House GOP make their "fiscal cliff" counteroffer

Updated 5:45 p.m. ET

House Speaker John Boehner and House Republicans have offered a counter-proposal to the latest White House offer to avert the "fiscal cliff," by raising $800 billion in tax revenue and cutting entitlement spending.

The proposal, which is based on an idea offered by Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction Co-chair Erskine Bowles during that panel's deficit negotiations, would achieve $2.2 trillion in deficit reduction by cutting $900 billion in spending from programs like Medicare and reforming how cost of living adjustments are calculated for Social Security payments.

In addition, it would raise $800 billion in tax revenue through tax reform. Senior Republican staffers said that those savings could be achieved without raising tax rates, as President Obama demands.

Boehner and GOP leaders sent a letter to the White House Monday laying out the new counter-proposal and said that the "Bowles plan is exactly the kind of imperfect, but fair middle ground that allows us to avert the fiscal cliff without hurting the economy and destroying jobs."

• "Fiscal cliff" clock ticks, political battle rages
• Sen. Graham: "I think we're going over the cliff"

White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer rejected the Republicans' offer saying it "does not meet the test of balance."

"In fact, it actually promises to lower rates for the wealthy and sticks the middle class with the bill," he said in a written statement. "Their plan includes nothing new and provides no details on which deductions they would eliminate, which loopholes they will close or which Medicare savings they would achieve. Independent analysts who have looked at plans like this one have concluded that middle class taxes will have to go up to pay for lower rates for millionaires and billionaires."

"Until the Republicans in Congress are willing to get serious about asking the wealthiest to pay slightly higher tax rates, we won't be able to achieve a significant, balanced approach to reduce our deficit our nation needs," Pfeiffer added.

Additionally, Bowles responded by saying that the Republicans' plan is not a representation of his plan.

"While I'm flattered the Speaker would call something 'the Bowles plan,' the approach outlined in the letter Speaker Boehner sent to the President does not represent the Simpson-Bowles plan, nor is it the Bowles plan," Bowles wrote in a statement. "In my testimony before the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, I simply took the mid-point of the public offers put forward during the negotiations to demonstrate where I thought a deal could be reached at that time.

"The Joint Select Committee failed to reach a deal, and circumstances have changed since then. It is up to negotiators to figure out where the middle ground is today. Every offer put forward brings us closer to a deal, but to reach an agreement, it will be necessary for both sides to move beyond their opening positions and reach agreement on a comprehensive plan which avoids the fiscal cliff and puts the debt on a clear downward path relative to the economy."

Meantime, Boehner told reporters that the White House offer from last week is a "la-la land offer that couldn't pass the House, couldn't pass the Senate." He said that while Republicans could have responded by just sending the House Republican budget, they decided to put forth a "credible plan that deserves serious consideration by the White House and I would hope that they would respond in a timely and responsible way."

The Republican counteroffer does not include any mention of the debt limit. Mr. Obama's proposal last week would take the responsibility of raising the debt limit out of Congress in order to avoid brutal fights that led to the United States' credit rating downgrade last summer.

It also is silent on both the payroll tax, which the White House would extend, and on unemployment insurance.

A senior Republican staffer said the framework to achieve the $2.2 trillion in savings on both taxes and spending would have to be worked out in negotiations. "You can't rewrite the tax code in four weeks. Some of the changes to the entitlement programs when you get into the details are going to be very complicated and there is going to be a lot of wrestling over it." He said they would have to figure out "a way to structure this so we both are moving forward..at the same pace."

Republican staffers said enough savings would be achieved to deal with the sequester, but the framework does not lay out exactly how.

[ResponsibleAmerican]

My My My... The sky is falling! Oh Please, have we been through this before? I say "let's go over the cliff". That way all of us will chip in on taxes as well as realize major spending cuts. Better yet, why don't we cut across the board, all government agencies and departments the same percentage and raise taxes by the same percentage to all Americans. Wouldn't that be the fairest solution? By raising the taxes on the wealthy we will only generate enough revenue to operate the government for TWO WEEKS. Raising the taxes on the rich is just another trophy for the president. It does nothing for the country.

[royaldiademjewelers]

CUT SPENDING! The american people are paying PLENTY of taxes to fund the government. CUT ENTITLEMENTS!

If you do this now the cliff is avoided. We're already in the HOLE TRILLIONS of dollars, so what big deal is falling off a cliff, to criticize the metaphors.....

Every one of these politicians would not overspend their OWN MONEY!

Tea Party, Independent..

[royaldiademjewelers]

CUT SPENDING! The american people are paying PLENTY of taxes to fund the government. CUT ENTITLEMENTS!

If you do this now the cliff is avoided. We're already in the HOLE TRILLIONS of dollars, so what big deal is falling off a cliff, to criticize the metaphors.....

Every one of these politicians would not overspend their OWN MONEY!

Tea Party, Independent..

[Frank_Palmer]

What Mr. Boehner submitted isn't a proposal. It is ad esign for what he wants the President to propose.

Cut out deductions -- what deductions? -- that's for someone else to say, and take the blame.

Cut expenditures -- what expenditures, aside from Medicare? -- That's for someone else to say and take the blame.

So far, the President has a concrete tax increase on the table. (Actually, that will happen with no action from anyone; what is on the table is extending the tax cut for the first $250,000 in income.)

Nothing else is on the table. This is the only concrete proposal out there.

[GossamerWings]

Mr. Boehner believes we are stupid enough to fall for vague. It is not going to happen.

[GOP-R--Con-Men]

I have been analysing the GOP for years and I have deciphered their playbook. And some of the things they do will seem strange unless you know what their goals/end game actually are. Remember everything they do is toward that end.

