House GOP offers a familiar ‘Plan B’ for dodging the fiscal cliff
Reports from Washington vary on how close President Obama and Speaker John Boehner are to striking a deal to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff. But the emergence of Boehner’s apparent back-up plan in case they don’t reach an agreement caught my eye.
This morning, Boehner said his “Plan B” is for the House to extend all the rates for taxpayers earning $1 million or less per year while raising them on those who make more than that, and leaving the broader discussion for next year. Hmmm … who has suggested just such an approach?
[T]o, to Obama, this clearly is more about good politics than good policy. The House GOP should respond in kind.
It should pass the “Buffett Rule” bill that failed to pass the Senate in April, amended to include an extension of all current tax rates through 2013, as a down payment. While the Buffett Rule is projected to raise $47 billion during the next decade if the current tax rates for high earners are not extended, I’ve seen projections of more than $160 billion in 10 years if rates don’t rise. That’s an increase of approximately $16 billion next year, and it comes from real millionaires — not Obama’s “millionaire” couples who earn $250,00 a year.
Boehner wasn’t specific about the rate he envisions for million-dollar earners. If he was referring to the Buffett Rule, I assume he would have mentioned it by name and taken the credit for backing an Obama policy in the spirit of compromise. So I’m not exactly taking credit for the new Plan B.
But I still think it makes sense, if Boehner believes he can’t get a good deal from the president, to take away the “GOP only protects the rich” argument by proving the House is willing to raise taxes on the real “millionaires and billionaires” Obama is so fond of talking about — but insisting on more substance from Obama in any bigger deal.
– 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
250 comments Add your comment
MarkV
December 18th, 2012
4:59 pm
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten @ 4:55 pm
I pointed that out to Kyle a few minutes ago, and my post disappeared in cyberspace.
Kyle Wingfield
December 18th, 2012
5:00 pm
Centrist @ 4:39: I think it all depends on how much else there is to the package. (And fwiw, I believe Boehner’s proposal is for >$1M, so it starts at $1,000,001.)
What I am fairly confident of is that the number will be picked arbitrarily — just as $250K, $400K and $1M were — rather than chosen because of some economic or even fiscal basis.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 18th, 2012
5:00 pm
Anybody else find it ironic that AmVet complains about someone else sounding like a broken record?
AmVet = the ORIGINAL broken record.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 18th, 2012
5:03 pm
Kyle, the whole idea of a tax rate increase is arbitrary.
ZERO revenue will be raised by this, unless deductions and loopholes are also addressed.
This entire exercise is a political game, and has noting to do with economics, revenue or spending.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 18th, 2012
5:05 pm
Cheesy has hung up and consulted pmsnbc for an answer to Kyle’s question but they may be off on a psychotic anti gun rant, so let’s give it a few minutes, shall we?
@@
December 18th, 2012
5:06 pm
Why aren’t you asking why the GOP is suddenly OK with something they were previously not OK with?
The GOP are watching the polls. America is in panic mode.
The politicians create the panic in order to have their way. It’s The Power Triangle thingy.
Too many Americans are victims by choice. We’re our own worst enemies.
Weird.
loco
December 18th, 2012
5:06 pm
Well Tiberius
“I accept your surrender”
“Color me shocked”
and the one or two other so called zingers you use, wouldn’t exactly be called fresh material
just saying
Kyle Wingfield
December 18th, 2012
5:09 pm
MarkV @ 4:43: I’m not sure when you asked me to address spending cuts as money taken out of the economy, because I didn’t see the question. I’ll address it now.
In terms of immediate spending cuts, we are talking about less money than Obama wants in immediate tax increases. So, setting aside one’s beliefs about whether some dollars ares more important to the economy than others, the absolute number is lower for spending cuts. More importantly, we are talking mostly about Washington-style spending cuts — that is, we are talking only about adjusting the size of the spending increase, not real spending cuts.
That’s because the bulk of the spending cuts being discussed concern future entitlement spending. And even here, we are mostly talking about Washington-style spending cuts. Changing the Social Security COLA index, for instance, means SS spending per person might increase by, say, 2% annually instead of 3% annually. That’s still an increase. It just isn’t as large an increase, and so future liabilities are not as large as currently forecast.
