Congressional GOP: “No” to Tax Hikes

Chill, Save Jerseyans. Don’t hit your personal debt ceiling.

Our conservative congressional firewall is intact… for now. The President needs to own this fiscal cliff or get serious about federal spending cuts.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) told Breitbart News that his caucus isn’t budging on the tax question:

One issue I’ve never been conflicted about is taxes. I wasn’t sent to Washington to raise anybody’s taxes to pay for more wasteful spending and this election doesn’t change my principles. This election was a disappointment, without doubt, but let’s be clear about something: the House is still run by Republicans, and Republicans still maintain a robust minority in the Senate. I know some people out there think Tuesday’s results mean Republicans in Washington are now going to roll over and agree to Democrat demands that we hike tax rates before the end of the year. I’m here to tell them there is no truth to that notion whatsoever.”

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) was even more blunt during a Thursday interview with Diane Sawyer:

Raising tax rates is unacceptable… [f]rankly, it couldn’t even pass the House. I’m not sure it could pass the Senate.”

It’s amazing tax hikes are even on the table when the average New Jersey family will pay the IRS $4,126 more in 2013 owing to ObamaCare alone. It’s even more amazing that the mainstream media won’t ask Obama whether he’s willing to consider spending cuts despite losing 10 million votes from 2008. I’m willing to bet Diane Sawyer thinks the “Laffer curve” is a highway in Connecticut. But these are the times we live in…

Video:

Matt Rooney
About Matt Rooney 8390 Articles
MATT ROONEY is SaveJersey.com's founder and editor-in-chief, a practicing New Jersey attorney, and the host of 'The Matt Rooney Show' on 1210 WPHT every Sunday evening from 7-10PM EST.

4 Comments

  1. Why hasn't the media asked Obama recently whether he'd support spending cuts? Well, probably because they don't really have to.

    Obama's proposed 2013 budget included $1 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years, and it offered $2.50 in spending cuts for every $1 of increased revenue from letting the high-income Bush cuts expire. So Obama is already on the record as willing to support spending cuts.

    Romney and his fellows, on the other hand, refused even a 10-to-1 cuts-to-revenue ratio during the debates, and the Congressional GOP is, to your praise, continuing to refuse any and all tax increases.

    I know you guys think everyone who disagrees with you are ignorant, but it's time to accept the fact that Obama made the expiration of high-income Bush cuts a major theme of his candidacy, and he won. Polls have consistently shown that a majority of Americans support letting those cuts expire. You might disagree with that policy, but a majority of Americans support it, and it's not just because they're stupid.

    Yesterday you said you hope the parties can work together. The Democrats have offered cuts in exchange for revenue. The GOP has demanded cuts and offered nothing in exchange. Perhaps you should look to your own side to get that cooperation you say you want.

  2. You mean FAKE spending cuts:

    "1. Redefining Pell grants as mandatory spending. Stripped of this gimmick, discretionary spending jumps by $14 billion in 2012.

    2. Reclassifying $54 billion of surface transportation spending from discretionary spending to mandatory spending.

    3. Spending the peace dividend. The budget proposal includes spending for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, referred to as “overseas contingency operations,” as discretionary spending and reduces funding for these operations by $38.2 billion in 2012."

    http://blog.heritage.org/2011/02/14/obamas-fake-b

    Republicans will work with the President when he gets serious about the real problem: spending too much money.

  3. That post is about the 2012 budget, not the 2013 one I was referring to. But sure, let's go with it anyway.

    The 2013 Budget breaks mandatory spending down into the three entitlements, TARP, and "Other Mandatory Programs." So, for the sake of argument, let's just combine "Other Mandatory Program" in its entirety with Discretionary spending, and see where we are. Per Table S-5:

    In 2011, that figure was $1.93T (12.9% of GDP).

    In 2012, it was $2.03T (13.1%).

    2013: $1.92T (11.7%)

    2014: $1.80T (10.6%)

    2015: $1.80T (9.9%)

    2016: $1.85T (9.6%)

    That's a $110 billion cut from 2012-13, and another $120 billion cut 2013-14, at which point spending stabilizes $200 billion below 2012's level.

    But that includes defense spending, and so perhaps the cuts are inflated by the ending of two wars. So let's remove defense from the discretionary pool and see where we are:

    2012: $1.161T (7.5%)

    2013: $1.064T (6.5%)

    2014: $1.037T (6.1%)

    2015: $1.050T (5.9%)

    2016: $1.091T (5.7%)

    So, from 2012-13, we have a $100 billion cut, at which point things roughly stabilize. This ignores the war drawdown (and I think it's funny that the GOP doesn't think these savings should "count"), and it conflates all "other mandatory spending" with discretionary spending. And still, we end up with around $400 billion saved by 2016.

    Keep in mind that the GOP had offered nothing in the way of revenue increases when this budget was offered. In terms of a give-and-take compromise, this budget was Obama's first offer of what he'd give. And in return? Outcry that these cuts aren't enough and continued refusals to raise revenues through taxes.

    Maybe you want more cuts; that's fine. But this was a reasonable first offer, and to get more, Republicans need to offer something in return. That's how compromise works.

  4. Why is it Rep people keep going on about note letting the top 1% tax rate going up? WHY do there keep refusing to allow them to expire, by any chance are most of the top Rep in that tax code??? No one want to raise taxies on the middle classes.

Comments are closed.