'John Boehner's fiscal cliff response to Obama: reading between the lines' diff viewer (3/4)

This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on December 04, 2012 17:42 (UTC). It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/fiscal-cliff-blog/2012/dec/04/republican-fiscal-cliff-offer-obama

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Previous version 1 2 3 4 5 5 Next version

Previous version 1 2 3 4 5 5 Next version

Version 3	Version 4
John Boehner's fiscal cliff response to Obama: reading between the lines	John Boehner's fiscal cliff response to Obama: reading between the lines
2013-05-21 12:28:02 UTC	2013-05-29 18:57:31 UTC (8 days later)
On Monday, leading House Republicans responded to the president on the matter of the fiscal cliff. Their letter, written in the usual impenetrably polite language of politics, can be a little hard to crack. Here is a translation.	On Monday, leading House Republicans responded to the president on the matter of the fiscal cliff. Their letter, written in the usual impenetrably polite language of politics, can be a little hard to crack. Here is a translation.
Dear Mr President,	Dear Mr President,
After a status-quo election in which both you and the Republican majority in the House were re-elected, the American people rightly expect both parties to come together on a fair middle ground and address the nation's most pressing challenges.	After a status-quo election in which both you and the Republican majority in the House were re-elected, the American people rightly expect both parties to come together on a fair middle ground and address the nation's most pressing challenges.
Translation: None of us really understand how you won all the votes to win the presidency when Mitt looked like an obvious lock, but now we have to deal with you, we guess. And sure, we may have lost a bunch of congressional seats, maybe due to our hard line on the last debt ceiling negotiations, but really, what does it mean to "win" an election anyway? Sigh. Anyway, we guess we have to take your calls now.	Translation: None of us really understand how you won all the votes to win the presidency when Mitt looked like an obvious lock, but now we have to deal with you, we guess. And sure, we may have lost a bunch of congressional seats, maybe due to our hard line on the last debt ceiling negotiations, but really, what does it mean to "win" an election anyway? Sigh. Anyway, we guess we have to take your calls now.
To that end, shortly after the election, we presented you with a balanced framework for averting the fiscal cliff by coupling spending cuts and reforms with new tax revenue. We then welcomed Secretary Geithner to the Capitol on November 29 with every expectation that he would lay out a similarly reasonable path.	To that end, shortly after the election, we presented you with a balanced framework for averting the fiscal cliff by coupling spending cuts and reforms with new tax revenue. We then welcomed Secretary Geithner to the Capitol on November 29 with every expectation that he would lay out a similarly reasonable path.
We've been pretty clear that we don't want to raise taxes on people making more than $250,000 a year – but if we absolutely have to, then we insist on cutting government spending on programs like social security and Medicare. Imagine our surprise when Tim Geithner failed to embrace this idea.	We've been pretty clear that we don't want to raise taxes on people making more than $250,000 a year – but if we absolutely have to, then we insist on cutting government spending on programs like social security and Medicare. Imagine our surprise when Tim Geithner failed to embrace this idea.
Regrettably, the proposal he outlined on behalf of your administration contains very little in the way of common ground.	Regrettably, the proposal he outlined on behalf of your administration contains very little in the way of common ground.
If this were a Moroccan rug souk, we would have considered your offer an insult on our ancestors and walked away, aggrieved in our dignity. Seriously? You wanted to raise taxes on high earners by $960bn – nearly the entire amount we're trying to all cut from the deficit – and then hoping that tax reform would cut another $600bn. You also wanted us to give away our only bargaining chip! You wanted us to not vote on the debt ceiling! And no mention of cutting spending or entitlements at all. We spit on your offer. Ptooey. Ptooey.	If this were a Moroccan rug souk, we would have considered your offer an insult on our ancestors and walked away, aggrieved in our dignity. Seriously? You wanted to raise taxes on high earners by $960bn – nearly the entire amount we're trying to all cut from the deficit – and then hoping that tax reform would cut another $600bn. You also wanted us to give away our only bargaining chip! You wanted us to not vote on the debt ceiling! And no mention of cutting spending or entitlements at all. We spit on your offer. Ptooey. Ptooey.
The proposal calls for $1.6 trillion in new tax revenue, twice the amount you supported during the campaign. The proposal also includes four times as much tax revenue as spending cuts, in stark contrast to the "balanced approach" on which you campaigned. While administration officials are claiming that this proposal contains 2.5 dollars of spending cuts for each dollar in new revenue, counting as part of this ratio previously enacted savings - as if these were new spending reductions - only confuses the public debate.	The proposal calls for $1.6 trillion in new tax revenue, twice the amount you supported during the campaign. The proposal also includes four times as much tax revenue as spending cuts, in stark contrast to the "balanced approach" on which you campaigned. While administration officials are claiming that this proposal contains 2.5 dollars of spending cuts for each dollar in new revenue, counting as part of this ratio previously enacted savings - as if these were new spending reductions - only confuses the public debate.