The tax increases OTOH are real changes in the amount of money in private hands.
loco
December 18th, 2012
5:09 pm
@@
Yes the GOP like the Democrats are watching the polls. It is a great talking point from some on the right to say that the GOP doesn’t do it, but they pay hefty sums like the Dems to see which way the wind is blowing on a state, regional and national level.
We might disagree on many things, but that is a great point.
Just Saying..
December 18th, 2012
5:11 pm
Plan B, Kyle’s Insight, or whatever name it’s given, has these chances of approval:
1) None
2) None At All
Kyle Wingfield
December 18th, 2012
5:11 pm
Tiberius @ 5:03: Oh, I doubt it will be zero. But it won’t come close to the forecasts, because the forecasts expressly don’t take account of changes in behavior due to the higher rates.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 18th, 2012
5:11 pm
Ah, “loco” is just a re-run of another former sock puppet.
Knew the writing style was similar, but I can’t figure out if it was a banned sock puppet, or one that is just feeling inadequate.
loco
December 18th, 2012
5:13 pm
Banned? Suspended? Name change?
Tiberius: You fall into every one of those categories and you hypocritically attempt to call out others
What a laugh? You would be great in a circus………
hahahahahahahahah
Keep swinging
Kyle Wingfield
December 18th, 2012
5:16 pm
MarkV @ 4:5: I’m sorry your comment got hung up in the spam filter. I’m even more sorry you’re refusing to engage in a little deductive reasoning.
1. Obama at that time was only proposing to let the two top tax rates rise, both of which apply to incomes far below $1M per year.
2. Obama at that time, as described in the article linked, referred constantly to getting rid of tax cuts for “millionaires and billionaires.”
Absent evidence Obama was proposing something other than what I’ve described in point 1, there is no way to believe he was being forthright with his comments described in point 2.
Do you not agree? Or do you insist on being a pedantic literalist who thinks 1 and 1 are only 2 if someone actually types the number “2″?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 18th, 2012
5:17 pm
Yup, the appropriately named “loco” is definitely a sock puppet from another life.
Wonder why Kyle’s site attracts them so much?
And why do they like to hide behind them?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 18th, 2012
5:19 pm
“Do you not agree? Or do you insist on being a pedantic literalist who thinks 1 and 1 are only 2 if someone actually types the number “2″?”
Ooooh! Ooooh! Can I answer?
loco
December 18th, 2012
5:19 pm
Tiberius
Keep wondering, but it would be best to wonder why your behavior via your post as lead you to get banned, suspended and to change names……………..
So I will let you wonder and ponder
Have a great evening
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 18th, 2012
5:24 pm
Loco, I changed names due to internet stalking via the members of that other site; nothing more, nothing less.
Would you like to be wrong about even more today, or do you just wish to continue to fixate on me?
md
December 18th, 2012
5:25 pm
“In our caucus, there is a school of thought that says let’s get rid of all the tax cuts,” she said.”
For those that missed it, the hidden agenda for all to see. The dems have always been about tax and spend, and when they get the measly tax hike on the “rich”, they will then tell the masses that they need to jack up all the taxes in order to not cut entitlements…….she has basically admitted the thought is there, now it’s time to expand that thought.
MANGLER
December 18th, 2012
5:26 pm
Thanks y’all for answering. You proved the point I was trying to make which is that both sides are in fact bargaining. Despite the rhetoric coming from both ends, a deal is being crafted.
You’re all so brilliant with economics, why aren’t you all working for the Government to “fix” things?
Pizzaman
December 18th, 2012
5:27 pm
I say let it happen, let the results be felt in all our lives then let the people choose in ‘14 who’s right or wrong. Kyle will probably be happy for those 99 weeks of unemployment. Opp’s forgot! Your side wants to put it back at 26 weeks! Blue Side Up!
loco
December 18th, 2012
5:29 pm
Tiberius
Guess you answered one of three………. Guess those other two didn’t happen, right?
hahahaahahahaha
Keep swinging, little dudette………
@@
December 18th, 2012
5:29 pm
loco:
I expect politicians to blow with the wind.
It’s my confidence in the American people that’s eroding. We want them to cut spending but none of the entitlements to which we’ve become accustomed.
We’ve surrendered our future and the futures of our children to the powers that be.
We’ve become weak in mind and body.
Sad.
