Centrist Dems Won't Endorse Obama's $1.6 Trillion Tax Hike Plan
Today in Washington, D.C. - Dec. 5, 2012:
In other words, when The Hill surveyed a whole swath of Democrat senators, not one endorsed the $1.6 trillion in tax hikes proposed by President Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner last week.
Meanwhile, the president is sticking by this unserious proposal, demanding these tax rate increases. In a meeting with business leaders today, Obama said, “Were not insisting on [higher] rates just out of spite …but rather because we need to raise a certain amount of revenue.” But last year, he was singing a different tune. During the debt ceiling negotiations in the summer of 2011, President Obama went the White House’s press briefing room and declared, “What we said was give us $1.2 trillion in additional revenues, which could be accomplished without hiking taxes - tax rates, but could simply be accomplished by eliminating loopholes, eliminating some deductions and engaging in a tax reform process that could have lowered rates generally while broadening the base.” So given that Obama said over a year ago he can get the revenue he wants without raising tax rates, what does that say of his quest to raise rates?
President Obama and Democrats are so ideologically wedded to their desire for higher tax rates, they’ve been saying for weeks now that they’re prepared to go over the fiscal cliff in order to obtain them. According to the AP, “[T]he White House is signaling that President Barack Obama is willing to let the country go over the ‘fiscal cliff,’ a hard-line negotiating strategy aimed at winning concessions from Republicans on taxes.” However, the AP points out, “[G]oing over the cliff also would be full of risk for a president fresh off re-election and facing at least two more years of divided government. Ending the year without a deal could roil financial markets and dent consumer confidence just as the economy is strengthening.”
President Obama and Democrat leaders in Congress are demanding tax rate increases that even the president acknowledged last year aren’t the only way to get more revenue and which key Senate Democrats have so far declined to endorse. And these tax hikes are so important to these Democrats, they’re willing to driving the economy right off the fiscal cliff to get them.
As Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said recently, “The only reason Democrats are insisting on raising rates is because raising rates on the so-called ‘rich’ is the holy grail of liberalism. Their aim isn’t job creation. They’re interested in wealth destruction. But the President needs to realize he wasn’t elected President of the hard-left wing of the Democratic Party. He was elected President of the United States. He’s the steward of the nation’s finances. He’s got a responsibility to everybody to work out an agreement. And that means he’s got to come up with something that can get through a Republican House. So, we’re still waiting on the President. We can get there. But he’s going to have to lead. And he can start by putting the campaign talking points on the shelf.”
Tags: Washington, D.C., US Senate, Obamas's tx planUS House, bills To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
The Senate reconvened and at 2 PM, the Senate will begin consideration of H.R. 6156, a bill establishing Permanent Normal Trade Relations with Russia. As commented on yesterday, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities failed to get the 67 votes needed for ratification by a vote of 61-38. Later, the Senate approved an amendment from Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) to require a report on denying the use of air power against civilians and rebels in Syria to the Defense authorization bill, S. 3254, and then voted 98-0 to pass the bill.
Yesterday, The House passed (398-2) H.R. 6582 — "To allow for innovations and alternative technologies that meet or exceed desired energy efficiency goals, and to make technical corrections to existing Federal energy efficiency laws to allow American manufacturers to remain competitive."
The House reconvened today at 9 AM an proceeded immediately wrapped-up the following issues and bills with no further actions pending today.
H.R. 5817 — "To amend the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to provide an exception to the annual privacy notice requirement." – WAS WITHDRAWN - The bill will be reconsidered next week along with an amendment.
Passed by Voice Vote
H.R. 6620 — "To amend title 18, United States Code, to eliminate certain limitations on the length of Secret Service Protection for former Presidents and for the children of former Presidents." Comment: More Government Spending!
H.R. 6605 — "To eliminate an unnecessary reporting requirement for an unfunded DNA Identification grant program."
