Obama’s idea of compromise: All take, no give
I admit that I haven’t been paying too much attention to the certified vote totals from each state in the presidential election, but how did I miss the news that President Obama won 100 percent of the votes in every single state (not just select Philadelphia precincts)?
That’s the only explanation I can conjure for his reported “offer” on the fiscal cliff, via the New York Times:
Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner presented the House speaker, John A. Boehner, a detailed proposal on Thursday to avert the year-end fiscal crisis with $1.6 trillion in tax increases over 10 years, $50 billion in immediate stimulus spending, home mortgage refinancing and a permanent end to Congressional control over statutory borrowing limits.
The proposal, loaded with Democratic priorities and short on detailed spending cuts, met strong Republican resistance. In exchange for locking in the $1.6 trillion in added revenues, President Obama embraced the goal of finding $400 billion in savings from Medicare and other social programs to be worked out next year, with no guarantees.
He did propose some upfront cuts in programs like farm price supports, but did not specify an amount or any details. And senior Republican aides familiar with the offer said those initial spending cuts might be outweighed by spending increases, including at least $50 billion in infrastructure spending, mortgage relief, an extension of unemployment insurance and a deferral of automatic cuts to physician reimbursements under Medicare.
I can just hear Geithner making the offer now: “That’s none for you, a trillion for us; none for you, fifty billion for us; none for you, infinity for us.”
Even assuming the Medicare cuts were to transpire — and the key phrase about that in the Times’ story is “with no guarantees,” which is short-hand for “Democrats are always happy to agree to cuts they have no intention of making” — we are talking $4 in tax increases for, at most, $1 in spending cuts. That’s well past the opposite of the ratio, widely discussed since last year’s debt-ceiling negotiations, of $2.50-$3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases.
If that’s what the American people wanted, we would be calling Nancy Pelosi “Madam Speaker” again. But we’re not. Instead, we have Speaker John Boehner, who has offered to raise revenues by capping deductions in exchange for concrete entitlement reform, and a number of Republican House members and senators who are sticking their necks out to talk about reneging on their no-tax-hikes pledge.
Note to Saxby Chambliss: As long as this is the way the president is talking, there’s really no sense in talking about compromise for the good of the country.
What would be a GOP equivalent to this kind of unserious nonsense? Reason’s Peter Suderman took a pretty good stab at it on Twitter:
Republicans hear Obama’s opening bid, counter with: Eliminate the federal government, except for defense.
Folks, no matter how much you earn, it might be time to sit down and figure out what your household finances are going to look like with Clinton-era tax rates. Because Obama is giving every indication he would rather go over the fiscal cliff than move in anything like the GOP’s direction.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
451 comments Add your comment
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
November 30th, 2012
2:12 pm
Look at the funny morons spinning away so vigorously to try to deflect from the truth of who pays the highest tax rates!
Black Label
November 30th, 2012
2:13 pm
“You proggies are the drain on society and must be eradicated!”
Can you explain eradicated?
Kyle: Really?
Linda
November 30th, 2012
2:14 pm
What would Jesus do with the poor?
God & Allah ask for a measly 10% & They abide by the Golden Rule, i.e. treating everyone equal. Doesn’t matter to Them whether you earn $10,000 or $100,000. 10% is all They ask.
(Proves our Creators, whoever you worship, weren’t heathen “progressives.”)
Sick of Progs
November 30th, 2012
2:15 pm
Old School Girl
November 30th, 2012
2:11 pm
To my republican friends…and I call you that, even though many in your ranks act like “what the bird left on the bush.” Remember that war that you overwhelmingly approved back in 2002? You know the one that you did not increase taxes to pay for? Remember the second war that you also approved? We didn’t see any tax increase to pay for that one as well. Remember that bogus tax rebate that we received…stupid doesn’t define it so I will move on. Oh yes, let’s not forget, that YOU forgot that all of the baby boomers…(you know the ones whose parents did not use birth control) are retiring. Well, the check for your lack of planning, and gullible greed has come due. So if you want to start talking entitlements….let’s stop Social Security, and Medicare and let all of you tax haters take care of your parents without any assistance from Uncle Sam…tell me how it feels,..and I will let you know how the budget deficit is improving…
Let’s stop funding poor lifestyle choices, cut off medicaid, wic, welfare, etc. because you wanted to have a child you cannot support, and I will let you know how the budget deficit is improving!
