The GOP's fiscal-cliff ace in the hole: 'Option C'
E. Thomas McClanahanFormer White House staff Keith Hennessey notes that according to conventional wisdom, House Republicans face the choice of approving what could be a stinky Obama-Boehner deal or going over the fiscal cliff and whacking the economy.
But if there was another option, a third choice that Republicans could hold their nose and swallow, that would strengthen Boehner’s hand. If faced with a bad offer from a president in a take-it-or-leave-it mood, the speaker could tell the prez to jump in a lake and move to option C.
Option C isn’t that great, however. The plan would be to have the House pass a bill already approved by Senate Democrats. Basicallly, it would give Obama the tax increases he wants on top earners and extend current rates for everyone else. Also: It would expire after one year.
That would put the bill on Obama’s desk and the ball in his court. It’s not likely he would veto the thing.
Hennessey: “This doesn’t mean Republicans want to go with option C, or that they like option C. It instead means their negotiator now has the ability to walk away from a really terrible deal with the President, and that he can therefore demand a bit more from the President in exchange for cooperation on a deal.”
This strikes me as entirely plausible. Obama is already overplaying his hand. He could well push Republicans into Option C. Their fingerprints wouldn’t be on any recession next year (the economy is already weakening). And this would kick the can to the end of 2013. Kicking the can is what Washington does these days. Who would be surprised if they did it again?
Steve Alleman
Kansas City
5 months, 1 week agoAs usual, the Republican ‘strategy’ is to think about their political power instead of the good of the country. You’d think they couldn’t ignore the recent election, but when you’ve run out of ideas I guess all you can do is double down on what hasn’t worked in the past. Pathetic.
Matt McKinley
5 months, 1 week agoAs usual, the Democratic ‘strategy’ is to think about their political power instead of the good of the country. You’d think they couldn’t ignore the recent total failures of many Eurpoean Socialist Utopia’s, but when you’ve run out of ideas I guess all you can do is double down on what hasn’t worked in the past. Pathetic.
George Hunsucker
Northland
5 months, 1 week agoGood parody steve… as usual you libs are a hoot….
Mark Hastert
5 months, 1 week agoI think it’s called kicking the can down the road. C’mon solve some problems will ya? The public WANTS SS, Medicare etc. The majority of Americans WANT to keep people from dying for lack of adequate care. We WANT to care for the aged, sick, etc. We WANT or nation to reflect our beliefs is fairness and compassion. We WANT to be safe from our enemies. So FIX it! We know these things cost money so let’s raise the money and pay for the things we all know we want. This doesn’t have to be so hard.
Bob McBride
5 months, 1 week agoI WANT a new car. I WANT a new house. But I CAN’T afford it and neither can our country afford all that you want Mark.
Johnathon Busby
5 months, 1 week agoParody is a resort for those who cannot conjugate a coherent argument of their own, George, Matt.
Kicking the can would be a sad result, but I could see the Cons forcing the issue. I’m 50/50 about whether the prez would veto it.
George Hunsucker
Northland
5 months, 1 week agofor those that need it Johnathon:
definition of parody:
“a feeble or ridiculous imitation”
This pretty much defines zero’s idea of a “budget” where America goes another 1 1/2 trillion into debt and we add taxes to our job producers. Certainly seems like a ridiculous imitation for a “leader”, but I am not a smart lib, THANKFULLY!!!
Yup, “cons” are causing all of this since ZERO has proposed such a visionary(one could say halluicinating) plan for America, hasn’t he?
George Hunsucker
Northland
5 months, 1 week agoAmericans want spending cuts though they reelected our all-time big spender, zero:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/12/fox-news-poll-according-to-voters-spending-cuts-are-must/
Matt Henry
5 months, 1 week agoThe President and the Democrats are demagogic charlatans. I challenge any of you to dispute that after this.
The biggest estimate I can find as to how much revenue these >$250,000 tax increases would produce is about $890b over 10 years. So say $90b a year. And this is the figure coming from those who are promoting the idea; the more likely scenario is that they will produce far less as earners look for more ways to reduce their tax burden, and of course there will be a bleed-over to other brackets as these producers stop doing as many things that lead to increased tax revenue, like hiring and buying stuff.
