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
JDW
November 30th, 2012
3:07 pm
@Stevie…”I’ve have made money off cap gains as well as dividends so I have an understanding of these issues. ”
Then you ought to know that a corporation pays no tax whatsoever on an investors capital gains…as for dividends, yep they are double taxed and shouldn’t be. They should be pretax expenses for a company.
As for Berkshire and the IRS EVERY major corporation is in CONSTANT discussion with the IRS it is normal not unusual.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
November 30th, 2012
3:08 pm
anyone who looked at a woman with lust in their heart is guilty of adultery.
Which explains why we have so many gays – guys not wanting to live in sin so they don’t allow themselves to look at women with lust in their hearts.
Buzz Belle
November 30th, 2012
3:08 pm
BBCG – good point. I forgot some people can’t seem to get off their fox news addiction.
Linda
November 30th, 2012
3:09 pm
Obama & the Democrats funded 1/3 of Obamacare by gutting what was $716 B but is now $741 from Medicare.
“The National Center for Policy Analysis points out that, based on the Medicare Actuary’s official 2012 report, ObamaCare is cutting future Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals for seniors retiring today by an average of $36,000 per retiree, adding up to trillions in Medicare cuts for health care for seniors over the next ten years”
http://www.westernjournalism.com/medicare-another-casualty-of-obamacare/
What is really mind-boggling is that the Democrats (now that they have been caught & are finally admitting it) are claiming that they have “CUT” Medicare, even tho they are SPENDING the CUT on Obamacare.
Kyle Wingfield
November 30th, 2012
3:09 pm
Buzz Belle @ 3:00: And apparently someone here did not see the whole “no guarantees” part of the “offer” from Obama. Give him everything he wants now, and the GOP will find out exactly what “no guarantees” means.
Stevie Ray...Clowns to my Left and Jokers to my Right here I am....
November 30th, 2012
3:09 pm
middle of the road
November 30th, 2012
2:33 pm
Actually, nursing homes have three primary revenue sources for straight care (exluding ancillaries). Medicare-short stay post acute..2 weeks or so…daily rate averages somewhere between $220 and $350 bucks….of course this is less than the $550 they were getting prior BBA/Private Pay-direct or insurance payments-generally around $200 per day give or take/Medicaid- ranging from $120 to $250 per day depending on state. A normal payor mix is 67%/33%..(medicaid/medicare)when they offer private pay beds they can comprise up to 10% or more….
So, I can’t get a room at the Hampton Inn for these rates much less wipe behinds, feed those who don’t want to be fed, get assaulted, be responsible for meds, and deal with family members…
So I’m not sure where you are going with the long term care argument but the costs are a challenge…especially since they keep moving.
The average stay for Medicare patient is 2 weeks or so. The average stay for Medicaid resident is 280 days and then they travel to the mortuary..oh yeah, as many as 65% of Medicaid folks never get visitors..
Hillbilly D
November 30th, 2012
3:11 pm
A dollar contributed to Social Security in 1950 was worth $9.43 of today’s money. So it is skewed somewhat to compare money paid in, to money received, decades later.
Don Abernethy
November 30th, 2012
3:11 pm
Who does Obama think he is a “real” President? Don’t pay any attention to him.
middle of the road
November 30th, 2012
3:11 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. ”
The other “third rail” that no one ever wants to talk about is coming to grips with medical costs. People want to have the ultimate in medical technology but don’t want to pay for it. Do we really give a heart transplant to a 90-year-old man? Do we do an expensive bone marrow transplant for a cancer aptient when it only has a one in a thousand chance of working? Do we insist that our child that has a hurt wrist get a $1200 MRI when a $100 x-ray will tell us all we need to know in 99.99% of the cases? Do we spend $500,000 on a patient in the last six months of their life? These are HARD questions, believe me, I KNOW.
Stevie Ray...Clowns to my Left and Jokers to my Right here I am....