Not only did you raise taxes, you actually doubled the amount of taxes you wanted to hike. Now that takes nerve. Ptooey. Ptooey.	Not only did you raise taxes, you actually doubled the amount of taxes you wanted to hike. Now that takes nerve. Ptooey. Ptooey.
What's worse, the modest spending cuts in this offer are cancelled out by the additional 'stimulus' measures the Administration is requesting. And, this proposal would remove any and all limits on federal borrowing.	What's worse, the modest spending cuts in this offer are cancelled out by the additional 'stimulus' measures the Administration is requesting. And, this proposal would remove any and all limits on federal borrowing.
Sorry, we just can't get over the debt ceiling thing. Oh, our sides, our sides.	Sorry, we just can't get over the debt ceiling thing. Oh, our sides, our sides.
We cannot in good conscience agree to this approach, which is neither balanced nor realistic. If we were to take your Administration's proposal at face value, then we would counter with the House-passed Budget Resolution. It assumes an overhaul of our tax code with revenue remaining at historically normal levels and proposes structural reforms to preserve and protect the Nation's entitlement reforms, ensuring that they are sustainable for the long-term rather continuing to grow out of control.	We cannot in good conscience agree to this approach, which is neither balanced nor realistic. If we were to take your Administration's proposal at face value, then we would counter with the House-passed Budget Resolution. It assumes an overhaul of our tax code with revenue remaining at historically normal levels and proposes structural reforms to preserve and protect the Nation's entitlement reforms, ensuring that they are sustainable for the long-term rather continuing to grow out of control.
If you want to get silly about the negotiations, we can too. We would just go back to the Ryan plan, which alienated a lot of people dependent or soon-to-be dependent on Medicare and had no hope of passing the House. Just to remind you, his plan, called "The Path to Prosperity," called for only two tax rates: 10% and 25%, and corporations would get that skimpy 25% rate. It also called for Medicare to last for people over 55, but everyone else would just get a payment that they could use for any number of healthcare coverage options. The upshot is that it would slash Medicare spending by the government – never mind the rapidly aging population as Boomers start to hit nursing homes; according to the Congressional Budget Office, the average amount Medicare would spend on a 66-year-old in 2030 would be $7,400 on the Ryan plan, compared to $9,600 under current estimates. As for Medicaid, states would get a block of cash that they'd have to parcel out very carefully. On social security, there wasn't really a plan at all. You already hated every single aspect of this plan, Mr President, but we're prepared to push it forward again if you don't get get serious. See how you like them apples.	If you want to get silly about the negotiations, we can too. We would just go back to the Ryan plan, which alienated a lot of people dependent or soon-to-be dependent on Medicare and had no hope of passing the House. Just to remind you, his plan, called "The Path to Prosperity," called for only two tax rates: 10% and 25%, and corporations would get that skimpy 25% rate. It also called for Medicare to last for people over 55, but everyone else would just get a payment that they could use for any number of healthcare coverage options. The upshot is that it would slash Medicare spending by the government – never mind the rapidly aging population as Boomers start to hit nursing homes; according to the Congressional Budget Office, the average amount Medicare would spend on a 66-year-old in 2030 would be $7,400 on the Ryan plan, compared to $9,600 under current estimates. As for Medicaid, states would get a block of cash that they'd have to parcel out very carefully. On social security, there wasn't really a plan at all. You already hated every single aspect of this plan, Mr President, but we're prepared to push it forward again if you don't get get serious. See how you like them apples.
[The letter summarizes the high points of the Ryan plan].	[The letter summarizes the high points of the Ryan plan].
These reforms are, in our view, absolutely essential to addressing the true drivers of our debt, and we will continue to support and advance them.	These reforms are, in our view, absolutely essential to addressing the true drivers of our debt, and we will continue to support and advance them.
Come to think of it, the Ryan plan wasn't so bad. Nice proposal you got there, President Obama. Shame if anything were to happen to it.	Come to think of it, the Ryan plan wasn't so bad. Nice proposal you got there, President Obama. Shame if anything were to happen to it.
