But Obama established the commission anyway, because it looks highly unlikely that Congress will be able to put aside its bickering enough to do the work we will desperately need once the economy is righted. Here’s how The Hill describes the work of the commission:
[The commission will] produce a package of proposals aimed at bringing the deficit down to a sustainable level by 2015.
The panel may consider tax increases, spending cuts and entitlement reforms. As Obama has said, “everything is on the table.”
Except now, a whole lot of things aren’t on the table. Republicans have almost exclusively appointed hard-line, reactionary conservatives to serve on the budget panel, suggesting that they are only willing to consider slashing services and not raising revenues. Sounds like the same old story: Democrats want to put everything on the table, with the full understanding that they will have to make major concessions, while Republicans refuse to move an inch.
The appointments include Tom Coburn, a fringe right-wing Senator also known as “Doctor No,” and Paul Ryan, whose Republican “shadow budget” would eventually end Medicare, privatize Social Security, and use those changes to give billions of dollars to the wealthiest without balancing our budget. At least five of the six Republican appointments could be called extreme right-wingers. Judd Gregg could possibly be considered a moderate, although in the past year he has not been acting like one.
The Democrats’ appointments, on the other hand, include Senators Max Baucus and Kent Conrad, who are both quite moderate. Only one of the Senate’s appointments — Dick Durbin — is a strong liberal vote. The House has not yet made its appointments.
Jeff:
In the mid 1990’s the Republicans and President Clinton adopted a simple plan. Slow the growth of federal spending so revenues will catch up. There was an even a tax cut on capital gains which helped spark the stock market. What’s wrong with that approach again.
Between fiscal years 2003 and 2006 the deficit dropped by $133 billion despire the growth of federal spending by $624 billion. Federal spending since fiscal year 2007 has grown by $1.3 trillion dollars. Simple solution which the commission should adopt lets cut a trillion dollars of spending since it wasn’t needed before 2007.
Keep in mind this deficit commission as far as you’re concerned wants to propose tax increases above the tax increases by letting the Bush tax cuts expire, the cadicalic tax which is supported by the health care, the tax if you don’t buy medical insurance. There’s already a lot of built in tax increases.
You’re just mad that the Republicans will actually propose the real solution of spending cuts which you want to ignore. That makes you the closed minded person here.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Walter, it blows my mind that you can say that. I have proposed spending cuts in PRACTICALLY EVERY SINGLE POST I HAVE EVER WRITTEN on reducing the deficit. Before you call me “closed-minded,” please actually read my posts.
Jeff:
Just curious who is pretending to do posts under your name then.
* You have done a bunch of posts being critical of the state bonding package being just $700 million instead of a billion dollars. That is a spending cut of $300 million you opposed.
* You did a couple of posts being critical of Senator Jim Bunning beause he had the nerve to say lets pay for this $10 billion dollar. Bunning suggested lets take the $10 billion from unspent stimlus funds. Instead of praising Bunning he was attacked. That’s $10 billion of spending you favor.
* You have done posts trying to show how good the stimlus package has been. So even though unemployment has increased by five million people in 2009 compared with 3.5 million in 2008 you’re trotting the stimulus package which according to some estimates is now over $800 billion dollars.
* You can hardly wait for a health care reform bill to be signed that will allow the government to take over health care. That’s over a trillion dollars.
It certainly doesn’t look like you’re in favor of spending cuts like you claim.
Besides the premise of my point is that since you have a bunch of built in tax increases that we should now seriously examine the spending side. Especially since fiscal year 2007 spending has gone up over a trillion dollars.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Walter,
You are so ridiculously dishonest it is unbearable. How can you say that it was only the spending reductions and not the tax hikes in the wealthy? No tax cut in history of mankind has ever paid for itself, and that is a fact. I can argue just as easily that it was the Clinton tax hikes that balanced the budget, and it never would have happened had Republicans had their way.
You all think tax cuts can cure cancer. Walter, would it surprise you to know that states with below average corporate tax are more likely to have above average unemployment?
Cutting corporate and wealthy taxes is not the panacea for growth and jobs. In fact, states with higher taxes have lower unemployment, on average.
Walter,
Agreed. Thank you for saying that we should restore the Bush tax cuts to Clinton levels. I am glad there is a reasonable Republican that believes that a tax increase on the wealthiest Americans is not a terrible idea. Good job Walter! Thank you for being open minded.
