Aa
GOP offers own proposal to avert 'fiscal cliff'
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/03/15649000-gop-offers-own-proposal-to-avert-fiscal-cliff?lite
A snippet from the article:
"As Republicans put it, they would raise $800 billion in new revenue through tax reform, $600 billion in health savings, $200 billion from changes to the Consumer Price Index, $300 billion in discretionary spending cuts, and another $300 billion in savings in mandatory spending. Many of the health savings track closely with the changes to Medicare first proposed in Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan’s budgets.
Republicans say the plan, using the Obama administration’s math, would achieve $4.6 trillion in savings.
It’s unclear, though, whether the Republican plan would move toward ending the stalemate around the fiscal cliff negotiations, with less than a month remaining until the automatic tax hikes and spending cuts are scheduled to snap into place on Jan. 1."
A snippet from the article:
"As Republicans put it, they would raise $800 billion in new revenue through tax reform, $600 billion in health savings, $200 billion from changes to the Consumer Price Index, $300 billion in discretionary spending cuts, and another $300 billion in savings in mandatory spending. Many of the health savings track closely with the changes to Medicare first proposed in Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan’s budgets.
Republicans say the plan, using the Obama administration’s math, would achieve $4.6 trillion in savings.
It’s unclear, though, whether the Republican plan would move toward ending the stalemate around the fiscal cliff negotiations, with less than a month remaining until the automatic tax hikes and spending cuts are scheduled to snap into place on Jan. 1."
It's a start..... It lacks detail overall but its a start.
No specifics? I want specifics. Does that mean they still want to change the age to 67 for medicare, and what was that about ss? I want specifics and the bush tax cuts gone.
Teko, I thought that there was a goal on both sides to at least preserve the tax cuts for those making 250,000 or less. ??? Are you talking about those or taxes for those making more than that?
They should keep SS out of it. It has NO effecting factor on the deficit so it should not be on the table....
I say let ALL the taxes expire...It would be nice to continue the tax break but IMO the bet thing to do is just let them expire...
I want all the Bush Tax Cuts gone. If obama wants to come back later and give the middleclass a tax cut, fine but these need to be expired like they were meant to be, imo Im a rebel!
Hm. Why do both sides want to keep them in place for that 98%? I feel like I could use a little more time before they go up personally but don't want to be selfish. So, I wouldn't mind them being extended for another year but others will be hurt by it. So, I thought that was why Dems and Repubs were hoping to let them go for the 98% another year. ???
I'll roll and live with whatever but it does seem that they have a push to keep them in place . . . if what they say is true. (again, does Obama REALLY want to go over the cliff but not saying it?)
I'll roll and live with whatever but it does seem that they have a push to keep them in place . . . if what they say is true. (again, does Obama REALLY want to go over the cliff but not saying it?)
If you have trouble understanding what I meant by my above post, I don't blame you. Yeesh. I made my simple thoughts difficult to understand.
It appears the gop want to keep the tax cuts for everyone, (are we surprised?). I say lose em! We need revenue remember? We cannot afford them! I still want specifics so we will she what happens next. Why wont they say what the plan entails?
Obama wants to keep them for everyone earning under 250.000 a year because if you cut taxes and all these programs and people cannot make ends meet, they will head straight to things like medicaid and unemployment and the like, only making the spending side much worse. Boomerang effect. But if they are going to hold the ones for the uppers hostage then I say let em all expire and obama can come back and give a tax cut to replace it with the middle class! And it kicks Norquist to the curb which I like.
Read the full letter from House Republican leaders here:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/house-republicans-release-counterproposal-fiscal-cliff-talks-204652663--election.html
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/house-republicans-release-counterproposal-fiscal-cliff-talks-204652663--election.html
"status quo re-election"...HA!..Election 2012 was FAR from status quo Mr. Boehner....FYI, the house kept their seats because of all the gerrymandering...
"gerrymandering is a practice that attempts to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating geographic boundaries to create partisan or incumbent-protected districts."
