Taxes, the Deficit/Debt, and the Fiscal Cliff

[nsplayr]

Fiscal cliff avoided (in part), House passes Senate bill. Sets up an even bigger fight on the debt ceiling...again...sequester delayed until then.

[ThreeHoler]

The 2% less I will be taking home each month pisses me off.

Taxes went up on everyone earning less than $113,000/yr today, despite your "great deal."

[nsplayr]

Well yea, neither side wanted to extend the payroll tax holiday so that was a given. You're 1.7% pay increase for 2013 pretty much offsets it though so it's hard to be too ate-up about it.

And I'm not 100% thrilled with the deal, probably no one is. What I AM 100% happy with is that some kind of deal got done only a little past the deadline and in the end all the big players (Boehner, Pelosi, McConnell, Reid, Obama) will have voted for it/signed it. That at least is progress that can hopefully be momentum going into the next inevitable fight.

Edited January 2, 2013 by nsplayr

[Dupe]

Here's my day-old glass of champagne assessment: Fixing AMT permanently is a huge relief for upper-middle income families. Progressive capital gains rates is a new idea for the country. Limits to deductions for the upper class will change the way the rich (er.. the smart rich) buy homes. The Medicare payment updates to docs is needed and should not be an annual issue like AMT once was if we ever want healthcare to stabilize....of course proper Medicare rates for each service/procedure could be a lifetime's work for many smart folks. Extending unemployment is probably necessary with national unemployment still high. I personally believe Americans are under taxed for the government we have...this is a small step towards righting the ship. Stand by for the spending fight in two months.

Edited January 2, 2013 by Dupe

[Groundbounder]

.........I personally believe Americans are under taxed for the government we have....

I agree! But that's the problem, we have too much f*#%ing Government and government control.

.......... Stand by for the spending fight in two months.

God I hope so. Someone needs to draw a line in the sand over all of this spending.

[Dupe]

I agree! But that's the problem, we have too much f*#%ing Government and government

I see it as Americans wanting more from the Government than we are willing to pay for and inefficiencies in the government we have. We can't be a nation who ensures global harmony, provides a social safety net for those over 65, funds a healthcare system for the old and poor, puts men on Mars, makes post-secondary school more accessible to all, takes care of our veterans, and has low taxes when compared to the other G-8 countries. We can choose a high tax full-service government or we can choose a low tax minimal service government. I believe the full-service low tax government that we have had through the 2000s is no longer a valid option.

[dream big]

I see it as Americans wanting more from the Government than we are willing to pay for and inefficiencies in the government we have. We can't be a nation who ensures global harmony, provides a social safety net for those over 65, funds a healthcare system for the old and poor, puts men on Mars, makes post-secondary school more accessible to all, takes care of our veterans, and has low taxes when compared to the other G-8 countries. We can choose a high tax full-service government or we can choose a low tax minimal service government. I believe the full-service low tax government that we have had through the 2000s is no longer a valid option.

Well most of the folks asking for lower taxes are also calling for reduced spending (I.e Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, etc.) The people asking for more government programs don't have a problem calling for higher taxes as long as it is on those who earn more than them. Indeed, after this election, I believe we are reaching an ideological rift in this country on which direction to go: European style massive government / high taxes , or, limited government with lower taxes. I sure hope we don't venture even further into the former.

[Wolf424]

Anyone else wonder how many more times this can is going to be kicked down the road? This "deal" still leaves numerous issues that the next congress is going to have to deal with.

[brickhistory]

Fcuk!

I'm gonna write a note to my unborn grandkids telling I'm sorry we screwed them...

I am sad.

[nsplayr]

Well most of the folks asking for lower taxes are also calling for reduced spending (I.e Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, etc.) The people asking for more government programs don't have a problem calling for higher taxes as long as it is on those who earn more than them. Indeed, after this election, I believe we are reaching an ideological rift in this country on which direction to go: European style massive government / high taxes , or, limited government with lower taxes. I sure hope we don't venture even further into the former.

Interestingly Paul Ryan voted for the bill in the House. Credit to him for doing what I thought was right.