November 30th, 2012
3:14 pm
Linda
November 30th, 2012
3:09 pm
I’m in the numbers business and there is no way PelosiCare will do anything but significantly raise costs…the cuts will never materialize since every $1 of overpayment is a $1 of profit for member fo some special interest group that will throw an appropriate amount of cash (see pharma during Bush, insurers and large providers per PelosiCare)
The current family insurance bill increase $16-$20K above where it is now to compensate for newly insured, pre-existining conditions and the like…we also have a doctor and nurse shortage that will only deteriorate…many of those now will only provide concierge medicine…
Stevie Ray...Clowns to my Left and Jokers to my Right here I am....
November 30th, 2012
3:15 pm
Finn McCool (The System isn’t Broken; It’s Fixed)
November 30th, 2012
3:08 pm
Classic:-)
Bye Bye Cheesy Grits
November 30th, 2012
3:16 pm
Buzz Belle @ 3:00: And apparently someone here did not see the whole “no guarantees” part of the “offer” from Obama. Give him everything he wants now, and the GOP will find out exactly what “no guarantees” means
Just like Boehner promising to close loopholes if spending is cut.
Of course he knows *wink* *wink* other loopholes will just be opened later.
Hillbilly D
November 30th, 2012
3:18 pm
middle of the road
You’re right that these are hard questions. On the flip side, do we tell a patient, “we have the technology to save you but you aren’t worth the cost”? And I hear people all the time say don’t spend money on a 70 year old but on the flip side of that, who’s to say that 70 year old won’t live 20 more years?
And unless you die suddenly, the last year is going to be the most expensive for most anybody.
There are no easy answers.
Kyle Wingfield
November 30th, 2012
3:19 pm
Cheesy @ 3:16: Actually, I think the idea is to cap the amount of money people can deduct, at a level that would hit upper-income taxpayers. That way you don’t have the fight about whose loophole is getting closed.
And before you say, “They’ll just raise the cap later.” Isn’t the same thing possible if rates are raised? Couldn’t a GOP president and Congress in the future just lower them again? And, short of amending the Constituion, isn’t that always possible with any law?
Seems to me you’re raising a pretty silly objection.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
November 30th, 2012
3:20 pm
Linda, that dollar amount being cut was an agreed to amount – between the doctors, hospitals, and government.
They AGREED to it. No one FORCED it on them.
Hillbilly D
November 30th, 2012
3:21 pm
middle of the road
I hit the submit button too fast. The MRI point is a good one. If you go to the ER at my local hospital with a kidney stone, they want to give you an MRI (roughly $7K). This is a for profit hospital and you can bet that MRI machine is gong to get used enough times in a month to make the payment for it. If you go to a different facility, the urologist will very likely used a KUB x-ray (cost $300-400).
There’s plenty of blame to go around.
Del
November 30th, 2012
3:21 pm
The cascading euphoria from the top Democrats in government that appears to be pervasive among the left wing ideologically captivated that there’s been a dramatic shift in the country toward their brand of government could be what puts the country over the fiscal cliff. Should we go over that cliff the Republicans would indeed take fire from the public but as the pain reaches out and touches everyone particularly the now significant percentage of uninformed voters AKA the stupids, the Democrats will also then be taking their fair share of fire. Those who have become accustom to government financial hand outs will be more concerned with the cut backs in those programs and will become madder than hell when they begin to feel the effects. When that happens they’ll focus their wrath at government in general and Democrats won’t escape by the political cover they believe they now enjoy. I hope the Republicans stand firm on their insistence that specific spending cuts and entitlement reform be part of any agreement with Obama and the congressional Democrats.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
November 30th, 2012
3:21 pm
narrow economic self-interest doesn’t explain everything about how individuals, or even broad demographic groups, cast their ballots. Asian-Americans are a relatively affluent group, yet they went for President Obama by 3 to 1. Whites in Mississippi, on the other hand, aren’t especially well off, yet Mr. Obama received only 10 percent of their votes.
paul Krugman in today’s NYTimes
and, no, I don’t pay for that swill.
Rightwing Troll
November 30th, 2012
3:21 pm
“Otherwise, I’m assuming you just made that up, since it’s so far out of line with how the discussion has generally gone.”
