House leader Cantor says deficit deal likely

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Va. gestures during a news briefing on Capitol Hill in Washington, Nov. 14, 2011. / AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta

WASHINGTON - Sidestepping controversy, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., declined to take sides Monday on a proposal for higher tax revenues backed by fellow Republicans on Congress' supercommittee, yet expressed confidence the panel would agree on a deficit-reduction plan of at least $1.2 trillion by a Nov. 23 deadline.

A proposal for $300 billion in higher taxes has stirred grumbling within the ranks of congressional Republicans, for whom opposition to such measures has been political bedrock for more than two decades.

Two of the party's presidential hopefuls said Monday they wouldn't support any committee deficit-reduction plan that includes higher taxes.

Congressional "supercommittee" punts on taxes
Debt supercommittee getting nowhere fast
Video: Supercommittee running out of time on debt deal

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, campaigning in Iowa, said he would "do everything in my power to defeat" any such proposal.

A spokesman for Rick Perry said the Texas governor "wants to look at details but if those details include a tax increase he's not going to be for it. He does not favor higher taxes," added David Miner.

Additionally, officials said that Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., who outlined the plan last week in a closed-door meeting of four Republicans and three Democrats, has encountered criticism from fellow conservatives despite strong credentials as an opponent of higher taxes. "There's been a little bit, but it's been pretty muted," his spokeswoman, Nachama Soloveichik, said of the response.

Cantor's spokeswoman turned aside several emailed requests for the majority leader's views on the proposal. She said he hadn't seen the plan, and she referred to his comments at a news conference earlier in the day when he told reporters, "I'm not going to be opining as to any reports, hypotheticals or anything connected with their work."

Despite that pledge, Cantor was bullish in predicting agreement before the deadline and adding that a fallback requirement to cut $1.2 trillion from domestic and defense programs wouldn't be triggered.

The committee has been at work for two months, hoping to succeed at a task that has defied the best efforts of high-ranking political leaders past and present.

Despite intense talks late last week, there has been little indication of progress as age-old political divisions have re-emerged.

The principal stumbling blocks revolve around taxes on the one hand, and the large federal programs of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security on the other.

Democrats are unwilling to agree to cuts in benefit programs unless Republicans will accept higher taxes, particularly on the highest-income individuals and families.

Republicans counter that out-of-control spending largely accounts for the government's enormous budget deficits, and they say raising taxes will only complicate efforts to help the economy recover from the worst recession in more than seven decades.

At the same time, each side is grappling with the possible political consequences of the committee's work, with an eye on the 2012 campaign for control of the White House and Congress.

Liberal Democrats are highly reluctant to agree to curbs on programs the party has long been identified with, and last week members on the supercommittee jettisoned an earlier proposal to slow the rise in cost-of-living benefits for Social Security recipients.

The same goes for conservatives, many of whom fear the possible political cost of changing their positions in order to pursue a less-than-certain bipartisan compromise on deficit reduction.

Many GOP office holders have signed a pledge circulated by Americans for Tax Reform not to vote for higher taxes. The organization is led by Grover Norquist, a conservative activist, although in comments to reporters Cantor suggested that influence by an outsider isn't the dominant concern.

"It's not about Grover Norquist. It's about commitments that people made to the electorate they represent, the people that sent them here. That's what it's about," he said.

Republicans on the committee hailed Toomey's proposal last week as a breakthrough and a concession that could open the way to a deal.

But Democrats were dismissive, saying it amounted to a tax cut in disguise for the wealthy — the very taxpayers that they and Obama say should pay more. According to numerous officials, Toomey's proposal envisioned an additional $250 billion in revenue emerging from a sweeping revision of the tax code that would bring the top rate down from 35 percent to 28 percent while reducing or eliminating many commonly used itemized deductions.

In an interview on Sunday, Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, co-chairman of the supercommittee said that while Republicans believe that higher tax revenues will hurt the economy, "within the context of the bipartisan negotiation with Democrats, clearly they are a reality."

He said that whatever "damage would be done by $250 billion of new taxes we think would be offset by a system that would help create jobs. And as we're dealing with the debt crisis, we don't want to make the jobs crisis even worse. So that's what has been put on the table."

Jordan, R-Ohio, posted his dissent hours later in USA Today, although he refrained from criticizing any Republican directly.

"Balance doesn't mean `half-right, half-wrong,' he wrote, referring to Obama's calls for a deficit-cutting plan that includes higher taxes and spending cuts. "It means you don't fall over." Jordan is chairman of the Republican Study Committee, an organization of conservative GOP members of the House.

[mwade002]

He's at the homeless shelter stealing blankets.

[RobAla]

During the eight years President Bush was in office, we added $4.4 trillion to the national debt. During the first three years of President Obama, we added the same $4.4 trillion to the national debt. One did it in eight years, and the other only took three years. In either case, it has been ridiculously irresponsible and damaging to the United States.

In my opinion, we should at least go back to the federal spending of 2008 - better still would be to go back the the federal spending of 2004. During President Bush's time in office, the federal spending increases were mainly about the two wars. In the case of President Obama, it has been huge increases in domestic spending.

Whoever the next President is, that person has to stop the fiscal bleeding of our national wealth. We must reduce the scope and size of the federal government to a level the US taxpayer can afford. The Supreme Court will hopefully help in the matter when it rules on the horrible health care law. This disaster of a law results in yearly additional federal spending of $105 billion. The law imposes huge additional expenses and regulations on private sector businesses PER EACH EMPLOYEE, resulting in higher unemployment. High unemployment results in lower tax revenue going into the government. The repeal of this law would help tremendously, but we will have to be serious about cutting federal spending. to avoid going the way of Greece.

[nearl451]

If he really wants to exert leadership, he should state that he and the country expect and depend on it.

Cynically, if he REALLY believes the President is hoping for failure; then he, Boehner, and McConnell should be head-over-heels for ANY deal.

Frankly, I've never seen such constipation.

One last note: SAntorum would be against any deal that included tax increases? Gingrich would do "everything in my power"? These dumdum's have no direct say in anything at this point. They're just trying to be wet dreams for the Tea Party.

[rwsmith29456]

We didn't get in this shape overnight and it won't be undone overnight but we need to make some effort that will show progress such as regaining our AAA rating in the near future and going from there.

[stn_sage]

I agree it didn't happen overnight! But, I do believe cuts can be made, and tax rates on the ultra wealthy ought to be increased!
And, if both are, then the $1.2 trillion dollar goal could be
SURPASSED! If they wanted to, they could do it!

[GoUnion86]

So the Republican plan is to lower the top income tax rate from 35 to 28% benefitting only the rich ( big surprise there ), while at the same time eliminating deductions like home mortgage interest that the middle and lower classes need. I don't understand how the GOP can get anyone elected when they're screwing 90% of the people. Help me out republicans, I need an education on this.

[webdepot]

"Republicans counter that out-of-control spending largely accounts for the government's enormous budget deficits....."

================================================================

Yea... exactly right... Two, not one but TWO Republican wars being waged on borrowed money... and then, while conducting these two wars, initiating almost a trillion with a "T" dollars in tax cuts to the wealthiest people in the country. That, in a nutshell, is the entire deficit problem... Schrub's recession. The budget in 2000 was producing a surplus... period.. everything from then to now is the Republicans doing.. Vote the bastards out once and for all.

[bajajohn1]

Cantor is the anti-Christ; personal dislike for this cretin is growing among progressive Americans.

[GreedyOldPartee]

I got a deal for you and the others standing in the way of America, your done come next election, take your easy money, your self interests and get out. We are taking America back.