1. Republicans love deficits when they are the party that creates them. Now you might say, why is that? Republicans hate government and it's ability to help ordinary Americans. Have any republican president EVER ran a deficit by spending money on people to benefit them? No! So what do they do? They empty the treasury wasting money on unnecessary wars and tax giveaways to corporation, big oil and the super rich and the while Americans are in dire need of help from their government. Those entities don't need the money and some never asked for it.

But republican know they can use a empty treasury to proclaim the country is broke and we can't afford this or that program for ordinary Americans. Then they said you should pull yourself up by your boot straps. Even though republican cut the boot straps and programs that might help you. But they have NO PROBLEM giving billions to corporations, big oil and the super rich. Why would they do this? Remember republicans NEVER want government to be beneficial to ordinary Americans. So if government programs prove benefical that's a problem for republicans because it goes against their decades old mantra that government is the problem and it must be reduced or eliminated.

There's much more to their tricks and games but you get the picture.

That's why they must be voted out of office.

[chevyhotrod]

RepubliCon_Liar_RobMe says:THE EASY PART" (i.e., 'Tax Cuts') and always leave "THE HARD PART" (i.e., 'spending cuts') for real leaders, like Presidents Clinton and Obama, to deal with?

_______________________

And now the truth:

Did President Bush increase spending? Absolutely, but two wrongs does not make it right. Congress holds much of the blame as well and much of President Bush spending increased came after the Nov. 2006 elections where Democrats took control of both the House and Senate. Any spending increases for 2008 and 2009 were created under a Democrat House and Democrat Senate and they should take some responsibility for their actions and not put the blame on one person, which President Bush threaten to veto even more government spending the Democrats wanted to push through and just waited until President Obama took office.

Just the increases in 2009 alone:

$2 billion for children's health insurance. On Feb. 4, Obama signed a bill expanding the Children's Health Insurance Program.
$114 billion in stimulus spending. Obama signed the stimulus bill Feb. 17. While headlines proclaimed a $787 billion price tag
$32 billion of the "omnibus" spending bill Obama signed on March 11, 2009. The $410 billion measure included $32 billion more than had been spent the previous year.
$2 billion for deposit insurance. The "Helping Families Save Their Homes Act" that Obama signed May 20
$31 billion in "supplemental" spending for the military and other purposes. The press dubbed it a "war funding" bill, but it actually contained $26 billion for non-defense measures.
$2 billion in additional "Cash for Clunkers" funding. Obama signed this measure Aug. 7.
$20 billion for GM and Chrysler bailouts. At one point the government had paid out nearly $80 billion to support the automakers. But some of this was Bush's doing.

Our own analysis leads us to conclude that Obama deserves responsibility for somewhat more fiscal 2009 spending. Spending in that year shot up an incredible $535 billion.

Obama has also committed the government to some big spending in future years. CBO estimated in March that the insurance provisions of his health care law will cost $58 billion in fiscal 2014 and reach $110 billion in 2015, rising each year thereafter. Those costs will total nearly $1.3 trillion through the year 2022.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/

[chevyhotrod]

Funny Factcheck does not show the totals spent on Fannie and Freddie from 2008 and on.
True Cost of Fannie, Freddie Bailouts: $317 Billion, CBO Says
(CNSNews.com) - The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says the real cost of the federal government guaranteeing the business of failed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is $317 billion -- not the $130 billion normally claimed by the Obama administration.
"In contrast, the Administration's Office of Management and Budget continues to treat Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as nongovernmental entities for budgetary purposes, and thus outside the budget," the report stated. "It records as outlays the amount of the net cash payments provided by the Treasury to the GSEs."
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/true-cost-fannie-freddie-bailouts-317-billion-cbo-says

Can you say off the books accounting?

[speedbird1948]

Dear Mr. Boehner: HECKNOYOUWONT!!!

[curtis41]

President Obama has submitted "compromise" deals that are intended to fail, in order to affix blame to the GOP. His compulsion about soaking the top 2% to accomplish wealth redistribution has turned into an almost irrational compulsion, and clouds judgement and reaching a negotiated plan. The Democrats absolutely refuse to address Social Security and Medicare issues, except to rob 716 billion from Medicare to pay for what turns out to be UNaffordable health care. The same problems exits that lead to the "fiscal cliff" and unlikely to be resolved any more than the last time. Part of the problem is Obama ignored the good advice of a commission that he formed, to advise him on fiscal policies. What we are seeing now is the President willing to up the taxes for everyone, at the risk of recession, just to get an 8 day break in government gross overspending. What we have is a President who is a legend in his own mind, and that is giving him the benefit of the doubt.

[chevyhotrod]

GOP-R--Con-Men replies: This is why the treasonous, racist republican extremist must be vaquished next election.

_________________

When liberals run out of ideas, they just call you a treasonous, racist extremist. Because that is all they have left.

Your hate and projection is obvious for all to see.

[GOP-R--Con-Men]

A party that deliberately and relentlessly block legislation to revive the economy and help struggling Americans in a time of depression because they hate the president and have pledged allegiance to Grover Norquist over their oath of office, constitution and country are treasonous, racist extremist.

[89h3ib]

Stop the spending now. Shut down the Federal Government.

[chevyhotrod]

Hear....hear....

The last time we shut down the Federal Government, we ended up with a balanced budget.

Maybe this is the only way we can reverse trillion dollar deficits.

[littlemjs]

Sometimes when you are very sick, you have to take the "bad medicine" to get better. It's time to get better folks! We need to take the bad medicine and let this play out! Let's find out what's at the bottom of that "cliff". I suspect it is going to be tough...very tough...but it's time.