On The Debt Committee.

616.) Well as most of the world now knows, well those who care about important things like the finanical future of our nation, the super committee has failed. What that means is that there will be huge spending cuts in both defense spending, and social programs.  President Obama had some strong words on the failure, but what were those words, were they words of encouragement to the nation, words of disappointement in the law makers in congress not working together, or perhapes words on how to move forward, which words did President Barack Obama choose to lead this nation from darkness after this troubling turn of events? Actually he chose none of these words, instead of being a leader President Obama chose to take this opprotunity to campaign, and rather than move forward play the blame game and hope to score some political points. He put the blame for the failure of the super committee souly on the shoulders of those evil Republicans who only want rich people to live and poor people to die in the streets. He said “There are still too many Republicans in Congress who have refused to listen to the voice of reason and compromise”, really, Republicans won’t listen to reason and compromise, that is funny, I believe the same was said when he ram rodded his Healthcare bill through congress, even then it was the Republicans fault (even though he didn’t need a single Republican vote to pass the law). It seems he has no other action he can take, no other club in his golf bag to choose, than blame Republicans, well there is always the good ol 7 iron of blame Bush.  Unfortunatly in this case President Obama is either lying, or demonstraighting the fact that he has paid no attention to the proceedings of this Super Committee. It was not just the stuborn hard headed, mustache twirling, cigar smoking Republicans who would not see reason, it was not Republicans that would not compromise, it was the Democrates on the Super Committee who refused to yeild. So I will lay out the facts in as simple of a manor as possible.

  • As Defined by Webster Compromise: a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.
  • Republicans stand against raising taxes. Democrats want to raise taxes
  • The Super Committee was charged with cutting $1,200,000,000,000.00 (1.2 trillion dollars) from the deficit.
  • Democrats proposed $1,000,000,000,000.00 (One trillion dollars), in new taxes. In other words they wanted 83.33% of the reduction in the deficit to be from tax revenue.
  • In the last two weeks before the end of the super committee, Republican Pat Toomey made the first Republican Proposal that included new revenues. The proposal was a $1.5 trillion dollar deal, with new tax revenues on the scale of $300,000,000,000.00 (300 billion dollars.) So in this case 20% of the deficit reduction came from revenue.
  • Democrats rejected the idea. From Senator John Kerry “We have a big gap with respect to where we are on revenue”
  • Eventually GOP members of the Super Committee put $600,000,000,000.00 in revenue on the table. These included auctioning broadcast spectrum space, the sale of excess federal land, Medicare premium increases for wealthier seniors, and modifying tax write-offs for mortgage interest and charitable giving.” In exchange for lowering top income taxes from 35% to 28%, as well as making all marginal income tax rates permanent.
  • This was rejected. Senator Pat Murray said that Republicans had not offered “real revenue”. Senator John Kerry said he would give no details on,”on anything we’ve offered or they’ve offered”.

Now, I am not saying that the Republicans are not to blame. But What I am saying is that, they are not souly at fault. The Democrats would not yeild on taxes, while Republicans did.  Lets look at some of the facts, Democrats wanted 83.33% of the deficit reduction to be new revenues, okay so that means that they wanted 16.77% of the deficit reduction to come in the form of spending cuts.  The Republican plan called for 20% of the deficit to be tax increases, and 80% to be spending cuts.  So when you look at it in this light, Republicans gave more, 3.33% more.  Now what should have happened, is the Democrats go, well we will settle for 7 billion, if you give us ________. Eventually Republicans offered $600,000,000,000.00 in new tax revenues, that would equate out to 40% of the deal. The GOP was giving, they gave 40% more than their orginial position, what did Democrats move? Did they agree to give 56.77% in spending cuts? If they had, we would only have fallen short by 3.23%, (roughly 3.87 billion dollars). I don’t believe they did, maybe I am wrong, if I am please put down how much the Democrats gave, on what, and a source (i like reading). There was a back and forth though, in the last fleeting moments of the super committee, the beginnings of true compromise, true give and take, was in the works. However, time ran short, and the deal fell through. Prehapes if there was more time, or if the deal had been put forth sooner something would have come of it. Here is the rub. The political climate would not, and will not allow for dealings such as this to take place. People are dug in deep on party lines, turning compromise into no man land in the between the two. President Obama, and key Democrats in Congress (Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi) has been bombarding the Republican Party and those on the right for three years now, causing them to build deep strong trenches, build tall walls around themselves. When the white flag of truce was put up, and they left the saftey of their bunkers they were met not with someone willing to make a deal, but rather a general whose negotiating tactic was, we are going to do what we want and if people don’t like that, well elections have consequences.  Why on earth would Republicans deal with Democrats? I am not saying that it is write, I believe in being the bigger man, but the logic here makes sense. Democrats have been in charge of the House of Representatives sense 2006, and the Senate sense 2008. They had super majorities in both houses from 2008 through 2010, they have not had to negotiate in a long time. They have a President who like I said, fuels the party line fued by choosing to demonize the Republicans, as oppossed to dealing with them like human beings. He chooses to mock and ridicule the Conservatives in this nation, then wonders why they don’t negotiate. Why would Democrats negotiate with Republicans, as the head of their party keeps telling them that by not negotiating they have more to gain? Neither party is necessarly putting country first. I understand, trust me I understand the concept of sticking to ones morals. But there are ways to find compromise without rejecting them.  Had President Obama lived up to his claim of being a Uniter, instead of the Divider he has been, perhapes this debt deal would have come through.  But as long as he continues putting the blame souly one half the country, as opposed to saying, “that didn’t work, we have to try something else”, that is not going to change. He isn’t looking for compromise, he is looking for blindfolded submission.


Now I will say this, I am extremely pleased when I heard President Obama say, that he would veto any attempt to stop the automatic spending cuts.  It is good to see him finally standing by the law.

Lets set the example with this post, rather than fall into the usually he said she said, blah blah arugments that normally respond, lets say what we like, say what we though should be different, see if the rulers of this nation can come up with something that our servants could not.  Oh and as always please keep all post clean, and free of vulgar language (otherwise it will be deleted).

Advertisements
6 comments
  1. A reduction in the increases in defense spending from 23% to 16% is only a cut in Washington DC. We should know by now that there are never any cuts. Government is designed to get bigger every year and every day of every year. PERIOD.

  2. @homealivein45 – no government isn’t designed to get bigger every year, corrupt progresssives have butcherd up our system and juryrigged it to keep going.

  3. @obamawatch – Yes, government IS designed to get bigger every year. The Budget Act of 1974 introduced baseline budgeting. Baseline budgeting incorporates automatic increases in the budget. And that allows a decrease in an increase to be classified as a cut. So if a budget is allowed to increase 5% instead of 10%, Congress can say they cut the budget by 100%. I kid you not.

  4. @homealivein45 – no see that is not part of the design of our government, that is part of the hotrodding the corrupt politicians and the progressives did to our government. The original design, the true design of the government, was laid out in the consitution with the intent of remaining small.

  5. @obamawatch – The Constitution is a blue print so it is indeed a design. But Progressive lawmakers have ignored it for over 100 years. So what we have to day is a government that is a complete catastrophe.

  6. @homealivein45 – They have taken a fine government, and butchered it, much like someone who takes a mint condition Pontiac GTO and decides to take out the 455 ram air IV and replace it with a chevy LS1.  They think they know better, and it never works right.

Let the discussion begin

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: