The President again went out on a limb yesterday offering the GOP a cut in corporate tax rates to 28% in exchange for some infrastructure spending. You'd think this offer were at least worth listening to. After all, the GOP has been bellyaching for years that U.S. corporate rates are 'the highest in the world'-though this claim ignores the distinction between stated, nominal rates and effective rates: if you go by effective rates the U.S. corporate tax rate is pretty average after you factor in all the loopholes corporations get.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/04/01/1804801/no-american-corporations-aren039t-paying-the-world039s-highest-tax-rate/
This was the President's point in making the offer: the idea is to exchange the lower rate for getting rid of many of the loopholes-a good place to start would be the tax credit the oil companies get despite making record profits-the credit made sense in the 90s as oil prices were very low during the 80s and 90s.
Now don't get me wrong. I need to see the math-all the loopholes that will actually enable us to lower corporate rates to 28% and yet take in more revenue. The idea is that the President will use the higher revenue for much needed infrastructure spending.
Still, the GOP didn't even give the idea the slightest thought. Mitch McConnell mocked it as a new-fangled idea of the Far Left:
"Despite the olive branch, Obama's proposal immediately drew fire from the top Republicans in Congress. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said, "It's just a further-left version of a widely panned plan he already proposed two years ago - this time, with extra goodies for tax-and-spend liberals."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/30/usa-obama-idUSL1N0G00VB20130730
Orrin Hatch responded to the President's olive branch as if were a poison pill:
“It looks to me like they’re deliberately undermining any chance for tax reform,” Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, said of the administration’s proposal."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/31/us/politics/lonely-bipartisan-push-to-overhaul-tax-code-finally-gets-noticed.html?_r=1&
You know, as blatant as the GOP is in it's disinterest in even pretending to operate in good faith not even pretending to have any desire to get anything done, Hatch's comment is still amazing. Obama has just offered them something they've been whining about for years. All he is asking in return is some infrastructure spending. Yes, many Republicans don't like infrastructure spending but that's what a negotiation is: something you like for something you don't. You could argue that the GOP comes out ahead here anyway. After all the spending is temporary anyway while the corporate tax cut is permanent.
As Greg Sargent notes, you still have these absurd VSP in the media claiming that both sides are too partisan and unwilling to compromise and that Obama is failing to exercise proper Green Lantern Leadership.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/07/31/the-morning-plum-ostrich-punditry-refuses-to-reckon-with-reality-of-todays-gop/
As bad faith as Senator Hatch's comments were-after all, if a 20% cut in the corporate rate is not even a starting point for compromise, what compromise is he offering?-House Speaker's Boehner's conduct throughout the President's offer yesterday takes the cake for lack of good faith and disinterest in governing. Obama had tried to speak with him before the speech and got no answer from his office.
"Bickering broke out as the White House said it had tried to tell aides to John Boehner, the Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, about the plan on Monday but, according to Obama spokesman Jay Carney, "never heard back" from them."
Even worse, Boehner's spokesman-good old Michal Steel-criticized the speech before Obama even gave it. I mean what can more demonstrate no good faith, no effort at rapprochement, no interest in coming to an agreement than rebuffing the President's offer of a discussion before the speech, and yet insisting that it has nothing to offer before even hearing it?
"Boehner's spokesman, Michael Steel, criticized the proposal even before Obama's speech, saying: "Republicans want to help families and small businesses, too. This proposal allows President Obama to support President Obama's position on taxes and President Obama's position on spending, while leaving small businesses and American families behind."
How is cutting the corporate rate the President's position on taxes-there are few things that excite the GOP more than the idea of cutting the corporate tax rate, other than maybe eliminating the capital gains rate, the flat tax. or privatizing Social Security?
On the other hand Lindsey Graham-of the Senate GOP Compromise Committee (CC)-had something good to say:
“I support infrastructure spending as part of any deal, reducing the corporate tax rate is good but the big piece left out is entitlement reform,” Graham said. “I think what the president is talking about is helpful. … Having the conversation about restructuring the tax code, infrastructure, is moving in the right direction, but the big challenge for us is what do you do about long-term entitlements.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/07/31/the-morning-plum-ostrich-punditry-refuses-to-reckon-with-reality-of-todays-gop/
Well, Senator Graham, the way to get entitlement reform in there is to start with replacing the sequester-if we are even going to think about ER-and I'm not really a big fan-then we won't also tolerate these lower levels of discretionary spending in the long term. How about entitlement reform for the end of the weak level of discretionary spending? Surely the elements of a deal are here. As Graham actually says that he demands that infrastructure be part of any deal it would seem we should be well on our way.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/04/01/1804801/no-american-corporations-aren039t-paying-the-world039s-highest-tax-rate/
This was the President's point in making the offer: the idea is to exchange the lower rate for getting rid of many of the loopholes-a good place to start would be the tax credit the oil companies get despite making record profits-the credit made sense in the 90s as oil prices were very low during the 80s and 90s.
