Chris Ames (Iraq Inquiry Digest) boils down
the big Iraq news out of England down to one quote from the Iraq
Inquiry, "The Inquiry has advised the Prime Minister that it will be in a
position to being the process of writing to any individuals that may be
criticized by the middle of 2013." James Tapsfield (Independent) points out,
"The findings about the run-up to the 2003 invasion and its aftermath
had originally been expected by the end of last year. The timing was
then put back to this summer." Of the latest development, James Blitz (Financial Times of London) predicts it's "a development that will trigger anger among MPs at the slow pace of the inquiry." Gordon Rayner (Telegraph of London) does the math,
"So far the Inquiry has cost 6.1 million pounds, and the extra year of
information-gathering is expected to cost the public purse around 1.4
million pounds more." Steve Bell (Guardian) offers a visual take on the news (political cartoon). Gavin Stamp (BBC News) explains,
"The BBC's security correspondent Gordon Corera said there had been
an ongoing row between the inquiry and the Cabinet Office over certain
documents - particularly notes sent by former prime minister Tony Blair
to President Bush and records of their discussions in the run-up to the
conflict." Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian) adds,
"O'Donnell told Chilcot that releasing Blair's notes would damage
Britain's relations with the US and would not be in the public interest.
'We have attached particular importance to protecting the privacy of
the channel between the prime minister and president,' he said." And
the end result? The Daily Mail breaks it down: "It means the committee's final judgment will not be delivered until at least a decade after the war."
By forever returning to how everyone did and is doing Tony Blair wrong, Rentoul note only sounds one-note, he long ago lost the ability to convince anyone who didn't belong to the Tony Blair fan club that Rentoul is president of. Even Alastair Campbell comes off less emotional and more reasoned. Rentoul comes off like the wife of a cheating politician forced to stand beside her husband at the podium. Reading him today truly is that cringe worthy.
While the British press focused on the delay in the report, to John Rentoul it was all about:
Anyway, the line of argument seems to be something like this: Tony Blair won’t let the inquiry publish his letters to George Bush – you know, the ones saying he was going to lie to Parliament all about oil – so the doughty independent chair of the inquiry is fighting his corner behind closed doors (until the report is eventually published, when he becomes the lickspittle whitewasher of Whitehall that we all knew he was all along).
Well there you have it, it's worse than a cheating politician's spouse, it's England's own Mary Jo Buttafuoco before her awakening.
Columnist should not be a tenured position. Few people are able to write columns -- columns which offer no actual reporting just opinion -- for any great length of time. That's true in every society but John Rentoul really makes it clear in England where his fussy clutch the pearls style makes him both out of date and the object of (deserved) scorn and ridicule.
The following community sites -- plus Adam Kokesh, The Diane Rehm Show, CSPAN, Black Agenda Report, Antiwar.com, Susan's On The Edge, Ms. magazine and Iraq Inquiry Digest -- updated last night and today:
We'll close with this from Senator Patty Murray's office on the issue of taxes:
FOR IMMEDIATE
RELEASE CONTACT: Murray Press Office
Monday, July 16,
2012 (202)
224-2834
Senator Murray on
Budget Debate: If Republicans Won’t Agree to Balanced Approach, Then We Won’t
Get a Deal This Year
Murray calls on Republicans to
stop holding middle class tax cuts hostage, work with Democrats on a balanced
replacement to defense and non-defense sequestration
“Democrats are willing to
compromise, we just need a partner.”
“…a
budget tells the story of the kind of nation we are, and the kind of nation we
want to be…it is a statement of our values, our priorities, and our
vision.”
(Washington, D.C.)
– Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) spoke at the Brookings
Institution in Washington, D.C. to lay out her values and priorities regarding
the country’s fiscal challenges heading into the end of the year and beyond.
Murray discussed how she views the path to a balanced and bipartisan budget
deal, and what steps can be taken to extend tax cuts for the middle class, make
sure the wealthiest Americans are paying their fair share, and replace
sequestration in a balanced and fair way. Murray also spoke about the support
her own family got from the federal government when they needed it and discussed
where her values come from when it comes to the budget.
Watch the full speech HERE
Key excerpts from Murray’s
speech:
If Republicans won’t work with us on a
balanced approach, we are not going to get a deal.
“…if Republicans won’t work with us on a
balanced approach, we are not going to get a deal. Because I feel very
strongly that we simply cannot allow middle class families and the most
vulnerable Americans to bear this burden alone.
“So if we can’t get a good deal, a
balanced deal that calls on the wealthy to pay their fair share, then I will
absolutely continue this debate into 2013 rather than lock in a long-term deal
this year that throws middle class families under the bus. And I think my party,
and the American people, will support that.”