Madmax
November 30th, 2012
2:15 pm
For those that believe that the rates on capital gains and dividends should be rasied, I ask a very simple question. Where is this money going to come from? Do you believe that this money is sitting under the bed of these “rich”? Even if higher rates don’t drive investment away from our shores, the “rich” will have to pull some money out of whereever it currently is in order to transfer it to the government. If they have been spending it, it will come out of GDP; if they have been investing it, it will be pulled out of those investments. Please explain how this transfer of 1.6 trillion is going to produce as much as the private sector and since you believe revenue is king, please explain why the mass infusion of half that amount ($800 billion stimulus) in 1/3 of the time did not right this economy.
Kyle Wingfield
November 30th, 2012
2:16 pm
Lil Barry: Please confirm receipt of the email I sent you earlier today.
Sick of Progs
November 30th, 2012
2:18 pm
Finn McCool (The System isn’t Broken; It’s Fixed)
November 30th, 2012
2:12 pm
You proggies are the drain on society and must be eradicated!
Yes, Jesus approves of extermination.
You have a fixation on Jesus. Why not go to Mexico and fulfill your fantasies, there are plenty of them!
Madmax
November 30th, 2012
2:19 pm
Linda – I believe Herman Cain tried that approach and got crucified for it.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
November 30th, 2012
2:22 pm
Kyle: Try again…I’ve changed email addresses.
Sick of Progs
November 30th, 2012
2:22 pm
Finn McCool (The System isn’t Broken; It’s Fixed)
November 30th, 2012
2:12 pm
You proggies are the drain on society and must be eradicated!
Yes, Jesus approves of extermination.
We need an entitlement Jesus. One who looks at your lifestyle choices and determines whether you deserve federal aid due to bad genetics/ handicap, or are too stupid and needy and undisciplined and deserve to do menial work for the betterment of society while earning your handout.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
November 30th, 2012
2:22 pm
For those that believe that the rates on capital gains and dividends should be rasied, I ask a very simple question. Where is this money going to come from?
Um, from capital gains and dividends?? What a silly question. No amount of taxation is going to drive investment away from these shores or any shores. You Cons are silly.
Sick of Progs
November 30th, 2012
2:23 pm
Kyle, I hope you don’t think I’m posing as lil barry. I’m sick of proggies. Someone has to say these things. BTW, love your articles!
Old School Girl
November 30th, 2012
2:25 pm
Hello Sick of Progs,
The largest beneficiaries of Medicaid (60%) are those that are in Nursing Homes…like your relatives and other who receive long term care. You, like so many other people assume it is your WIC, and welfare recipients that are running up Medicaid. When your governor refused to expand Medicaid assistance to Georgia, he essentially cut off subsidized long-term care funding. Which means that YOU, my friend will be paying for your parents long term care expenses. So you see Gov. Deal, refused Medicaid to spite Mr. Obama, when in actuality, he actually hurt you and many other Georgians. By the way…the largest recipients of Medicaid…are in the rural areas…
independent thinker
November 30th, 2012
2:28 pm
Wow -We are being threatened with Clinton era tax rates before W ran the country in a ditch! Didn’t those rates result in a balanced budget? And why would Conservatives like Kyle be concerned about across the board spending cuts if we go off the cliff???? Isn’t that precisely how you cure the deficit?
Next thing you know Grover will be ordering Cons to walk the plank for letting the tax rates go up. Amazing what a butt whooping does to the thinking of the cons.
middle of the road
November 30th, 2012
2:28 pm
“MANGLER @ 10:51: Well, if we can also have back a) the tech boom; b) $20/barrel oil and the commensurate gas prices; c) the lack of a war on terror (or at least the awareness that they were already at war with us); and d) Clinton-era federal spending, maybe we’d do just as well now with those rates as we did then. What do you think the odds are that those things will come back?”
They aren’t, Kyle. So are you saying that the government should give tax decreases because gas prices went up? I think we all realize it costs more to fight the war on terror ( and wars with Iraq and Afganistan) so where are the “increased revenue” (let me translate that for you – TAX INCREASES) to pay for these increased costs. Also, medical costs have gone up over 300% in that last 20 years while wages (and , correspondingly, Medicare tax receipts) have only increased 68%. We NEED to balance our budget – that means deciding what things we want and then tax ourselves accordingly. I think the vast majority WANTS Medicare – so we need to up Medicare taxes significantly to pay for Medicare. Now Medicare Pard D is another story – it was passed with no tax increases to cover it – either take it away completely or phase it in 20 years down the road with tax increases now. I think we should let all tax rates go back to Clinton era taxes – and yes MR. President, that means increasing taxes on people earning less than $250,000 (the 97%). You can’t ask Republicans to tax their rich friends more and then say you are sticking to YOUR campaign promises of no tax increase for the middle class! We need to all be chipping in.
