http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/blog/morning_call/2012/10/atts-stephenson-among-80-ceo.html
Tax increases and spending cuts. Isn’t that what the President asked for? (I imagine he and the Republicans would differ on the cuts, naturally)
Did 80 CEOs just say that the Romney\Ryan approach is wrong? Seriously, I’m asking. I do not know, but it seems to go against what I think I heard Romney say.
I apologize if this is being discussed elsewhere. I could not find it.
Wall Street CEOs don’t want spending cuts because they benefit directly from government spending. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Yes this is more in line with Obama’s plan than it is in line with Romney’s which is why this is news. That said, I’m not sure how significant this is. 80 CEOs doesn’t exactly represent a consensus in the business community in favor of increased taxes, it just means that there isn’t 100% consensus the other way.
They should send a letter to their employees explaining why it would benefit the company if Obama is re-elected. The Right will surely speak up for these CEOs’ right to free speech, etc.
Romney probably just had a different plan when he talking to those 80 CEOs.
AT&T is a Wall Street firm now? Even based out of Dallas? Interesting…
No offense, but how is “include comprehensive and pro-growth tax reform, which broadens the base, lowers rates, raises revenues and reduces the deficit” in line with Obama’s approach? Say whatever you want about the merits of their plans, but increasing taxes on the >$250,000 payers narrows the tax base.
The fact of the matter is that if you read the actual letter, it is essentially an endorsement of the Bowles Simpson plan. The Bowles Simpson plan should have been Obama’s signature achievement, and he essentially ignored it, which is the biggest failure of his Presidency.
I myself also agree that in theory the ideal move at this time would be a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. But I wouldn’t support them or a candidate who called for them.
Because as a practical matter what would happen is that with the deficit lowered, pressure to increase spending for all sorts of things would increase, and the spending cuts would be reversed and then some, with the tax increases in place. The the deficit would return, and with it new calls for a new combination of spending cuts and tax increases. And so on and on.
Which frankly is exactly what Obama is doing. He increased spending enormously and is now calling for the combination of spending cuts etc. Is he planning to undo all his spending increases? I don’t think so. But he is certainly planning to increase taxes. (In fact he already has, but he’s going for more.)
They definitely wouldn’t accuse the CEO’s of benefitting from cronyism, nor would they accuse them of being part of the liberal socialist elite.
Also, if you want to learn more about this group, the following is their website.
Bullshit.
Here’s a good question:
We’ve already done 2/3 of the SB spending cuts, and 0% of the revenue increases. When do we get to the revenue part?
Might help if you said which part was bullshit. I assume it isn’t the part that this group is asking for tax changes nothing like Obama has proposed (which is what everyone else in this thread seems to be mistaken about), and I also assume you aren’t calling the claim that these CEOs are essentially endorsing the Bowles Simpson plan with their letter bullshit. Right on both of those, correct?
So instead you are saying that it is bullshit that not enacting the plan was a failure. Well, don’t you think Obama would have initially had a better chance of getting the tax increases done that were a part of the plan if he didn’t waste all of his political capital on the PPACA passing and wrapped it with long-term entitlement reform? Further, that Mother Jones question is absurd, and you’re characterization of what they are even saying is worse. They aren’t saying that 2/3rds of the Bowles Simpson cuts have been made. They are saying that 2/3rds of the discretionary cuts have been made. Bowles Simpson also includes Social Security and Medicare reforms in addition to hard caps on government spending. How much progress has been made on those fronts? Further, did I miss something or didn’t Obama not only push to increase taxes on the wealthy but to also make the tax code even more complicated (for example, the existing AMT isn’t enough, he proposed Version 2 with the Buffett rule)? Isn’t one of the huge parts of Bowles Simpson the simplification of the tax code?
Thats like saying failure to achieve peace in the middle east is Obama’s biggest foreign policy failure.
NOONE on either side of the aisle was ready to wipe the board clean. Republicans like their tax deductions and Democrats like their progressivity.
CEOs Launch Campaign To Get Congress To Finally Fix The Deficit
80 CEOs recommend a balanced approach to balancing the budget.
Refusing any and all tax increases has become its own religion in Washington. That needs to be dialed down.
You did see that they’re calling for a 3:1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases, right? Are you okay with that? Do you think the Democrats will go along with that?
Let’s see… Let Bush’s tax cuts on the rich expire. That’s about 80 billion per year. Toss in 240 billion in spending cuts, and you’ll get a 320 billion reduction in the deficit. Not bad.
So, assuming you support ending the Bush tax cuts on the rich, what’s your proposal for cutting 240 billion per year from government spending?
Did you notice that they’re also specifically calling for this to be done by broadening the tax base and “include comprehensive and pro-growth tax reform, which broadens the base, lowers rates, raises revenues and reduces the deficit.” That’s Romney’s plan.
I think Mitt Romney would sign onto this plan in a second. We already know Obama won’t, since this is essentially the strategy recommended by Simpson-Bowles, and Obama already rejected it.
The reason Republicans have rejected tax increases is because history shows that whenever Republicans agree to tax increases in exchange for spending cuts, the tax increases generally happen and the spending cuts don’t. So government just grows bigger and the problem gets worse. So you’d have to have some sort of iron-clad framework that guarantees the spending cuts, and which mandates that all savings be applied to the deficit. If you could get that, a lot of Republicans would get on board.
But you’ll never get Democrats to agree to the spending cuts. Oh, they’ll claim to agree, but they’ll pull their usual shenanigans like cancelling planned increases and calling that a ‘cut’, or setting some outrageous ‘baseline’ for current spending and then agree to cut back from that to some number that still causes government to grow but which they’ll tout as a ‘cut’.
Why wouldn’t they? That’s exactly the ratio they’ve proposed in the past.
Yup, 3:1 sounds just about perfect for this Democrat. 2.5:1 might be a bit better, but let’s not haggle over a few billion.
Do we get to count the ~$1T in cuts that have already been agreed to? What about the sequestration cuts?
When asked at a debate if he would accept $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in revenue Mitt Romney said no. Do you think he was lying?
I’m sure he sincerely believed it, that day.
Death panels?