Your morning jolt: Gift-cap conversions spread, but not to everyone
Suddenly, a $100 (per day) cap on gifts from lobbyists to state lawmakers is all the rage. Ray Henry with the Associated Press describes the conversion process:
A dozen state lawmakers who recently promised to cap lobbyist spending ahead of election season did not publicly back those limits during this year’s legislative session.
By signing the pledge, General Assembly candidates commit to co-sponsoring legislation that would ban lobbyists from giving public officials gifts worth more than $100. Lobbyists can currently spend as much as they want so long as they publicly report their spending.
Eleven incumbents seeking office again have signed the pledge but did not sign on as co-sponsors of bills to cap lobbyist spending. Another incumbent who signed the pledge but declined to co-sponsor the bill is stepping down. The list of incumbents who didn’t lend their name to the measure includes Senate President Pro Tempore Tommie Williams, Senate Majority Leader Chip Rogers and Sen. Don Balfour, chairman of the powerful Rules Committee. Those men have considerable influence over what bills go forward.
For example, Balfour chairs the committee where the Senate bill capping lobbyist spending was assigned before the measure failed. He and Rogers face Republican opponents who have signed the pledge. Balfour, who did not return a message seeking comment, also faces a probe by the Senate Ethics Committee into allegations that he improperly sought reimbursement for conducting official state business on days he was far from the Statehouse or traveling out-of-state with lobbyists.
“I take every member of the General Assembly and certainly my Senate colleagues at their word,” said Sen. Joshua McKoon, who sponsored the Senate proposal to set a cap. “Someone signs a pledge in front of the public at large and commits themselves to a position, I certainly expect they’re going to honor that when they go back.”
Williams, who recently decided to step down as president pro tempore, did not co-sponsor the bill because he believed lawmakers needed more time to study it, said his legal counsel, Gerald Huang. The cap was one part of a bill that also set limits on how much lobbyists could spend to subsidize travel by public officials, kicked people with lobbying ties off the state’s ethics commission and increased other financial disclosure requirements.
Rep. Tommy Smith, R-Nicholls, filed similar legislation in the House.
“It wasn’t a change of heart,” Huang said, speaking about Williams’ decision to sign the pledge. “He supports the pledge but the entire legislation was something that he believed needed time for deliberation.”
A spending cap still faces significant political opposition. House Speaker David Ralston, R-Blue Ridge, has repeatedly said he supports the state’s current disclosure system and believes a hard cap on lobbyist spending would just drive the practice underground. No member of Ralston’s leadership team in the House has signed the pledge.
Earlier this week, Jon Gillooly of the Marietta Daily Journal made his own count:
Of the 38 incumbents and challengers vying for a seat in the Georgia General Assembly to represent some part of Cobb County, 20 said they would sign a pledge not to accept lobbyist gifts worth more than $100.
Seven others said they would not sign such a pledge. Other candidates either said they were undecided, or did not respond to repeated inquiries.
***
We understand that U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., one of the two founding members of the Gang of Six effort to forge a bipartisan approach to deficit reduction, is hip-deep in this effort outlined by Politico.com:
A growing number of lawmakers are alarmed that Congress’s do-nothing posture ahead of the year-end fiscal cliff could provoke a massive voter backlash and economic catastrophe if they don’t start laying the groundwork right now to cut a deal.
A dozen senators ranging from Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn to Delaware Democrat Chris Coons have begun to organize closed-door briefings with leading economic experts to prod Congress into action. Some lawmakers like Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) are quietly pushing to have a major tax and budget package ready by September so a bill can be introduced immediately after the November elections and passed by Christmas. Others like Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) have taken matters into their own hands by privately preparing bills they hope will shape the post-election debate.
“There’s a genuine concern that a downturn in Europe or another place will force our hand: It’s far better for us to start working on this earlier rather than later, and there’s a lot of work to be done,” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) [said]. “If we can present something immediately after the election that is a good solid starting point, I think it’s going to restore confidence in the business community.”
***
Anyone who has watched the growing tension between the U.S. and Pakistan understands that there’s a great deal of diplomatic double-talk involved. This Slate.com piece underlines some of the hypocrisy:
A CIA drone strike in North Waziristan killed al-Qaida’s No. 2 leader on Monday. Pakistan again complained that drone strikes are “unlawful, against international law and a violation of [its] sovereignty,” but while the country has threatened to shoot down unmanned vehicles in the past, it has never followed through. How hard is it to kill a drone?