H.R. 6223 — "To amend section 1059(e) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 to clarify that a period of employment abroad by the Chief of Mission or United States Armed Forces as a translator, interpreter, or in an executive level security position is to be counted as a period of residence and physical presence in the United States for purposes of qualifying for naturalization if at least a portion of such period was spent in Iraq or Afghanistan, and for other purposes."
S. 3486 — "To implement the provisions of the Hague Agreement and the Patent Law Treaty. {Agreed to US Senate changes.]
Passed by votes:
S. Con. Res. 50 (vote 397-0) — "Expressing the sense of Congress regarding actions to preserve and advance the multistakeholder governance model under which the Internet has thrived." [No to United Nation's model.]
H.R. 6602 (vote 392-0) — "To make revisions in title 36, United States Code, as necessary to keep the title current and make technical corrections and improvements."
S. 2367 (vote 398-1) — "To strike the word "lunatic" from Federal law, and for other purposes."
The Hill reports today, “Senate Democratic centrists, whom Grover Norquist describes as the ‘hostages’ in the tax debate, are lying low and keeping quiet about competing proposals from President Obama and House GOP leaders. These centrists have declined to endorse Obama’s opening offer to raise taxes by $1.6 trillion, twice the size of the tax increase most of them voted for in July. . . . ‘What I’m doing on all of those fiscal cliff-type issues is just waiting to see what package we put together,’ said Sen. Mark Pryor (D), who faces reelection in Republican-leaning Arkansas in 2014. Pryor said he wanted to see more detail in Boehner’s plan. . . . Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), who faces voters in 2014, declined to endorse the substance of the plan Secretary Timothy Geithner circulated on Capitol Hill last week. ‘I don’t know if that ratio is going to end up being final,’ he said of Obama’s call for a 2-to-1 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts. Sen. Mary Landrieu, another Democrat up for reelection in a red state, Louisiana, said Boehner’s offer ‘is better than no proposal.’ ‘I know that Speaker Boehner is really trying, so any proposal is better than no proposal,’ she said. . . . Democratic centrists who are not running in 2014 have also been careful to stay out of the public spotlight. When asked about Boehner’s plan, retiring Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) offered a terse ‘No comment.’ Sen. Jon Tester (D), who narrowly won reelection last month, said he had not seen Boehner’s proposal and wanted to take a peek before discussing it. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), one of the most vulnerable incumbents of the 2012 cycle, declined to render judgment on the president’s or Boehner’s position.”
In other words, when The Hill surveyed a whole swath of Democrat senators, not one endorsed the $1.6 trillion in tax hikes proposed by President Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner last week.
Meanwhile, the president is sticking by this "unserious" proposal, demanding these tax rate increases. In a meeting with business leaders today, Obama said, “Were not insisting on [higher] rates just out of spite …but rather because we need to raise a certain amount of revenue.” But last year, he was singing a different tune. During the debt ceiling negotiations in the summer of 2011, President Obama went the White House’s press briefing room and declared, “What we said was give us $1.2 trillion in additional revenues, which could be accomplished without hiking taxes - tax rates but could simply be accomplished by eliminating loopholes, eliminating some deductions and engaging in a tax reform process that could have lowered rates generally while broadening the base.” So given that Obama said over a year ago he can get the revenue he wants without raising tax rates, what does that say of his quest to raise rates?
President Obama and Democrats are so ideologically wedded to their desire for higher tax rates, they’ve been saying for weeks now that they’re prepared to go over the fiscal cliff in order to obtain them. According to the AP, “[T]he White House is signaling that President Barack Obama is willing to let the country go over the ‘fiscal cliff,’ a hard-line negotiating strategy aimed at winning concessions from Republicans on taxes.” However, the AP points out, “[G]oing over the cliff also would be full of risk for a president fresh off re-election and facing at least two more years of divided government. Ending the year without a deal could roil financial markets and dent consumer confidence just as the economy is strengthening.”
President Obama and Democrat leaders in Congress are demanding tax rate increases that even the president acknowledged last year aren’t the only way to get more revenue and which key Senate Democrats have so far declined to endorse. And these tax hikes are so important to these Democrats, they’re willing to driving the economy right off the fiscal cliff to get them.
As Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell said recently, “The only reason Democrats are insisting on raising rates is because raising rates on the so-called ‘rich’ is the holy grail of liberalism. Their aim isn’t job creation. They’re interested in wealth destruction. But the President needs to realize he wasn’t elected President of the hard-left wing of the Democratic Party. He was elected President of the United States. He’s the steward of the nation’s finances. He’s got a responsibility to everybody to work out an agreement. And that means he’s got to come up with something that can get through a Republican House. So, we’re still waiting on the President. We can get there. But he’s going to have to lead. And he can start by putting the campaign talking points on the shelf.”
The Hill reports today, “Senate Democratic centrists, whom Grover Norquist describes as the ‘hostages’ in the tax debate, are lying low and keeping quiet about competing proposals from President Obama and House GOP leaders. These centrists have declined to endorse Obama’s opening offer to raise taxes by $1.6 trillion, twice the size of the tax increase most of them voted for in July . . . ‘What I’m doing on all of those fiscal cliff-type issues is just waiting to see what package we put together,’ said Sen. Mark Pryor (D), who faces reelection in Republican-leaning Arkansas in 2014. Pryor said he wanted to see more detail in Boehner’s plan. . . . Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), who faces voters in 2014, declined to endorse the substance of the plan Secretary Timothy Geithner circulated on Capitol Hill last week. ‘I don’t know if that ratio is going to end up being final,’ he said of Obama’s call for a 2-to-1 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts. Sen. Mary Landrieu, another Democrat up for reelection in a red state, Louisiana, said Boehner’s offer ‘is better than no proposal.’ ‘I know that Speaker Boehner is really trying, so any proposal is better than no proposal,’ she said. . . . Democratic centrists who are not running in 2014 have also been careful to stay out of the public spotlight. When asked about Boehner’s plan, retiring Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) offered a terse ‘No comment.’ Sen. Jon Tester (D), who narrowly won reelection last month, said he had not seen Boehner’s proposal and wanted to take a peek before discussing it. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), one of the most vulnerable incumbents of the 2012 cycle, declined to render judgment on the president’s or Boehner’s position.”
Yesterday, The House passed (398-2) H.R. 6582 — "To allow for innovations and alternative technologies that meet or exceed desired energy efficiency goals, and to make technical corrections to existing Federal energy efficiency laws to allow American manufacturers to remain competitive."
The House reconvened today at 9 AM an proceeded immediately wrapped-up the following issues and bills with no further actions pending today.
H.R. 5817 — "To amend the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to provide an exception to the annual privacy notice requirement." – WAS WITHDRAWN - The bill will be reconsidered next week along with an amendment.
Passed by Voice Vote
H.R. 6620 — "To amend title 18, United States Code, to eliminate certain limitations on the length of Secret Service Protection for former Presidents and for the children of former Presidents." Comment: More Government Spending!
H.R. 6605 — "To eliminate an unnecessary reporting requirement for an unfunded DNA Identification grant program."
H.R. 6223 — "To amend section 1059(e) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 to clarify that a period of employment abroad by the Chief of Mission or United States Armed Forces as a translator, interpreter, or in an executive level security position is to be counted as a period of residence and physical presence in the United States for purposes of qualifying for naturalization if at least a portion of such period was spent in Iraq or Afghanistan, and for other purposes."
S. 3486 — "To implement the provisions of the Hague Agreement and the Patent Law Treaty. {Agreed to US Senate changes.]
Passed by votes:
S. Con. Res. 50 (vote 397-0) — "Expressing the sense of Congress regarding actions to preserve and advance the multistakeholder governance model under which the Internet has thrived." [No to United Nation's model.]
H.R. 6602 (vote 392-0) — "To make revisions in title 36, United States Code, as necessary to keep the title current and make technical corrections and improvements."