Alec
Alec:
What I was referring to was when the Republicans took over Congress in 1995 they adopted the approach to balance the budget by slowing down the growth of spending. The same approach that John Kasisch proposed for the Republicans in 1993 without any tax increases. Because of the discpline in the growth of spending which President Clinton signed on to kicking and screaming we got a balance budget towards the end of the Clinton administration. Something which democrats say see we know how to do it. If Clinton had his way we wouldn’t have gotten there. After all he opposed welfare reform. He wanted his own stimulus package which was shot down with a filibuster.
I never wrote restore the tax rates to Clinton levels. The repeal of the Bush tax cuts will technically do that and Democrats want to charge even more. This will move will actually bleed revenue and make the problem even worse.
My point as I tried to illustrate twice is that if you reduce the growth of spending revenues will catch up. It worked in the 1990’s. It could have worked in the mid 2000’s if the growth of spending had been restrained (there I’m being critical of Republicans).
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Jeff:
In the mid 1990’s the Republicans and President Clinton adopted a simple plan. Slow the growth of federal spending so revenues will catch up. There was an even a tax cut on capital gains which helped spark the stock market. What’s wrong with that approach again.
Wrong. The 1993 deficit reduction plan was opposed by every single Republican in Congress yet it led to a cut in taxes on 15 million low-income families and made tax cuts available to 90 percent of small businesses, while raising taxes on just 1.2 percent of the wealthiest taxpayers. It is touted as the most important single piece of legislation that kick started the economic growth in the 90’s. What did the Repugs say about it in 1993?
“Clearly, this is a job-killer in the short-run. The impact on job creation is going to be devastating.”
—Rep. Dick Armey, (Now the corporate magician behind the Tea Party)
“The tax increase will…lead to a recession…and will actually increase the deficit.”
—Rep. Newt Gingrich (former disgraced, hypocritical, lying Speaker)
“I will make you this bet. I am willing to risk the mortgage on it…the deficit will be up; unemployment will be up; in my judgment, inflation will be up.”
—Sen. Robert Packwood (serial sexual harasser)
“The deficit four years from today will be higher than it is today, not lower.”
—Sen. Phil Gramm (McCain economic adviser and architect of the wall street implosion)
“The President promised a middle-class tax cut, yet he and his party imposed the largest tax increase in American history. We hope his higher taxes will not cut short the economic recovery and declining interest rates he inherited… Instead of stifling growth through higher taxes and increased government regulations, Republicans would take America in a different direction.”
—Sen. Robert Dole (former GOP loser and Viagra grifter)
Between fiscal years 2003 and 2006 the deficit dropped by $133 billion despire the growth of federal spending by $624 billion. Federal spending since fiscal year 2007 has grown by $1.3 trillion dollars. Simple solution which the commission should adopt lets cut a trillion dollars of spending since it wasn’t needed before 2007.
Did you miss the whole tanking of the economy while you were chilling in your taxpayer provide gig?
Keep in mind this deficit commission as far as you’re concerned wants to propose tax increases above the tax increases by letting the Bush tax cuts expire, the cadicalic tax which is supported by the health care, the tax if you don’t buy medical insurance. There’s already a lot of built in tax increases.
Each and every recession took some tax increases to pull us out of it. Tax cuts have led to deficits- like the Bush tax cuts.
You’re just mad that the Republicans will actually propose the real solution of spending cuts which you want to ignore. That makes you the closed minded person here.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
No it makes you the fool at the alter still waiting for your groom. The Republicans have had a year- no, ten years to propose something close to a solution and have ignored it until the American people made it clear they want reform.
DJZ:
In 1993 John Kasisch proposed a solution which will achieve the budget reduction without a tax increase. In 1995 when Kasisch had the votes he implemented the plan. It worked! The capital gains tax cuts which Clinton wouldn’t have proposed helped spark the stock market rally of the late 1990’s.
You made fun of my comment about how the deficit dropped between 2003 and 2007. The points which went over head the tax cuts sparked a flood of new revenues (not a reduction which people believe) and that the reason why we still had the deficit was that we allowed spending to grow. YES I WASN’T HAPPY THAT THE REPUBLICANS LET SPENDING GROW OUT OF CONTROL. But since the Democrats have taken controlled of Congress in 2007 spending has grown 1.1 trillion dollars compared with just the $600 billion the previous four years. And keep in mind that cycle included large expenditures for the war in Iraq.
The Bush tax increases of 1990 helped make the recession worse. The Reagan tax cuts of 1981 helped spark the recovery that got us out of the terrible Carter recession. It might help if you read your history instead of believe that tax increases cause economic growth. If it did why does California which has increased taxes much higher than Minnesota have an unemployment about 5% higher than Minnesota?
So just curious is there any spending cut you will support?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Thoughts on this headline:
Yes.