It depends on the model. Shooting down an MQ-1 Predator or an MQ-9 Reaper, the propeller-driven drones most commonly used to kill terrorists in Pakistan, would be child’s play for a Pakistani Air Force pilot. They’re easy to detect on radar, and they fly at about 100 mph—about the speed of a World War I-era bomber. (The Dassault Mirage 5, one of the most common jets in Pakistan’s military fleet, cruises at just under 600 mph and tops out at nearly 1,500 mph.) They don’t normally carry any weapons that could be used in a dogfight, and their lack of maneuverability makes them vulnerable to missiles fired from the ground.
- By Jim Galloway, Political Insider
For instant updates, follow me on Twitter, or connect with me on Facebook.
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
51 comments Add your comment
Danny O
June 7th, 2012
9:49 am
Take any official communications that come out of Pakistan w/a grain of salt.
Centrist
June 7th, 2012
10:04 am
The Republican Convention in Columbus last month wholeheartedly endorsed the lobbyist cap, and THAT is what is now driving the pledge. Nice to see grassroots work.
Although Obama says he will not agree to yet another extension of the decade old expiring tax rates without increasing them for those making over $250K/yr. – he will have no choice even if re-elected. Congress will not go along with such a tax increase – they wouldn’t even do it for over $1 million/yr. The lame duck Congress will assuredly kick tax, spending, and sequestration further down the road for the new Congress to tackle, and that is all the politicians are really working on behind the election year window dressing.
clyde
June 7th, 2012
10:05 am
Drone strikes are EFFECTIVE.
A drone strike will be called in on any ethics bill.
The Snark
June 7th, 2012
10:08 am
Can we get rid of the “sign my pledge” thing? The only pledge any elected official or candidate for offfice should ever take is the one to support the Constitution.
It’s sufficient to me for them to simply say “I want the gift cap bill to reach the floor and will vote for it when it does.”
kewl
June 7th, 2012
10:13 am
Is that a pledge pin on your uniform?
Danny O
June 7th, 2012
10:27 am
@ Centrist:
To be sure, the President wants to let the tax cuts expire on income over over $200k for individuals and income over $250k for couples, and keep them in place for income below those levels. It would be a return to 2001 tax rates on those income levels. Even people who earn more than those thresholds would still get the reduced rates for their income below the thresholds. And the “increase” would simply be a return to the tax rates of 2001, before our country was running annual budget deficits.
td
June 7th, 2012
10:41 am
Danny O
June 7th, 2012
10:27 am
Why are you in such a big worry to raise taxes on the top 5% of wage earners? Do you think that is going to balance the budget? The top 5% already pays 58% of all taxes. How much more should they pay?
the cat
June 7th, 2012
10:41 am
I’m surprised as can be that Saxby was for once doing his job and not playing golf. Way past time for him to be retired.
Road Scholar
June 7th, 2012
10:43 am
A zero gift limit is what I recommend. What about the “appearance of impropriety” argument made on the no gift policy for state employees? Why do lobbyist HAVE to give gifts? Are they such low human beings that they have to pay someone to talk with them? That is what the legislator’s offices are for!
double
June 7th, 2012
10:55 am
Ralston is probably right,and I would think there would be under the table deals now,not reported.
Centrist
June 7th, 2012
10:56 am
@ td – No sense in debating the dead issue of raising the top tax bracket. Even Bill Clinton agrees with Congress (and the Republicans) that no tax brackets should be increased. It is now only a D.O.A. campaign issue aimed to fire up left base. Let them vent.
I’d like to see Romney/Republicans reverse themselves and endorse the “Buffet rule” on millionaire taxes to blunt the issue, but doubt it will happen. Romney will have to campaign on D.O.A. right base issues, too – it is just a standard election tactic to get the discouraged wings to vote.
Danny O
June 7th, 2012
11:05 am
Although I support the President’s tax proposal, the point of my post was not to advocate or vent. It was intended to factually state what the proposal is.
PMC
June 7th, 2012
11:05 am
Against International law eh? Well, just call the international police.
td
June 7th, 2012
11:18 am
Danny O
June 7th, 2012
11:05 am
My point is the Presidents proposal is a bogus class welfare argument. Raising the income tax on the top 5% by 3% is not going to solve any problems we have. It would only bring in about an additional $10 to $20 billion per year and we go into debt more then that much each week.
We do not have a revenue problem in this country but a spending problem and this entitlement/social welfare society has to go through significant changes or we will be bankrupt and no one will ever be getting anything.
