Super-committee Democrats who felt a deal was on the table were undermined - far left party bosses sought failure

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 23, 2011 7:04 PM GMT
    It is clear that even the Democratic members of the super-committee were undermined by their own party. Toomey made a recommendation that Dubrin called a "breakthrough". After consultations, most likely the far left that controls the party vetoed the idea.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/toomey-super-committee-democrats-rejected-compromise-demanded-1-trillion-tax-hike_610027.html

    Toomey: Dems Rejected Compromise, Demanded $1 Trillion Tax Hike

    On November 7, Republican senator Pat Toomey proposed a compromise on taxes to members of the supercommittee tasked with cutting the deficit. “There was a moment there, a 24-hour period, when several Democrats expressed a great deal of interest in the framework I laid out,” Toomey tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD. Dick Durbin, the second ranking Democrat in the Senate, called Toomey's proposal a "breakthrough."

    “We thought we were making real progress," Toomey says. "Then the [Democratic] committee members, I think, checked in with some of their Senate colleagues and really allowed themselves to be swayed by the left-wing of their caucus. They backed off, retreated, from the progress we made that night. And from that moment on, it never felt like we were close.”

    As part of a broader plan to rein in entitlement spending and reform the tax code, Toomey had offered to raise tax revenues $250 billion over 10 years. “What I said was, we should set a goal of getting all the tax rates lower by 20 percent--across the board... And then let’s find the combination of deductions that we would diminish, and exclusions that we would treat as taxable income," Toomey recalls. "I was willing to accept that the $250 billion ... revenue increase would come from the top two [tax] brackets, which was another huge concession to the Democrats. That by definition makes the tax code more progressive."

    The $250 billion in higher taxes really was no small concession for Toomey, the conservative stalwart who had chased liberal Republican Arlen Specter from the GOP. Toomey says some fellow Republicans were "genuinely concerned" about his plan. And anti-tax activist Grover Norquist called Toomey's plan "poison." Toomey acknowledges it's a plan he wouldn't propose as a free-standing measure. But he thought it was worth it to get lower, pro-growth tax rates and entitlement reform.

    In the end, Toomey didn't have to worry about allaying the concerns of some conservative Republicans. Democrats squelched the plan, saying the $250 billion in higher taxes wasn't enough. Although "several of our Democratic colleagues had repeatedly spoken about the virtues of tax simplification and tax reform," Toomey says, "they couldn’t budge from the idea of a trillion dollar tax increase." The Democrats also “never once throughout the entire process were willing to propose or accept our proposals about any type of structural reforms to the big health care entitlement programs,” according to Toomey.

    "It’s like they were very concerned about the Occupy Wall Street movement," he added. "They had to demonstrate that they were willing to soak the rich." Why wasn't Toomey willing to go along with $1 trillion in higher taxes? It would have been "devastating" to the economy, he says.

    Toomey's plan would have included an additional $250 billion in new revenues through a variety of non-tax measures, such as selling government land and making changes at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Toomey says it was "troubling" that Democrats "didn’t seem very interested in accepting those kinds of revenues. It was as though money coming into the Treasury isn’t what matters. Someone has to be punished in the process.”

    Toomey thinks that the White House wasn't interested in the supercommittee succeeding. “Had we been successful, it would have totally stepped on the president's campaign theme--the only campaign theme he has," Toomey says. "He certainly can’t run on his own job performance. He’s trying to run against a do-nothing Congress."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 23, 2011 7:08 PM GMT
    $250 billion? That's hilarious and a non-starter. It's not about far left, it's about the $250 being a tiny drop in a big bucket.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 23, 2011 7:10 PM GMT
    Christian73 said$250 billion? That's hilarious and a non-starter. It's not about far left, it's about the $250 being a tiny drop in a big bucket.

    Apparently Durbin and a few others thought it a start. Probably was vetoed by the Obama Reelection Headquarters in Chicago. Just as space flight control is handed off from Kennedy to Houston, control of the Executive Branch has been handed off to Chicago for control these next several months.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 23, 2011 7:14 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said$250 billion? That's hilarious and a non-starter. It's not about far left, it's about the $250 being a tiny drop in a big bucket.

    Apparently Durbin and a few others thought it a start. Probably was vetoed by the Obama Reelection Headquarters in Chicago.


    No. It was "vetoed" by the agreement that they had to cut the deficit by $1.2 trillion and there's no way to do it by cutting $950 million.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 23, 2011 7:15 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said$250 billion? That's hilarious and a non-starter. It's not about far left, it's about the $250 being a tiny drop in a big bucket.

    Apparently Durbin and a few others thought it a start. Probably was vetoed by the Obama Reelection Headquarters in Chicago.


    No. It was "vetoed" by the agreement that they had to cut the deficit by $1.2 trillion and there's no way to do it by cutting $950 million.

    It was part of the package. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 23, 2011 7:46 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said$250 billion? That's hilarious and a non-starter. It's not about far left, it's about the $250 being a tiny drop in a big bucket.