Now don't get me wrong. I need to see the math-all the loopholes that will actually enable us to lower corporate rates to 28% and yet take in more revenue. The idea is that the President will use the higher revenue for much needed infrastructure spending.
Still, the GOP didn't even give the idea the slightest thought. Mitch McConnell mocked it as a new-fangled idea of the Far Left:
"Despite the olive branch, Obama's proposal immediately drew fire from the top Republicans in Congress. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said, "It's just a further-left version of a widely panned plan he already proposed two years ago - this time, with extra goodies for tax-and-spend liberals."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/30/usa-obama-idUSL1N0G00VB20130730
Orrin Hatch responded to the President's olive branch as if were a poison pill:
“It looks to me like they’re deliberately undermining any chance for tax reform,” Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, said of the administration’s proposal."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/31/us/politics/lonely-bipartisan-push-to-overhaul-tax-code-finally-gets-noticed.html?_r=1&
You know, as blatant as the GOP is in it's disinterest in even pretending to operate in good faith not even pretending to have any desire to get anything done, Hatch's comment is still amazing. Obama has just offered them something they've been whining about for years. All he is asking in return is some infrastructure spending. Yes, many Republicans don't like infrastructure spending but that's what a negotiation is: something you like for something you don't. You could argue that the GOP comes out ahead here anyway. After all the spending is temporary anyway while the corporate tax cut is permanent.
As Greg Sargent notes, you still have these absurd VSP in the media claiming that both sides are too partisan and unwilling to compromise and that Obama is failing to exercise proper Green Lantern Leadership.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/07/31/the-morning-plum-ostrich-punditry-refuses-to-reckon-with-reality-of-todays-gop/
As bad faith as Senator Hatch's comments were-after all, if a 20% cut in the corporate rate is not even a starting point for compromise, what compromise is he offering?-House Speaker's Boehner's conduct throughout the President's offer yesterday takes the cake for lack of good faith and disinterest in governing. Obama had tried to speak with him before the speech and got no answer from his office.
"Bickering broke out as the White House said it had tried to tell aides to John Boehner, the Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, about the plan on Monday but, according to Obama spokesman Jay Carney, "never heard back" from them."
Even worse, Boehner's spokesman-good old Michal Steel-criticized the speech before Obama even gave it. I mean what can more demonstrate no good faith, no effort at rapprochement, no interest in coming to an agreement than rebuffing the President's offer of a discussion before the speech, and yet insisting that it has nothing to offer before even hearing it?
"Boehner's spokesman, Michael Steel, criticized the proposal even before Obama's speech, saying: "Republicans want to help families and small businesses, too. This proposal allows President Obama to support President Obama's position on taxes and President Obama's position on spending, while leaving small businesses and American families behind."
How is cutting the corporate rate the President's position on taxes-there are few things that excite the GOP more than the idea of cutting the corporate tax rate, other than maybe eliminating the capital gains rate, the flat tax. or privatizing Social Security?
On the other hand Lindsey Graham-of the Senate GOP Compromise Committee (CC)-had something good to say:
“I support infrastructure spending as part of any deal, reducing the corporate tax rate is good but the big piece left out is entitlement reform,” Graham said. “I think what the president is talking about is helpful. … Having the conversation about restructuring the tax code, infrastructure, is moving in the right direction, but the big challenge for us is what do you do about long-term entitlements.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/07/31/the-morning-plum-ostrich-punditry-refuses-to-reckon-with-reality-of-todays-gop/
Well, Senator Graham, the way to get entitlement reform in there is to start with replacing the sequester-if we are even going to think about ER-and I'm not really a big fan-then we won't also tolerate these lower levels of discretionary spending in the long term. How about entitlement reform for the end of the weak level of discretionary spending? Surely the elements of a deal are here. As Graham actually says that he demands that infrastructure be part of any deal it would seem we should be well on our way.
No comments:
Post a Comment