Mark Levin Says GOP Leadership Threatening Chairmanships Over Plan B Vote

Mark Levin ^ | 12-20-12 | Mark Levin

[ziravan]

Exactly. I don’t support or align with Pelosi and Obama on raising taxes on job creators.

This was a tax raising bill.

Now, you could be right and probably are correct that this will cause the gop-e to wither and accept a worse deal than this bad deal later on. Either way, it’s a sellout of our core principles.

You think this deal could have saved the party. I have a different take: so long as the gop-e sacrifices our core principles, we are ready lost, no matter where the final price point lies. Whether we cave here or at a worse place later is mere semantics for both the party and the long term outlook for the nation.

The only way to move forward is by sticking to what we know works and raising taxes on job creators in a recession/depression ain’t it.

The final deal might indeed be worse. I’ll take any spine from the GOP where I can find it. I’m pleased.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”This was a tax raising bill.”

I have no way of knowing if you believe EVERY-THING you hear on talk radio, or if you just lie like many others are doing on this.

But newsflash. Those taxes go up automatically.That is the law.
So this bill would of stopped them. Defeating it means our taxes will go up.

In two weeks 2013 it will be proved that the claim that defeating this bill stopped tax increases on US was a BIG lie, that will be when we all see our taxes go up and the lynch mobs come after Republicans for raising their taxes.

Imagine how ridiculous the lies will be then.

[ziravan]

I don’t agree with your opinion, but I do respect it.

When and how much taxes go up are subject to some final deal. If we “go over the cliff”, that can and probably will be fixed later. Neither side can let the sequestration stand, for different reasons and despite the partying of the far left.

You’re carrying on like this is an either/or proposition. It’s not. At the end of the day, taxes will likely go up for job creators (stupid backwards concession, but that’s your GOP-e) and the Bush tax cuts will hold steady for everyone else. The real deal is what concessions can be had on spending.

The sky is not falling. Some deal will be reached. Conservatives showing a backbone is always a good thing.

[sickoflibs]

RE :” The sky is not falling. Some deal will be reached. Conservatives showing a backbone is always a good thing.”

I recall a very similar suicidal stand on the FICA tax cuts exactly a year ago and in the end they had so many of their own district voters calling them and screaming at them that they begged Bohner for a cave vote, which they passed quietly and out of view of cameras..

That ill thought out fight accomplished nothing except maybe helping Obama picked up seats in both houses.

Its lose-lose.

RE :”When and how much taxes go up are subject to some final deal. If we “go over the cliff”, that can and probably will be fixed later.”

FICA was finally caved on last February after that December stand against extending those tax cuts, so lets say this drags on into February with us all paying the higher tax rates, then Obama can propose almost anything and it will be a tax cut.

So I dont see how this leads to anything but a deal that is much worse than this B proposal.

If the House gets better tax cuts and spending cuts I will be the first to admit I was wrong, but I am guessing that those who claimed that killing B was killing the tax increase will never admit they were wrong.

[kabar]

FICA was finally caved on last February after that December stand against extending those tax cuts

FICA tax cuts? First, the 2% payroll tax holiday for employees is not a real cut. It is an unfunded stimulus for the USG. Under the law, the USG must make up the lost revenue to the SSTF by reimbursing the SSTF in the amount of the loss by issuing non-market T-bills (IOUs) and depositing them into the SSTF.

Second, SS has been running in the red since 2010. The shortfall must be made up by cashing in some of the IOUs in the SSTF. The money comes from the General Fund to redeem them. 42 cents of every federal dollar spent is borrowed so we are borrowing money to pay for SS benefits. The payroll tax holiday increases the shortfall (revenue collected versus benefits paid), which means that we must borrow more money to make up a larger shortfall. Here is some data from the first payroll tax holiday.

We’ll start with the basic numbers. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued its most recent projections for Social Security’s income and outgo Jan. 26, along with its twice-yearly “Budget and Economic Outlook.” What those numbers show is that Social Security ran a $37 billion deficit last year, is projected to run a $45 billion deficit this year, and more red ink every year thereafter.

Source: CBO “Combined OASDI Trust Funds; January 2011 Baseline” 26 Jan 2011. Note: See “Primary Surplus” line (which is negative, indicating a deficit)

Matters are even worse than this chart shows. In December, Congress passed a Social Security tax reduction. Workers are temporarily paying 2 percentage points less, from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent, in Social Security payroll taxes this calendar year. Since the government is making up the shortfall out of general revenues, CBO’s deficit projections for the trust funds do not include that. But CBO’s figures predict that the “payroll tax holiday” will cost the government’s general fund $85 billion in this fiscal year and $29 billion in fiscal year 2012 (which starts Oct.1, 2011.) Since every dollar of that will have to be borrowed, the combined effect of the ” tax holiday” and the annual deficits will amount to a $130 billion addition to the federal deficit in the current fiscal year, and $59 billion in fiscal 2012.

