House GOP "fiscal cliff" offer incites conservative ire

U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC). / Getty Images/Chip Somodevilla

Updated: 4:05 p.m.

Amid ongoing negotiations by the White House and congressional leadership over a plan to avert the so-called "fiscal cliff," some conservatives are decrying the most recent GOP proposal offered by House Republican leadership -- and are threatening to drive a wedge into the GOP rank-and-file.

Yesterday, House Speaker John Boehner and House Republican leaders presented an offer to the White House as a counter-proposal to President Obama's opening bid to avoid the "cliff," which would trigger a series of dramatic spending cuts and tax hikes in the new year. The GOP offer, which would raise $800 billion in unspecified tax revenue and make billions' worth of cuts to entitlement and health care spending, was quickly rebuffed by Democrats, who cited a lack of specificity and an absence of new tax hikes for the wealthy.

• House GOP make their "fiscal cliff" counteroffer
• Poll: GOP to blame if "fiscal cliff" talks fail

They're not the only ones who don't like the plan, however: In a statement, conservative Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., specifically targeted Boehner for offering up a plan he said would cost U.S. jobs.

"Speaker Boehner's $800 billion tax hike will destroy American jobs and allow politicians in Washington to spend even more, while not reducing our $16 trillion debt by a single penny," said DeMint. "This isn't rocket science. Everyone knows that when you take money out of the economy, it destroys jobs, and everyone knows that when you give politicians more money, they spend it. This is why Republicans must oppose tax increases and insist on real spending reductions that shrink the size of government and allow Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money."

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, was equally discontented with the GOP offer, which it labeled as, "little more than categorical, pre-emptive capitulation" -- at least "at first blush."

Some of the foundation's critiques, uncharacteristically, mirrored the Democrats' own complaints. In a blog post, the Heritage Foundation's Alison Acosta Fraser and J.D. Foster argued that "the details of the Republican proposal are extraordinarily vague. Nor is much clarity or comfort gained from the three-page accompanying letter sent to the President and signed by Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), and three other senior members of the House Republican leadership."

"One can only hope the additional clarity substantially improves the picture," wrote Fraser and Foster in the blog post. "However, it is very difficult to be hopeful."

Americans for Prosperity, a super PAC backed by conservative billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch, piled onto the anti-Boehner critiques in another Tuesday statement, attacking the proposal as offering "disappointingly small spending reductions" and generally failing to "seriously deal with the reality of the problems facing the nation."

"After immediately giving in to higher taxes following the election, the Speaker has now followed up by pulling the best parts of the House budget off the table," said AFP policy director James Valvo in the statement. "The only way to solve the nation's fiscal woes is to reform the runaway entitlement programs and government spending. It is disturbing that this proposal may give up the entire FY2013 spending reductions agreed to in the BCA."

A conservative mutiny among House Republicans could potentially pave the way for non-tea party conservatives and more moderate Republicans in the chamber to splinter off and support a proposal that includes some tax hikes for the wealthy. Boehner has political incentives to not go over the cliff: According to a recent Pew Poll, if Washington fails to avert the "cliff," 53 percent of Americans would blame congressional Republicans, while only 27 percent would blame Mr. Obama.

There are already indications that top House Republicans may be ready to cast aside the tea partiers in the caucus when it comes to budgetary matters: As Reuters points out, Representatives Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., and Justin Amash, R-Mich., two conservative House Republicans often at odds with Boehner on fiscal matters, have been booted from the House Budget Committee.

Some Republicans, however, believe that conservatives speaking out against Boehner's plan were sending a message to the White House, not the speaker.

"I think what the conservatives are doing are making certain that the White House understands that Speaker Boehner does have to deal with his own conference," said former Rep. Bob Walker, a Republican from Pennsylvania. "I think that the speaker felt as though he and the president were on the same wavelength on some of the things that had to be part of a final deal. And the White House, by presenting a totally ludicrous proposal, dramatically undermined any thought that John could make a deal without his conservative base behind him. So I think in large part that the conservatives are speaking more to the White House than they are to Speaker Boehner."

Walker suggested that even though he doesn't think "Republicans can agree to rate increases at all," it's possible they might agree to tax hikes if the bar for whose rates are affected is much higher.

"The Republicans might at some point agree that Warren Buffett should have a tax increase," he said. "The president keeps talking about millionaires and billionaires but he's actually (trying to raise rates on) people in the upper-middle-class."

But, he added, "I don't even think the Republicans are going to go there. My view is they see that just as more silliness and just a really rather depressing use of class warfare as a way of trying to game the American people."

In remarks to reporters today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Ariz., accused the Tea Party of exercising a "firm grip" on the Republican party, and argued "we can't let these negotiations be dictated by the Tea Party."

Boehner's proposal, he said, "is not nearly enough to restore fiscal responsibility... yet it's apparently enough to make the Tea Party scream bloody murder." 

In a Republican response minutes later, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., argued that Mr. Obama has been insufficiently involved in negotiating a deal that the GOP will agree to, and called on him to "turn off the campaign" and "get serious about dealing with this deficit and debt here at the end of the year." He did not comment, however, on the merits of Boehner's proposal.

"Only one person in the country can deliver the members of his country who support the deal that he makes, and that's the president," he said.

In a statement Tuesday afternoon, Boehner called on Mr. Obama to officially respond to the GOP proposal -- which the White House has signaled the president will not do.

