Posted on 11/04/2011 6:36:15 PM PDT by mnehring
I’m a day late on this but it’s too intriguing not to blog. You can read the actual letter, which is exceedingly tame, on Mike Simpson’s website. Among the signatories: …Ron Paul.
The bad news? If this happens, some people might be paying a little more. The good news? We’ll never have to read another “time for a grand bargain” column from Tom Friedman again. Dude, I think we should take the deal.
A group of 40 House Republicans for the first time Wednesday encouraged Congress’s deficit reduction committee to explore new revenue as part of a broad deal that would make a major dent in the nation’s debt, joining 60 Democrats in a rare bipartisan effort to urge the “supercommittee” to reach a big deal that could also include entitlement cuts…
Among those who signed were several dozen Republicans who had previously signed a pledge promising they would not support a net tax increase. Among the Democratic signers were some of the House’s most liberal members who have opposed entitlement cuts…
Rep. Steven C. LaTourette (R-Ohio) said if he had a nickel for every one of the Republicans who said they supported the letter’s goal but feared how [Americans for Tax Reform President Grover] Norquist would react, “I’d be rich and retired, and we’d have 200 signatures on the letter.”…
[S]everal Republicans who signed the letter were careful to note they were not endorsing a net tax increase — but rather a broad rewrite of the tax code that might close loopholes and lower rates, while still producing more government revenue.
Even more intriguingly, Boehner himself came out today and said “I think there is room for revenues” in the Super Committee’s work while emphasizing that the GOP will only tolerate so much. When his staff was asked where, pray tell, these new revenues would be coming from, an aide suggested “increasing government fees, selling government assets and raising co-payments in government healthcare programs.” I.e. no tax hikes. So that’s that, right?
Six members of a congressional “super committee” have struck out on their own in a new effort to come up with a plan to slash America’s huge deficits before a November 23 deadline…
Aides stressed that the six lawmakers are still in talks with the full super committee and have not splintered off. Instead, they are making an internal effort to try to broker a bipartisan deal.
Significantly, at least two Republican members of the smaller group are willing to consider revenue increases as part of a deficit-reduction plan, one of the congressional aides and a source with direct knowledge of the talks said.
Remember, the Super Committee only needs seven votes to approve a plan; there are six Democrats and six Republicans participating, so either one of those two unnamed GOPers who are open to new revenues could trigger some sort of “grand bargain” proposal involving entitlement reform. And if you’ve got six Democrats agreeing to entitlement reform, they’re going to want something more than “increasing government fees” in return. James Clyburn, one of the Democrats on the Committee, is talking about getting rid of some deductions, but whether that would pass muster with the GOP is unclear. Thirty-three Republican senators sent a letter of their own to the Super Committee today warning them away from trying to raise revenues. Whether they can get the rest of the caucus to go along and join a filibuster might depend on what Boehner and the House GOP do if/when a “grand bargain” makes it to the floor. As it is, Time magazine quotes a Senate source who puts the odds of the Super Committee deadlocking at 75 percent, up from 70 just two weeks ago. Watch this clip of Pat Toomey, another Committee member, talking about the current stalemate and you’ll think that estimate is too low.
Here’s Boehner today doing his “Grover who?” shtick after being asked about revenues. Exit question: It’s probably not a good sign for fiscal conservatives that members of Congress are already working to undo the automatic spending cuts that’ll be triggered if the Committee deadlocks, huh?
That only works in reality.
Ever been to DC? Reality out there is something only seen on TV.
The increased revenues stated in Laffer’s theory are a result of action which is finding the proper ratio, this is a direct action call. In other words, w/ Laffer it is a result, while this is calling for a direct cause (ie directly ‘raise’ revenue).
RINO Sniveling bastards....
“Why is “compromise” always in the DEMOCRATS favor?”
Doesn’t have to be this time. Depends if the GOP grows some balls.
Why get upset?
The polls show Repubs support CAIN who wants to add a NEW tax.
Cain supporters gave them the go ahead. So don’t complain.
for the names...
there is no need to increase the tax RATE in order to increase tax REVENUE
since the fedgov is in every transaction, the trick lies in two things:
1. the number of transactions
2. the trade deficit
you want to increase the number of transactions to make the economy more diverse, increasing the chance of attracting foreign dollars either through investment or direct sales of domestic products
the main goal being to flip the trade deficit and increase the money flowing INTO the US.
to kick this off... decreasing taxation will allow the private sector a chance to develop new products with the money they are no longer sending into the fedgov
of course, what I’m suggesting limits the amount of money, and thereby power, flowing into washington.
what do you think the odds of that happening are??
It's called a “Constitutional Convention” in which the several states get together and cut the size of the federal government back to the 1800’s, install strict term limits for all elected officials and abolish every government employee and every bureaucracy not specifically authorized by the constitution.
I'm not being facicious here either. I don't think we can fix this out of control government by electing a few conservatives.
The Framers put in the option for the states to call a Constitutional Convention for this exact scenario that we now face. How smart they were. Now lets get started doing it!
Read about the process here.
http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article/5005
No matter how much “new revenue” is garnered for the public trough, there will never be actual spending cuts.
Ronald Reagan found that to be true. George HW Bush fell into the same trap.
Stalemate, run out of money and another debt ceiling crisis. Increasing taxes won’t generate a dimes’s worth of deficit reduction. Raising taxes is just away for the Dims to punish their enemies: the productive class. The Dims also want to undermine the GOP with their base and there are apparently enough rino traitors willing to help them.
I forgot to mention the obvious
which trying to increase revenues to lower our debt and improve the country fiscally...
CUT SPENDING BELOW LAST YEARS TAX REVENUE... IMMEDIATELY
Go back to DU, we are not here to give ground, if they do nothing we are better off.
The republican leadership are nothing but leftwing socialists like their democrat friends.
Get real, Java.
No fee hikes, no deduction cuts—no tax hikes. Cut spending! Begin with cutting federal funding for local governments to zero.
Remember the ‘Blue Dog Democrat’ group in 08, they helped reduce the amount of TARP money going out the door? This is what I mean by having some balance.
By the way, I’m a Conservative Tea Party member, proudly displaying a Cain 2012 bumper sticker on my car that he sent my for my $100 donation to his campaign.
Eliminate federal funding to local governments, cut spending in general and eliminate local zoning regulations against new, small manufacturing starts in rural areas. That is the right way to get more revenues.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.