As far as cuts, if you take SS and Medicare out of the equation, what you are left with is : Defense (all programs) – 40%, Interest 17% (can’t cut that without defaulting), Medicaid 11%, welfare 11%. So where do we to cut (everywhere obviously, but slowly so we don’t send the country into recession again).
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
November 30th, 2012
2:30 pm
Like Warren Buffet said last week:
If I call you up at home and tell you I know a sure fire investment that is guaranteed to make you very rich, the first question out of your mouth isn’t going to be “Well how much will I have to pay in taxes on that fortune?”
No one is going to stop making money because they have to pay taxes.
Incredulous
November 30th, 2012
2:30 pm
All Take? That would be “Taxe increase on 250K & Above & done” THAT is what exit polls supported. AND AS IF GOP is doing any compromise?? WHERE?? Does Rupert Murdoch pay this alleged “reporter”?
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
November 30th, 2012
2:31 pm
So, Sick of Progs wants a jesus who sits in judgment and contempt for the less fortunate?
Sick of Progs
November 30th, 2012
2:32 pm
Old School Girl
November 30th, 2012
2:25 pm
Hello Sick of Progs,
The largest beneficiaries of Medicaid (60%) are those that are in Nursing Homes…like your relatives and other who receive long term care.
Sorry, none of my relatives lived past 57 except old granny MacDougall. Which raises a question? What happened to the social security money that all of my ancestors and family paid in to and never lived to collect? I guess it is now funding single mom sluts and their baby daddy ghetto thugs.
middle of the road
November 30th, 2012
2:33 pm
“The largest beneficiaries of Medicaid (60%) are those that are in Nursing Homes…like your relatives and other who receive long term care.”
Actually, I think I heard it is more like 25% of the cost. Here is an idea, though: transition Nursing home care into Medicare. Of course, we will need to pay significantly hight Medicare taxes to cover both the current Medicare shortfall AND the new nursing home care. Nursing home care is USUALLY medically necessary, so should fall under Medicare.
Sick of Progs
November 30th, 2012
2:34 pm
Finn McCool (The System isn’t Broken; It’s Fixed)
November 30th, 2012
2:31 pm
So, Sick of Progs wants a jesus who sits in judgment and contempt for the less fortunate?
Define less fortunate. Does it include lazy people and those who decide to have 5 babies from 5 different daddies who disappear.? Maybe that’s why Jesus had a no adultery clause in the bible.
Old School Girl
November 30th, 2012
2:34 pm
Hello Middle of the Road,
I like your approach, which is what I would take. Everyone has to have skin in the game…taxes go up on everyone, because everyone receives benefits from the taxes, like roads healthcare, SS, and defense of our country. I thank you for taking time to post a reasoned statement instead of the usual B and S.
Have a fantastic weekend.
Sick of Progs
November 30th, 2012
2:37 pm
Finn McCool (The System isn’t Broken; It’s Fixed)
November 30th, 2012
2:31 pm
So, Sick of Progs wants a jesus who sits in judgment and contempt for the less fortunate?
You have a problem with Jesus, or accepting the fact that your ilk have self control problems and lifestyle choice problems, and you want taxpayers who have their sh!r together to pay for these?
middle of the road
November 30th, 2012
2:37 pm
“Which raises a question? What happened to the social security money that all of my ancestors and family paid in to and never lived to collect? I guess it is now funding single mom sluts and their baby daddy ghetto thugs”
Social Security operates as an insurance policy, not an investment vehicle. Your relatives who died young helped fund the people who lived to be 105. No, SS funds CANNOT, by law, be used to fund other portions of government (unless conservatives raid the trust fund). The only part where I believe we waste money on low-lifes is when people take advantage of Social Security disability when they are not really disabled.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
November 30th, 2012
2:39 pm
The obama tax cut would be for everyone. Everyone gets the lower rate on the first $249,999 they earn.
Kyle Wingfield
November 30th, 2012
2:40 pm
The WSJ has a new story out with Mitch McConnell’s outline for a fiscal cliff deal. It’s for subscribers only, but here’s the key bit:
“In an interview in his Capitol Hill office, Mr. McConnell (R., Ky.) said if the White House agrees to changes such as higher Medicare premiums for the wealthy, an increase in the Medicare eligibility age and a slowing of cost-of-living increases for programs like Social Security, Republicans would agree to include more tax revenue in the deal, though not from higher tax rates.”
