The slimmed-down proposal President Obama suggested to Congress on Friday to avert part of the "fiscal cliff" shouldn't be the one lawmakers push through this week, Democratic chairman of the Senate Budget Committee Kent Conrad said today on "Fox News Sunday."
"I would hope that we would have one last attempt here to do what everyone knows needs to be done, which is a larger plan that really does stabilize the debt and gets us moving in the right direction," the retiring North Dakota senator said. On Friday, the president said he spoke with House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and asked that they pass an interim plan that prevents tax rates from spiking on middle-class families should lawmakers fail to avert the series of potentially devastating tax hikes and spending cuts, set to trigger Jan. 1.
Negotiations between Republicans and the White House unraveled, Conrad said, when Boehner "went off on 'Plan B,'" an offer that would raise taxes on Americans making more than $1 million a year. The plan died when Boehner could not drum up enough support from within his own conference.
A better alternative than what the president asked for Friday, Conrad suggested, would be to split the difference between Boehner's and Mr. Obama's pre-"Plan B" proposals - "that would be $2.6 trillion," he said. "You couple that with the $1.1 trillion that's already been done; that would be close to the $4 trillion needed to stabilize the debt and begin to bring it down. ...Is it perfect? No. Is it everything we'd hoped for? No. Does it match what Bowles-Simpson did? No. On an even comparison, Bowles-Simpson would be $5.3 trillion."
Meanwhile, Sens. Mark Warner, D-Va., and Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, agreed during a segment on "Face the Nation" that lawmakers will get Americans past the "cliff" - but only with a "patch" solution that won't likely last long into the new year.
"I think, unfortunately, there's only going to be a small deal," Warner told Bob Schieffer about the prospect for an agreement when Congress re-convenes after Christmas, on Dec. 27. "But unless we get to $4 trillion" in spending cuts and revenue, he said, "we're just kicking the can."
Warner said that of more than $4 trillion taken out of the revenue stream, by extending the Bush-era tax cuts, "we're only talking putting about a third of that back in. At the same time, we doubled defense spending, created homeland security, created new drug benefits, and we're all getting a lot older. We have to realize it's gonna take revenues, spending cuts, and entitlement reforms."
Hutchison, too, said she has an "abiding faith" that a deal will go through, but said because "in four days we can't solve everything," any post-holiday solution would be a mere "patch."
"This is going to take presidential leadership - hands-on leadership," she said. "It's going to take both houses of Congress and everyone to realize that we can't let taxes go up on working people in this country, and the Bush tax cuts are tax cuts that did help our economy in the beginning.
"We are in the doldrums now because of the debt and the deficits that are dragging down our economy as well as the overregulation of small business," Hutchison continued. "I think we need to stop this fiscal cliff at a reasonable salary level, then start working on the spending cuts."
But appearing on CNN's "State of the Union," retiring Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., said there's a good chance even a scaled-back, temporary fix won't make it through the Hill's hoops by year's end.
"We're going to be here New Year's Eve," he said. "In the aftermath of House Republicans rejecting Speaker Boehner's so-called 'Plan B,' it's the first time I feel it's more likely that we'll go over the cliff than not."
Let's see.... The Senate passed a bill that would also pass the House if Boehner would allow it to be voted on - and it would be signed by the President. Would be a done deal in a day.
Instead, the only thing the House has is a partisan bill that would just barely pass the House (maybe not at all), would not pass the Senate and the President would not sign.
LAM1987, you are oh so wrong. The government takes money from the private sector (ie. tax payers). A tax payer is someone who gives more to the government than they take from the government. This excludes 99.999% of all local, state and federal employees. It also excludes people on unemployment, welfare, all public union employees and most people or businesses that receive government subsidies. The only way the government receives more tax dollars is to have money transfer hands in the private sector or take a bigger percentage from the private sector. The government can take more money from non tax paying people but that doesn't pay the governments bills. Try this exercise for me, take a dollar and give it to a friend and then take it back from. How much money did you just make? The answer is nothing, you didn't make a dime. Every time a government pays an employee a dollar and then takes it back the government didn't make anything. Reagan allowed companies to exist with trying to destroy them. He also had laid out a plan for the future of the country so the business owners (the wealth generators) could plan for the future and businesses thrived along with the the employees of the companies and the government. Our friend Obama has not done this. He has not had a plan in the last 4 years so businesses can't plan for the future. This equals less money to change hands in the private sector and that means that the government will receive less money. On top of that Obama has increased spending without increasing the flow of money in the private sector. In conclusion you do not know what you are talking about, so I gather that you have received your information from an unreliable source. Please check your facts. Sincerely amxrebel.
Children, You Own It ! We BORROW $4 Billion EVERY DAY ! Sometime in 2024 we shall be bankrupt ! The streets will be chaos, like modern day Greece. As an Independent, I say, "a pox on both your houses." Still you voted for BO ! ... Hello, dummies ... Your grandkids will be fiscally enslaved. and You Own It !
