Both parties have put up their own respective budget deals, each one forming a theme throughout. The Democrat’s want lots of taxes, and the Republicans want lots of spending cuts. In addition to their spending cuts, the Republicans close several loopholes and reform the tax code throughout. The Democrats, well, they just raise the taxes. In this post, I’ll be looking at each plan, and the history of the plans. I believe that John Boehner’s plan is superior, although I would support the addition of a clause that would require addition entitlement reform talks to begin at a set date, with forced cuts if a deal isn’t reached.
John Boehner’s plan offers $800 Million in new revenue, all through non-tax increased revenue. There will be the systematic closing of loopholes and reform and tightening in the tax code, something many Democrats have told me they would support. The Republicans would support this because this isn’t increasing taxes. His plan also includes $1.4 Trillion in savings through reform to the health care programs, $300 billion in cuts to mandatory programs, $200 billion in adjustments to the method the consumer price index is used by the federal government to set salaries and benefits, and $300 billion in further discretionary spending cuts.
The Democrats’ plan calls for $1.6 Trillion in tax increases, with smaller spending cuts, of which would be extremely inconsequential to the long term goal of deficit reduction. This is nearly identical to President Obama’s budgets, of which have never even had a single Democrat vote for. Let’s examine those voting records:
99-0, against the President’s budget
97-0, against the President’s budget
414-0, against the President’s budget
If the President cannot even secure confidence within his own party that his budget will work, then I can guarantee that the Democrats’ budget plans will not pass. The Republican plans have a modest chance at passage, based on compromise with closing the tax loopholes. The Republicans aught to agree to minimal tax increases of about $200 Billion, in order to gain some revenue (but not enough to negatively impact the economy), and enough to secure the Democrat votes.
The most important thing with the passage of any budget would be an agreement that, once it passes, talks on full-scale entitlement reform take place in the future, as we simply must reform this 80% chunk of our budget. If talks do not result in a deal, massive forced cuts must take place to the entitlement programs, and massive tax increases must occur. This would force the Republicans and the Democrats to reach a deal for the entitlements.
I hope a deal is made. If not, we’ll deal with going over the fiscal cliff, which will absolutely destroy all economic progress made in the past decade.
What do you support, and what would you want? Say so below in the comments.
December 4th, 2012 at 5:51 am
Yesterday’s move just shows the truth that Obama does not want to resolve the ‘fiscal cliff’ at all. His goal is to wreck the economy further and use it as an excuse for further expansion of government.
December 4th, 2012 at 2:54 pm
Ryan, it’s beyond be how you can expect anyone of reasonable intellect can give an iota of credence to your analysis.
Not only is the Boehner proposal the very thing that voters overwhelmingly objected to (and no, that’s not reading into or claiming some interpretation) but it also follows the disturbing pattern of the GOP spewing unsubstantiated numbers that don’t stand up to scrutiny. It’s the same thing: lower taxes on the wealthy, increase taxes on the middle class, close some unnamed loop holes that we’ll discuss after the fact, throw in a dash of pixie dust and wa la, cupcakes for everyone. And that’s precisely what John offered.
There’s nothing that rationalizes how $1.2 trillion in savings and $800 billion in revenue is achievable. Where or how do we achieve that $300 billion in “mandatory” savings? Those numbers simply don’t compute.
The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has pretty much exposed Boehner’s plan (or non-plan) as a fraud. It calls for raising payroll taxes on middle class workers by $110 billion with the only possible solution for other cuts is to come back at a later date to once again target the working class.
Perhaps the bright side to this is that the GOP seems quite uneducated from the previous election and could very well be on their way to extinction.
December 4th, 2012 at 10:40 pm
“I hope a deal is made. If not, we’ll deal with going over the fiscal cliff, which will absolutely destroy all economic progress made in the past decade.”
Obama already destroyed the economic progress that was made for a generation. He turned what should have been a short-term crisis into a long-term cancer.
December 5th, 2012 at 5:05 am
Ryan, it’s beyond me how you can expect anyone of reasonable intellect can give an iota of credence to your analysis.
Ronald, it’s amazing you are attempting to make such personal attacks, when you don’t realize that you are representing the Democratic party, and what you say reflects onto the agenda you are trying to pursue. Your false attacks thrill me that I am a conservative, because I know that the bulk of the Republican party isn’t like you.
December 5th, 2012 at 5:56 am
My apologies Ryan if you took that personal albeit beyond me how you construe it that way. As I read my statement, it specifically targets “your analysis” rather than you or anyone personally.
But I do realize and understand that my arguments often blows such inaccurate analysis out of the water making it almost impossible for for you, Andy, Patrick, et al., to counter with a credible rebuttal (which by the way, you didn’t) so it’s a logical recourse to cry “moderators, Ronald’s calling me names again” or such.
December 5th, 2012 at 10:11 am
So what is the major difference between closing loopholes and a tax increase?
Easy, people have to pay a tax increase. Close a loophole and it is rather easy to find another.
If a loophole did legitimately increase the amount someone would realistically pay there would be howling, but there isn’t.
A “closing loopholes” strategy is toothless, especially as the decision as to which one’s are closed could take years as there would be a myriad of special interests that do not want one or another closed.
December 5th, 2012 at 11:08 am
“Obama already destroyed the economic progress that was made for a generation. He turned what should have been a short-term crisis into a long-term cancer.”
Bingo, we have a winner.
December 5th, 2012 at 11:20 am
“There’s nothing that rationalizes how $1.2 trillion in savings and $800 billion in revenue is achievable. Where or how do we achieve that $300 billion in “mandatory” savings? Those numbers simply don’t compute.”
I’ll tell you what doesnt compute.
Obamas proposal is more of the same that got us here.
He wants to borrow almost another trillion in stimulus for this next year.
His plan only reduces our debt by that much in ten years.
He says the top 2% need to pay more.
Then why is he going to raise taxes on those making 250 G or more a year ?
Are you loons trying to say the top 2 % of incomes start at 250 G ?
That does not add up, it’ll never compute.
And quite frankly is pretty disgusting attack on most successful people, not the top 2 %.
Our problem has always been spending, not revenues.
Any other argument is garbage.