I'm glad we've arrived at a reasonable debate centered around the above though. There is a spectrum of government you can run in a fiscally responsible way, on one side you have more services and higher taxes, on the other side you have less services and lower taxes. Once we agree on that in principle then it's arguing about the details over where in the spectrum we want the U.S. government to be and exactly how you structure the taxes you determine you need. I'm about 99.69% positive no one here (or in Washington) is purposely trying to destroy the country by advocating for one or the other end of that spectrum.

Anyone else wonder how many more times this can is going to be kicked down the road? This "deal" still leaves numerous issues that the next congress is going to have to deal with.

How many times have they voted for the Medicare doc fix but have never made it permanent? As long as doing things temporarily gets a better CBO score and masks future spending, temporary is the way to go if you're a Congressman.

Edited January 2, 2013 by nsplayr

[magnetfreezer]

Interestingly Paul Ryan voted for the bill in the House. Credit to him for doing what I thought was right.

I'm glad we've arrived at a reasonable debate centered around the above though. There is a spectrum of government you can run in a fiscally responsible way, on one side you have more services and higher taxes, on the other side you have less services and lower taxes. Once we agree on that in principle then it's arguing about the details over where in the spectrum we want the U.S. government to be and exactly how you structure the taxes you determine you need. I'm about 99.69% positive no one here (or in Washington) is purposely trying to destroy the country by advocating for one or the other end of that spectrum.

Unfortunately right now we're in the situatiion of a household trying to get out of under crushing debt; even with higher taxes, we need to cut spending (especially the so-called entitlements which are the majority of the budget); only once income>spending can we start paying down the debt.

[Dupe]

Well most of the folks asking for lower taxes are also calling for reduced spending (I.e Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, etc.) The people asking for more government programs don't have a problem calling for higher taxes as long as it is on those who earn more than them. Indeed, after this election, I believe we are reaching an ideological rift in this country on which direction to go: European style massive government / high taxes , or, limited government with lower taxes. I sure hope we don't venture even further into the former.

I agree...to solve the debt problem, balancing tax hikes with spending cuts is the only real option. The problem is that each side only wants to cut the other's side of the discretionary budget. No side seriously wants to restructure the nondiscretionary side like Medicare and Social Security. I don't think Congress has the balls to raise the Social Security retirement age to 67 or 70, nor do I think they'll figure out a fair way limit end-of-life Medicare spending in this session. I hope I'm wrong, but I have yet to see any politician stand up with graphs and charts to show the American public where spending is today, and what it will look like in 2030 if no changes are made, somewhat akin to Ross Perot's presidency run in 1992.

[congressman]

I voted for this deal...definitely isnt the deal I would have authored, but I believe that the major tax increases that went into law with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts (Keep in mind even with GOP majorities and a GOP president they were never made permanent) would have been a massive shock to the economy, not to mention the defense cuts. There were some huge wins for the GOP, as mentioned the AMT fix, Doc fix, Estate tax exemptions. There were also some wins for Dems...namely unemployment and certain tax credits that were codified in the stimulus.

The best way to grow revenue...isnt taxes. Its growth...so a recessed economy would have been counter productive to balancing the budget. The problem is that we have developed a government with entitlements that we simply cant afford. So...the spending fight is yet to come, with the debt limit and continuing resolutions. Those eager for a spending fight like me...its coming. We need to have a real discussion about entitlements, etc.

Governing isnt easy, governing with a divided government is even more difficult...but the key word is "governing." We have to be responsible, fight to advance the goalpost but at the end of the day, Govern.

Granted most in my party voted opposite me, but I feel at peace with my vote.

[brickhistory]

Then I know for sure that you are not my Congressional rep as he voted against this.

There comes a time to say "enough!"

I respect that you think you did the best for your district and your conscience (sp?), but there is a time to say "enough."

You may think that fighting for cuts at the debt ceiling is the way to go, and as you are a professional politician, you may know better than I.

But, you and those who voted for this, intentionally lost a battle. The spending side is relentless; you should be to.

The alternative of cliff-diving would've been better because then those who don't have skin in the game but do get Uncle Sam's money would get a dose of "hey, I pay for this stuff?"

Respectfully, I disagree with your vote.

[nsplayr]

The alternative of cliff-diving would've been better because then those who don't have skin in the game but do get Uncle Sam's money would get a dose of "hey, I pay for this stuff?"

I thought those without "skin in the game" were those who didn't pay federal income taxes? Wouldn't they be some of the least-affected people if federal income tax rates went up?

