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
Just Saying..
December 18th, 2012
6:17 pm
“Most of us are worried about the future here, loco.”
Like maybe taking the 2nd Amendment into the 21st century?
loco
December 18th, 2012
6:17 pm
md
Ryan’s budget was cutting spending? His own budget would have required him to vote for numerous spending ceiling increases
Are you that dense or just act that way on this blog?
MarkV
December 18th, 2012
6:17 pm
Kyle Wingfield @ 5:48 pm
It appears that your misunderstanding of my point is shown in your following words: “Again, without getting into a debate about the economic efficacy of public spending…” Depending what your definition of “efficacy of public spending” is, most likely that is exactly what I was talking about, just as I would understand your words regarding the tax revenue being money “taken out of economy,” which I responded to, “economic efficacy of taxing. From that point of view, you cannot compare the size of tax cut with the size of spending cuts, because those are mostly apples and oranges. The issue, which I was addressing, was, essentially: What economic effect will have taking some money from the pockets of high earners, vs. giving less of the tax money to the low earners. What will the low earners do with the money, that otherwise would be cut: mostly spend on the essentials. I would argue that taking that money out of their pockets (which is essentially the same as not putting it in their pockets) hurts the economy more by reducing consumption, than lowering slightly the income of the high earners.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 18th, 2012
6:19 pm
We can’t do anything about spending that occurred under any previous president–just the current one. And it’s out of control by historic proportions. Sadly, the Moocher Majority won’t stand for a reduction in their monthly free candy allotment.
loco
December 18th, 2012
6:20 pm
md
Along with a 2.5% unemployment rate to even come close to working……………….
bwhahahahahahaahaha
Just Saying..
December 18th, 2012
6:22 pm
“I wish I’d never heard of a lot of things but as they say, wish in one hand……….”
THAT’S FUNNY!!
carlosgvv
December 18th, 2012
6:28 pm
Barry – 6:19
Sadly, you just keep spouting that con nonsense.
But, take heart!!!
Big Business and The Republican Party just couldn’t keep the profits and campaign cash coming in without athletic supporters like you.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
December 18th, 2012
6:29 pm
MarkV
For what it is worth, I haven’t checked it out, but just saw a talking head economist asked YOUR question, “want spending cuts hurt the economy”. I didn’t get his name. He said sounds so in theory, but history shows that after significant cuts in government spending following WWII, spending in the private economy on goods and services more than made up for the loss of government spending. More money in private hands stimulates the economy, he said.
loco
December 18th, 2012
6:32 pm
Rafe
Sounds great, but Romney himself said that he would not cut spending much at all as long as the economy was fragile.
Look it up. His words, not mine
MarkV
December 18th, 2012
6:33 pm
Rafe Hollister @ 6:29 pm
Rafe,
As with your arguments about resistance to government tyranny, I am unimpressed by economic comparisons with different era.
MarkV
December 18th, 2012
6:39 pm
Rafe Hollister @ 6:29 pm
If I wanted to be more specific, I would cite the July 2008 testimony by Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Economy.com, regarding the multiplier effect of various economic measures.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 18th, 2012
7:27 pm
Multiplier effect? Is that why the rate of GDP growth under Obozo has been so pathetic, even after blowing through $800 billion borrowed from China?
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 18th, 2012
7:28 pm
Where’s the multiplier effect of Obozo increasing spending by $700 billion per year, every year?
Fail.
Hillbilly D
December 18th, 2012
7:30 pm
An economist’s guess is liable to be as good as anybody else’s.
Will Rogers
md
December 18th, 2012
7:33 pm
“And those low ranked enlisted serving in the military thank you for calling them out for not paying taxes…..”
Is that supposed to be the guilt card?
Last I checked, we were ALL citizens and all lived here, so I see no problem with everybody having to pay some kind of minimum.
Old Timer
December 18th, 2012
7:34 pm
Obama has no intent of doing a compromise–he is an arrogant, narrcisist bully that want to be King. He doesn’t care aobut athe future of the United States. Voters that voted for him made a big mistake that they will find out in their life time.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 18th, 2012
7:36 pm
Can’t you just see Obozo and his minions sitting around late at night at the White House, trying to come up with some way of reducing spending? “There’s GOT to be a way!! Think, dammit!!”