"gerrymandering is a practice that attempts to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating geographic boundaries to create partisan or incumbent-protected districts."
Its a non starter, rejected.....
I read the letter...completely reasonable, and makes perfect sense. They raised some REALLY good points in it too.
Other than them not agreeing to the increase in taxes for the wealthy, I cannot see how their proposal would be objectionable. It's obvious they're not going to budge on raising taxes on the wealthy. It would be nice if they would both compromise from here a little.
I'm glad they included some references on where they're coming from.
Other than them not agreeing to the increase in taxes for the wealthy, I cannot see how their proposal would be objectionable. It's obvious they're not going to budge on raising taxes on the wealthy. It would be nice if they would both compromise from here a little.
I'm glad they included some references on where they're coming from.
The letter:
The President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President,
After a status quo election in which both you and the Republican majority in the House were re-elected, the American people rightly expect both parties to come together on a fair middle ground and address the nation's most pressing challenges.
To that end, shortly after the election, we presented you with a balanced framework for averting the fiscal cliff by coupling spending cuts and reforms with new tax revenue. We then welcomed Secretary Geithner to the Capitol on November 29 with every expectation that he would lay out a similarly reasonable path.
Regrettably, the proposal he outlined on behalf of your Administration contains very little in the way of common ground. The proposal calls for $1.6 trillion in new tax revenue, twice the amount you supported during the campaign. The proposal also includes four times as much tax revenue as spending cuts, in stark contrast to the "balanced approach" on which you campaigned. While administration officials are claiming that this proposal contains 2.5 dollars of spending cuts for each dollar in new revenue, counting as part of this ratio previously enacted savings — as if these were new spending reductions — only confuses the public debate. What's worse, the modest spending cuts in this offer are cancelled out by the additional 'stimulus' measures the Administration is requesting. And, this proposal would remove any and all limits on federal borrowing.
(cont...)
The President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President,
After a status quo election in which both you and the Republican majority in the House were re-elected, the American people rightly expect both parties to come together on a fair middle ground and address the nation's most pressing challenges.
To that end, shortly after the election, we presented you with a balanced framework for averting the fiscal cliff by coupling spending cuts and reforms with new tax revenue. We then welcomed Secretary Geithner to the Capitol on November 29 with every expectation that he would lay out a similarly reasonable path.
Regrettably, the proposal he outlined on behalf of your Administration contains very little in the way of common ground. The proposal calls for $1.6 trillion in new tax revenue, twice the amount you supported during the campaign. The proposal also includes four times as much tax revenue as spending cuts, in stark contrast to the "balanced approach" on which you campaigned. While administration officials are claiming that this proposal contains 2.5 dollars of spending cuts for each dollar in new revenue, counting as part of this ratio previously enacted savings — as if these were new spending reductions — only confuses the public debate. What's worse, the modest spending cuts in this offer are cancelled out by the additional 'stimulus' measures the Administration is requesting. And, this proposal would remove any and all limits on federal borrowing.
(cont...)
We cannot in good conscience agree to this approach, which is neither balanced nor realistic. If we were to take your Administration's proposal at face value, then we would counter with the House-passed Budget Resolution. It assumes an overhaul of our tax code with revenue remaining at historically normal levels and proposes structural reforms to preserve and protect the Nation's entitlement programs, ensuring they are sustainable for the long-term rather than continuing to grow out of control. Some of its key reforms include:
The House-passed Budget Resolution assumes enactment of structural Medicare reform that offers future beneficiaries guaranteed coverage options, including a traditional fee-for-service Medicare plan. This proposal is based on recent bipartisan efforts and would provide greater support for the poor and the sick and less support for the wealthy. We achieve these reforms in Medicare without affecting current seniors or those nearing retirement. This would slow the projected explosive spending growth in this program and eventually maintain Medicare spending as a share of the economy at 4.75 percent, thus saving the program for future generations.