CobbGOPer
June 7th, 2012
11:35 am
Of course they’re all signing the pledge now that they know Ralston is hostile to it and likely will try to kill the legislation in the House. It would no longer hurt them to support and pass legislation in the Senate if they know it’s doomed in the House.
Typical political games. They’re all for it once they know it’s a dead issue.
DannyX
June 7th, 2012
11:42 am
From what I am hearing Chip Rogers has been in contact with John Edwards, they are discussing the possibility of Edwards reviving his political career right here in Georgia. Rogers wants Edwards to switch parties and become a Republican.
“Edwards would fit right in with the Georgia Republican crowd. Edwards hasn’t been convicted of anything. We think he would make a great Governor, or perhaps Lt. Governor. Georgia would be the perfect place for him to revive his political career. Newt Gingrich is still extremely popular here. Deal was elected governor. Edwards’ career as a Democrat is over, this is a chance he just can’t pass up. Republican voters would welcome Edwards with open arms.”
Of course you don’t hear the liberal socialist media reporting this, you heard it here first.
20/20
June 7th, 2012
11:53 am
Will someone please post an answer to the question of why raising the taxes (i.e., letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire) will improve the economic outlook of this country. What will be the benefit)s). Obama has not uttered a word on cutting some of the superfluous waste of money on programs that haven’t worked to cut them or social programs.
It has been noted by the CBO and other publications that taking ALL the money of those making in excess of 200k/year would not balance the budget nor would it lead to balancing the budget.
Think outside the box for a moment: If one makes $200,000 (AGI) of income, it doesn’t take a genius to figure a way to reduce the tax burden so the rate falls; this by deductions for charity, reporting less income, etc. Raising taxes and its negative consequences will always affect our economy. Clinton had budget surpluses (but, with both a Republican House and Senate, so it would easily pass), but this current occupant of the White House is hell bent on ignoring all compass points that indicate the economy cannot sustain raising taxes at this time. If Obama would take a few days – just a few, mind you – and actually try to exert some leadership and his bully pulpit of the Presidency, and try to work with BOTH houses of Congress on getting our financial house in order, we would all be happier. Stop the insane back-biting, criticisms coming from both parties and think of the united States of America for once.
We have absolutely got to get away from the class-envy mentality and quit criticizing those who have worked for what they have and wish to keep as much of it as possible.
Finally, believe it or not, most people in America know that we need taxation to keep this country sound and prosperous; it just that there is entirely too much graft, corruption, give-aways, wasted programs, unnecessary and bloated bureaucracies to deal with. Does the 1974 creation of the multion-billion-dollar waste called the Department of Energy ring a bell?
Going Right
June 7th, 2012
12:05 pm
DannyX @11:42am
”Of course you don’t hear the liberal socialist media reporting this, you heard it here first.
What a good laugh! Posting on Galloway’s blog IS hearing “here” first! The AJC epitomizes “liberal socialist media.” But, of course, you know that.
honested
June 7th, 2012
12:05 pm
I don’t get what’s up with Congress.
Whatever ‘benefit’ to the Country and the economy that was supposed to occur through the magic of ‘trickle down’ from the shrub tax cuts was an colossal failure and is unlikely to be anything different if stretched out for a longer threshold.
Let the stupid, failed tax cuts expire and return to revenue levels that were adequate to pay the bills and slowly chip away at the debt.
Those revenue levels were WORKING and there is no reason to assume they would not work again.
Trickle on has been tried with much exuberance twice, and failed miserably both times. Let it die.
Non-Partisan
June 7th, 2012
12:10 pm
Point – Counterpoint:
POINT: The wealthy should pay their “fair share” of taxes…
COUNTER-POINT: Those who pay “no taxes” should pay their “fair share” of taxes…
Who wins that argument?
n
June 7th, 2012
12:11 pm
Smoke and mirrors on the gift limit.
Ralston will kill it, and they all know it.
Pure propaganda for upcoming election.
They think we are all idiots.
Perhaps they are mostly right.
td
June 7th, 2012
12:20 pm
honested
June 7th, 2012
12:05 pm
“Let the stupid, failed tax cuts expire and return to revenue levels that were adequate to pay the bills and slowly chip away at the debt. ”
The whole fallacy of your argument is that you could only balance the budget with the 2001 tax rates if you returned to the 2001 spending levels and this does not even address paying off the debt.
DannyX
June 7th, 2012
12:26 pm
“The whole fallacy of your argument is that you could only balance the budget with the 2001 tax rates if you returned to the 2001 spending levels and this does not even address paying off the debt.”
