Boehner: Obama's 'fiscal cliff' deal 'mainly tax hikes'

[TomCADem]

Source: LA Times

WASHINGTON -- Republican leaders kicked off Wednesday with a fierce critique of President Obama's handling of “fiscal cliff” negotiations, part of the political posturing on both sides that has characterized efforts to avoid across-the-board tax hikes and spending cuts before a January deadline.

House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), who has been engaged in face-to-face meetings and phone calls with Obama since last weekend, dismissed the president's latest proposals as unbalanced.

“As of today, the president's plan to avert the fiscal cliff still does not meet the two standards that I laid out the day after the election,” Boehner told a news conference. “His plan does not fulfill his promise to bring a balanced approach to solving this problem. It's mainly tax hikes.”

* * *

The latest White House plan, updated on Monday, promises to raise $1.4 trillion in new revenue chiefly from higher taxes on couples who earn more than $250,000 a year, and individuals who earn more than $200,000, along with $400 billion in spending cuts drawn largely from Medicare.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-boehner-obama-fiscal-cliff-deal-20121212,0,3461832.story

---

Here is the problem with the newspaper coverage. First, no one is getting in Boehner's grill for the lack of movement on his end and the fact they have offered no movement on tax rates nor have they indicated what cuts they want in return for such tax rates hikes. Worse, the media simply lets Republicans insist that Democrats need to be the ones to guess at cuts that are acceptable to Republicans without asking why shouldn't Republicans who want the cuts offer more detail on what they want to cut.

The sad truth is that the Republican caucas is like Lord of the Flies. The goal posts will always be moved. The Republicans are not trying to avoid a fiscal or debt ceiling crisis. Instead, they seem to be unable to avoid creating such crises on purpose.

[chuckstevens]

1. And Your Point Is What?

MOSTLY TAX CUTS? Yes Speaker Boehner, because that is what the American people endorsed on Nov 6, 2012. Remember there was a national referendum on GOP tax breaks for the Uber-Wealthy and it was FLATLY REJECTED? YOU LOSE, YOU GET NOTHING, GOOD DAY SIR!

[DenverDad]

8. K & R

For the Willy Wonka reference!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

2. Except for President Obama's revenue-neutral proposal to drop the corporate tax rate from

35% to 28% (and reportedly "close loopholes," details to be disclosed later).

[Xipe Totec]

3. And?

Your point, orange man?

[democrattotheend]

4. Good!

Tax hikes on the top 2% are what we need right now to balance the budget. Tax hikes on people making less will hurt the demand side of the economy, as will government spending cuts. I am glad the president is being stubborn.

Normally, I believe a negotiation should involve both sides meeting in the middle. But when one side just one an election based on their position in the negotiation, and polls continue to show that most Americans support said position, they shouldn't have to meet the other side halfway.

[mostlyconfused]

10. Except the top 2% cannot be taxed enough to balance the budget

Not even close. You want a balanced budget...that is only going to happen with tax increases on pretty much everyone, and substantial reductions in spending.

[1ProudAtheist]

11. Couple Of Facts

1-These negotiations are not about balancing the budget, they are about reducing the deficit.

2-Cutting SS benefits does not reduce the deficit, nor lower the debt.

3-Cutting Medicare benefits will not reduce the deficit, nor lower the debt.

4-If the main goal of these negotiations was really about deficit reduction or lowering the debt, then both sides should allow January 1st to come and go without a deal, as the sequester would do more than any negotiated deal would do along those lines. Also, the tax rate hikes would be even more severe on the top 2%.......which is a fantastic idea.

5-Those top tier tax rates are going up........and there is no stopping that train now. The only question now is whether they will go up on all income, or just income over 250K per year.

[SoapBox]

5. "mainly"...but, not all.

Put the fuck up Boner...OR shut UP!

[Amonester]

6. Yes. And a majority of Americans clearly stands with their President's plan, orangeman.

So?

[DallasNE]

7. Where Are The Goal Posts Boehner?

You want "balance" yet you have refused to draw a line in the sand and say "that is balance". I'm wondering why Obama came out with a new proposal on Monday because it makes it look like he is negotiating with himself and that is both bad politics and bad policy. Boehner needs to send a plan to CBO for scoring and then we can take a look at it. That will require detail and force Boehner's hand. Right now Obama has nothing to talk about with Boehner so he needs to stop trying.

[olddad56]

9. And boners plan is mainly entitlement cuts. Which are simply tax increases on non rich.

[John2]

12. I don't accept

that Boehner is dictating to a President that just won a hard fought national election period! Just where does he and that gang of right wing Republicans get off period! Those house Republicans did not run on any national level. Their national standard bearers were Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. The people in their District also voted for Romney and Ryan. The Democrats gave Bush,and Reagan their programs. They didn't obstruct anything. Bush and Reagan both got their Tax cuts and Bush got his no child left behind. The first Obama term, these Republicans decided to obstruct. It is the same old thing this term, while the media is their crime in partner. The problem is the Republicans and the media. The media should be putting pressure on the Republicans and not trying to influence this country's Policies for one Party or the other. They need to report the decision of the country and not trying to paint the losing side as some co winners. I can see it if Boehner was representing the interests of every citizen in his District, including those who didn't vote for him, but he did not win any mandate on the national level. They need to look at that Constitution again. His District does not set National Policy. That purview belongs to the President of the United States. The President can ask for a national mandate, because he represents the whole country by running on the national level. if Boehner wanted to run for President, then he should have. Boehner does not represent Wall Street people either, that don't live in his District. He is not suppose to be representing people like Sheldon Adelson or anybody else on Wall Street.

I can see where individual congress people bring bills to the floor in their interests,but only the President can sign it, depending on the number of votes. If the President disagrees with the Policy, he can veto it and the only way it can get overridden is by 2/3 votes of the Congress.
The powers between the President and Congress needs to be clarified better. This is my understanding about the separation of Powers.

[thelordofhell]

13. Eat It Boehner!!!