There is a story out today (12-13) that November 2012’s budget deficit, this one month alone, was $172b. This figure was 25% higher than last year. Last year’s oct-sept fiscal year budget deficit was $1.1trillion. The first two months of the budget year (oct-nov) saw spending rise from last year $87b, or 16%.
Were you able to apply all ten years of this purported revenue from increased taxes on the “rich” in one year you would not be able to cover 1 year’s budget deficit. It would fund about 20% of the 2012 federal budget. Of course, only one year’s additional revenue will fund about 2.5% of the government and considerably less than 10% of the annual deficit. In other words, it would have little to no effect on deficit and debt figures.
If you look at the numbers, there is absolutely no way that you can spin these increases as necessary to improve the economy. They are a pittance in terms of the overall level of government expenditure, they make barely a blip in either the deficit or the debt, spending is still increasing at a rate that will make any revenue from these increases negligible, and then add the fact that they are making no attempt whatsoever to address the looming problems with entitlement programs.
No, there is absolutely no defensible position regarding these increases on the fiscal responsibility front. We don’t even need to talk about how they might do damage to make the claim that they are counterproductive or at best neutral to economic conditions.
With this established, we must look to other reasons that the president would hold all the other tax rates “hostage.” He cannot claim these rates alone are necessary to improve the condition of the country. And God knows he has refused to do anything about the looming entitlement problems. So what is it? Political? Ideological? I personally think he is more than willing to throw this country into economic turmoil in order to blame the damage on the Republicans and advance his socialist/neo-communist agenda. He knows he can do this because of the dumbed-down public-educated Obama-phone voter who will not understand that they are being played. Never let a good crisis go to waste, especially when you create it yourself.
George Hunsucker
Northland
5 months, 1 week agoDo you libs really think this is sustainable?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamas-plan-adds-86-trillion-debt_666402.html
Matt Henry
5 months, 1 week agoGeorge, the politicians know that this debt is not sustainable, but they literally don’t give two poops about the long-term economic well-being of the country, at least not as you and I would define it.
Now the rubes that follow them around like imprinted ducklings do not. They think the only reason we can’t afford all they want is because the awful rich won’t pay their fair share. But don’t blame them; blame the officials who have lied to them and dumbed them and their children down for decades in order to create a pliable, dependent populace.
JR Beillenhouser
5 months, 1 week agoMatt - blame the Old Media as well, because they are too enamored with the president to tell the truth. Where are the articles about the spending in the Star?
Johnathon Busby
5 months, 1 week agoYes, George, that’s what a parody is all right.
And you won’t get me to defend the president’s economic policies. They’re not why I voted for him. The economy can wait, there are more important issues going on in this nation (such as how we treat gays, illegals, etc). Till those are resolved, or till the GOP puts up candidates who are on the right side of those issues, I don’t much care whether you (or I) have an extra $20 per paycheck.
With regards to the Fox poll, the US population wants everything, if you hadn’t noticed. Cuts, increases, taxes for everyone (but not themselves), etc.
Finally, blaming the media has long been a conservative excuse when the voting population rejects them and their goals. The conservative hubris cannot fathom there might be anything wrong with their orthodox platform, therefore the other side must have cheated in some way (whether that’s an eeeeevil liberal media, a president who was born in Kenya and is a Muslim, or that tide of voter fraud the cons wanted to suppress… I mean fix.)
JR Beillenhouser
5 months, 1 week agoBlaming the media is so easy when the facts show that they report based on their agenda. There used to be doubt that this was occurring, but for any one who pays any attention, the last 10 years proves it.
JR Beillenhouser
5 months, 1 week agoYou will care when it’s more than $20 a paycheck though. And with QE4 going on now and the feds idea to pump 85 billion a month until the unemployment rate hits 6.7, it won’t take long for that to happen.
Matt Henry
5 months, 1 week agoConsidering the width and breadth of the economic problems that we face in this country and how they effect everyone, including gay people and immigrants, I find it unfathomable that someone would say that “the economy can wait” in favor of these other issues, especially when those issues have so completely favored his (presumed) preferred positions in the last many years. And to think that all that is really at risk is whether or not we get an extra $20 per paycheck is, well, it’s flabbergasting to me.
