POSTED BY ORHAN
House Speaker John Boehner held his weekly press conference today and demanded Democrats outline their plan for spending cuts “to avert the fiscal cliff and help get the economy moving again”:
“…the president has warned about the dangers of going over the fiscal cliff, but his actions have not matched his public statements…despite claims that the president supports a ‘balanced’ approach, the Democrats have yet to get serious about real spending cuts…Listen, this is not a game…And this is a moment for adult leadership…the White House has to get serious…we’ve put real concessions on the line by putting revenues on the table right up front…Republicans have taken action to avert the fiscal cliff by passing legislation to stop all the tax hikes, to replace the sequester, and pave the way for tax reform and entitlement reform….But without spending cuts and entitlement reform, it’s going to be impossible to address our country’s debt crisis, and get our economy going again, and to create jobs.”
Now it may sound rather ironic to hear Boehner calling for “adult leadership”, yet he says that the Republicans did in fact make concessions; they put “revenues on the table right up front.” Why would the Democrats refuse to compromise?
The White House has a notion. According to the Administration, it’s because even though they say they put revenues on the table, the Republican leadership won’t agree to raise tax rates on the top 2 percent. And the fact that the American people elected Obama on a platform that states the rich should pay more appears to be simply irrelevant to Boehner.
Parsing the rest of what Boehner is calling for–stopping tax hikes, paving the way for tax reform and entitlement reform–is just the same old Republican dogma, tax cuts and social spending cuts. And the bill to “replace the sequester” (designed by Paul Ryan and passed in the House with zero support from Democrats) replaced fiscal cliff Defense cuts with cuts to the Food Stamp program.
So Speaker Boehner is making clear the Republicans intent to change not one iota; they intend to dig in and hold fast to their program of serving the rich and the rest of the people be damned, even if we made clear our intent through the electoral process. So much for democracy.
You can have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, or democracy. But you cannot have both.
Whatever Works 
even if we made clear our intent through the electoral process. So much for democracy.
Dude. Boehner won his election too. As did Ryan.
And the fact that the American people elected Obama on a platform that states the rich should pay more appears to be simply irrelevant to Boehner.
This is Obama’s election “mandate”:
52% of Americans voted to raise taxes on 2% of Americans.
Is that what you mean? That a majority votes to raise taxes on the minority? Really?
According to the Administration, it’s because even though they say they put revenues on the table, the Republican leadership won’t agree to raise tax rates on the top 2 percent.
So, do you want more revenue or do you just wanna put a shiv in the back of the rich? I think you think the rich are evil and need to be punished, but…prove me wrong.
LikeLike
The Republicans party is owned, lock, stock, and barrel, by the rich. Do you honestly believe Republicans are so intransigent because of principle? The point is Obama ran on the platform that everybody is going to have to share the pain, with no exemptions for the rich–and the country agreed. This country needs action, right now, and the Republicans are playing their same old obstructionist games. But then they’re just representing the interests of their true constituents, aren’t they?
And as for “mandate”, no I don’t think there’s a “mandate”. Republicans get “mandates.” Every time a Republican gets elected to a local school board in Podunk, it’s a “mandate.” You even claim Boehner’s and Ryan’s wins give them the right to yank the country’s chain, as if they had a mandate. Obama’s win expresses the general will of the American people, and Republicans couldn’t care less; they know who they’re really working for.
LikeLike
What amazes me is how many middle- and lower-middle-class people buy into the GOP party line that taxing the rich might hurt business, but that attitude is common here in SW Missouri, one of the lowest-income metro areas in the country. Here’s a site the presents the case why this attitude is false.
LikeLike
Excellent article. I don’t think there’s ever been any correlation proven between tax rates and business investment, GDP, per capita GDP, or revenues.
LikeLike
Thanks, ojmo. It pleases me no end that you took the time to read the link – I wish more would do so.
LikeLike
I wish the same, Jim.
LikeLike
ojmo | November 30, 2012 at 9:15 am | Reply
Okay, so you didn’t prove me wrong. IN fact, you didn’t address my comment.
People win elections by screaming, “Tax the rich!” But when the numbers are run, it doesn’t matter. Taxing the rich at the rates Obama wants doesn’t accomplish any meaningful debt reduction.
So, again, do you want revenues or do you want to tax the rich?
LikeLike
@ Pino,
The CBO estimates that restoring the top 2% to pre-Bush-cut levels will generate an additional $268 Billion over ten years. That’s a quarter Trillion dollars. Sure matters to me.
That said, however, I agree that it doesn’t solve the problem. No single factor solves the problem, so it would be helpful if both sides stop implying the other side thinks so. We need entitlement reform just as we need increases in tax revenue.
LikeLike
Actually I did answer your question, and I’ll try to restate it as simply as possible:
Under the Democratic plan, ALL Americans, including the rich, will share the burden of restoring fiscal health to the country, not just the lower and middle classes.
