Biden: Tax rate for wealthy "theoretically" negotiable

Vice President Joe Biden speaks to the media after eating lunch with middle class tax-payers on Friday, Dec. 7, 2012, at the Metro 29 diner in Arlington, Va. / AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin

As a courtesy to the American people during this holiday season, lawmakers should act sooner rather than later on a bill to extend tax cuts for the middle class, Vice President Joe Biden said today during a lunch stop in Arlington, Va., hinting that Democrats may be willing to negotiate a deal in which the rate on top earners does not spike all the way to 39.6 percent.

"If we can act like adults and reach an agreement here on the 'fiscal cliff,' the upside is much higher even than the downside is if we don't," Biden told reporters as he sat down for a quick bite at the Metro 29 Diner. Negotiations on the so-called "fiscal cliff" are currently stalled as Republicans and Democrats in Congress debate whether to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for all Americans or only those making less than $250,000 a year.

Play Video

Biden: "We could negotiate how far up" top tax rate should go

Biden promoted President Obama's proposal, which would let the Bush-era tax rates for the top two percent of earners revert back to 39.6 percent - the same level they were at during Bill Clinton's presidency - but for the first time lent credence to the idea that Democrats may be willing to agree to a lower rate: "The top brackets have to go up - this is not a negotiable issue," he said. "Theoretically, we can negotiate how far up. But we think... the top rate should go to 39.6 percent."

A bill could be sketched out in "15 minutes" if House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, agreed to let the tax cuts expire for the wealthiest Americans on Jan. 1, Biden said, joking that the president would likely dispatch him to "sprint" up the Hill to retrieve it for him to sign. It could be done "like that," he said, snapping his fingers, and the sooner, the better.

"Think of how many people are out there making a judgment now whether or not they go out and spend another $300 on Christmas gifts, if they think that next month immediately they're gonna have $260 less in their paycheck, or whatever the number will be," Biden said. He added that if the country does go over the "cliff" at year's end, middle-class families won't be able to pay for recreational activities like piano lessons or gymnastics.

On the November jobs report out this morning, the vice president praised the slow but steady improvement in the national unemployment rate: "It's undeniable the trajectory is positive," he said. "I think we have turned the corner as an economy."

[bobw101]

I think Rand Paul has a pretty good solution for the fiscal cliff standoff:

"I have yet another thought on how we can fix this. Why don't we let the Democrats pass whatever they want? If they are the party of higher taxes, all the Republicans vote present and let the Democrats raise taxes as high as they want to raise them, let Democrats in the Senate raise taxes, let the president sign it and then make them own the tax increase. And when the economy stalls, when the economy sputters, when people lose their jobs, they know which party to blame, the party of high taxes. Let's don't be the party of just almost as high taxes."

When asked if he would vote present, Senator Paul responded, "yes, I don't think we have to in the Senate. In the House, they have to because the Democrats don't have the majority. In the Senate, I'm happy not to filibuster it, and I will announce tonight on your show that I will work with Harry Reid to let him pass his big old tax hike with a simple majority if that's what Harry Reid wants, because then they will become the party of high taxes and they can own it."

Works for me, if higher taxes jump starts the economy the high tax fiscal liberals will be proven right and can enjoy future success in elections. However if the plan backfires and the economy tanks, low tax fiscal conservatives will be proven right and may see gains in future elections.

It's like an experiment in a laboratory with us (the American people) becoming the lab rats. I like it.

[thulst]

Budgeting is a complex process in any large organization. The determination of who gets what and how is much more art than science; and in the federal government it is more political than rational; more incoherent than cogent; more coarse than ethical. It is based more on the lobbying of special interest groups than on the broader public interest. And, of course, these groups pour money into election campaigns and marketing campaigns to secure financial support for their programs.
Congressmen and women resort to simplification of the process in order to bring meaning to this complex process. Among these aids to calculation are the following tactical tools: budgeting is viewed as historical ("across the board" actions are based on previous spending priorities); budgeting is fragmented (certain committees and committee members focus on—and become experts on—discreet elements of the budget); budgeting is incremental (largest impact on this year's budget is last year's budget); budgeting is sequential (budget problems are dealt with one by one—not altogether or simultaneously); budgeting is financial not programmatic (major policy implications are cloaked or concealed in dollar signs); and budgets "satisfice" (satisfy and suffice) according to Simon and Wildavsky. They don't optimize. Scarce resources are spread marginally among many competing demands.
With the existence of this fiscal imbroglio within the Congress and executive branch it is no wonder it is difficult for the public to get their arms around the nation's budget, fiscal, and economic policy. A YouTube video has been created, entitled, "I'm Proud to Pay My Taxes" in an effort to promote increased understanding of the purpose, costs, and outcomes of certain federal programs." It gives some perspective on the allocations to various programs such as defense, education, and national parks; as well as provides meaning as we try to fulfill our obligation as "economic citizens". The link to the YouTube video is shown below.
http://youtu.be/cn1PGVIMAyA

[sueb45]

Someone above took the words out of my mouth. Say it ain't so, Joe! The 2% can afford to go back to the Clinton era rates!!! 60% of the American people back the dems on this---don't back down!!

[RollotheNorman]

"Democrats may be willing to negotiate a deal in which the rate on top earners does not spike all the way to 39.6 percent."

Say it ain't so, Joe. My preferred position is roll the marginal rate back to the pre-Reagan years: 50%. If the rich-boyz have Billions to give to Willard so he could give them the laws they paid for, then the have enough to contribute more to the commonweal.

[sjc_1]

35% going to 39.6% will bring in $70 billion per year. If you want to make it 36%, cap deductions and eliminate loopholes to bring in more, then go for it.

[sjc_1]

I don't set policy and neither do you so don't be so obsessed, you will get crazier than you already are.

[eroteme2]

Biden: Tax for wealthy 'theoretically' negotiable. His use of the word theoretically reminds me of his continual use of the word fundamental while serving in the Senate. Both words have more than one syllable which he apparently believes will portray himself as being as intelligent as his listeners.

[nearl451]

What and raise even less revenue?

Negotiate the rate UP!!!

Better yet,letthe cliff decend first as the Moody's Economist recommended yesterday.

When Hurricane Sandy occurs and there is still the same job growth, I say: Let er rip! Theeconomycan take it.

[diddy_back_again]

Joe, just shut up.

[nearl451]

Naw. You first.