At the same time, mindful of the status-quo election and past exchanges on these questions, we recognize it would be counterproductive to publicly and privately propose entitlement reforms that you and the leaders of your party seem unwilling to support in the near-term.	At the same time, mindful of the status-quo election and past exchanges on these questions, we recognize it would be counterproductive to publicly and privately propose entitlement reforms that you and the leaders of your party seem unwilling to support in the near-term.
We get that you won the election, so we're going to grit our teeth and try to work with you. We know you won't go after social security and Medicare, so we're not insulting your intelligence by proposing deep reforms there.	We get that you won the election, so we're going to grit our teeth and try to work with you. We know you won't go after social security and Medicare, so we're not insulting your intelligence by proposing deep reforms there.
With the fiscal cliff nearing, our priority remains finding a reasonable solution that can pass both the House and Senate, and be signed into law in the next couple of weeks.	With the fiscal cliff nearing, our priority remains finding a reasonable solution that can pass both the House and Senate, and be signed into law in the next couple of weeks.
Oh God, please let us patch this thing and have our Christmas break. We're so sick of this. Please. Please. We won't ask for anything else, ever.	Oh God, please let us patch this thing and have our Christmas break. We're so sick of this. Please. Please. We won't ask for anything else, ever.
The best way to do this by learning from and building on the bipartisan discussions that have occurred during this Congress, including the Biden group, the Joint Select Committee, and our negotiations leading up to the Budget Control Act.	The best way to do this by learning from and building on the bipartisan discussions that have occurred during this Congress, including the Biden group, the Joint Select Committee, and our negotiations leading up to the Budget Control Act.
Maybe we can just cut and paste? Why can't we cut and paste? The Biden group last year wasn't so bad, maybe. Roughly, they asked for $203bn in cuts to healthcare spending, mostly to how much the government pays doctors; $220bn in mandatory savings and about $1.02tn in discretionary savings. Or at least, we think that's what it was; the whole thing got shoved in a file drawer somewhere and we never saw it again, and the press barely even covered it. But hey! A little Biden, a little Ryan, a little Bowles-Simpson and we can make a hot fiscal salsa.	Maybe we can just cut and paste? Why can't we cut and paste? The Biden group last year wasn't so bad, maybe. Roughly, they asked for $203bn in cuts to healthcare spending, mostly to how much the government pays doctors; $220bn in mandatory savings and about $1.02tn in discretionary savings. Or at least, we think that's what it was; the whole thing got shoved in a file drawer somewhere and we never saw it again, and the press barely even covered it. But hey! A little Biden, a little Ryan, a little Bowles-Simpson and we can make a hot fiscal salsa.
For instance, on November 1 of last year, Erskine Bowles,, the co-chair of your debt commission, presented the Joint Select Committee with a middle-ground approach that garnered praise from many fiscal watchdogs and nonpartisan experts. He recommended that both parties agree to a balanced package that includes significant spending cuts as well as $800 billion in new revenue.	For instance, on November 1 of last year, Erskine Bowles,, the co-chair of your debt commission, presented the Joint Select Committee with a middle-ground approach that garnered praise from many fiscal watchdogs and nonpartisan experts. He recommended that both parties agree to a balanced package that includes significant spending cuts as well as $800 billion in new revenue.
The Bowles-Simpson plan seems to be not as universally loathed as the Ryan plan. Why don't you like that? Here, you can brush up on the Bowles-Simpson plan, get cozy with it, maybe make some hot chocolate and cuddle up with it. You remember Erskine Bowles, right? You used to like him. But after his plan hit the airwaves, and you saw that it called for entitlement cuts, suddenly he wasn't your favorite any more. Surely you can find it in your heart to remember how much you loved Erskine Bowles? Everyone loves Erskine Bowles! He and Alan Simpson make $40,000 a speech!	The Bowles-Simpson plan seems to be not as universally loathed as the Ryan plan. Why don't you like that? Here, you can brush up on the Bowles-Simpson plan, get cozy with it, maybe make some hot chocolate and cuddle up with it. You remember Erskine Bowles, right? You used to like him. But after his plan hit the airwaves, and you saw that it called for entitlement cuts, suddenly he wasn't your favorite any more. Surely you can find it in your heart to remember how much you loved Erskine Bowles? Everyone loves Erskine Bowles! He and Alan Simpson make $40,000 a speech!
Notably, the new revenue in the Bowles plan would not be achieved through higher tax rates, which we continue to oppose and will not agree to in order to protect the small businesses and our economy.	Notably, the new revenue in the Bowles plan would not be achieved through higher tax rates, which we continue to oppose and will not agree to in order to protect the small businesses and our economy.