In case that’s not clear enough: YES, the non-rich majority, in a triumph of democracy over capital, voted to raise taxes on the wealthy minority rather than give the rich a free ride while the rest of us live on Alpo and get our health care when we stagger, tumor-laden, into the emergency room.
BTW, your psychobabble about me thinking “the rich are evil and need to be punished” is not an argument, and there’s no way to prove meaningless psycho-drivel like that wrong. In any case, the burden of “proof” is on you. All I can suggest is to lay off the pop psychology; after all I’m just talking good old-fashioned American fairness here, along with 53% of the electorate.
LikeLike
pino, you note that “Boehner won his election too. As did Ryan.” True, but their constituencies are not national. Only the President is elected by a national constituency.. I think that makes a difference.
LikeLike
I think that makes a difference.
You make the case that because Obama won his mandate that Boener should abandon his. I think that’s naive.
LikeLike
I didn’t say Obama won a mandate, I said he won an election. Ryan also lost a national election by the by. And it DOES matter pino. Neither Obama nor Boehner should abandon principles, but that is NOT the same as compromising. Without compromise we get nowhere. That said though, Obama’s position is clearly more supported by the nation – he was very very clear that ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest was on his agenda.
LikeLike
So the “mandate” given Boehner by the people of Ohio applies to the entire country?
LikeLike
Moe, all significant politicians are elected by what amounts to a national constituency. Only the actual voters are local or regional.
Money, advertisements, media coverage, etc… are all national now. Look at CA and Prop 8; look at Wisconsin and Ohio. The list goes on and on.
LikeLike
jonolan – not a national constituency at all – the money comes from all over, and so do the votes for prez. Local campaigns get money too, but since their financers don’t get to vote . . . sounds like you think the voters are lhave no more standing than the financiers of campaigns?
LikeLike
Pingback: Boehner to America: drop dead…Whatever Works | Politicaldog101.Com
America to John Boehner: STICK IT IN YOUR EAR. WE FUCKING WON.
LikeLike
I wish we could yell it at him through a bullhorn.
LikeLike
Hear hear! …;-)
LikeLike
So the Republican plan is to get the revenues where…from everyone except the top 2%? I don’t hate the top 2%, but they can afford it the most, no?
LikeLike
That’s what really bothers me, if the tax rates on the top 2% revert to what they were during the Clinton years, the lives of the rich will be impacted hardly a whit, while if Medicare and Social Security are cut, the elderly, disabled, and poor–those least able to afford even small cuts–will experience genuine pain.
LikeLike
Yes, but we HAVE to cut these “entitlements”, apparently. There’s no dire need to cut defense spending, or raise taxes, but the Medicare/Social Security thing is *urgent* for some reason. It’s amusing to listen to, and would be more amusing if it wasn’t going to devastate people’s lives, as you remind us.
LikeLike
It’s odd how helping the weakest of us always threatens to destroy us.
LikeLike
That’s a great way to put it.
LikeLike
Are the above $ 250,000 per year crowd the 2% ? The Obamaites have never been right on anything economic, why would anyone believe they will stop with the rich once their tax the rich scheme fails to close the deficit ?
The Democrats are compulsive gamblers . Give them more money and they will spend more . That is history, that is fact . We on the Right choose not to be Enablers . You on the Left choose to believe chronic mendacity peddlers .
LikeLike
[ Give them more money and they will spend more . That is history, that is fact .]
Wrong Alan. The biggest contributors to the national debt in our lifetimes were Reagan and Bush II. Clinton cut government and created a budget surplus.
LikeLike
Actually, in all those cases – both the good and the bad – it was the Congresses that did that. You might want to look up the makeup of those respective Congresses and what budgets – back when we had them – they created.
LikeLike
Of course it was the Congresses that passed budgets. And president’s signed or didn’t.
Bush II had three majority Republican Senates and one majority Dem. He halso had three majority Republican Houses.
Obama so far has had two majority Repubican houses and one Dem. He’s had hte Senate throughout.
Reagn had three majority Repulican Senates and one Dem. He had Dem Houses throughout.
Basically, it’s a mix and the prez does or doesn’t have an impact. Certainly in the case of Bush II, two wars and Medicare D were entirely his and are the basis of our current debt.
LikeLike
Ms. Holland ,
President Obama is the $ 6 Trillion Dollar Man . No one else can be blamed, but go ahead anyway . The other driver of deficits is entitlements . Democrats have occasionally told the truth on this before they were marched to the Reeducation Camps , err the woodshed .
You guys ultimately have the political power to raise taxes on the rich, and the rest of us too . Like every single economic thing President Obama has done, it will fail in it’s objective ? Taxes for everyone will go up and guess what, the deficit will too ?
LikeLike