I think what td is saying has some validity. After the tax cuts Bush started the unfunded Iraqi war, created the new big government Dept of Homeland Security, increased defense spending, and signed the unfunded socialist Medicare Part D into law.
Just getting rid of the tax cuts will not be enough, taxes will have to be even raised further to pay for Bush’s spending spree, good work td.
Faaarrr Right
June 7th, 2012
12:35 pm
FLASH! News Item!
It has now been verified…Walker DID outspend the UNION/DEMOCRATIC/SOCIALISTS MACHINE (U/D/S/M) in Tuesday’s Recall referendum! It has now been discovered the Walker Recall Campaign spent local and out-of-state donations whereas all expenditures by the U/D/S/M were FREE! No money used at all. All printing, transportation, Recall Petitions, help, TV ads, etc were DONATED. It was further proved that only on the night of the election was any U/D/S/M money actually spent! Furthermore, it was proven that all the picketing, overtake of the Capitol, chanting, screaming, and general mayhem never existed at all. That would have necessitated some payment to the thugs that demonstrated! Tell me those guys ain’t smart. Dumb Republicans had to actually seek donations and ask for help to finance their part of the recall! The U/D/S/M had free help, hidden and imaginary funds, and everything donated to their cause…nary a cent was used! Furthermore, while Walker was unmasked for using “outside money and help”, the U/D/S/M used only inhabitants of Wisconsin to assist them…no outside money or aid whatsoever.
I’m writing the Republican National Committee and complaining bitterly about this!
WOW
June 7th, 2012
12:36 pm
@ Centrist:
Clinton does not agree with not increasing the rates. They would be back to where they were under HIS Presidency, which is the last time the budget was actually balanced. If there is ever to be a Grand Bargain (as Jeb Bush stated yesterday was needed to really tackle the debt) then Repub’s will have to agree to let the tax cuts expire on those making over 250 K as a part of the deal.
Auntie Christ
June 7th, 2012
12:38 pm
This seems to be the repub rationale any time a tax or fee increase is discussed: “It would “only” bring in about an additional $10 to $20 billion per year and we go into debt more then that much each week.” of course followed by: “We do not have a revenue problem in this country but a spending problem and this entitlement/social welfare society has to go through significant changes ”
To the first point, as old Evereret Dirksen said years ago, a billion here, a billion there and soon we’re talking real money. We are a nation bleeding to death from a thousand cuts, so maybe band aids are a solution to picking up a billion here, a billion there.
As for taxing the rich, well just like robbing banks, that’s where the money is. Tax the low income set and the shoe store, the grocery store, clothiers, etc sell less and the economy as a whole sees GDP suffer and jobs eventually lost. Tax the rich and sales of Krugerands drop, or they buy the plain Mercedes instead of the one with heated side view mirrors.
You are right in some respect td, we have a spending problem. Why do we have military bases in Europe? Are mongul hordes waiting at the border to attack? Are the huns prepping for invasion? Why are we on Okinawa? Are we going to keep producing missiles until we have one for every man woman and child on the planet, even tho our real enemies are individuals carrying backpacks of explosives, not nations per se. Are the righties going to keep voting funds to build bridges and hospitals in the middle east, then claim we have a spending problem when we libs demand like funds for our people and infrastructure?
Here is what I see as a spending problem:
The American Coalition for Ethanol estimates that when combined with state and local government aid to large oil companies, subsidies amount to anywhere from $133.8 billion to $280.8 billion annually from all sources of taxpayer aid that goes to the oil and gas industry.
From 1995-2010, just 10 percent of subsidized farms ¬– the largest and wealthiest operations –collected 76 percent of all commodity payments, with an average total payment over 16 years of $447,873 per recipient – hardly a safety net for small farmers.
So we agree, we are spending far too much on welfare, I think it high time that Exxon Mobil and ConAgra learn to stand on their own two feet without our tax $$.
Shar
June 7th, 2012
12:41 pm
Putting a dollar limit on “gifts”, which are in fact bribes, to legislators does indeed invite sleight of hand in reporting, if not down right lying. Instead, I’d like to see a law that disallows any benefit that is not equally available to the legislator’s constituents. Cleaner air, donation to the district’s public library, doughnuts and coffee on the town square – all fine. Trips, fancy meals, golf outings? No.