S. 2367 (vote 398-1) — "To strike the word "lunatic" from Federal law, and for other purposes."
The Hill reports today, “Senate Democratic centrists, whom Grover Norquist describes as the ‘hostages’ in the tax debate, are lying low and keeping quiet about competing proposals from President Obama and House GOP leaders. These centrists have declined to endorse Obama’s opening offer to raise taxes by $1.6 trillion, twice the size of the tax increase most of them voted for in July. . . . ‘What I’m doing on all of those fiscal cliff-type issues is just waiting to see what package we put together,’ said Sen. Mark Pryor (D), who faces reelection in Republican-leaning Arkansas in 2014. Pryor said he wanted to see more detail in Boehner’s plan. . . . Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), who faces voters in 2014, declined to endorse the substance of the plan Secretary Timothy Geithner circulated on Capitol Hill last week. ‘I don’t know if that ratio is going to end up being final,’ he said of Obama’s call for a 2-to-1 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts. Sen. Mary Landrieu, another Democrat up for reelection in a red state, Louisiana, said Boehner’s offer ‘is better than no proposal.’ ‘I know that Speaker Boehner is really trying, so any proposal is better than no proposal,’ she said. . . . Democratic centrists who are not running in 2014 have also been careful to stay out of the public spotlight. When asked about Boehner’s plan, retiring Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) offered a terse ‘No comment.’ Sen. Jon Tester (D), who narrowly won reelection last month, said he had not seen Boehner’s proposal and wanted to take a peek before discussing it. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), one of the most vulnerable incumbents of the 2012 cycle, declined to render judgment on the president’s or Boehner’s position.”
In other words, when The Hill surveyed a whole swath of Democrat senators, not one endorsed the $1.6 trillion in tax hikes proposed by President Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner last week.
Meanwhile, the president is sticking by this "unserious" proposal, demanding these tax rate increases. In a meeting with business leaders today, Obama said, “Were not insisting on [higher] rates just out of spite …but rather because we need to raise a certain amount of revenue.” But last year, he was singing a different tune. During the debt ceiling negotiations in the summer of 2011, President Obama went the White House’s press briefing room and declared, “What we said was give us $1.2 trillion in additional revenues, which could be accomplished without hiking taxes - tax rates but could simply be accomplished by eliminating loopholes, eliminating some deductions and engaging in a tax reform process that could have lowered rates generally while broadening the base.” So given that Obama said over a year ago he can get the revenue he wants without raising tax rates, what does that say of his quest to raise rates?
President Obama and Democrats are so ideologically wedded to their desire for higher tax rates, they’ve been saying for weeks now that they’re prepared to go over the fiscal cliff in order to obtain them. According to the AP, “[T]he White House is signaling that President Barack Obama is willing to let the country go over the ‘fiscal cliff,’ a hard-line negotiating strategy aimed at winning concessions from Republicans on taxes.” However, the AP points out, “[G]oing over the cliff also would be full of risk for a president fresh off re-election and facing at least two more years of divided government. Ending the year without a deal could roil financial markets and dent consumer confidence just as the economy is strengthening.”
President Obama and Democrat leaders in Congress are demanding tax rate increases that even the president acknowledged last year aren’t the only way to get more revenue and which key Senate Democrats have so far declined to endorse. And these tax hikes are so important to these Democrats, they’re willing to driving the economy right off the fiscal cliff to get them.
As Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell said recently, “The only reason Democrats are insisting on raising rates is because raising rates on the so-called ‘rich’ is the holy grail of liberalism. Their aim isn’t job creation. They’re interested in wealth destruction. But the President needs to realize he wasn’t elected President of the hard-left wing of the Democratic Party. He was elected President of the United States. He’s the steward of the nation’s finances. He’s got a responsibility to everybody to work out an agreement. And that means he’s got to come up with something that can get through a Republican House. So, we’re still waiting on the President. We can get there. But he’s going to have to lead. And he can start by putting the campaign talking points on the shelf.”
