Top House Leaders Offer Conflicting Views Of Where Debt Talks Go Next (Dems: Only $1T in cuts)

WSJ ^ | 7/10/2011 | Damian Paletta

[Qbert]

Top House leaders offered markedly different views on the future of the debt talks after Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner said he would no longer pursue a $4 trillion deficit-reduction deal proposed by the White House.

Republicans now want a smaller deal, which would reduce the deficit by between $2 trillion to $2.5 trillion over 10 years, and consists largely of spending cuts. House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.) said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that the larger deal broke down because Democrats had insisted on including tax increases as part of any package, which is something Republicans flatly wouldn’t accept.

[Snip]

Mr. Boehner issued a statement late Saturday that said  after a conversation with Mr. Obama, efforts by both parties to reach a deal to reduce the federal deficit by $4 trillion over the next decade reached an impasse this weekend over the issue of taxes. Mr. Boehner said negotiators will instead work toward an agreement closer to $2 trillion.

Mr. McCarthy said policy makers should agree to cuts identified during weeks of bipartisan talks led by Vice President Joseph Biden, which he pegged at close to $2.4 trillion.

House Minority Whip Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.), appearing on the same program, said the Biden talks only identified roughly $1 trillion in reductions. He said Democrats would only agree to those spending cuts if they were accompanied by the elimination of certain tax breaks.

“Our Republicans colleagues are dreaming if they think we had $2.4 trillion in cuts,” Mr. Van Hollen said, who participated in the Biden group talks.

[Qbert]

"House Minority Whip Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.), appearing on the same program, said the Biden talks only identified roughly $1 trillion in reductions. He said Democrats would only agree to those spending cuts if they were accompanied by the elimination of certain tax breaks."

Preview of the upcoming week...

[freekitty]

These guys need to get a brain. The deficit is 14 tril. A lot of people both sides aren[’t going to be reelected because they can[’t do their jobs.

[Owen]

Okay, that’s it.

WHO CARES ABOUT 2021? WHO CARES ABOUT 10 YEARS?

Tell me about $300B in cuts for FY2011. We Don’t Care About Anything But Multiple Triple Digit Billions Off FY2011!!

[Owen]

haha oops, 2012.

[Xyz22]

Stand your ground Boehner! No tax increases and insist on at least $2T in cuts. The deadline is Aug 2nd and I say Let ‘er rip!

[wiggen]

A trillion a year can work. I don’t expect full measures at this time. In 2013 maybe when we control everything but not today.

[sanjuanbob]

Assuming the debt limit is increased, when will we go through all of this (the $) and revisit another ceiling increase?

[Qbert]

“A trillion a year can work.”

And a Trillion over a decade won’t.

[Mariner]

The Democrats never surrender and when the GOP compromises, they ask for more and negate the original deal.

We simply CAN NOT deal with these people. They are not sincere and are blatantly dishonest.

We must roll them, defeat them or eliminate them. It's the only 3 options.

The GOP leadership is either part of the cabal or fatally naive.

[Qbert]

IIRC, the debt limit hike would cover borrowing authority through 2012- just in time for Obama to demagogue away again for his re-election campaign.

[Jim Noble]

I could go with a trillion in cuts - by the end of the week.

[rednek]

“I could go with a trillion in cuts - by the end of the week.”

I’m with you - a trillion by the end of the week works. I have this message for all of them. No cuts = No Budget for next year. No budget = No Spending. The should be no continuing resolution either. Shut the whole damn thing down until someone comes to their senses!....red.

[ImpBill]

The pubies will fold and in the end only kick the ball a little further down the road. They will raise the Debt Ceiling by much more than they will get in cuts.

[newzjunkey]

The thing that burns me is if those tax hikes on $200K+ were so critical why didn't Obama do it when he had a filibuster proof senate and a house majority of his own party?

McCarthy is right: the votes weren't there. If they were not there with huge Democrat majorities, they sure aren't going to be there now.

I'm glad he put it to Candy Crowley. She still needs to get with "let's move!" and "my plate." Clearly "shared sacrifice" hasn't left her without a meal.

[screaminsunshine]

Cut the damn government agencies. Get rid of Obamacare. Jeez. How simple is that. That is what we want. No to EPA, DHS, TSA, and the rest. Shut them down.

[Qbert]

“The thing that burns me is if those tax hikes on $200K+ were so critical why didn’t Obama do it when he had a filibuster proof senate and a house majority of his own party?”

So they could now try to place all the blame on those “evil Tea Party extremists pushing for ‘austerity’ instead of demanding a sense of ‘shared responsibility’ in order to sabotage the vibrant ‘recovery’ and bring down the first black president because of racism, and to help their ‘billionaire and millionaire fat cat oil buddies”. Something like that.

I’ve felt for a long time that we are dealing with a new breed of Democrat here. The old idiots (Michael Dukakis, etc.) at least were honest about wanting to raise taxes. I think taxes with this new crop is more about demagoguery, and less about raising actual revenues (they print all the money they want anyways).