“…If Democrats
were willing to accept a wildly imbalanced deficit reduction plan to avoid the
automatic cuts we would have done that back in the supercommittee. But we
didn’t then, and we won’t now. So anyone who tells you sequestration is going
to simply disappear because both sides want to avoid it is either fooling
themselves, or trying to fool you. It is going to have to be replaced, and that
replacement is going to have to be balanced.”
“I will not
agree to a deal that throws middle class families under the bus and forces them
to bear this burden alone. Unless Republicans end their commitment to
protecting the rich above all else, our country is going to have to face the
consequences of Republican intransigence.”
---
“…many Republicans are starting to
realize something important: On January 1st, if we haven’t gotten to a deal,
Grover Norquist and his pledge are no longer relevant to this conversation. A
name I heard repeated by Republicans over and over in the supercommittee will no
longer be a part of this debate. We will have a new fiscal and political
reality.”
“If the Bush tax cuts expire, every
proposal will be a tax cut proposal and the pledge will no longer keep
Republicans boxed in and unable to compromise.”
“If middle class families start seeing
more money coming out of their paychecks next year—are Republicans really going
to stand up and fight for new tax cuts for the rich? Are they going to continue
opposing the Democrats’ middle class tax cut once the slate has been wiped
clean? I think they know this would be an untenable political position. And I
hope this pushes them to come to the table with real revenue now before being
forced to the table if we don’t get a deal before the New Year.”
Murray challenges Republicans to offer a
true choice and give certainty to 98% of taxpayers
“…when it comes
to the expiring Bush tax cuts, I agree with President Obama. Let’s extend them
for the 98% of workers and 97% of small business owners Democrats and
Republicans agree should have their taxes cut—and then have a real debate about
the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans we disagree on.
“Before August,
we are going to have a vote to do exactly that in the Senate. Senate Republicans
have indicated they are going to make an effort to extend all the Bush tax
cuts—including those for the rich.”
“But I
challenge them to do something different. To be honest about what they really
want and allow everyone to clearly state their position on the issues. I
challenge them to offer an amendment to our middle class tax cut that would
simply extend the tax cuts that they are fighting for , the tax cuts for the
rich. Not a political amendment offered simply to give their members a way out
of voting against a middle class tax cut, a real amendment.”
“If they do
this, all of the Bush tax cuts would be up for a clean, honest extension vote.
And the American people would know where everyone stands. Any senator who
supports extending tax cuts for the middle class—they can vote for our bill.
Any senator who supports extending tax cuts for the rich—they can vote for the
Republican amendment. And any senator who supports extending all the tax
cuts—well, they can vote for them both.”
“That would
give everyone the opportunity to vote for exactly what they want, and it would
make sure political gimmicks don’t get in the way of delivering results for the
98% of workers both sides agree should have their tax cuts extended.
“If Republicans
don’t do this, if they continue playing political games with this vote and only
offer an amendment in order to kill the bill, then they will have proven
conclusively that they don’t care about certainty, they care about extending
those tax cuts for the rich. And that they will use every bit of leverage they
have to do it.”
“If we are
really going to address these issues we have to cut through the political
smokescreens. It’s time to put our cards on the table, offer real choices, and
have a debate that’s worthy of the Senate.”
“Holding the
middle class tax cuts hostage may be a smart tactical move if the goal is to
protect the rich. But it’s not good policy, it’s not good politics, and
Democrats are going to keep reminding the American people why middle class tax
cuts aren’t being extended immediately even though both sides say they want them
to be.”
Lessons from the
supercommittee
“…as everyone in this room knows, the
supercommittee was not successful. We couldn’t come to a bipartisan deal. And
the reasons for that, the lessons learned from those four months of intense
bipartisan talks, are absolutely critical as we face the exact same issues
heading into the end of the year and the so-called fiscal cliff. Because if we
want a different outcome, if we want to come together around the balanced and
bipartisan deficit-reduction deal the American people expect and deserve,
something is going to have to change.”
“So to spell out the obvious: Under the
Toomey plan, the richest Americans would get a huge tax cut, while the middle
class would lose the tax benefits that matter to them most....So not only is it
deeply unfair to ask the middle class to foot the bill for another
deficit-busting tax cut for the rich, but the Toomey plan would lock them in
with no guarantee that the revenue will ever be found to pay for them. There’s
nothing responsible about that in my book. In fact, it’s
offensive.”
“…the Toomey plan was a gimmick. A
bait-and-switch. It wasn’t a step in our direction—it was a leap toward the Tea
Party. Away from a deal.”