"If the President really wants to avoid sending the economy over the fiscal cliff, he has done nothing to demonstrate it," Boehner said. "With our latest offer we have demonstrated there is a middle ground solution that can cut spending and bring in revenue without hurting American small businesses. The President now has an obligation to respond with a proposal that does the same and can pass both chambers of Congress. We're ready and eager to talk with the president about such a proposal."

[taylorsucram]

President Obama is holding all the cards and the Republicans know it! He doesn't have to do a thing ... he doesn't have to talk to them, he doesn't have to meet with them. All he has to do is NOTHING and everyone's taxes go back to what they were during the Clinton Presidency and automatic defense cuts are enforced.

AND THE REPUBLICANS GET BLAMED ... WATCH THEM START TO PANIC ... IT COULDN'T HAPPEN TO A MORE DESERVING GROUP~!

[JPB1120]

The ONLY way the Republicans should agree to raise Taxes on those capital gains, interest, and those making over $250,000 a year should be that the Democrats agree to

1) Repeal all Obamacare taxes and individual mandate.

2) Means testing on various old age benefits. Raise the age to receive them too.

3) Pass a budget bases on actual dollar cuts not base on the rate of growth.

This is a political winner if the Obama and the Democrats say no to this.

[hillzhaveays]

Watch out jp, much more talk like that and some of the hacks on this site may try to hunt you down and string you up LMAO!!

[WHAT-IS-HE-SMOKING]

I smell Norquist.

[TimeToEvolve]

This dude DeMint is a complete wacko. Who let this nut out of the asylum? He might as well be wearing the logos of Exxon and Wal Mart and the Koch Brothers.

[hillzhaveays]

BenJordon replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Wow, GLS - that's the dumbest post I've read in a long time.

True Tbagger reasoning at its best.
________________________________
Perhaps you could enlighten us with your "reasoning"

[troutfishman]

Listen to me roar.

I am the toothless Republicans. meow

[1pheasant1]

It looks like somebody tied their tails together and flung them over a clothesline.

[1pheasant1]

Rightfully, Mitch McConnell is the face of the party. Maybe his constituents in Kentucky will pool their money and buy him a set of choppers.

[ammo17]

here are my ideas of saving the country a ton of money#1 get rid of the lobbying law,they are buying and selling our politicians.#2 term limits for politicians,two 2 year terms for congress(total four years) and one 6 year term for senators.instead of giving them a pension we give them an honaorable or dishonorable discharge as we give our military.this way they would be making a sacrifice for the love of their country,instead of lining their own pockets.

[maltedmilkballs]

I'm a conservative. I understand liberals will not agree with me and that is okay. How I seed this mess is millions of conservatives and liberals together are hurting. If you do not have a job and trying to feed your family, does it hurt less if you are one side or the other?
We should have been coming out of this much faster and stronger than we are now doing.
What do we have going on in D.C., secret meetings by a small group of the parties. To all you boobs in washington, this is suppose to be a open debate on the floors of the house and senate. To Senator Reid and Mr. Speaker, put the bills to the floors, debate them, do your name calling, do it all for us to see and hear. We are not paying you to posture for the next election.

[signseeker1717]

If you want to see "debate", you'll have to back Sen. Reid's attempts at filibuster reform or be satisfied watching our illustrious reps and sens being interviewed on news and talk shows. It's becoming rarer and rarer to see them in Washington actually ACCOMPLISHING anything other than political grandstanding and obstruction.

This past do-nothing Congress is one of the worst in US history. Let's hope the 113th (the one coming up) is better. It couldn't be much worse than this one:

Republicans filibustered 386 times in the last three years. That means 386 issues relating to the nation's business were blocked from any "debate" at all.

Congress only managed to pass 100 bills (lowest since Truman era, which was 900+ bills).

Congress' 2013 session schedule is only 126 days - TOTAL. That means TWO THIRDS of the upcoming year they will be SOME PLACE ELSE, rather than on the job, but no doubt collecting their full salaries.

All American voters should be outraged, and should contact their Representatives and Senators to make their displeasure known.

[AOCGUY]

GossamerWings replies: GOP also doesn't want to reduce defense even when we are suppose[d] to be getting out of two war[s].

Actually the cost of Afghanistan (we have already left Iraq for the most part), while expensive is not really the problem anymore. We have worn out our equipment and our aircarft, ships, tanks etc are aging (B-52s have been flying since the early 50s). If we are to maintain an effective detterrent force then we have to start moderninzing our force now or real and potential enemies will surpass us and either way that is very expensive.

[AOCGUY]

"Everyone knows that when you take money out of the economy, it destroys jobs"

Well I am way down on the list of people who are well off but I still earn (yes earn, my income comes from actual work) sustantially more than I require to pay my monthly bills and buy those luxury items I have become accustomed to.

So what does that mean? If the government raises my taxes it will not pull money out of the economy because they will be asking for money I'm not currently using anyway. And while I'm sure there are those that will be forced to reduce consumption the vast majority of people in my income bracket and higher will not feel any pich should taxes rise nor will we change our spending habits one iota.

Now for those that would suggest that I just voluntarily pay more, my answer is go screw yourself. I pay what I am obliged to do and will do so whether my taxes rise or fall as I would expect any American to do.