Although I have almost never agreed with anything Johnathon has posted he seems (by his picture) to be young and involved and I have to respect that. But to be this involved and opinionated and this either intellectually dishonest or mal-informed about the challenges we face is exactly the type of voter I referenced in my previous comment and why I’m scared to death about our future.
Phil Cardarella
5 months, 1 week agoHere is the absolute truth: Tax breaks for the upper 2% became dead meat on Nov. 6.
Elections have consequences, and that is one of the consequences of that one. All Obama need do is …nothing.
And, no Congress in the forseeable future will reinstate them. Once rates for the 98% are separated from the 2%, it is suicide to try to re-link them.
In this, Boehner has no hand to play: Pass the Senate bill or be blamed by 98% for raising their taxes — while you give Obama a ton of new tax revenue.
This is not to say that everyone should act responsibly in further negotiations. It is simply to say that negotiations on the issue of higher taxes for the wealthy has already been submitted to binding arbitration — and the voters have ruled in Obama’s favor.
Matt Henry
5 months, 1 week agoRates are already separated for the top 2% from the rest. Why do you think we have difference tax rates?
Of course elections have consequences, but we did not elect a dictator despite how much he acts like one. We personally do not have to roll over and die for Mr. Wonderful, and we sure don’t have to ask our elected representatives to do the same. The 2010 elections, followed by the strength of the Republicans in the House elections in 2012 have consequences too. We expect them to stand up to the President when he is being demonstratively and purposely harmful to the constituencies that these Congresspeople represent.
And again, you are right. Boehner’s hands are limited because of the ideological demagoguery of the left. Mr. Obama has no motivation for this increase in taxes other than to play to his base, satisfy his ideological need for radical egalitarianism, and use the lapdog press to blame it on the other side in an attempt to destroy them, the same press that has provided cover on the Benghazi cover-up and the fast-and-furious “executive privilege” embarrassment.
I have given you ample opportunity, in multiple post boards, to deal with the facts behind these tax increases, Phil, but you have ducked-and-covered more than once now. Mr. Obama has some motivation other than the economic good of the country behind what he is doing. What could that be?
Johnathon Busby
5 months, 1 week agoJunior: You dwell in fear if it pleases you, I don’t worry about my ability to feed myself.
Matt:”But to be this involved and opinionated and this either intellectually dishonest or mal-informed about the challenges we face is exactly the type of voter I referenced in my previous comment and why I’m scared to death about our future.”
Careful, you’ll hurt my feelings. But why don’t you tell me why I’m wrong, instead of hurling derision my direction? (I don’t recommend it, but if you think you’ve got a leg to stand on…) For what it’s worth, you and the cons make me scared to death of our past. Can’t believe how far we’ve come in the last thirty or fifty years.
You don’t have to “roll over” at all; the rates will be increased, even as the cons wail and grind their teeth. You cons will have another day, when you actually have some political leverage and clout, but for now the sequestration ensures this issue is lost to you. The revenues are going up, maybe rates too.
“…use the lapdog press…”
Again, blaming the press is a weak excuse the cons turn to and cling to when their philosophy is rejected by the voters. Hubris and such, please read the earlier post more thoroughly.
George: Nope, we can’t go to 25 trillion in debt, not without massive consequence. Now, give me a candidate who will fix it, and also understands the difference between right and wrong with regards to equality, etc. Till I see that, I’ll continue to vote for the party that does value equality, and next to that the economy is of little significance. We don’t get to put aside ethics, values, and responsibility to our fellows merely because it has become (financially) difficult or (economically) inconvenient for you.
JR Beillenhouser
5 months, 1 week agoBrilliant analysis Matt. Great letter. He still won’t get it though. My guess is that he has no kids. Only then to you really understand what is at stake. But then again, there are several other letter writers from the left on here with kids and they have no problem saddling their kids and grandkids generation with debt. Truly pathetic, ill informed and beyond any reason.
Johnathon Busby
5 months, 1 week agoDang it, I really need to specify; social cons. Fiscal cons are great, they just need to get ahold of the reigns of their party.
Sorry for that inaccurate/incorrect shortening of social conservative to con, it’s early and I’m in a hurry for work.
Johnathon Busby
5 months, 1 week agoYou know, I keep hoping that one of these days I’ll figure out what it is that gets my posts deleted on occasion. sighs Ah well, another argument, another day.