The Hill reports today, “Senate Democratic centrists, whom Grover Norquist describes as the ‘hostages’ in the tax debate, are lying low and keeping quiet about competing proposals from President Obama and House GOP leaders. These centrists have declined to endorse Obama’s opening offer to raise taxes by $1.6 trillion, twice the size of the tax increase most of them voted for in July . . . ‘What I’m doing on all of those fiscal cliff-type issues is just waiting to see what package we put together,’ said Sen. Mark Pryor (D), who faces reelection in Republican-leaning Arkansas in 2014. Pryor said he wanted to see more detail in Boehner’s plan. . . . Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), who faces voters in 2014, declined to endorse the substance of the plan Secretary Timothy Geithner circulated on Capitol Hill last week. ‘I don’t know if that ratio is going to end up being final,’ he said of Obama’s call for a 2-to-1 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts. Sen. Mary Landrieu, another Democrat up for reelection in a red state, Louisiana, said Boehner’s offer ‘is better than no proposal.’ ‘I know that Speaker Boehner is really trying, so any proposal is better than no proposal,’ she said. . . . Democratic centrists who are not running in 2014 have also been careful to stay out of the public spotlight. When asked about Boehner’s plan, retiring Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) offered a terse ‘No comment.’ Sen. Jon Tester (D), who narrowly won reelection last month, said he had not seen Boehner’s proposal and wanted to take a peek before discussing it. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), one of the most vulnerable incumbents of the 2012 cycle, declined to render judgment on the president’s or Boehner’s position.”
In other words, when The Hill surveyed a whole swath of Democrat senators, not one endorsed the $1.6 trillion in tax hikes proposed by President Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner last week.
Meanwhile, the president is sticking by this unserious proposal, demanding these tax rate increases. In a meeting with business leaders today, Obama said, “Were not insisting on [higher] rates just out of spite …but rather because we need to raise a certain amount of revenue.” But last year, he was singing a different tune. During the debt ceiling negotiations in the summer of 2011, President Obama went the White House’s press briefing room and declared, “What we said was give us $1.2 trillion in additional revenues, which could be accomplished without hiking taxes - tax rates, but could simply be accomplished by eliminating loopholes, eliminating some deductions and engaging in a tax reform process that could have lowered rates generally while broadening the base.” So given that Obama said over a year ago he can get the revenue he wants without raising tax rates, what does that say of his quest to raise rates?
President Obama and Democrats are so ideologically wedded to their desire for higher tax rates, they’ve been saying for weeks now that they’re prepared to go over the fiscal cliff in order to obtain them. According to the AP, “[T]he White House is signaling that President Barack Obama is willing to let the country go over the ‘fiscal cliff,’ a hard-line negotiating strategy aimed at winning concessions from Republicans on taxes.” However, the AP points out, “[G]oing over the cliff also would be full of risk for a president fresh off re-election and facing at least two more years of divided government. Ending the year without a deal could roil financial markets and dent consumer confidence just as the economy is strengthening.”
President Obama and Democrat leaders in Congress are demanding tax rate increases that even the president acknowledged last year aren’t the only way to get more revenue and which key Senate Democrats have so far declined to endorse. And these tax hikes are so important to these Democrats, they’re willing to driving the economy right off the fiscal cliff to get them.
As Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said recently, “The only reason Democrats are insisting on raising rates is because raising rates on the so-called ‘rich’ is the holy grail of liberalism. Their aim isn’t job creation. They’re interested in wealth destruction. But the President needs to realize he wasn’t elected President of the hard-left wing of the Democratic Party. He was elected President of the United States. He’s the steward of the nation’s finances. He’s got a responsibility to everybody to work out an agreement. And that means he’s got to come up with something that can get through a Republican House. So, we’re still waiting on the President. We can get there. But he’s going to have to lead. And he can start by putting the campaign talking points on the shelf.”
Tags: Washington, D.C., US Senate, Obamas's tx planUS House, bills To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Posted by Bill Smith at 1:15 PM - Post Link
1 Comments:
Last Paragraph: "But he (Obama) is going to gave to lead." Looks like we're screwed again.
Post a Comment
<< Home