Exactly!!! I’m a Republican now…
Buzz Belle
November 30th, 2012
3:22 pm
Kyle – neither side can guarantee anything since we have a checks and balanced government. Obama cannot guarantee the Senate will do what he wants and Boehner cannot gurantee his split congress will do what he says. This is why Obama rightfully has stated, lets start with what we agree on and go from there. Congress knew exactly, EXACTLY what Obama was requesting, all they have said is “NO” to raising taxes on >250,000. Time is running out and since the election, all I have heard from congress is “NO”.
Bye Bye Cheesy Grits
November 30th, 2012
3:22 pm
Seems to me you’re raising a pretty silly objection.
Doesn’t seem silly to me.
They dont want to raise marginal tax rates just close loopholes to generate more revenue.
Why ?
What does it matter where the money comes from ?
Because they know that one is much much easier for them to reverse.
Plain and simple.
Bye Bye Cheesy Grits
November 30th, 2012
3:23 pm
narrow economic self-interest doesn’t explain everything about how individuals, or even broad demographic groups, cast their ballots. Asian-Americans are a relatively affluent group, yet they went for President Obama by 3 to 1. Whites in Mississippi, on the other hand, aren’t especially well off, yet Mr. Obama received only 10 percent of their votes.
Speaks volumes.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
November 30th, 2012
3:24 pm
why should janitors have to retire later because lawyers are living longer?
also from the Krugman article.
Stevie Ray...Clowns to my Left and Jokers to my Right here I am....
November 30th, 2012
3:24 pm
Kyle Wingfield
November 30th, 2012
3:19 pm
At any point in history has our dysfunctional government ever followed thru on any material cuts of any kind?
Increased spending, reduced receipts, increased deficit and increased debt…no other outcome is really possible as any favorable mojo we get from increased reciepts has always gone to more spending (excepting JFK…boy the DEMS of today would deplore his tax policy as well as that whole do for you country thingy)..
Everything to everybody…great plan..
Dave
November 30th, 2012
3:25 pm
I keep forgetting – deficits only matter when Dems are in office. When repubs are in – start a few unfunded wars and never look back. Sheesh – the GOP is pathetic.
Linda
November 30th, 2012
3:27 pm
The most hilarious part of the Democrats’ offer are the facts that the Democrats have not passed a budget in over 3 years, that Obama’s budgets he submitted in both “11 & ‘12 were so radical that they were both voted down in the Senate 99-0 & in the House 414-0 (not receiving a single Democrat vote), that he’s racked up more debt in less than 4 years than the 1st 42 presidents did, that the US credit rating was downgraded for the 1st time in history under Obama’s “leadership,” & he’s asking for a presidential referendum to be the Decider-In-Chief of the natl. debt limit.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
November 30th, 2012
3:29 pm
whose loophole is getting closed.
Oh, we know whose loophole is getting closed. Middle class and poor people, that’s who.
Stevie Ray...Clowns to my Left and Jokers to my Right here I am....
November 30th, 2012
3:29 pm
FINN
Krugman is like several economist on the right…completely biased, predictable and wrong…Krugman and his NYT’s is so predictable, I have no idea why anyone really needs to read the opinion/editorial pages…they work exclusively for the left wing fringe..
I understand they are working on a story (inside investigation if you will) about how President Trillions sh*t gives off no unpleasant aroma….
s
Nate Silver
November 30th, 2012
3:31 pm
Stevie
Are you not blogging on a right leaning blog at this moment?
Hillbilly D
November 30th, 2012
3:31 pm
There is a valid question in raising the retirement age. It’s white-collar versus blue-collar. Not too many blue collar people can work into their 70’s. Their bodies are used up. People say they chose to be blue collar, which is true, but somebody has to do that work. A block mason (or similar occupation), is likely to have more wear and tear at 50, than a white collar worker at 65-70. It’s true some of them work their way up, but like any profession, only a small percentage can be at the top. So if you raise the retirement age, what’s to become of them in those last 10 years or so? There are going to always be tasks that require physical labor. One of the huge divides in this country is that the white collar and blue collar worlds really have no understanding of each other. It’ll take more than slogans to figure all this out.
