If an army crosses the Rubicon, but immediately scurries back to the other side, did they really cross the Rubicon? If a vicious alcoholic who's been plastered every day for years manages to spend a full day sober only to go on a horrific bender the next day, should we give him credit for his flash experiment with sobriety?
I say "yes," and I give the Republicans on the supercommittee credit for offering a few hundred billion in tax cuts through ending some tax expenditures. That breaks the Norquist pledge and a bad day for Grover is a good day for America.
But, of course, they didn't just cross back to the other side of the Rubicon or crack open a lite beer. They turned and ran back across as fast as their tax-rate cutting legs could carry them. In exchange for about $300 billion of new tax revenue (over 10 years) they tried to extract $3.6 trillion. And by locking in new rate cuts, they'd ensure that the next round of deficit reduction -- a round that will have to come, given the failure of the committee to achieve the needed long term savings -- all the savings would have to come from spending cuts.
So, good for the Democrats (so far) for resisting, and I stand by my view from the other day that given the automatic triggers, no deal is better than a bad deal.
Still, once you've crossed the river and stayed sober for even just a day, even if you blew it immediately thereafter, you've shown us something new. There's been a tiny break in the force. It was quickly sealed, but for a moment, it was there. And that may turn out to be important.
This post originally appeared at Jared Bernstein's On The Economy blog.
(Please dont sue me Mr. Lucas)
But (elsewhere on HP) even I give them some credit for standing up to Norquist and showing a willingness to raise taxes.
It just goes to show you that even a Repug can finally figure out things are bad and getting worse.
****Some people really believed the Repug BS about never, NEVER raising taxes.
When desperate, even a Repug can and will raise taxes.
Reagan did (raised taxes).
What have we been spending all of this increase on ? Number one is the military and its related expenses . When I hear the republicans propose a rational way to reduce this budget item I will be happy to listen to the rest of their proposal . Absent a rational plan to reduce spending we will be forced to raise taxes whether or not Grover (or anyone else) likes it .
The idea that we should simply cut the budget across the board in 2013 makes little sense . Our Constitution places the responsibility for orginating spending bills on the House . If the members do not want to fulfil their duty to debate and create spending bills that reflect the wishes of the American people we should replace them with members who understand and accept their duty .
Education should be a right, not a priviledge, Reagan destroyed this country. .
The liberal dems kept 99% of their seats in the last election, the Reaganomics loving blue dog DLC dems lost 50% of theirs.
What a waste of time the whole GOP field is. No patriotic American would ever vote for any of these Tories. (look it up if you don't know what a Tory is.)
Vote for the Kucinich, Warren, Grayson CPC progressive Caucus folks, not the DLC, New democrats, pragmatic Progressive, Blue dogs, New American Foundation, Progressive Policy Council, Third Way DINOs.
But then vote for the Dems, including Obama in the general since the GOP/Tea are anti demo racy, anti republic, anti "the Beast" Tories. They are out to take away your very right to vote and reduce you to serfdom. Ike was the last good GOP.
http://www.ombwatch.org/files/budget/debtceilingfaq.pdf
If they succeed, we all KNOW who is going to get it in the buttt.....
And I am tired of getting skewered.
At least if they fail.....they have to find another way and take more time to make us bend over to get it....... {wink}
Failure of the Super Committee in November 2011 is of no consequence until November of 2012. At that time, voter concern about entitlement cuts of any description will be far ahead of whatever's in second place. Millions of voters who depend on (or for other reasons support) entitlement programs will ask, what happens next?
They won't like the answer; but they will be offered a way out. With these voters, 9% unemployment will no longer be viewed as the economic equivalent of bubonic plague. The continuing unemployment problem may have to share the voting booth with impending entitlement cuts. Some say the 2012 election will be entirely about the economy; buy I say maybe not!
However, if it's a set-up, I think that Obama and the Democrats (and not those Blue Dog Dems) just sort of stumbled/bungled their way into it.
I know that for some readers here I don't need to explain, but for those who don't get it: do not corner your enemy unless you intend to annihilate him. And if you set out for annihilation, it might be your own that you bring about. Because no enemy fights like a cornered enemy (1).
Each side needs to give the other side a way to agree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Bastogne
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chosin_Reservoir
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khe_Sanh
There is just SO much hypocrisy and spin going on........
I agree .. hypocrisy and spin abound ... on BOTH sides, though definitely much more on the R than on the D side.
As long as you continue to support social programs that require an increasing number of people to contribute to pay for the benefits the current people enjoy the more quickly the program will continue to add to our debts. You simply can't go from 30 people paying for 1 person to 3 people paying for 1 and expect an entitlement to be sustainable.
We keep doing things like suggesting rich people can pay for it through higher taxes -- but the fact is that doesn't even come close to closing our future entitlement costs. And neither does closing the loopholes for rich people or businesses. There simply is NOT enough money.
But we keep pretending and living beyond our means because we continue to believe the law of Gravity doesn't apply to us.
There are $2.6T in special issue Treasuries sitting in a box at Social Security HQ that are going to have to be redeemed from the General Fund in order to pay benefits to recipients. In other words, the taxpayers are directly on the hook for Social Security benefits. Nobody is proposing not paying those benefits, but your statement that this does not affect the deficit and debt is simply not true.
The perfect recipe to bankrupt any nation...
That's Grover Norquist's agenda and why he is al-Qaeda and our other real enemies greatest asset within America..!
http://costofwar.com/en/
http://front.moveon.org/what-eats-up-53-cents-of-every-tax-dollar/?rc=daily.share&id=32689-20014270-RA4nZxx