IMHO there is a place to say "enough" on spending and that's during the appropriations process. Vote no on all appropriations bills that bust the budget if you want to cut spending.

Saying "enough" when the price is massive tax increases on everyone, large, imprecise budget cuts across the board, or a default on the country's sovereign debt, the cost outweighs the benefit and I applaud every congressman who voted for the recent deal because it was certainly better than the alternative no matter where you're coming from ideologically.

I sincerely hope that if the GOP does want to cut spending more than the Democrats and they feel strongly enough about it, that they only pass appropriations bills that come in under whatever kind of budget they set. It's a completely valid, tried-and-true leverage point that potentially leads to a government shut-down which while bad, isn't nearly as bad as defaulting on the debt or going over the self-imposed fiscal cliff.

The debt ceiling unfortunately will again be used as a really effective point of leverage for the GOP to extract spending cuts out of the Democrats in the Senate and the Administration, but it's a very dangerous lever to be pulling. I think everyone knows that but it's too valuable to give up on if you're the minority. Neither side should use it to get what they want yet don't have the votes/signature to pass. The sequester itself was a terrible idea in the first place because everyone agreed the cuts were indiscriminate and terrible but wanted to use them as leverage on their future-selves in an attempt to find spending cuts everyone could agree on. Good ole' D.C...

[congressman]

NS,

Agreed, thats why we pass appropriations bills under the limit imposed by the paul Ryan budget...problem is the senate doesn't, and so we cant engage in regular order, and have to work with continuing resolutions. Washington is broken, but Id look a little more at Harry Reid and the President...

[nsplayr]

NS,

Agreed, thats why we pass appropriations bills under the limit imposed by the paul Ryan budget...problem is the senate doesn't, and so we cant engage in regular order, and have to work with continuing resolutions. Washington is broken, but Id look a little more at Harry Reid and the President...

Yea, I mean I feel you on that, the House at least passes what they think is right. I would like to see more legislating in the Senate overall...less filibuster threats but more bringing things up for votes rather than just letting them sit idle like the current majority leader seems to like to do.

My concern is that the GOP and Dems aren't or can't effectively work together without putting a gun to their heads (i.e. cliffs, sequesters, ceilings, etc.) yet that's the cold hard reality with a divided Congress. Unless the Dems take back the House in 2014 (unlikely) or the GOP takes back the Senate then (very unlikely), something has to be done to end binksmanship and foster this kind of negotiation before the 11th, 12th, and sometimes 13th hours.

Maybe that something is to have a huge blow-out fight over spending cuts and the next debt ceiling bill, who knows, it just worries me that the consequences of inaction are so severe. I can't imagine too many in either caucus actually want the U.S. to default, which is the consequence of not raising the debt ceiling. I also kinda thought the 2012 election was that fight but while the results were clear they weren't exactly 100% decisive since the GOP lost seats but maintained the House...

Am I reading the whole points of leverage things right in your opinion as an actual congressman? I'm wondering why not just shut down the government vice use the debt ceiling as your way to get the other side to move? I know what I think is good public policy and I'm sure we disagree on that, but I'm curious about the political strategy if you're so inclined to share.

Edited January 2, 2013 by nsplayr

[brickhistory]

problem is the senate doesn't, and so we cant engage in regular order, and have to work with continuing resolutions

And thus spending continues unconstrained.

Obama and Reid are not playing by the same rules and are cleaning the fiscal conservatives' clock.

If they won't play by the rules, then to compromise (actually roll over and say "uncle") is to get nothing at all.

Meanwhile, the spending continues, the debt increases, and the results are Soylent Green.

[Fuzz]

NS,

Agreed, thats why we pass appropriations bills under the limit imposed by the paul Ryan budget...problem is the senate doesn't, and so we cant engage in regular order, and have to work with continuing resolutions. Washington is broken, but Id look a little more at Harry Reid and the President...

Sorry congressman, but because someone doesn't do their job doesn't mean you stop doing yours and start playing thier game; you are mandated to pass a budget not "continuing resolutions". You have fallen again for the taxes now, spending cuts later which we have seen over and over again never come (republicans have been trying this since Regan), you refuse to learn the democrats will never keep their side of the deal. However, if history is any indication, when this comes up again you will cave again because you are more concerned with your supposed public perception and popularity (especially with a media that hates you and always will) than you are with actually doing the job your constituents sent you to do.