MarkV
December 18th, 2012
5:30 pm
Kyle Wingfield @ 5:09 pm
Kyle,
Apparently you misunderstood my question, and in more ways than one. My original question, as I have mentioned, was in response to your argument that the tax revenue increase was money taken out of the economy. From that point of view, I do not know that you mean by arguing that “the absolute number is lower for spending cuts.” In this context it is also completely irrelevant if they are “Washington-style spending cuts.”
Your misunderstanding appears most clearly in your last sentence; “The tax increases OTOH are real changes in the amount of money in private hands.” So my question can now can we worded accordingly: whose hands will feel the spending cuts?
To help you understand, if you are still in the dark, is that the answer to my question to Dusty about who is getting the domestic spending money that the Republicans want to cut, is simple: The people, the Americans.
md
December 18th, 2012
5:34 pm
“To help you understand, if you are still in the dark, is that the answer to my question to Dusty about who is getting the domestic spending money that the Republicans want to cut, is simple: The people, the Americans.”
And where is it coming from: The people, the Americans.
Another attempt at gaining the moral high road by “taking” from others……go figure.
loco
December 18th, 2012
5:34 pm
md
Pretty broad brushes you post there. Adjusted for inflation, didn’t Bob Dole sponsor one of the largest tax increases in history? Maybe I am mistaken.
Didn’t Reagan have six years of a Republican Senate were he along with Democrats in the House kept spending, lowered then raised taxes numerous times?
You are either disingenuous or uninformed? I say disingenuous because you are a smart little fella.
Please come back with the Reagan had a Democrat House shtick then explain how spending his still going up with a Republican House today.
Thanks
loco
December 18th, 2012
5:37 pm
@@
I could be wrong, but I see an agreement that will play out over the next few months that will have many on the far right and left perturbed.
Will it be the end all of end all in regards to needed changes? I doubt it, but I do see both-sides doing something.
We will see
Just Saying..
December 18th, 2012
5:40 pm
Kyle, the… “whole”… idea of a tax rate increase is arbitrary.
…”ZERO”… revenue will be raised by this, unless deductions and loopholes are also addressed.
This …”entire”… exercise is a political game, and has …”noting”… to do with economics, revenue or spending.
Tib, you seem to an absolutist sorta guy…
Just Saying..
December 18th, 2012
5:44 pm
“I say disingenuous because you are a smart little fella.”
loco, I’m relieved you included that. md needs to be addressed with esteem…
loco
December 18th, 2012
5:44 pm
md
Did six years of a Republican Congress and WH under Bush bring on lowering spending? yes you can say well spending is worse now, but that is not the question……..
Did it bring on less spending is the question? Seems your assertions are more hyperbole than reality.
But you talk a good game. Didn’t the Republicans have “choices” during those six years? Did their “choices” meet your assertions?
md
December 18th, 2012
5:44 pm
Where did I say the R’s don’t do it too? They do, and that was a big problem under Bush, but the D’s have done it as long as I’ve been alive, their very ideology is based on it.
loco
December 18th, 2012
5:46 pm
just saying
Exactly. he speaks with absolutes when he is talking about what he doesn’t like, but does a great semantics tap dance when he has to defend those absolutes and how it applies to those he votes for
Very funny to read……. and a smooth tap dance I must say
Hillbilly D
December 18th, 2012
5:47 pm
If I were in Boehner’s shoes, I’d give Obama his tax deal but only with guaranteed spending cuts, amounting to a the same dollar figure as the increase.
Kyle Wingfield
December 18th, 2012
5:48 pm
MarkV @ 5:30: “I do not know that you mean by arguing that “the absolute number is lower for spending cuts.” ”
The total amount of the tax increase is generally being discussed as anywhere from $1T to $1.3T over 10 years. The total amount of the immediate spending cuts — as opposed to the future reduced rates of entitlement spending — is less than $500B over 10 years. $1T > $500B.
“it is also completely irrelevant if they are “Washington-style spending cuts.” ”
No, it’s not. The Washington approach to spending cuts is to spend $1 in 2012 and then debate whether to spend $1.02 or $1.04 in 2013. No one in that scenario is talking about spending less. Again, without getting into a debate about the economic efficacy of public spending, in no sense is either $1.02 or $1.04 less than $1. (We are almost always talking about inflation-adjusted figures, so no need to go there, either.)