Social Security has passed a tipping point. For years it generated more revenue than it consumed, holding down the overall federal deficit and allowing Congress to spend more freely for other things. But those days are gone. Rather than lessening the federal deficit, Social Security has at last — as long predicted — become a drag on the government’s overall finances.

As recently as October, CBO was projecting that it would be 2016 before outlays regularly exceed revenues. But Social Security’s fiscal troubles are more severe than was thought, and the latest projections show the permanent deficits started several years ahead of earlier predictions.

Don’t be confused by the fact that the trust funds are projected to continue growing for several more years. That’s because Treasury must still credit interest payments to the funds on the borrowings from earlier years. But unless taxes are increased or other spending is cut severely, the government will have to borrow from the public to pay the interest that it owes to the trust funds.

I wish the Reps would tell the truth about the "FICA tax cuts" that are adding to our deficits and debt. We are borrowing money to pay benefits with or without these "cuts," and the tax holiday is making matters worse. The hard truth is that the "FICA tax cut" is just more government stimulus spending cloaked in the guise of a tax cut. There is no free lunch.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Second, SS has been running in the red since 2010. The shortfall must be made up by cashing in some of the IOUs in the SSTF. The money comes from the General Fund to redeem them. 42 cents of every federal dollar spent is borrowed so we are borrowing money to pay for SS benefits. “

I have done entire posts here explaining exactly that.
And Medicare is even in worse shape than FICA, running deficits since GWB,

But the GOPs voting most loyal base are those on medicare and SS so they (GOP) will never admit that there is a problem right now. They always propose cutting those +10 years away.

You miss my point on FIAC/SS.

My point was that this GOP house tried to say FICA tax cuts must be ‘paid for’, but upper income ones do not.
This worked out so badly for them that they eventually begged Bohner to let them extend the FICA tax cuts just as O demanded.

Nothing positive is gained with these sort of disasters, and I think this is headed that way.

It was the 2010 lame duck GOP minority in the Senate that allowed these FICA cuts exactly two years ago, to get the 2 year extension on Bush tax cuts to get us through Os reelection. Now we are screwed.

[kabar]

And Medicare is even in worse shape than FICA, running deficits since GWB,

Medicare Part A (HI Trust Fund) has been running a deficit since 2008, but it is much worse than that. SMI (Medicare Parts B and D) are consuming an increasingly bigger share of the the General Fund. Why? Because by law the premiums collected for those programs cover only 25% of the costs. The remaining 75% must come from the General Fund. According to the Trustees Report, in FY2011, this amounted to $222 billion. These numbers will continue to increase as our population over 65 doubles in the next 20 years and actual healthcare costs increase.

But the GOPs voting most loyal base are those on medicare and SS so they (GOP) will never admit that there is a problem right now. They always propose cutting those +10 years away.

Medicare will have to be addressed way before that. Even though Obamacare extends the solvency of the HI trust fund by 8 years to 2024, something will have to be done or Medicare Part A will go bankrupt and be only able to pay reduced benefits. We are cashing in the IOUs from the HI Trust Fund to make up the difference, which means more money from the GF and more debt and deficit. And if the truth be known, I doubt that the $716 billion will ever be taken from Medicare due to political pressure. Under Obamacare, starting next year, payments to doctors and hospitals must be reduced by 31%. Not going to happen thus driving up the costs of the program and greater taxpayer subsidies. We are also told that extending unemployment benefits helps the economy.

My point was that this GOP house tried to say FICA tax cuts must be ‘paid for’, but upper income ones do not. This worked out so badly for them that they eventually begged Bohner to let them extend the FICA tax cuts just as O demanded.

They are not tax cuts and the Reps were happy to continue them for another year. It is just another stimulus vehicle--no different from Obama's Porkulus bill. The political class believed that it offered the best way to get more money in more pockets of individual consumers since tax rebates only helped those paying income taxes. But they are borrowing the money to do so.

It was the 2010 lame duck GOP minority in the Senate that allowed these FICA cuts exactly two years ago, to get the 2 year extension on Bush tax cuts to get us through Os reelection. Now we are screwed.

Exactly. The GOP lame duck Congress gave up whatever leverage it had, including getting real spending cuts. There have been none as spending continues to increase. Boehner and his leadership team always finds ways to postpone the fight and cave so that we avoid confronting the basic fiscal issues. They continue to do so. I say go over the cliff, accept the political consequences and start the needed national dialogue. We stand and fight now while we still control the House. We are trying to save the country, not maintain the status quo, which will destroy this nation.

[hummingbird]

Ack, Ack!