“Democrats were willing to match the
Republicans dollar-for-dollar on the spending side, and more. We went even
beyond the Toomey plan when it came to tackling entitlements. We had backing
from our leadership and our party to make a big deal. We jumped right out into
the middle of the ring. But Republicans refused to move an inch in our
direction on revenue. They actually tried to use a deficit reduction Committee
to cut taxes for the rich even further. And they were so focused on how their
extreme base would react that they simply couldn’t summon the will to leave
their partisan corner.”
“There were
times when I thought we were close. But looking back at the offers from each
side that represented the greatest attempts at compromise—it’s clear that while
we were close on the spending side, Republicans hadn’t even left their corner
when it came to revenue.”
Reasons for
hope
“… I think we
have some good reasons to think a deal can happen before the end of the year. I
know Democrats are willing to compromise. We just need a partner.”
“Thankfully, I
am seeing some encouraging signs from Republicans who are sick and tired of
being boxed in by the most extreme elements of their base who don’t like being
responsible for continued manufactured crises that hurt the economy and destroy
our nation’s faith in its government, and who are concerned about the impact of
sequestration.”
“In the privacy
of back rooms and in small gangs, Republicans are far more willing to discuss
the need for revenue. And there are some Republicans passionate about national
defense and willing to make some tough choices on revenue to protect the
Pentagon.”
“In fact, some
of the productive conversations my Republican colleagues have been having have
led Grover Norquist to decry their ‘impure thoughts’ when it comes to taxes.
Well, I hope those ‘impure thoughts’ continue. If Norquist is mad, then we must
be on the right track.”
“I know
Democrats are ready to get to work. We want to make a deal. We are ready to
compromise. And as soon as Republicans decide to work with us, I am confident
we can get to the balanced and bipartisan deal the American people expect and
deserve.”
Defense sequestration shouldn’t be
isolated
“We are also not going to allow just the
defense cuts to be replaced without addressing the domestic spending cuts that
would be devastating to the middle class. None of the automatic cuts are good
policy. They were packaged together in a bipartisan fashion to get both sides to
the table, and they will be replaced, or not, as a package.
“Here in D.C the defense cuts get most
of the attention—but across America, all the automatic cuts would be deeply
damaging to families and communities.”
We don’t need to extend tax cuts for the
rich to do tax reform
“You know, I’ve also heard the claim
made that we need to extend all the tax cuts to give us time to reform the tax
code. Well, we absolutely need to reform the tax code. It’s badly broken. And I
am certainly willing to discuss a fast-track process for getting that done.
But there is absolutely no reason—not one—that we need to extend the tax cuts
for the rich as a precondition for reforming the tax code.”
“And when we do get to work on this,
Republicans are going to have to accept that tax reform isn’t going to be a
backdoor way for them sneak through more tax cuts for the rich. And it is going
to have to raise revenue to help rein in the deficit and debt.”
“Budget
Priorities, Values, and the Path Forward”
Senator Patty Murray Speech at the Brookings
Institution
Monday, July 16, 2012
“Thank you so much Ron for that
introduction. I am so glad to be here today to discuss this issue with so many
of you who have been working on this for so long. I want to thank the Budgeting
for National Priorities project at Brookings for hosting us here today, as well
as the great members of the panel we will be hearing from shortly, and all of
you for taking the time to be a part of this discussion.
“As you all know,
last August I was asked by Majority Leader Reid to co-chair the Joint Select
Committee on Deficit Reduction, or the supercommittee, as it was commonly
called. This certainly wasn’t the most sought-after job in Congress, as you may
imagine, it was probably just a notch below DSCC chair, but I agreed to do it
because I thought it represented a few important opportunities.
“The opportunity
to avoid the pain of sequestration that would be triggered if no deal was made,
of course; to pass a responsible long-term deficit reduction plan with a simple
majority, a guaranteed vote in the House, and no ability for it to be
filibustered in the Senate, which is no small deal these days; and also, after
years of partisan rancor culminating in a truly ugly and absolutely unnecessary
debt ceiling battle, the opportunity to finally show the American people their
government wasn’t broken, that we could come together when we needed
to.
“Well, as everyone
in this room knows, the supercommittee was not successful. We couldn’t come to a
bipartisan deal. And the reasons for that, the lessons learned from those four
months of intense bipartisan talks, are absolutely critical as we face the exact
same issues heading into the end of the year and the so-called fiscal cliff.
“Because if we
want a different outcome, if we want to come together around the balanced and
bipartisan deficit reduction deal the American people expect and deserve,
something is going to have to change.