There are no more details in the story, but presumably the slower COLA for SS refers to moving to a price-based inflation index rather than the current one, which is indexed to wage growth. That’s a longstanding GOP proposal.
Higher Medicare premiums on the wealthy make a lot of sense. Raising the retirement age is going to have to happen; it’s just a matter of how much and how fast.
Whereas Obama’s proposal yesterday significantly upped the ante — no one here is talking about the debt-ceiling component, but that’s a huge addition to the talks — I’d say McConnell is simply getting more specific about which standing GOP proposals he’d like to see as part of a deal. In that sense, it’s more of a real offer than a position made for show.
Kyle Wingfield
November 30th, 2012
2:41 pm
Finn @ 2:39: By “Obama tax cut,” I presume you mean “Obama’s proposed extension of the Bush/Obama-era rates for some people.”
Hillbilly D
November 30th, 2012
2:41 pm
I wouldn’t take Geithner to a dog fight, if I knew he’d win.
My prediction: You’ll get tax hikes and little or no spending cuts, you’ll probably even get an increase in overall spending.
middle of the road
November 30th, 2012
2:42 pm
I wish BOTH sides could sit down and have a serious discussion and solve some real problems without the POLITICS and posturing and ultimatums that we see from Congress. NO TAX INCREASES! NO TAX INCREASE FOR THOSE MAKING LESS THAN $250,000! NO CUTS FOR THE MILITARY! NO CUTS FOR SOCIAL PROGRAMS! NO CUTS TO ISRAEL AID! NO CUTS TO FARM SUBSIDIES (I represent a farm state)!
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
November 30th, 2012
2:44 pm
Maybe that’s why Jesus had a no adultery clause in the bible.
Um the adultery thing was in the ten commandments, right? which has nothing to do with Jesus. That was Moses.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
November 30th, 2012
2:44 pm
The Obozo tax increase would only be for some.
Republicans believe we’re all on this together.
Want tax rates to be higher? Put some skin in the game.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
November 30th, 2012
2:45 pm
yes kyle, that is what I mean. The extended W tax cuts.
Old School Girl
November 30th, 2012
2:45 pm
Hello Middle of the Road,
I do stand corrected. On average according to Kaiser Foundation, the average percentage of Medicaid dollars spend on long-term care it is 43%. In some states it is lower, but in a growing number of states it is higher and stedily growing based upon the continuous growth in the baby boomer population. I have attached the link for those that are interested in actually seeing the issue that Middle of the Road and I are discussing. Bottom line, a balanced approach is needed.
http://facts.kff.org/chart.aspx?cb=56&sctn=153&ch=994
Linda
November 30th, 2012
2:46 pm
The Social Security Disability Insurance fund will run out in 2 to 4 yrs. & current law calls for an immediate 20% benefit reduction.
Social Security spent $165 B more in FY12 than it took in.
According to a recent study by the Urban Institute, Medicare is a huge drain on the fed. deficit. The example is a two-earner couple making an average salary of $89,200 in ‘12 dollars. This chart represents the year they turn 65, their lifetime Medicare benefits & their lifetime Medicare taxes:
2010–$387,000–$122,000
2020–$427,000-$153,000
2030–$664,000–$180,000
There is no way that the fed. govt. can continue paying out 3 times more in Medicare benefits than it takes in in Medicare taxes with the problem becoming progressively worse. There is no way that taxes on the “rich” will solve this problem.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
November 30th, 2012
2:49 pm
The Obozo tax increase would only be for some.
You are looking at this the wrong way. The tax increases aren’t on people, they are on income. You are welcome to live your whole life in America without ever earning any income and we won’t ask you to pay any taxes. But if you are going to try to earn money, those earnings will need to be taxed.
Or else we lock you up.
Reality
November 30th, 2012
2:49 pm
The idiots in Georgia continue to run with the loser republicans, I see.
However, the republicans LOST the white house. The republicans LOST the Senate (lost some Senate seats). And, they barely hung onto the House!
You would THINK that even the hard headed republicans in Georgia would understand that the entire Country wants to given President Obama a chance to do what he is proposing!!!!
middle of the road
November 30th, 2012
2:49 pm
“changes such as higher Medicare premiums for the wealthy, an increase in the Medicare eligibility age and a slowing of cost-of-living increases for programs like Social Security, Republicans would agree to include more tax revenue in the deal, though not from higher tax rates.”