The House-passed Budget Resolution reforms Medicaid and provides states with greater flexibility to better deliver health security to beneficiaries, saving the federal government nearly $800 billion over 10 years.
Separate from savings in our proposal for the 2010 health care law, the House-passed Budget Resolution envisions hundreds of billions in savings in other mandatory spending, including reforms to Federal employee compensation and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
(cont..)
The House-passed Budget Resolution assumes enactment of structural Medicare reform that offers future beneficiaries guaranteed coverage options, including a traditional fee-for-service Medicare plan. This proposal is based on recent bipartisan efforts and would provide greater support for the poor and the sick and less support for the wealthy. We achieve these reforms in Medicare without affecting current seniors or those nearing retirement. This would slow the projected explosive spending growth in this program and eventually maintain Medicare spending as a share of the economy at 4.75 percent, thus saving the program for future generations.
The House-passed Budget Resolution reforms Medicaid and provides states with greater flexibility to better deliver health security to beneficiaries, saving the federal government nearly $800 billion over 10 years.
Separate from savings in our proposal for the 2010 health care law, the House-passed Budget Resolution envisions hundreds of billions in savings in other mandatory spending, including reforms to Federal employee compensation and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
(cont..)
(cont..)These reforms are, in our view, absolutely essential to addressing the true drivers of our debt, and we will continue to support and advance them. At the same time, mindful of the status quo election and past exchanges on these questions, we recognize it would be counterproductive to publicly or privately propose entitlement reforms that you and the leaders of your party appear unwilling to support in the near-term.
With the fiscal cliff nearing, our priority remains finding a reasonable solution that can pass both the House and the Senate, and be signed into law in the next couple of weeks. The best way to do this is by learning from and building on the bipartisan discussions that have occurred during this Congress, including the Biden Group, the Joint Select Committee, and our negotiations leading up to the Budget Control Act.
For instance, on November 1 of last year, Erskine Bowles, the co-chair of your debt commission, presented the Joint Select Committee with a middle ground approach that garnered praise from many fiscal watchdogs and nonpartisan experts. He recommended that both parties agree to a balanced package that includes significant spending cuts as well as $800 billion in new revenue.
(cont..)
With the fiscal cliff nearing, our priority remains finding a reasonable solution that can pass both the House and the Senate, and be signed into law in the next couple of weeks. The best way to do this is by learning from and building on the bipartisan discussions that have occurred during this Congress, including the Biden Group, the Joint Select Committee, and our negotiations leading up to the Budget Control Act.
For instance, on November 1 of last year, Erskine Bowles, the co-chair of your debt commission, presented the Joint Select Committee with a middle ground approach that garnered praise from many fiscal watchdogs and nonpartisan experts. He recommended that both parties agree to a balanced package that includes significant spending cuts as well as $800 billion in new revenue.
(cont..)
(cont..)
Notably, the new revenue in the Bowles plan would not be achieved through higher tax rates, which we continue to oppose and will not agree to in order to protect small businesses and our economy. Instead, new revenue would be generated through pro-growth tax reform that closes special-interest loopholes and deductions while lowering rates. On the spending side, the Bowles recommendation would cut more than $900 billion in mandatory spending and another $300 billion in discretionary spending. These cuts would be over and above the spending reductions enacted in the Budget Control Act.
This is by no means an adequate long-term solution, as resolving our long-term fiscal crisis will require fundamental entitlement reform. Indeed, the Bowles plan is exactly the kind of imperfect, but fair middle ground that allows us to avert the fiscal cliff without hurting our economy and destroying jobs. We believe it warrants immediate consideration.
If you are agreeable to this framework, we are ready and eager to begin discussions about how to structure these reforms so that the American people can be confident that these targets will be reached.
Again, the American people expect their leaders to find fair middle ground to address the nation's most pressing challenges. To achieve that outcome, we respectfully request that you respond to this letter in a timely fashion and hope that you will refrain from any further action that would undermine good-faith efforts to reach a reasonable and equitable agreement in this critical matter.