“So today I want
to talk about the vision, values, and priorities that drive my approach to
tackling our budget challenges. And I am going to contrast that with what I see
as the short-sighted and deeply flawed vision that has been dominating the
Republican Party.
“I will run
through how these contrasting visions played out in the specifics of the
supercommittee negotiations and the recent budget debates, and then I will lay
out how I see the path forward as we head toward the end of this year.
“My approach to
this issue starts with my family. It starts with a story that probably isn’t so
different from stories told by families across the country. I was born and
raised in Bothell, Washington, in a big, loving family. My dad ran a five and
ten cents store on Main Street, and everyone in our family helped out at the
store. My family certainly was not rich, but we didn’t feel deprived in any way.
“But when I turned
15, things started to change. My dad, a World War II veteran, was diagnosed
with Multiple Sclerosis. In a few short years, his illness got so bad he
couldn't work anymore. My mom, who had stayed home to raise our family, had to
take care of him. But she also needed to get a job so she could support our
family. She found some work, but it didn’t pay enough to support me and my six
brothers and sisters—and a husband with growing medical bills.
“Without warning,
our family had fallen on hard times. But thankfully, we lived in a country where
the government didn't just say ‘tough luck.’ My dad was a veteran—so we got
some help from the VA for medical care. For several months, our family had to
rely on food stamps. They were not much, but they kept food on the table while
we figured things out.
“To get a better
paying job, my mom needed some training. Fortunately, at the time there was a
federal program that helped her attend Lake Washington Vocational School, where
she got a two-year degree in accounting, and eventually, a better job. And my
brothers and sisters and I were all able to go to college through federal grants
and student loans.
“Like millions of
families across America, we got by with a little bit of luck. We pulled through
with a lot of hard work. And while I’d like to say we were strong enough to make
it on our own—I don’t think that’s really true.
“I know the
support we got from our government was the difference between seven kids who
might not have graduated from high school or college—and the seven adults we've
grown up to be today—all college graduates, all working hard and paying taxes,
and all doing our best to contribute back to our communities.
“So this is the
primary prism I view our nation’s budget through. And it’s what guides me as I
work in the Senate to impact the choices we make. Not that government can or
should solve every problem—of course it shouldn’t, and it can’t.
“But that we are a
nation that has always come together to stand with families like mine. To
invest in our people, our communities, our future—and to build the most robust
middle class the world has ever seen. That a budget is not just numbers on a
page. That despite what you may think if you listened in to some of the debates
we’ve been having recently—the word ‘budget’ is not just a synonym for deficit
reduction.
“That it is not
just about charts, graphs, and trajectories we often hear about—though those are
important too. But that a budget tells the story of the kind of nation we are,
and the kind of nation we want to be. And that it is a statement of our values,
our priorities—and our vision. Or at least, that’s what it ought to
be.
“These ideas led
to some very clear goals going into the supercommittee. First, I thought
everything needed to be on the table when we started. This didn’t mean members
were supposed to check their values at the door, but it did mean we had the best
chance of success if members didn’t rule out any changes to entire swaths of the
federal budget before we even began.
“Second, I felt
very strongly that any deal had to be balanced and include both spending cuts
and new revenue. The middle class and most vulnerable Americans had already
sacrificed so much—they’ve lost their homes—or see them drop in price, they’ve
lost jobs—or their life savings—and they shouldn’t be called on to continue
bearing the burden of deficit reduction alone.
“Third, I wanted
to make sure we didn’t let the very real need to tackle our deficit and debt
cause us to cut off the most critical investments in our families and our
future, or set aside the values and priorities that have made America
great.
“Fourth, I wanted
to do a big deal. A grand bargain. I was willing to consider a small deal to
avoid the pain of sequestration, but I thought that should be a last resort. I
wanted us to truly put our country on track to tackle the debt and deficit— not
simply continue lurching from crisis to crisis. And I was willing to make the
tough compromises required to get there.
“But
unfortunately, while there are many Republicans who share these goals—who see
the value of a government that works for middle class families, their party has
been dominated by an extreme ideological strain that allows itself only to think
in terms of cutting, shrinking, and eliminating—and never in terms of investing,
growing, and fairness.
“They have a vision for our country in
which families like mine wouldn’t have gotten a hand up—we would have been left
to fend for ourselves. A vision best articulated by one of their ideological leaders, Grover Norquist,
who said: ‘I'm not in favor of abolishing the government. I just want to shrink
it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.’
“Grover Norquist, by the way, was kind
enough to wish me luck on the supercommittee by telling reporters that ‘the lady
from Washington doesn’t do budgets.’
“And he has elicited a pledge from
almost every single Republican member of Congress to never, under any
circumstances, raise taxes by even a penny, despite the fact that the wealthiest
Americans are paying the lowest rates in generations, and the federal government
is taking in the lowest levels of revenue in decades.