The only thing about Erskine Bowles, before we get too schmoopy about him, is that he suggested tax hikes. We really hate those. You know what? Forget Erskine Bowles.	The only thing about Erskine Bowles, before we get too schmoopy about him, is that he suggested tax hikes. We really hate those. You know what? Forget Erskine Bowles.
Instead, new revenue would be generated through pro-growth tax reform that closes special interest loopholes and deductions while lowering rates.	Instead, new revenue would be generated through pro-growth tax reform that closes special interest loopholes and deductions while lowering rates.
We keep thinking this loophole thing is going to help, even though Politico had this comprehensive article saying that closing the loopholes wouldn't even get us close to where we need to be. Mr. President, we're hoping you don't read Politico.	We keep thinking this loophole thing is going to help, even though Politico had this comprehensive article saying that closing the loopholes wouldn't even get us close to where we need to be. Mr. President, we're hoping you don't read Politico.
On the spending side, the Bowles recommendation would cut more than $900 billion in mandatory spending and another $300 billion in discretionary spending. These cuts would be over and above the spending reductions enacted in the fiscal cliff.	On the spending side, the Bowles recommendation would cut more than $900 billion in mandatory spending and another $300 billion in discretionary spending. These cuts would be over and above the spending reductions enacted in the fiscal cliff.
Maybe we were too hasty on Erskine Bowles just now. After all, he made a plan and we haven't, which is why we're borrowing his hastily in the hopes that you won't notice. Good guy, that Erskine Bowles.	Maybe we were too hasty on Erskine Bowles just now. After all, he made a plan and we haven't, which is why we're borrowing his hastily in the hopes that you won't notice. Good guy, that Erskine Bowles.
This is by no means an adequate long-term solution, as resolving our long-term fiscal crisis will require long-term entitlement reform.	This is by no means an adequate long-term solution, as resolving our long-term fiscal crisis will require long-term entitlement reform.
All we can hope for is a patch right now, because we backed ourselves into a corner with this stupid January 3, deadline. But oh God, please give us Christmas. We could really use it. The election was just brutal. And we need a break from Grover.	All we can hope for is a patch right now, because we backed ourselves into a corner with this stupid January 3, deadline. But oh God, please give us Christmas. We could really use it. The election was just brutal. And we need a break from Grover.
Indeed, the Bowles plan is exactly the kind of imperfect, but fair middle ground that allows us to avert the fiscal cliff without hurting our economy and destroying jobs. We believe it merits immediate consideration.	Indeed, the Bowles plan is exactly the kind of imperfect, but fair middle ground that allows us to avert the fiscal cliff without hurting our economy and destroying jobs. We believe it merits immediate consideration.
We know you already examined and rejected Simpson-Bowles, but let's pretend you haven't. Oh God, even Erskine Bowles wants nothing to do with us now. Did he really just say "this is not the Simpson-Bowles plan or the Bowles plan"? Wait, do you hear that? Look over there! Are those Christmas carols in the background?	We know you already examined and rejected Simpson-Bowles, but let's pretend you haven't. Oh God, even Erskine Bowles wants nothing to do with us now. Did he really just say "this is not the Simpson-Bowles plan or the Bowles plan"? Wait, do you hear that? Look over there! Are those Christmas carols in the background?
If you are agreeable to this framework, we are ready and eager to being discussions about how to structure these reforms so that the American people can be confident that these targets will be reached.	If you are agreeable to this framework, we are ready and eager to being discussions about how to structure these reforms so that the American people can be confident that these targets will be reached.
Again, the American people expect their leaders to find fair middle ground to address the nation's most pressing challenges. To achieve that outcome, we respectfully respect that you respond to this letter in a timely fashion and hope that you will refrain from any further action that would undermine good-faith efforts to reach a reasonable and equitable agreement in this matter.	Again, the American people expect their leaders to find fair middle ground to address the nation's most pressing challenges. To achieve that outcome, we respectfully respect that you respond to this letter in a timely fashion and hope that you will refrain from any further action that would undermine good-faith efforts to reach a reasonable and equitable agreement in this matter.
Negotiation means agreeing on a deal both sides hate, right? Where no one wins? Let's do that. In the meantime, write back soon and please don't have any more press conferences or send Geithner out again to badmouth us, or declare in our radio address that we're trying to ruin Christmas. One more Twitter town forum and we're toast.	Negotiation means agreeing on a deal both sides hate, right? Where no one wins? Let's do that. In the meantime, write back soon and please don't have any more press conferences or send Geithner out again to badmouth us, or declare in our radio address that we're trying to ruin Christmas. One more Twitter town forum and we're toast.