Linda
November 30th, 2012
3:32 pm
Stevie@3:14, The health care insurance bill had nothing to do with health, care or insurance.
Michael
November 30th, 2012
3:33 pm
kyle, sorry but most open minded people realize that Repulicans were afraid of compromise less they lose their supporters. Good try though.
Buzz Belle
November 30th, 2012
3:35 pm
For the healthcare people on here – we should have gone with single payer system. We negotiated with the republicans and what we have is what was agreed to. It is not perfect, but it is far better than nothing. So let’s improve on it and move on.
Linda
November 30th, 2012
3:37 pm
Finn@3:20, I heard the same talking point on the Children’s Cable News station. If it was sooooooo agreed to, why did the Democrats deny it for months? If you can’t bother to read my source, I can’t bother to argue with you. Have a nice evening.
Linda
November 30th, 2012
3:40 pm
Del@3:21, Enjoyed your comment. In short, what you said was, “Greece.”
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
November 30th, 2012
3:44 pm
Wall Street screws up the US economy and you cons want to fix it on the backs of the middle and lower classes?
The wealthy and upper classes are not the prime beneficiaries of social security, medicare, or medicaid. The primary users are the middle and lower classes. Any talk of changes to those is an attempt by the wealthy to shift the responsibility off of their backs and onto the backs of the middle and lower classes.
Nate Silver
November 30th, 2012
3:46 pm
Stevie
Would you say Thomas Freidman and Ross Douthat are liberals?
Their Op Eds run in the NY Times. How about Bill Kristol who was also employed a the NYT at one time?
You seem so biased yet uninformed as to what is actually ran in the NY Times.
They run a combination of liberal and conservative Op Eds every day. Nothing new.
Open your eyes and mind sometime.
LT Dan
November 30th, 2012
3:47 pm
I think the Republicans should tell Papa Charlie (my nickname for Obama) to take his proposal and go pound sand.
My counter proposal would be:
1) The Bush tax cuts are extended for everyone or they expire for everyone;
Have serious debate on the Fair Tax (total tax reform is needed).
2) All Federal employees are to take an immediate 15% pay cut (let’s share the pain, shall we?);
3) Sign into law (through the normal process) a repeal of Obamacare and Medicare Part D;
4) Take SS out of the general fund and run it as a stand-alone entity (it is either solvent or it is not);
5) Get the Federal Gov’t (especially the EPA) out of the way and develop our own energy resources for ourselves (would like to eventually tell OPEC: No thanks, we have our own);
6) Keep the Departments of Defense, Justice, and Interior – the rest can go;
7) Let the states run themselves as the individual entities they were intended to be;
Any thoughts?
Oh, here is my answer to anyone who would ask “What would you say to Jesus?” My answer would be to Jesus: “Get a haircut and get a job.”
As to what would Jesus (or anyone for that matter) do? I really do not care. As far as I am conerned, I have freedom of religion and therefore freedom from religion.
I would ask that all citizens treat each other decently and have real conversations on what is the purpose of government and how do we agree and\or compromise to make it work for everyone.
Semper Fi
(and I have always been faithful to my country, my service, and to my family)
Buzz Belle
November 30th, 2012
3:49 pm
Linda – please read up on budgets. Presidents don’t pass budgets, congress passes budgets. The supposed “budget” you are referring to was about a 64 page document that had no specifics, whereas the last true budget was about 885 pages. You see, Jeff Sessions from Ala. did this to embarrass the president, so republicans could say, he can’t even get his own party to pass his own budget. He forgot most voters are a little smarter than that…well 51% of the voters are smarter than that. The budget he put forth was basically a blank document. Before we start down this same old road of the same old Fox news talking points, try doing a bit of research and really learn about what really happened.
Linda
November 30th, 2012
3:50 pm
Buzz@3:22, Demanding that Republicans raise taxes is the same as demanding that the Democrats cut spending.
All you’ve heard is, “No.” What is that you don’t understand about the meaning of the word?