Centrist
June 7th, 2012
12:47 pm
@ WOW – You are mistaken on both points. Bill Clinton came out this week and said the Bush tax cuts (which have been Obama’s and his Democratic Congress) should be extended. The Grand Bargain did NOT have tax rate increases for any bracket – actually had some tax rate decreases. Net revenue enhancements via the tax code were to be via closing loopholes, deductions, credits, and increasing the tax base (those currently exempt).
DannyX
June 7th, 2012
12:57 pm
“Bill Clinton came out this week and said the Bush tax cuts (which have been Obama’s and his Democratic Congress) should be extended.”
“Centrist”, you sound like a GOP spin machine, you left out the part where Clinton clarified his position and stated he was in favor of ending the tax cuts for some.
Class of '98
June 7th, 2012
1:01 pm
Jim, your number-of-comments-to-column-length ratio is about the same as your hair-follicle-to-scalp-ratio.
Thirty comments in three hours. You’re hot today.
Ga Values
June 7th, 2012
1:14 pm
If Saxby is in it you know good & well there is a good paying lobbyist behind it.
hiram
June 7th, 2012
1:17 pm
Class of ‘98
June 7th, 2012
1:01 pm
“Jim, your number-of-comments-to-column-length ratio is about the same as your hair-follicle-to-scalp-ratio.
Thirty comments in three hours. You’re hot today.”
And, td and centerist accounted for 80% of them…
Centrist
June 7th, 2012
1:18 pm
Clinton and the media can attempt to un-ring that bell about extending the tax cuts once again – but it simply doesn’t matter. They WILL be extended without increasing the current top bracket for those making over $200/$250K. Congress has not and will not go along with Obama’s tired call that “Joe the Plumber” called him out on four years ago. Raising taxes on the professional class/ two income families, and small businesses who are already at the top of our very progressive tax brackets that further increases taxes with phaseouts of exemptions and deductions is not going to happen. They are a small, productive group that have already been abused and this is where class warfare has been stopped (not yet reversed).
Not extending the decade old tax rates to avoid another recession, which will be the ONLY option Obama will be offered, and not postponing sequestration that would decimate our defense are extremely unlikely scenarios.
DannyX
June 7th, 2012
1:35 pm
“Not extending the decade old tax rates to avoid another recession, which will be the ONLY option Obama will be offered, and not postponing sequestration that would decimate our defense are extremely unlikely scenarios.”
That doesn’t sound very centrist-like.
Obama actually holds all the cards this time. Poll after poll shows Americans favor ending the tax cuts for wealthy Americans. If the Republicans are unwilling to compromise they will get killed.
If Romney keeps preaching his absurd plan that includes even more tax cuts for the wealthy he won’t stand a chance at being elected.
And why in the world would Republicans not follow through on the deal they made that automatically cuts defense spending?
SLIDESHOW: Here Are Some Of The Gifts Lobbyists Are Giving Georgia Lawmakers
June 7th, 2012
1:38 pm
[...] Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports today that more and more Georgia lawmakers are taking this pledge, although many of them have yet to back corresponding legislation. Limiting [...]
DannyX
June 7th, 2012
1:56 pm
Btw “Centrist”, Jeb Bush just said he would back tax Increases to cut the deficit.
Now that sounds like a centrist. You want to un-ring that?
honested
June 7th, 2012
2:08 pm
td,
With the unpaid (due to inadequate war revenue) war debt it would take longer, but no matter how much you wrong winger’s whine about it, the DEBT is only growing NOW because of inadequate REVENUE.
The dishonesty about President Obama piling on debt is a lie and is getting really old to listen to.
honested
June 7th, 2012
2:17 pm
Whatever former President Clinton (the last President to serve in an era of prosperity in America) said at any given moment isn’t really relative.
The economists who were right about developing the prosperity in the ’90s were right about the damage likely to be caused by the tax cuts and are quite right about the need to return to sane levels of revenue.
The tax rates and revenue levels present in 1999 reduced borrowing costs (debt service costs) and allowed more tax dollars to provide the services needed by American Citizens.
However, reducing borrowing costs also reduced the INCOME to those who feel they are annointed by some higher power and therefore exempt from taxation.
The DEBT pays the ones who whine the loudest about TAXES.
Let the failed tax cuts expire, cut military expenditures 50% and let’s get back to being a sane country.
Centrist
June 7th, 2012
2:23 pm
@ DannyX – A centrist is a realist avoiding partisan dogma. I have often stated I support the “Buffet rule” increasing taxes on incomes over $1 million/yr., but even the Democratic Senate wouldn’t pass it this year. How does Obama hold all the cards when his $200/250K/ yr. tax increase proposal has failed for 4 years?
