Republicans make their fiscal cliff' counteroffer

[WestVirginiaRebel]

Washington Post:

The House Republicans have responded to the president's offer with essentially the "grand bargain" proposed in the summer of 2011. (This is only fitting since the president essentially gave Democrats his past budget proposal.)

House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement:

 

In a letter sent to President Obama today, House Republican leaders made a new offer to avert the fiscal cliff centered around a middle ground approach first presented to Congress last year by President Clinton's former White House chief of staff, Erskine Bowles. The Bowles plan, presented in 2011 to the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, is consistent with the framework House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) proposed the day after the election: a balanced approach of significant spending cuts and new revenues from tax reform with fewer loopholes and lower tax rates. This is another attempt to jumpstart substantive, good faith negotiations toward a bipartisan solution that can be enacted soon, a stark contrast to the unserious proposal the White House put forward last week.

 

In a document obtained by Right Turn from House Republicans, the plans match up as follows:

 

President's Deficit Reduction

Tax Rates Increases: $960B

Elimination of Deductions: $600B

Spending Cuts: $400B

 

New Stimulus/Other

Infrastructure Spending: -$95-425B

Payroll Tax Extension: -$110B

Unemployment Insurance: -$30B

Stimulus Tax Extenders: -$27B

Unpaid for SGR Patch: -$25B

Mortgage Plan: Unknown

Elimination of Debt Limit: N/A

NET SAVINGS: (At most) $1.673T

 

House Republican Counter

(Based on the Bowles Proposal to the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction)

Deficit Reduction

Revenue through Tax Reform: $800B

Health Savings: $600B

Other Mandatory Savings: $300B

Revision to CPI: $200B

Further Discretionary Savings: $300B

NET SAVINGS: $2.2T

 

A House leadership aide told Right Turn that "the GOP offer includes more deficit reduction than the White House offer last week, which included hundreds of billions in new stimulus' spending. Our net deficit reduction is $2.2 trillion, but if we were to utilize White House schemes to count (1) previously-enacted Budget Control Act savings, (2) a war savings gimmick, and (3) further interest savings, our proposal would result in $4.6 trillion in deficit reduction savings, much more than theirs."

So we have the potential for a deal that is somewhere between Bowles's plan last year and the president's plan. It is not, however, a matter of simply total savings. The Republicans have included far less revenue, as well as less revenue to be obtained through tax reform. The Democrats have yet to present a substantive offer that looks at systemic entitlement reform. The Republicans have shown that, contrary to the liberal-media meme, Boehner and not Grover Norquist controls the House. (And we expect this is not even the final GOP offer, leaving room for more revenue perhaps.)

We are far from a deal. We're not close, but we are no longer "nowhere." Your turn, Mr. President.

________

 

Calling Obama's bluff?

[Valin]

@WestVirginiaRebel

 

SHOCKING NEWS

 

White House reponds to GOP’s counteroffer: Sorry, wrong number, not going there

 

 

Despite Republicans’ significant concession that they would be amenable to revenue increases if they came via tax-code reform — an honest-to-goodness effort at compromise — President Obama has roundly refused to even consider a plan that doesn’t include tax-rate increases on the wealthy, the only apparent policy rationale being that it’s just that important to him to be a full-on class warrior. It looks like the White House is sticking to that line, even after Speaker Boehner officially released the GOP’s own proposal earlier this afternoon. So much for “negotiation,” via BuzzFeed:

 

(Snip)

Uh, not balanced? What the heck type of scales are they using? Ohhh, that’s right, the “fairness”/ “my way or the highway” scales. Are they really not going to move from their original demand-for-surrender and walk toward the GOP even a tiny bit? Like Keith Hennessy wrote in today’s WSJ, it’s starting to feel a lot like President Obama just can’t take yes for an answer:

(Snip)

[clearvision]

I'm starting to think the "cliff" may be the way to go.

[Casino67]

I'm starting to think the "cliff" may be the way to go.

I'm starting to think the "cliff" may be the way to go.

 

I agree. My only concern is that he has the msm on his side and that means whatever happens, it is the GOP's fault.

 

He already has Ocare destroying jobs, might as well add some taxes to further increase unemployment. Bush's fault.

[clearvision]

Does not matter how it turns out. Even if Obama gets everything he wants, somehow the MSM will say the problem is the evil Republicans not giving him more when things go bad.

[Valin]

Does not matter how it turns out. Even if Obama gets everything he wants, somehow the MSM will say the problem is the evil Republicans not giving him more when things go bad.

 

Rule #1 Republicans are always a fault

Rule #2 in the highly unlikely event that Republicans are not at fault...See Rule #1.