Linda
December 18th, 2012
7:38 pm
President Football Lucy!
md
December 18th, 2012
7:38 pm
“Ryan’s budget was cutting spending? His own budget would have required him to vote for numerous spending ceiling increases”
Last I checked, Ryan’s budget wasn’t law, have things changed?
I’ll ask again, which side is currently pushing for divisive tax hikes and which side is advocating for equal tax treatment?
Which side is advocating for real spending cuts and which side is pushing gimmicky spending cuts.
Last I checked, we live in the present and the past can’t be changed, so what’s your answer?
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
December 18th, 2012
7:47 pm
MarkV
I am unimpressed by economic comparisons with different era.
I don’t live for the purpose of impressing you, I just thought it was ironic that you were asking the question on the blog at the same time some talking head economist was answering your question on the TV.
Your dismissal of evidence/facts/opinions/statements/predictions/etc that you do not agree with, and all your reasons not to believe it, is well known, but history tells us that those who don’t know, learn from, and respect history are sure to repeat it. It may be an error to dismiss things just because they occurred in another era, economics is the same no matter the era.
loco
December 18th, 2012
7:50 pm
Did you not vote for Ryan? When did you denounce his budget?
Lie now and say you were against it
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
December 18th, 2012
7:50 pm
Hillbilly
I agree with your post about the economists guess, pure waste of time, they prove that on a daily basis. However, most of them are qualified to look at history and see the effects on the economy of things that were done in the past.
loco
December 18th, 2012
7:53 pm
again md
You play your bs “choices” game like a robot, but when it comes to defending your own, you are the semantics king and make excuses after excuses
I hope you don’t teach your kids to make excuses when things do not meet their preconceived narrative as you do on this blog……..
disingenuous at best, deceitful at worst……….. either way, you are a trip
loco
December 18th, 2012
7:57 pm
md
You remind me of some ex addicts I have met……. Great that they have overcome their addiction, but sometimes they are one tract like a robot and can’t see the forest through the trees
If that what keeps them from their “addiction”, I say great, but it can be difficult to communicate with them when they are in that “zone”.
MarkV
December 18th, 2012
8:28 pm
Rafe Hollister @ 7:47 pm
It is noteworthy how you avoided to consider Mark Zandi’s current study while pushing whatever some economist, about whom I only heard from you, argued about a time many years ago, and at the same time you accused me of dismissing evidence/facts/opinions/statements/predictions I did not agree with.
Linda
December 18th, 2012
8:39 pm
It was the fault of the fed. govt. that the ‘08 recession happened by deeming that home ownership was a right, not a privilege, beginning with the Carter adm., doubling down during the Clinton adm. & agreed to by the Bush adm..
It was the fault of the fed. govt. that we can not fund Medicare, Social Security & Medicaid entitlements but added Obamacare to our list of programs we can never, ever afford.
It was the fault of the fed. govt. that ALL the funds in Medicare & Social Security were spent.
It was the fault of the fed. govt. that Medicare enhancement was not paid for.
It was the fault of the fed. govt. that wars were not paid for.
It is the fault of the fed. govt. that education has failed.
It is the fault of the fed. govt. that our borders are not secure.
It is the fault of the fed. govt. that jobs are being out-sourced.
It was the fault of the fed. govt. that spending is totally out of control.
It is the fault of the fed. govt. that the employment participation rate is at a record low since WW II.
It is the fault of the fed. govt. that govt. dependency is at an all time high & that the ease of qualification for eligibility is at an all-time low.
It is the fault of the fed. govt. that the fiscal cliff is upon us, both by the passage of the sequester & the inability to agree on the marginal tax rates.
It is the fault of the fed. govt. that we do not use our own natural resources for energy & promoting jobs, ending our reliance on foreign countries, decreasing our Oil Police & decreasing our energy prices.