I would agree to that. I would even include higher Medicare rates for EVERYONE. Slowing (or even cutting out) COLAs for SS is one way to balnce ITS budget. I don’t care WHAT you call it, more revenue is needed, so if you want to cap deductions (or eliminate them) rather than “up tax rates” I don’t care, just so long as more money comes in.
One thing that rarely gets mentioned, but I believe if you significantly increased the enforcement of tax collection by the IRS, you would have a huge return on your investment. There are a lot of scofflaws out there not paying their taxes (remember all those fishing employees who wanted to claim losses in income from the BP oil spill). A few million extra in IRS funding of investigators would probably result in BILLIONS of extra tax receipts.
Reality
November 30th, 2012
2:52 pm
@Linda – You are correct. I think that eventually Medicare will simply have to reduce coverage in some form or fashion to remain solvent. Exactly how I have no idea.
Americans are living longer and WANT to retire earlier. This strains the healthcare system.
middle of the road
November 30th, 2012
2:52 pm
“Um the adultery thing was in the ten commandments, right? which has nothing to do with Jesus. That was Moses.”
That is true, but Jesus upped the ante by saying that anyone who looked at a woman with lust in their heart is guilty of adultery. Unfortunately, I am guilty of that sin.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
November 30th, 2012
2:53 pm
It’s for subscribers only
You pay for that swill?
Bye Bye Cheesy Grits
November 30th, 2012
2:54 pm
Republicans would agree to include more tax revenue in the deal, though not from higher tax rates.
Right. they dont want higher tax rates.
They want to close loopholes and then slowly open them again.
In other words they want to cut spending but do nothing about taxes.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
November 30th, 2012
2:55 pm
anyone who looked at a woman with lust in their heart is guilty of adultery
Are there other ways to look at chickas?
Bye Bye Cheesy Grits
November 30th, 2012
2:56 pm
You pay for that swill?
The guy voted for Newt Gingrich.
middle of the road
November 30th, 2012
2:57 pm
“I think that eventually Medicare will simply have to reduce coverage in some form or fashion to remain solvent. Exactly how I have no idea. ”
Reality – there are always TWO ways to deal with a budget imbalance – either cut coverage or up taxes. You are going only with the one. The question is: do you want to increase the Medicare premiums so high that those on the bottom scale of Social security have to choose between eating (or rent) and their health care? The whole idea of Medicare was to guarantee that ALL Americans had basic medical care in their old age.
Or I guess we could just let them die.
Bye Bye Cheesy Grits
November 30th, 2012
2:58 pm
Ill give this for Republicans.
They got killed in the election protecting tax cuts for the wealthy.
And yet they continue to do it.
Takes alot of brass.
JDW
November 30th, 2012
2:59 pm
@Tiberius…”President Incompetent’s idea of “negotiation” was to drop a steaming pile of nonsense on the table that no one had seen or heard of beforehand with less than 2 weeks remaining to the deadline, and claim to be “negotiating”.”
That thought is why you and Boner are terrible negotiators…turns out that was by far the best deal to be had from the Repugnican perspective…got to know when to hold em know when to fold em…
Old School Girl
November 30th, 2012
2:59 pm
Hi Linda,
You are correct. My late mother paid into Social Security when it first started, and they took out about 10 cents per check. When she retired, her earnings statement indicated that she had paid into the system for 40 years, which came to 10 years worth of payouts. She lived seven years beyond the contributions that she made to the system. She clearly knew she was receiving money that even with interest, did not cover what she received. As some have said, adjust the contributions. But as you know the bigger problem is that there are so many that paid so little into the system who are now receiving so much more. My recommendation….phase out the program over a 50 year period of time. Those born today, know that the system will not be around when they retire. Increase deductions today to cover the shortfall, and then begin to reduce the deductions, as each generation dies.
Buzz Belle
November 30th, 2012
3:00 pm
Someone here did not see the whole $400 Billion in cuts within the offer from Obama. He never advocated only taxing the wealthy. A balanced approach means doing BOTH cuts in programs and putting the tax level on those making over 250,000 back up to Clinton era levels. Balance, not stick it to the middle and poor. Lets all say together – B A L A N C E D.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
November 30th, 2012
3:03 pm
She lived seven years beyond the contributions that she made to the system.
This is why we need death panels for grandma? Using the old Barney Fife strategy, we’ll nip that problem in the bud.
Bye Bye Cheesy Grits
November 30th, 2012
3:04 pm
Someone here did not see the whole $400 Billion in cuts within the offer from Obama.
They didn’t read it.
Fox News told them to be outraged so they were.