It is not just Republicans who will postpone sequestration. Democrats including SecDef Leon Panetta will go along.
Jeb Bush is no different than the Republican leadership about tax increases to cut the deficit – as long as cuts in spending lead the way. Speaker Boehner’s Grand Bargain had over $800 billion in revenue increases. It only fell apart when Obama reneged and demanded 50% more. Next year’s Congress is projected to be even more conservative, so the best Obama (if re-elected) can expect in new negotiations will be what the Republicans previously offered.
td
June 7th, 2012
2:35 pm
honested
June 7th, 2012
2:17 pm
“However, reducing borrowing costs also reduced the INCOME to those who feel they are annointed by some higher power and therefore exempt from taxation.”
Another leftist class warfare statement. The top 5% of wage earners pay 58% of all Federal taxes now while the bottom 50% of wage earners pay 2.3%. I do not think these facts prove that the “higher powers” think they are exempt from paying their “fair share” of taxes.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0
DannyX
June 7th, 2012
2:36 pm
“Jeb Bush is no different than the Republican leadership about tax increases to cut the deficit – as long as cuts in spending lead the way.”
Boehner has taken every single tax hike off the table, his own words, ““It is off the table, everything else is on the table.”
Obama holds all the cards because he can tell the American people, (who support tax increases for the rich,) that Republicans are willing to raise middle class taxes if they don’t agree to a compromise. The tax cuts expire at the end of the year, Republicans will have to deal with Obama.
DannyX
June 7th, 2012
2:44 pm
Centrist, remember this?
“When you look at this final agreement that we came to with the White House, I got 98 percent of what I wanted. I’m pretty happy.”
honested
June 7th, 2012
2:50 pm
td,
It might surprise you to find out I do not consider your opinion when delving through economic FACTS.
It might further surprise you to come to understand how little value I place on wrong-wing ideology to determine a strategy for collecting adequate revenue.
Adequate revenue is absolutely necessary to set aside the 8 years of inadequacy coupled with pointless military expenditure.
Centrist
June 7th, 2012
3:15 pm
@ DannyX – This is the last on this subject from me today, so you can have the last word:
Obama has his class warfare campaign issue which is most important to him, but no chance of an agreement on raising taxes on those professionals, two income families, and small businesses who are already at the top of our very progressive tax brackets that further increases taxes with phaseouts of exemptions and deductions raising their effective tax rate. They are a relatively small group, are in the highest effective tax brackets (much higher than those who make over $1 million/yr), and pay the bulk of income taxes. The Democratic Congress even balked at targeting the golden goose any more.
Jeb Bush said he would agree to a 10 to 1 spending cut to tax increase which was the same percentage of the tentative long term “Grand Bargain” until Obama attempted to then jack the tax portion 50% ($400 billion) higher and killed the deal.
Your latest Boehner quotes refer to the one year debt ceiling bargain subsequently reached – no tax increases and BOTH sides seemed happy with the agreement (or there wouldn’t have been one). Another short or long term agreement will have to be made within the next year, and with a more conservative Congress – the spending cuts to increased revenue terms will not get better for Obama (if re-elected as I suspect).
td
June 7th, 2012
3:21 pm
honested
June 7th, 2012
2:50 pm
It does not surprise me in the least little bit but does it surprise me that I do not care what you think? I am not going to let your socialist half truths and untruths to go unchallenged and will post about the fallacies of your points. The other readers (if they care) can decide which side they believe.
double
June 7th, 2012
3:32 pm
The bad the incoming president inherits,the good belongs to the outgoing president.If he’s a two termer a double heaping.
DannyX
June 7th, 2012
3:48 pm
“Another short or long term agreement will have to be made within the next year, and with a more conservative Congress – the spending cuts to increased revenue terms will not get better for Obama (if re-elected as I suspect).”
They have to have an agreement on the tax cuts before the next Congress is seated. This is why Obama holds all the cards. I think they should expire if Republicans refuse to negotiate.
Kris ($100)
June 7th, 2012
3:50 pm
I would sign a pledge for $100 a day that’s better than minimum wage and like most republicans I would take the money and run. A pledge signed by a republican and Newt is not worth the paper its written on.
Kris
June 7th, 2012
3:58 pm
My bad
I forgot to mention In honor of all the crooks in the GA GOP I just pledged $100 to president OBAMA
Obama 2012
td
June 7th, 2012
4:06 pm
Kris
June 7th, 2012
3:58 pm
It is not right for you to spend that welfare check on a political contribution.