When will both conservatives & liberals agree that the fed. govt. is not the savior of our future & that of the elderly, our veterans, our children, etc. but is rather the enemy of we, the people?
Hillbilly D
December 18th, 2012
8:52 pm
There’s a part of the banking meltdown that gets overlooked, especially here in Georgia. They changed it to where when you chartered a bank, you only had to wait 2 years before you could sell it. That brought a great influx of new banks. Very few of the new banks had any plan to serve the community or build a sustainable business. It was all about building up the cash value of the sucker as fast as they could, unload it on some sucker and make a killing. Most of them, at least in my area, loaned money like it was candy, often to their buddies to build subdivisions, etc. The more loans they had out, the better the bank looked on paper. Then the bubble busted and every local bank in my neck of the woods, save one, went belly up and/or got closed down by the FDIC. Even though a lot of loans were made using inflated collateral ( I know a lawyer who got wind of it and turned everything he had over to the authorities), nobody has been prosecuted and they are all still driving around in the Benz and living in the big house.
There’s plenty of blame to go around for that mess.
md
December 18th, 2012
8:58 pm
“Did you not vote for Ryan? When did you denounce his budget?”
I voted for Romney, and his budget never saw the light of day, so your point is moot.
As for choices, I once chose to be a democrat and moved away from an ideology that takes from those that have based on the sole criteria of “because they have it”, with no regard whatsoever of HOW it came to be.
Sorry, life doesn’t work that way.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
December 18th, 2012
9:00 pm
MarkV
I didn’t avoid Zandi’s study, I just told you what I saw an economist say on TV. Now that you bring this up, I have researched Zandi and what he said. Just an opinion or prediction. Like Hillbilly said above an economist prediction is just about as good as yours. Here is some rebuttal, Zandi is not the only economist with an opinion/prediction about spending cuts. Zandi is apparently a big Keynesian, like Obama, and believed in the Stimulus, how did that work out?
Believe what you want!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/28/AR2011022802634.html
the opinion of Stanford University economist John B. Taylor, who argued that the macroeconomic models employed by Zandi, Goldman Sachs and many other independent forecasters — including the Congressional Budget Office — overstate the economic impact of government spending and ignore the boost to confidence that would come from reining it in.
Taylor also noted that CBO’s analysis of the GOP budget bill shows that it would only cut spending by $19 billion over the next seven months, with the remainder of the $61 billion in cuts taking effect in future fiscal years.
“Thus the cut in budget authority does not reduce spending “abruptly,” as the [Goldman Sachs] report assumes,” Taylor writes in his blog, Economics One. “Rather it is a quite gradual effect. Even if one used the flawed Keynesian multipliers implied by the report, the impact would be less than one-third what the report claims.”
Hillbilly D
December 18th, 2012
9:03 pm
I’m old fashioned. I believe that the key to a strong economy is a strong savings rate. Ours is not good and hasn’t been for about 40 years, at least.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
December 18th, 2012
9:05 pm
Hillbilly@8:52 Amen! People in this area were falling all over themselves to get a piece of every new bank, not because they wanted to be bankers, they just wanted to be in on the proceeds of the sale.
JamVet
December 18th, 2012
9:05 pm
HD, thanks for the info.
Main Street/local banks, Wall Street and K Street all played BIG, BIG roles in the corporate assault on capitalism.
Greed has it consequences.
But to your point, liberty and justice for
allsome…loco
December 18th, 2012
9:05 pm
md
stay in the program buddy, stay in the program,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Congrats and good luck. Stay strong
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
December 18th, 2012
9:08 pm
Linda@8:39
As LBB said much earlier today, politicians created this mess and will not be the ones to clean it up.
The folks who buy the debt will eventually straighten it out.
loco
December 18th, 2012
9:10 pm
md
Don’t be a straight ticket voter. D or R, that is the mindless way
JamVet
December 18th, 2012
9:15 pm
…politicians…will not be the ones to clean it up.
Of course not; they’ve already taken their bribe money. So they take their marching orders from their paymasters, or monied interests, as Jefferson called them. Just you way you like it.