Thus, if we are not talking about actual spending cuts, it is your point — “whose hands will feel the spending cuts?” — that is irrelevant.
loco
December 18th, 2012
5:49 pm
md
Republican as well, they just have brainwashed you that it is just the other side……
If not, tell me when they have governed differently on a national scale. Talk is cheap, tell me about the walk when they have been in charge.
Under 12 years of Reagan and Bush, was the President’s proposed budget smaller than what Congress agreed on 10 out of 12 times or larger?
md
December 18th, 2012
5:49 pm
As for past tax hikes, how many were done with an underlying tone of division such as they are now? Didn’t the rates go up on everybody and down on everybody?
50% pay zero income tax right now, having no skin in the game but still being allowed to play is a big problem in my book.
loco
December 18th, 2012
5:54 pm
md
Spin it like a top. Absolutes when you talk about the other side, but semantics and such when you have to defend your side. You do good at chasing your tail.
Part of the 50% not paying is due to the EITC. Didn’t Bush enhance that? Is he now a Dem? Didn’t a Repub sign the EITC into law?
They can revamp the EITC today for all I care and phase in rates back to the Clinton years and you will see that 50% of those not paying decrease in a hurry.
I’m good with it. Dems and Repubs both are not, but I am.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 18th, 2012
5:54 pm
Sorry, children (I’m addressing Just Saying and loco here), but I’m a REALIST.
Of course, you can provide appropriate contrary arguments to mine, but if you had them, you would have already used them.
Just Saying..
December 18th, 2012
5:54 pm
Rafe “Pride goeth before the fall!”
Rafe, is that addressed to POTUS Romney?
Because you NEVER said Mittens would win.
Did ya?
loco
December 18th, 2012
5:56 pm
md
Did the government shrink under Nixon, Ford, Reagan or the Bushes?
Michael H. Smith
December 18th, 2012
5:57 pm
Um… don’t look now socialist liberals but there is a Plan C a.k.a. John Galt:
As in “C”, for Contagion!
Actor Renounces His Citizenship in Snit Over French Tax Burden
PARIS — Gérard Depardieu, the famous French actor, will be French no more, so exasperated is he with French taxes and the French government, he declared in an angry open letter to France’s prime minister on Sunday.
Mr. Depardieu, who has been accused by France’s Socialist government of abandoning the country to avoid paying taxes, will be giving up his French citizenship and taking up residence over the border in Belgium, he wrote. Mr. Depardieu insisted that his move was not solely for tax reasons, but also because he felt the government believed that “success, creation, talent — difference, in fact — must be punished.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/world/europe/gerard-depardieu-says-he-is-giving-up-french-citizenship.html?_r=0
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 18th, 2012
5:58 pm
loco likes to live in the past and blame others.
Most of us are worried about the future here, loco.
loco
December 18th, 2012
6:02 pm
Tiberius
Don’t really care what you are worried about?
I know that “Colors you shocked”
Just Saying..
December 18th, 2012
6:04 pm
“What is the motive of your whining Dusty?”
Dusty’s miffed that, after her “Rise Up” cheerleader rant, her GOP heroes found a way for Georgia taxes to enhance the value of my Falcons seats.
But it’ll work out, Dust. I’ll consider buying a Bushmaster with the additional profit..
Just Saying..
December 18th, 2012
6:08 pm
Hillbilly, if you were in Boehner’s shoes, you’d be wishing you never heard of the Tea Party…
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 18th, 2012
6:11 pm
So it appears that the appropriately named “loco” has no interest in balancing the budget.
Just attacking other posters.
Always looking backwards to blame.
Never looking forward to solve a problem.
That’s all we get from the libs of this generation – “It’s not our fault”.
md
December 18th, 2012
6:15 pm
Well loco, do tell as to which party is currently trying to raise taxes and which party is trying to cut spending……….
loco
December 18th, 2012
6:15 pm
md
And those low ranked enlisted serving in the military thank you for calling them out for not paying taxes…..
Along with those who served but now on disability because they were protecting you a$$ but do not pay federal income taxes also thank you…….
The list is longer than that, but those are at the top who want to thanks your thankless little behind…………
loco
December 18th, 2012
6:15 pm
Cry on Tibs
Hillbilly D
December 18th, 2012
6:15 pm
I wish I’d never heard of a lot of things but as they say, wish in one hand……….