Sincerely,
John Boehner, Speaker
Eric Cantor, Majority Leader
Kevin McCarthy, Majority Whip
Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Republican Conference Chairman
Dave Camp, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means
Paul Ryan, Committee on the Budget
Fred Upton, Committee on Energy & Commerce
...
Notably, the new revenue in the Bowles plan would not be achieved through higher tax rates, which we continue to oppose and will not agree to in order to protect small businesses and our economy. Instead, new revenue would be generated through pro-growth tax reform that closes special-interest loopholes and deductions while lowering rates. On the spending side, the Bowles recommendation would cut more than $900 billion in mandatory spending and another $300 billion in discretionary spending. These cuts would be over and above the spending reductions enacted in the Budget Control Act.
This is by no means an adequate long-term solution, as resolving our long-term fiscal crisis will require fundamental entitlement reform. Indeed, the Bowles plan is exactly the kind of imperfect, but fair middle ground that allows us to avert the fiscal cliff without hurting our economy and destroying jobs. We believe it warrants immediate consideration.
If you are agreeable to this framework, we are ready and eager to begin discussions about how to structure these reforms so that the American people can be confident that these targets will be reached.
Again, the American people expect their leaders to find fair middle ground to address the nation's most pressing challenges. To achieve that outcome, we respectfully request that you respond to this letter in a timely fashion and hope that you will refrain from any further action that would undermine good-faith efforts to reach a reasonable and equitable agreement in this critical matter.
Sincerely,
John Boehner, Speaker
Eric Cantor, Majority Leader
Kevin McCarthy, Majority Whip
Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Republican Conference Chairman
Dave Camp, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means
Paul Ryan, Committee on the Budget
Fred Upton, Committee on Energy & Commerce
...
So if you see it as so reasonable, how about sharing. What exactly are the specifics.....
There are NO details...
U took the words right out of mouth...lol
There are a couple, continue the cuts(surprise!), and I liked this statement too, we recognize it would be counterproductive to publicly or privately propose entitlement reforms that you and the leaders of your party appear unwilling to support in the near-term.
And this?
Separate from savings in our proposal for the 2010 health care law, the House-passed Budget Resolution envisions hundreds of billions in savings in other mandatory spending, including reforms to Federal employee compensation and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
So I guess in order to get the drift of the rest of it, we must go on the hunt for the Senate passed Resolution ? That didnt pass then, so why would they now? Sounds just like that Ryan plan coming back to bite to me!
And this?
Separate from savings in our proposal for the 2010 health care law, the House-passed Budget Resolution envisions hundreds of billions in savings in other mandatory spending, including reforms to Federal employee compensation and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
So I guess in order to get the drift of the rest of it, we must go on the hunt for the Senate passed Resolution ? That didnt pass then, so why would they now? Sounds just like that Ryan plan coming back to bite to me!
give the rich their tax hike and starve them thar kids! Reasonable at best it is.
Are we reading the same letter? I see plenty of details.
You want to talk details....where were they in Obama's proposal? This at least outlines a little bit more.
Yeah, I'm biased, I know. I admit it. But, I think what they have proposed is sensible and reasonable, MUCH moreso than Obama's offer, with the only exception being taxing the wealthy more.
So, what's your issues with what they have proposed, minus the obvious holding their line on the tax hikes for the wealthy? What is not agreeable? Where do you think there is compromise needed? (Serious question...not being smart at all)
You want to talk details....where were they in Obama's proposal? This at least outlines a little bit more.
Yeah, I'm biased, I know. I admit it. But, I think what they have proposed is sensible and reasonable, MUCH moreso than Obama's offer, with the only exception being taxing the wealthy more.
So, what's your issues with what they have proposed, minus the obvious holding their line on the tax hikes for the wealthy? What is not agreeable? Where do you think there is compromise needed? (Serious question...not being smart at all)
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