Buzz Belle
November 30th, 2012
3:51 pm
And I will be heading out in 10 minutes so if I don’t respond, don’t think it was because I don’t have an answer. Then when I get home, FNM over at Jay’s will be in full swing! If I don’t get back on, have a good weekend everybody. Roll Tide and Go JACKETS!!
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
November 30th, 2012
3:53 pm
Demanding that Republicans raise taxes is the same as demanding that the Democrats cut spending.
No it’s not. Spending cuts will hit the middle and lower classes, tax increases would hit the wealthy. That is not the same thing.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
November 30th, 2012
3:55 pm
I’m loving the tacit admissions from all my friends on the Bush-hating left that His tax cuts put a significant amount of cash in middle-class pockets.
Democrats: Wrong on the Bush tax cuts.
Buzz Belle
November 30th, 2012
3:57 pm
Linda, Linda, Linda – The Democrats have offered 400 Billion in cuts as in cutting down the amount of money currently spent. They are asking the upper wealth to contribute more than they have been paying. More revenue, less spending, what exactly are the republicans offering? And your right, the Democrats can demand this because the republicans REFUSED to come to the table last year thinking they would vote Obama out and get what they want. Didn’t happen. This is checkmate in chess. If the republicans don’t deal, we all pay – and it will be ther republicans fault.
Dusty
November 30th, 2012
3:58 pm
Well, a bit of worry arises.. Look at the road leading OUT of Washington. Traffic getting heavy.
Here’s the top of the departure list:
Bernanke-fair financial foundation man
Hillary Clinton– one of the few with a spine and a brain
Petraeus-military genius foiled by a bimbo
Panetta-understands you cannot protect USA without money
Jesse Jackson Jr—well he is leaving and we ‘ll get another Chicago hoo,,,er..hopeful.
Geithner?? only if he has NOT paid his taxes this year which is a good probability…
I won’t go so far as to say “rats leaving the sinking ship” but the band is up on deck playing “Nearer My God to Thee”.and the termites are stirring in the lifeboats and there’s no guiding light above the CLIFF.
Cherokee
November 30th, 2012
4:00 pm
Kyle I would call your attention to Ed Kilgore’s excellent comments on this topic today:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_11/another_reason_obama_should_av041505.php
The Repubs campaigned on their promise to never cut Medicare spending for anyone over 55 – they lost – now they want Obama to propose what they themselves are scared to death to admit – that Medicare spending may need to be cut.
Again, they bet on winning the Preisdency and the Senate, and being able to obfuscate and lie their way through it. They lost. Now they want Obama to help them with their white seasoned citizen base voters?
Don’t bet on it, buddy.
LT Dan
November 30th, 2012
4:01 pm
A CBO article estimated that eliminating the Bush tax cuts on the upper 1 to 2 % would bring in an additinal 82 billion per tax year.
Eliminating the Bush tax cuts for everyone would bring in an estimated 423 billion per tax year.
Does not mean much when you have an annual trillion dollar deficit.
Maybe it’s just me, but I think I could spend my portion more wisely than the Federal government.
splavistic
November 30th, 2012
4:04 pm
Too bad the Do-Nothing GOPers didn’t take his compromises over the previous 4 years. Then, they could have had something that they were more comfortable supporting. HOWEVER, they DID NOTHING with the previous compromises. Therefore, NO SOUP FOR YOU!
Reap it, GOP!
Hillbilly D
November 30th, 2012
4:06 pm
Petraeus-military genius foiled by a bimbo
Whether or not he’s a military genius is a matter of opinion. Time will shed light on that.
As to being foiled by a bimbo. We don’t know who the initiator was in all that; might of been her, might of been him, might of been both of them. Either way, they were both adults and both knew what they were doing. If you’re gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough. If she was the instigator, all he had to do was pull up his big boy britches and say no. He’s got nobody to blame but himself.
splavistic
November 30th, 2012
4:07 pm
And, if you think the richest 2% can’t afford a slight tax increase. Jim Jones has a vacation rental you’d be interested in!