Sorry, life doesn’t work that way.
Nor with simplistic and trite explanations…
Rightwing troll
December 18th, 2012
9:22 pm
How are you lying old cranks doing tonight?…
Thulsa Doom
December 18th, 2012
9:35 pm
Well this is interesting. I come over to check things out and there is an adult discussion on economics. Its definitely the adult table.
Linda
December 18th, 2012
9:36 pm
Russia will end up with Alaska.
Mexico all but owns California already.
China wants the Indian Reservations & Nevada.
Brazil will be happy with whatever is left of Illinois.
Japan is getting Washington, DC & the state of Washington mixed up but will settle for either or both.
The fed. govt. is already buying its own debt & thinks it can spend its way into prosperity by pushing wheelbarrows of newly printed money into the streets of Wall Street, which will be consumed, along with most of NY, by the oil suppliers, primarily Saudi Arabia & its Sharia Law.
We’ll be melted Greece with no one to bail us out.
The liberals, in the meantime, wonder why shrewd conservatives are buying guns.
Hillbilly D
December 18th, 2012
9:41 pm
Russia will end up with Alaska.
My belief is that the next 50-100 years, this country will go the way of the Soviet Union. It’ll probably split up into 8 or 9 different countries. My guess is probably Texas, Alaska and Hawaii would go their own way and the others sort of split into regional groups.
No matter what though, as long I’m breathing, I’m staying right here. My loyalty is to my family and the land. So no matter what the government does or doesn’t do, I ain’t going no damn where.
ODD OWL
December 18th, 2012
9:46 pm
If wage earners who’s Household income is $250.000 a year are not rich, then what category would you place wage earners who’s household income is $51.000 a year, the national average ??? I guess households that earn the national average should be classified as being poor, subsistent and poverty ridden… The 47% ??? $250.000 a year in income is above the pay grade of all the commenters in this blog site… Share the wealth, tax the rich, pay down the debt…
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 18th, 2012
9:49 pm
Rafe: The folks who buy the debt will eventually straighten it out.
————————–
And it’s going to hurt. Folks dependent on the government will be getting a pay cut.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 18th, 2012
9:52 pm
Share the wealth, tax the rich, pay down the debt
———————-
Taxing the rich won’t fix more than 10% of Obozo’s deficit, much less paying down any debt.
It’s just math.
Obozo’s lying to you chump receptacles, and you just lap it up out of ignorance or irrational belief in the magic of Barry Obozo.
md
December 18th, 2012
9:53 pm
“Nor with simplistic and trite explanations…”
And Merry Christmas to you too…….
ODD OWL
December 18th, 2012
10:07 pm
When the Republicans are in power, they borrow and spend like drunken sailors… But when they’re not in power, they gallivant around yelling cut spending, cut spending… Republicans ==> Pusillanimous hypocrites…
native
December 18th, 2012
10:11 pm
Many here seem to be economic illiterates. Being a millionaire has nothing with what you earn, it measures wealth. Most people I know (we’ve been around awhile) are millionaires because we have saved for many years.
Anyone making $250K+ will be a millionaire pronto if they don’t squander it. So stop the sobbing.
Linda
December 18th, 2012
10:21 pm
If a couple earning $250,000 a year lives in NY or CA, pays $15,000 per year in rent, utilities, groceries & state & city taxes, has a kid or two in college & takes care of an elderly parent or two, it’s possible that such a couple has not a dime to their name.
It’s possible that a couple earning $51,000 per year is much wealthier than a couple earning $250,000 per year.
Unfortunately, taxes are based on income, not wealth. Liberals who participate in class warfare are useful idiots to the Democratic agenda.
Linda
December 18th, 2012
10:22 pm
I meant $15,000 per month.
Thulsa Doom
December 18th, 2012
10:24 pm
I guess odd owl doesn’t understand that their aren’t enough rich people to tax to pay down the debt.
native
December 18th, 2012
10:33 pm
OK, Linda, I live in a low tax state. But we are still different from them: We make more money. They are not richer. Quit whining. I have three children in college.