    Apparently Durbin and a few others thought it a start. Probably was vetoed by the Obama Reelection Headquarters in Chicago.


    No. It was "vetoed" by the agreement that they had to cut the deficit by $1.2 trillion and there's no way to do it by cutting $950 million.

    It was part of the package. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Yes. A package that would have required $950 million in cuts rather than a more balanced approach. Plus, the Republicans have played this game before where they make an "offer", the Dems agree and they renege.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 23, 2011 8:47 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said$250 billion? That's hilarious and a non-starter. It's not about far left, it's about the $250 being a tiny drop in a big bucket.

    Apparently Durbin and a few others thought it a start. Probably was vetoed by the Obama Reelection Headquarters in Chicago.


    No. It was "vetoed" by the agreement that they had to cut the deficit by $1.2 trillion and there's no way to do it by cutting $950 million.

    It was part of the package. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Yes. A package that would have required $950 million in cuts rather than a more balanced approach. Plus, the Republicans have played this game before where they make an "offer", the Dems agree and they renege.

    You are in agreement with the far left party bosses, of course, and at variance with the Democratic committee members, e.g. Durbin, who thought a deal was in reach.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 23, 2011 9:53 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said$250 billion? That's hilarious and a non-starter. It's not about far left, it's about the $250 being a tiny drop in a big bucket.

    Apparently Durbin and a few others thought it a start. Probably was vetoed by the Obama Reelection Headquarters in Chicago.


    No. It was "vetoed" by the agreement that they had to cut the deficit by $1.2 trillion and there's no way to do it by cutting $950 million.

    It was part of the package. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Yes. A package that would have required $950 million in cuts rather than a more balanced approach. Plus, the Republicans have played this game before where they make an "offer", the Dems agree and they renege.

    You are in agreement with the far left party bosses, of course, and at variance with the Democratic committee members, e.g. Durbin, who thought a deal was in reach.


    Socal - Short of Bernie Sanders who is not a "boss" by any means, there are no "far left" people in the Democratic Party. Certainly no one who served on the "super" committee.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 23, 2011 9:54 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said$250 billion? That's hilarious and a non-starter. It's not about far left, it's about the $250 being a tiny drop in a big bucket.

    Apparently Durbin and a few others thought it a start. Probably was vetoed by the Obama Reelection Headquarters in Chicago.


    No. It was "vetoed" by the agreement that they had to cut the deficit by $1.2 trillion and there's no way to do it by cutting $950 million.

    It was part of the package. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Yes. A package that would have required $950 million in cuts rather than a more balanced approach. Plus, the Republicans have played this game before where they make an "offer", the Dems agree and they renege.


    "Cuts" in the amount of increase in spending. The morons in Washington are pulling the wool over the eyes of the public anytime they use the word "cuts."


    Actually, all things being equal (growing population, in particular) spending will always increase if only due to inflation. So cutting the amount of increase over time is, indeed, a cut.

    When you write things like this, it makes me wonder if you actually own a business. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 23, 2011 10:14 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidSocal - Short of Bernie Sanders who is not a "boss" by any means, there are no "far left" people in the Democratic Party. Certainly no one who served on the "super" committee.

    All a matter of perspective.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 24, 2011 4:28 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    Actually, all things being equal (growing population, in particular) spending will always increase if only due to inflation. So cutting the amount of increase over time is, indeed, a cut.


    Sheesh... It's that kind of thinking that has gone a long way to getting us to $15 trillion in debt.

    "Spending cuts" mean "reductions in spending" except in government circles.

    If the politicians (and the media) would be honest, they would say "cuts in the rate of increase of spending" every time they use the word "cut" in relation to spending.

    That would be truthful.




    No. The kind of thinking that gives you $15 trillion in debt is "we can fund two wars, a massive new entitlement, and create a massive new federal department all while cutting taxes for people and businesses to their lowest level in 80 years".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 24, 2011 5:54 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    Actually, all things being equal (growing population, in particular) spending will always increase if only due to inflation. So cutting the amount of increase over time is, indeed, a cut.


    Sheesh... It's that kind of thinking that has gone a long way to getting us to $15 trillion in debt.

    "Spending cuts" mean "reductions in spending" except in government circles.

    If the politicians (and the media) would be honest, they would say "cuts in the rate of increase of spending" every time they use the word "cut" in relation to spending.

    That would be truthful.




    No. The kind of thinking that gives you $15 trillion in debt is "we can fund two wars, a massive new entitlement, and create a massive new federal department all while cutting taxes for people and businesses to their lowest level in 80 years".


    Lowest level? Have you bothered to actually look at the numbers? And right - none of that trillion had anything to do with the massive rise in domestic spending that has consistently and substantially exceeded the rate of inflation. Are you like the rest of your extremist friends happy that the super committee failed?
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Nov 24, 2011 11:26 AM GMT
    Sorry ....

    who do you think you're foolin huh?

    The Non-starter was Grover Norquist and his no raising Taxes Pledge
    Next time there's a Super Committee? Mebbe they should Actually give him a Chair icon_cool.gif