we take in – and how to balance the budget.
How can you guys claim to be the responsible party when you are so fixated on the “theory” behind tax cuts yet totally neglect the actual budget deficit and debt?
Ya’ll stood by while the debt went from 5 trillion to 10 trillion and you did nothing about it. You don’t even have a plan right now for balancing the budget.
My expectations are that the Republicans claim to be the fiscally responsible party and I expect them to perform in that regard.
If they don’t then tell me again why I should vote for them?
At this point – they’re all talk and no do.
And these are the same sneaks who will be bitching about Obama’s ownership of the $13 trillion in debt
Larry,
“the point is that we went into deficit – and the Republicans did nothing about it”
Actually, you’re being too kind. The GOP made it worse with stuff like Medicare Part D, refusing to let farm subsidies expire, and overall paying little or no attention to runaway spending levels.
The point Cyto and I are making is that tax increases won’t do the trick. We need to cut spending (we all agree on that). I’ll admit I don’t have the “magic formula” on that, but I do know the commission co-chairs fell short.
You don’t have to have the road map in Boston to know someone driving south won’t get there from here.
We agree except that it is my belief if you don’t put together an actual balanced/near balance budget with ALL the cuts needed to get there – that you’re never going to do it.
It’s always going to be about why programs/subsidies/other you do’t like – as a partisan political narrative without ever performing.
The people who HAVE tried to put together the cut say – that you can’t do it with cuts alone.
I want to see the Republicans put together a plan that works from cuts alone. I do not think it is possible but it is the Republicans who say that it is but ever show how.
Remember Clinton? Higher Taxes. More Tax revenues. jobs – and a balanced budget.
why was that a wrong approach?
Are you essentially arguing that we would have had an even more balanced budget if we lowered taxes also?
If so – then prove it with your plan.
Without that plan – your ideas and theories don’t really mean a whole lot other than your ideological beliefs.
[...] Romney and Jim DeMint, I’d rather these tax cuts were permanent. Like them, I’d prefer the unemployment [...]