Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle for 2012!
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 11/04/2011 2:22:06 AM PDT by markomalley
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) made clear on Thursday that when it comes to a deficit reduction deal, his position hasn’t changed: Tax increases are out, but new revenues could be in.
The question of taxes and revenue has bedeviled congressional and administration negotiators for months, and they were at the center of the dispute between Boehner and President Obama when their talks for a possible “grand bargain” on the budget fell apart over the summer.
As the clock ticks down on the deficit supercommittee to find at least $1.2 trillion in savings, the size and scope of new revenues remains a chief sticking point.
“I think there’s room for revenues, but there clearly is a limit to the revenues that may be available,” Boehner told reporters Thursday during a roundtable discussion.
He added, however, that he was only open to new revenues if Democrats agreed to significant changes to mandatory spending programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. “Without real reform on the entitlement side, I don’t know how you put any revenue on the table,” he said.
Republicans have signaled a willingness to include new revenues, but distinguishing between what is merely additional federal revenue and what is a tax increase on individuals or businesses has been a difficult task. Boehner’s proposal to Obama over the summer would have generated up to $800 billion in added revenue over 10 years, as a result of predicted economic growth generated by an overhaul of the tax code.
When the White House demanded $400 billion more in revenues, Boehner said no, arguing that generating that much new revenue would have required a tax increase.
Boehner has become increasingly involved in the supercommittee’s deliberations and has met for three consecutive days with Republican members of the panel. The GOP members last week made a $2.2 trillion offer that included, by their calculations, $640 billion in new revenue from fees, insurance changes, increased economic growth and a change in the way inflation is calculated for government programs.
Democrats rejected their offer, while Republicans turned down a Democratic proposal that included $1.3 trillion in revenues, which the GOP dismissed as unacceptable tax increases.
“It’s the same conversation that’s been going on all year,” Boehner said Thursday. “They want more revenue than we’re willing to give, and they’re not willing to do as much entitlement reform as we’d like to do.”
He would not delve into specifics of what he would and would not accept, but he noted in exasperation: “I’ve seen more models than I can count about how you could do this. There are a lot of possibilities.”
The supercommittee has until Nov. 23 to reach a deal and send it to the full Congress, and its members have been pulled in every direction in recent days. On Wednesday, a group of 100 House members – 60 Democrats and 40 Republicans – sent a letter to the panel urging it to find at least $4 trillion in savings and to include entitlement reforms, discretionary spending cuts and new revenues. The next day, 33 Republican senators sent a missive warning the panel not to raise taxes.
The panel members themselves have shown little outward signs of progress. With the exception of a public hearing on Tuesday, the committee has not met in full in a week, and members have been shuttling through the Capitol to smaller off-shoot meetings.
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) was spotted leaving the House floor Thursday evening and heading into the nearby office of a GOP member, Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.).
While the nation is not at risk of default as it was in August, Boehner said the current effort to strike a debt deal “is certainly as important if not more important” than it was over the summer.
“You don’t have a date driving this, but its pretty clear, having watched what’s going on in Europe, that if we don’t do what’s needed to get our debt down, you’re going to see a reaction in the markets, you could have another downgrade of our debt,” Boehner said.
At the same time, he brushed off the suggestion that if the committee could not break its stalemate, the party leaders would have to step in and take over the talks once again.
“It’s one thing to have discussions with the members, but I think it’s important for the committee to succeed,” the Speaker said, “and so I think you see leaders on both sides of the aisle, both sides of the Capitol, work with their members trying to get there.”
A failure by the supercommittee to reach a deal would trigger across-the-board spending cuts to the military and domestic programs.
The cuts would hit in 2013, and some lawmakers have suggested they would try to stop them from occurring, particularly those to the Pentagon. Boehner said on Thursday he would feel morally “bound” to accept the defense cuts if the supercommittee failed.
“Me personally, yes. I would feel bound by it,” he said. “It was part of the agreement. The sequester is ugly. Why? Because we don’t want anybody to go there. That’s why we have to succeed.”
EVERYONE should pay Federal Income Tax at the IDENTICAL PERCENTAGE RATE minus their deductions for themselves and their kids, mortgage and charity...PERIOD. Close the loopholes.
Cut me a break. GE paid zero dollars in taxes last year, even though it made billions in profits because of tax shelters and loop holes. I assume you are against a flat tax? The flat tax would reduce tax rates, but it would increase revenues (not to mention, eliminate 10's of thousands of pages of internal revenue rules/regs). It would probably even broaden the base, causing taxes to be applicable on a portion of the 47% that currently do not pay federal income tax.
Face it, we have to assess taxes somehow, some way, to pay for the legitimate functions the feds are required to perform. The fact that 47% of income earners pay nothing in federal taxes, sucks. That's right, I'm in favor of changing the tax code to ensure a large chunk of the 47% pay something. They need to put a skin in the game. Hence, changing (reducing) the tax code to include more taxpayers would increase revenues, without raising rates.
“EVERYONE should pay Federal Income Tax”
Wrong. No one should pay Federal Income Tax. Repeal the sixteenth amendment.
BTW, you had the brains to wonder and the gumption to ask. You’re not dumb :-)
See: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2802514/posts
I agree with this proposal. Sounds like a win;win to me.
The code word “loopholes” means eliminating deductions for mortgages (many of which were acquired using income qualifiers based on many decades of existing tax code) and favored tax status for retirement savings in 401K/IRA’s
The solution to our decline is not MORE REVENUE, it is LESS SPENDING ..... when did this government EVER apply "more revenue" to paying down anything? All that ""more revenue" gives our govt is more access to credit to run up more debt. You give a drunk panhandler standing outside a liquor store $10 and think he is going to spend it on health food? I sure don't know where everyone making $100K+ is putting all their money they “don't need” and who thinks putting thousands more per family in obama’s govt overdraft account solves a damn thing about curbing the damage caused by congressional spendaholics
Would you support making that income qualifying for SS benefits?
LOL! You can’t tax capital gains until someone sells something and makes a capital gain. Checked the housing market and the stock market lately?
All that higher taxes on capital gains does, is make people like me hang onto our assets and not sell them unless we are desperate.
Hence higher capital gains tax usually mean less revenue.
Is he kidding? Maybe he thinks we are all so stupid we don’t know where revenues come from.
I get capital gains income from stock dividends.
They are taxed as capital gains at about 15%.
From the IRS.
Effective January 1, 2003, dividends paid by most corporations are taxable as long-term capital gains. The new 15% and 5% capital gains rate applies to qualified dividends.
Yes, and perhaps even better benefits for those making over 100,000 who then would have to pay more in.
I think the cap is at 100,000 now.
oh, dividends.... Yes, now I remember
I just got a check for $7 and change from my last long term holding, I hope it doesn’t push me into the millionaire tax bracket
The only way to increase revenues is for the progs and libs to pay their share. No more free rides for the able-bodied would solve the revenue problems.
BMG
Boehner is an embarrassment. More than that, he is an American traitor. He’s sold his soul to the Marxists.
Thanks for your post. I’m in my 68th year of life. Sometimes the synapses don’t snap like they used to.
He is such a disappointment.
You think that’s bad, ask Boner his definition of “spending cut.” I bet it won’t match your definition of the term.
Thanks for the reference. Very enlightening and is easy to explain. I like the bit about higher taxes affecting people the same way socialism does. Negative events—like rising taxes and burdensome sociaslism—cause them to pull back.
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.