Not if you want to amend the Constitution.
Is this close enough? I realize it’s not exactly an “independent evaluation by experts”, but it’s what I’ve got. Note that the Democrat’s objection is that it raises “less than advertised” but that “details of Toomey’s plan remain in flux, in part because he is open to changes.” Note that the claim I was rebutting was that the goal of his plan was to cut taxes on the wealthy and raise them on the poor, while the article explicitly states
So it’s flat-out false that the goal was to raise taxes on the lower classes.
Congress is not elected to be a rubber stamp to the president. Each congressman has an obligation to represent their constituents and do what they think is best for the country. Each congressman is also trying to do what is necessary to keep getting elected. Given that Barry O’s popularity is so low right now that there is more risk of backlash in voting with him than there is benefit in voting with him. Gerrymandering and campaign finance reform has made each party more dependent on their base and therefore more leary about cooperating with the other side. Congressmen are afraid of angering their constituents which is what democracy looks like. However, when a liberal is unable to pass his agenda, we get bleating about how the system is broken. When Bush was reelected and was unable to pass desperately needed Social Security reform, there was no talk of a broken system or congressional obstructionism.
Thank you. I actually had seen that article, I believe, but closer reading did provide some details (the 2% itemized deduction limit).
I like the idea of limiting deductions, but am not sure that coupling them with dramatically lower rates is necessarily the right approach. My concern (which seems to match one person quoted in the article) is that this plan would not generate nearly as much revenue as expected. I do think a middle-ground solution is possible along these general lines though. Personally, I’d even go along with the reduced rates if a new higher bracket were added (say, a million in income or more), and we re-examined the capital gains rate.
Agreed. The goal was to provide some amount of revenue while lowering overall rates. The most likely source was probably the upper-middle-income, just based on my WAG from the outline. These people seem most likely to hit the deduction limit (house-rich, for example), and would also be hit by the reduced increase in bracket levels (they will move into a higher bracket more quickly).
On the other hand, I suppose the “raise taxes on the lower class” claim becomes more true when you consider the refusal to extend the payroll tax holiday.
There wasn’t?
You may also remember talk of a “nuclear option” to override Democratic obstruction on judicial nominees?
I agree. The goal was to raise taxes on the middle class. Of course, from the top of your ivory tower, we all look like ants.
As stated in your article this plan was nothing but a failure. The weak wording of Toomey’s staff shows what they think of it. The plan would reduce the deficit (if it worked) by only 25% of the target. The plan proposed tax breaks that would never be considered by democrats. The plan clearly hurts the middle class the most. It’s obvious:
The 1/3 who itemize deductions are spread all over the SES spectrum. This would hit the middle class the hardest because they are at the lower end of the income distribution for those who itemize. This means they get the smallest reduction in tax rate while the deduction cap is the same for all tax brackets. A simple thought experiment shows how this will enrich the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.
Of the plans mentioned, this one is by far the biggest failure. Why do you keep bringing it up?
And nicely padding the pockets of frozen pizza makers in the process at the expense of school kids’ health, yes.
Step into my man **Jas09’**s office please. Btw, thanks Jas.
The conundrum is that one can disdain the actions of “congress”, and at the same time admire their individual representative (or at the very least, not find the opposition more compelling).
Of course, a voter can only vote for/against their individual representative, they are essentially powerless to affect “congress” (recognizing that one could actively campaign / contribute outside of their home district).
Until a different system is in place, I don’t see that this is solvable.
I haven’t been bringing it up in order to say it’s a good plan or that it should’ve been agreed to. To that question, I answer “I don’t know.” I bring it up solely to counter the oft-made posts on these boards that the Republicans are unwilling to raise revenues, that they’re obstructionist, that they’re unwilling to compromise, etc. This plan shows it’s not true. Whether it’s the best plan out there is beside the point.
It’s not “padding their pockets” anymore than it has been for the past few decades. The recent legislation was to block a change. And secondly, it’s not at the expense of school kids’ health unless you really think the tomato paste used in spaghetti sauce, lasagna, and pizza is unhealthy. It’s about equal with a half-cup of other vegetables.
In other words, Congress said “We’ve been considering 1/8 cup of tomato paste to be equivalent to a 1/2 cup of vegetables for decades and we’re not going to change it now.” Why? Because nutritionally, it is.
I used “lower classes” to mean “lower than the wealthy class.” I hate the term “middle class” because it’s meaningless. Everyone thinks they’re middle class, and for some reason, everyone assumes that raising taxes on them is a bad thing.
It depends. My instinct is that Obama will be reelected and that the Republicans will make gains in both houses. At some point, however, the impasse has to be broken.
Obama has vanished over the last several weeks (a clear tactic on his part) and the Democrats never fully committed to the budget commitee (the fact that they refused to even consider any health care cuts is testimony to that fact).
The Republicans have to accept that taxes will be raised. End of story. With that in mind they could actually do some good by forcing real cuts and re-writing the tax code (eliminating as many deductions as possible would be a good start). I say this as a relatively new Republican and someone who is in the “top 1%” of income earners.
So I can see a deal being done the closer we get to the election as both sides want to save their own hides.
Should the Democrats use the same techniques once they are in the minority?
From what I’ve seen though, they won’t. They refuse to take the medicine that is required. They flatly refuse. Unless the entire party is blown up and re-made, I don’t see them doing what is obviously necessary.
Democrats don’t have the stones to do that.
Actually, they don’t.
Grover Norquist, the most powerful man in the country (yes, you read that right), forced all Congressional Republicans to sign a pledge not to increase taxes a single penny. Those who refused to sign or voted to increase taxes are put on a “Wall of Shame” in his office and all support in the Primary Election is withdrawn in his or her district.
Anybody who is serious about grasping what’s wrong with this country needs to read that last post, very, very slowly.
Am I right in remembering that Norquist was the gentleman who said “I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”
And did he not also say that his goal is to bring America back to what it was `up until Teddy Roosevelt, when the socialists took over?
So, when this is the type of person who is a major figure in the Republican party, and looking at the current crop of GOP Presidential hopefuls, I don’t see this party being less obstructionist until the current crop goes away.
I disagree. All politicians are a cowardly lot (including Obama who is a weak President who has strategically vanished over the past few weeks) and will do whatever it takes tp protect themselves. If they see the writing on the wall on any issue then they tend to jump ship. The fact is, based on the last election, there isn’t a huge appetite for tax increases and I would only support them in return for: (a) a simplified tax code and; (b) a serious reduction in spending. Both are achievable are there are some level headed peoples in both parties but if you got elected on an anti tax and spend plank then it’s very hard just to turn 180 and go the other way. It takes a very strong willed politician to do that and I’m not seeing many in either party but they are there.
If, however, it makes you feel better to point to vast right-wing cospiracy then each to his own.
I have no idea what you’re talking about but it was clearly obvious the President was absent from this. It’s his job to facilitate the process and not punt it to something as childish as the “Super Committee”. This was a super failure at our expense by people who are paid to do a job.
I have never worked at a company where I could simply walk away from a project. It is mind boggling that someone making the salary of a congressman can routinely do this with little repercussion. And when they actual do put together a budget it’s not balanced. Any moron can write checks and overdraw somebody else’s account. That requires absolutely no effort or skill.