Article 1 Section 8, The U.S. Constitution states that only Congress can borrow and spend money. Congress created this over a period of years and now they don't want to fix it. Educate yourself with books and not Fox News.
BO is not the one who created this mess. Reagan did. His borrow and spend policy more than quadrupled our debt in just 12 years. He and every single republican president after him only added to our budget deficit and debt. No exception.
America doesn't need anyone to weaken the "cliff" with some stupid cobbled together agrement in the 11:59th hour.
They need some rational thought ......and a little time to how well the cliff is working.
Hasn't anyone gotten the message: Deals for $2T in savings over a decade are not even close to the aveage of $500B per annum on average fiscal soundness that the cliff effects.
Sure "glad" to see all the usual media slags (Hutchinson, Graham, Schumer) on the regular Sunday news show this weekend...with new NRA goober to boot.
Seriously. There is no rush todo something abjectly stupid, like water down the budgetary effects of the "cliff" before the end of the year.
In January, there is a new mix in the House and either the GOP will cobbletogether something supportably bipartisan, or a coalition of Dem and GOP reps will do so OR the "cliff" will remain in place until that happens.
Not so egregious a boogeyman. I for one would like to see both sides working on something more fiscally responsible than the cliff overall...NOT LESS effective as either side has been doing.
For now, the "cliff" is the fairest option there is. AND if theeconomy start's tanking, so much more the impetus to restore some stimulative measures.
If my taxes go up the projected $300.00 per month predicted, I will surely begin to default on debt. I work in the aircraft industry. Obama has made sure he all but killed that. With no raises for going on five years, and with the rising prices of absolutley everything, coupled with the higher projected prices of foods brought on by the drought (I live in Kansas), I simply cannot afford an extra 300 plus dollars per month. You guys in D.C. need to pull your heads out and get this tax question ironed out. The bottom will literally drop out from under many, many families.
The tax increase will mean very little to me. Just won't go out to eat as often which won't hurt anyone except the bartenders, waitresses, busboys...you know, those rich people that don't need the money.
it's the best to just let the fiscal cliff happen as is, so that there will be at least some automatic spending cut happen. they can always go back to reform tax code if they hate tax increase on everyone next year. but without the cliff, nobody in Congress want to do anything serious to reform tax code and reduce government spending.
Agreed Sabniz. Have you noticed that none of the plans (from either side) talk about what the deficit is for years one through four? We need to get towards a balance budget now.
I sure would hope that someone would cut through all of the fuzzy math and determine what the projected deficits for years one through four are. All of this 10 year projection is nonsense.
Unless they can cut the deficit as much as the fiscall cliff, then let the cliff stand.
Too much money has already been approved and allocated for there to be any sensible cutbacks in years one and two. The 10 year projection is an accounting gimmick to get around the fact that Congress allocated expenditures years ahead.
exactly, the spending cut in any of these plans from Congress are just gimmick. if $1.2T or $1.4T cut is divided by 10, then 1 year spending cut is only a fraction of $1T per year deficit, which means it doesn't solve anything. <br/> i agree that going over the cliff is the best thing to happen for this country at this moment, since nothing else works anyway.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Instead, the only thing the House has is a partisan bill that would just barely pass the House (maybe not at all), would not pass the Senate and the President would not sign.
Should be a no-brainer - but........
You Own It !
We BORROW $4 Billion EVERY DAY !
Sometime in 2024 we shall be bankrupt ! The streets will be chaos, like modern day Greece.
As an Independent, I say, "a pox on both your houses."
Still you voted for BO ! ... Hello, dummies ...
Your grandkids will be fiscally enslaved.
and
You Own It !
. . . Hope you enjoy the real fall . . .
But hey it must be the video guys fault , well gee that won't work as he is behind bars this Christmass along with freedom of speech .
They need some rational thought ......and a little time to how well the cliff is working.
Hasn't anyone gotten the message: Deals for $2T in savings over a decade are not even close to the aveage of $500B per annum on average fiscal soundness that the cliff effects.
Let it happen.
Seriously. There is no rush todo something abjectly stupid, like water down the budgetary effects of the "cliff" before the end of the year.
In January, there is a new mix in the House and either the GOP will cobbletogether something supportably bipartisan, or a coalition of Dem and GOP reps will do so OR the "cliff" will remain in place until that happens.
Not so egregious a boogeyman. I for one would like to see both sides working on something more fiscally responsible than the cliff overall...NOT LESS effective as either side has been doing.
For now, the "cliff" is the fairest option there is. AND if theeconomy start's tanking, so much more the impetus to restore some stimulative measures.
Unless they can cut the deficit as much as the fiscall cliff, then let the cliff stand.
<br/>
i agree that going over the cliff is the best thing to happen for this country at this moment, since nothing else works anyway.