You might be my representative, since he (and my senators) voted for it and sadly to say there is a time to say enough to this buffoonery and elect people who will have the determination to do what needs to be done, not give weeping speeches and then vote the other way.

ETA: punctuation is important

Edited January 2, 2013 by Scaredfuzz21

[Vertigo]

Unless the Dems take back the House in 2014 (unlikely)

Unlikely is an understatement. Thanks to gerrymandering the Dems would have to win the popular vote by over 7% in order to take the house, and then that would be by only a few seats.

[AnimalMother]

I voted for this deal...definitely isnt the deal I would have authored, but I believe that the major tax increases that went into law with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts (Keep in mind even with GOP majorities and a GOP president they were never made permanent) would have been a massive shock to the economy, not to mention the defense cuts. There were some huge wins for the GOP, as mentioned the AMT fix, Doc fix, Estate tax exemptions. There were also some wins for Dems...namely unemployment and certain tax credits that were codified in the stimulus.

The best way to grow revenue...isnt taxes. Its growth...so a recessed economy would have been counter productive to balancing the budget. The problem is that we have developed a government with entitlements that we simply cant afford. So...the spending fight is yet to come, with the debt limit and continuing resolutions. Those eager for a spending fight like me...its coming. We need to have a real discussion about entitlements, etc.

Governing isnt easy, governing with a divided government is even more difficult...but the key word is "governing." We have to be responsible, fight to advance the goalpost but at the end of the day, Govern.

Granted most in my party voted opposite me, but I feel at peace with my vote.

Grow revenue? You talk about the government as if it's a business. I think maybe you should take another look at the primary sources of "revenue." The government gets most of its money from one place...my pocket. They thieve their "revenue" from their citizens in the form of income tax and inflation. This is as true today as it was in Rome over 2000 years ago. Don't bullshit me. The only thing worse than that is when the citizens finally realize that they can vote the earnings from my pocket into theirs.

The spending fight is yet to come huh? Ha! I recommend you read " When Money Dies" by Adam Fergusson, then tell me if you think you still have a dog in the fight. What's left is little more than the death throes of socialism...again.

I'm quite sure that you are at peace, because either way, I don't think you really give two shits about your vote. Your party is as crooked as the other one, and you both give Karzai a run for his money (actually, that would be our/my money). I'm glad you think you're doing your part, but please spare me your excuses. Governing isn't easy huh? Maybe it's because you're over thinking it. If you really want to help, do us all a favor and learn up yourself a bit about economics, humanity, and history. The Constitution would be a good place to start.

Please forgive my rant. Rant off, beer light on.

[Prozac]

Yeah, fuck it, let's just forget about revenue and go all anarchist up in this bitch. I'm sure that would work out well.

[Wolf424]

How many times have they voted for the Medicare doc fix but have never made it permanent? As long as doing things temporarily gets a better CBO score and masks future spending, temporary is the way to go if you're a Congressman.

I'm not saying that I was surprised...

I laugh when people say we "avoided" the fiscal cliff. We simply stepped back a foot or so. The sequestration cuts are still looming, so we will be having the same conversations in 2 months.

[nsplayr]

Yea, I mean we avoided 1/2 of it basically since the "fiscal cliff" was the confluence of massive tax increases on everyone and the sequestration cuts happening at the exact same time. We've taken care of tax rates permanently (or at least until Congress wants to change them again), but you're right that the sequester remains as well as the always-fun debt ceiling fight thrown in for good measure. Better start partying like it's summer 2011, I'm hoping Congress can exceed my expectations which isn't entirely without precedent.

[pawnman]

Yea, I mean we avoided 1/2 of it basically since the "fiscal cliff" was the confluence of massive tax increases on everyone and the sequestration cuts happening at the exact same time. We've taken care of tax rates permanently (or at least until Congress wants to change them again), but you're right that the sequester remains as well as the always-fun debt ceiling fight thrown in for good measure. Better start partying like it's summer 2011, I'm hoping Congress can exceed my expectations which isn't entirely without precedent.

I was more worried about the sequestration anyway. You guys ready to fly half as much, and only turn on every other computer in the squadron to save electricity?