That’s right, bitch, just stay in your delusional, tea-bagging world where EVERYTHING about liberalism is WRONG. Eventually, the majority of this country will come around to the reality that you and your ilk are too cracked to be allowed in society unsupervised.
You mean like they’re coming around now in a vast wave of support for Obamacare? Almost 40 speeches from the President and he still can’t sell it. Because it’s terrible legislation. Smart people know this.
If this is such a fabulous and popular idea…and Dems are hearing nothing but cheers and support from their constituents…why isn’t there a triumphant, transparent vote RIGHT NOW?
Be real quiet and you can hear the thugs at work breaking arms way over here in Minnesota. Yes, indeed. Obamacare. A winning liberal idea.
It’s hard to sell a program when you have a 24/7 cable propaganda wing selling lies to the gullible and frightened.
Kathy and I have obviously had our heated disagreements, but I really object to the “b-word” and find it rather sexist and inappropriate.
Alec:
Just curious what channel is the Obama 24/7 campaign on health care on.
The one where he said premiums will go down the same day that Dick Durbin (a democrat from Illnois) said that premiums will go up even if the Senate plan is adopted and any person who tells you otherwise is lying.
If the President wants to tell that whopper and others you know why the American people are opposing this bill.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Breaking News! The Republicans have enough “no” votes to stop ObamaCare. Obama has threatened fellow Democrats who vote against his healthcare bill, that he will not campaign for them this summer/fall. That should clearly help those sitting on the fence to vote “nay”!
I sincerely appreciate the gentlemanly intervention, theoko.
Alec:
You have heard of the state of California. It has an individual income tax rate over 10%, a higher sales tax rate than us, higher car tabs, etc. The results their unemployment rate is currently something like 13% which is five percent higher than Minnesota. If your claims are correct shouldn’t the state of California have a much lower unemployment rate.
Between the years 1997-2007 the nine states with no income tax had an income growth that averaged 82%, population growth of 17%, and employment growth 21%.
The nine states with highest income tax rates (which includes New York, California, New Jersey which just kicked out their Democrat governor) their averages were 62% income growth, population growth of 7%, and employment growth of 11%. If what you claimed is true than these states would’ve performed better.
You also claimed that it was President Clinton’s tax increases which caused our economic growth and reduced the deficit. You are aware that in April 1995 the CBO had made the following projections
Deficit fiscal year 1995 $175 billion, fiscal year 1996 $205 billion, fiscal year 1997$210 billion, fiscal year 1998 $210 billion, fiscal year 1999 $200 billion. Note these numbers are based on a tax increase that had been in effect for two years. If also assumed that welfare reform wouldn’t be passed, that there will be no jump in revenues from the capital gains tax cut, or a reduction in the growth of spending. The last three happened because of the Republican Congress and not President Clinton. The result we had a budget surplus of $126 billion in fiscal year 1999 and we wound up having deficits be lower by $902 billion dollars over those five years.
As for your false claim that tax cuts don’t create revenue here are a couple of stats from the Bush tax cuts:
We were hemorraging jobs in the year 2003. The deficit was at $377 billion dollars and revenues for fiscal year 2003 had dropped to 1.782 trillion dollars. President Bush enacted his tax cuts. The results.
15 trillion of new wealth was created by the tax cuts.
In 2003 there were 181,283 millionarie tax returns. In 2006 there were 354,093 millionarie tax returns. A 95% increase. The tax revenues paid by these rich people went from $132 billion dollars to $273 billion dollars. So if taxs were cut thus according to you causing a reduction in revnue how come revenue from these people grew faster than 107% than the growth of millionaries.
The CBO had predicted how much money will be collected in tax revenues from capital gains. in 2003 CBO predicted capital gains revenues of just $40 billion. By 2006 they had predicated that capital gains won’t break 60 billion. They went over a $100 billion. Opps. Guess that proves that you don’t understand cutting taxes creates revenues.
Alec keep in mind lots of countries in the world including a lot of eastern european countries have adopted personal tax rates of less than 20%. Some countries like Ireland have dropped their corporate tax to just 12.5% compared with corporate tax rates of 39% for the United States not to mention like 9% or higher for state rates. Tax rates matter.
So Alec why don’t you do some real studying of economics before you want to argue.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Walter, learn to read,
I said if you have higher corporate tax you are more likely to have lower unemployment, not guaranteed. it is not a perfect correlation. Ireland’s economy is in shambles. Good example.
There are 6 states with ZERO corporate tax, and Ohio has less than 1%. All of them have higher unemployment than us except South Dakota.
Clinton grew over 20 million jobs with tax hikes.
Bush grew about 4 million with tax cuts.