Unfortunately, far too many Republicans
have latched onto this deeply damaging ideology.
“They pay lip-service to deficit
reduction, but what they actually seem to be concerned about is cutting taxes
for the rich and starving programs that help middle class families and the most
vulnerable Americans. If Republicans really thought the deficit was the most
pressing issue, you wouldn’t have seen their presidential nominee say he would reject a deal to cut $10 in spending for
every $1 in tax increases. You wouldn’t see them
doing everything possible to protect the Bush tax cuts for the rich.
“You would see far more interest among
their leaders in Congress in compromising with Democrats to get the grand
bargain everyone in this room understands we need. And you wouldn’t see their
single-minded focus on slashing non-defense discretionary spending which makes
up only 16% of our federal budget, is already shrinking, and provides critical
support for families and investments in our future.
“So it was with
very different visions and priorities that the two sides came into the
supercommittee last year. I understood it would be difficult, but I knew
Democrats were ready to compromise and open to the concessions a balanced and
bipartisan deal would require. And I was hopeful Republicans were as well.
“The first day the
supercommittee met as a group, we went around the table and each talked about
what we wanted to accomplish. We shared coffee, runny eggs, and our hopes for
the months ahead.
“Democrats
discussed our priorities and willingness to put everything on the table to get
to a balanced deal. We discussed our desire to continue working to cut spending
responsibly. We talked about our willingness to tackle entitlements and make
sure they were strengthened in a way that ensured they would be there for our
children and grandchildren. We highlighted the need to responsibly reduce
defense spending while making sure our national security needs were addressed.
“We laid out our
belief that in a fragile economy with millions of Americans out of work, it made
sense to invest in the short-term, while putting our nation on a path to
long-term debt and deficit reduction. And of course, we discussed the need for
a balanced approach that included revenue.
“But Republicans
opened in a very different way. One said defense cuts were off the table and
indicated that instead of trying to go big, the group should focus on doing the
opposite. He wanted us to go small. Republicans pushed for us to focus on the
so-called ‘low hanging fruit’ from prior negotiations before working on any of
the tougher issues. Meaning, they wanted to start by locking in and agreeing to
all of the spending cuts identified as potentially working in a larger deal, but
none of the revenue increases that would have actually made such a deal
possible.
“This was a tactic
we’d seen before, and, of course, we weren’t going to agree to an approach that
could lead to an all-cuts, unbalanced deal. So that wasn’t a great start—but my
hope was this was just a negotiating position—not a hard line. We continued our
bipartisan conversations, we traded offers and ideas, we had our staffs draft
and analyze potential language.
“There were times
when I thought we were close. But looking back at the offers from each side that
represented the greatest attempts at compromise, it’s clear that while we were
close on the spending side, Republicans hadn’t even left their corner when it
came to revenue.
“The biggest offer
Democrats put forward was an attempt at a grand bargain. This proposal built on
the $1 trillion in cuts in the Budget Control Act with an additional $1.3
trillion in cuts to spending and changes to entitlement programs, as well as
$1.3 trillion in new revenue. And it included a short-term investment in jobs to
give the economy a much-needed boost.
“To be honest, it
was a painful offer. It included compromises on entitlements that personally, I
wasn’t absolutely comfortable with. It had deep concessions on the spending
side. But I knew the only way a deal was possible was if both sides were
willing to accept some pain—and I was willing to do that for a balanced and fair
deal.
“But our balanced
proposal stood in sharp contrast to the offer Republicans would hang their hats
on when it all ended: The Toomey plan. This was their attempt at acting like
they were putting revenue on the table and offering a compromise, while in fact,
doing the exact opposite.
“The Toomey plan
was small. It included roughly $700 billion in spending cuts (less than what
Democrats had proposed), around $300 billion in new government fees, and $300
billion in what they were calling new revenue.
“It’s important to
note that many of these numbers were fuzzy, and it’s unclear how the CBO would
score much of it. But let’s unpack this last number a bit, because what
Republicans were trying to do here is not unique to the Toomey plan—we’ve been
seeing this over and over in their budget proposals.
“The Toomey plan
would permanently cut the top tax rate for the wealthiest Americans from 35%
now, and scheduled to increase to 39.6% on January 1, down to 28%, which would
add trillions more to the deficit. But it gets even worse.
“The Toomey plan
claims this lost revenue would be offset by closing loopholes and ending
deductions. And further, that there would be $300 billion in extra revenue
once this is all said and done.
“But while the
plan is explicit about giving the rich the biggest tax cut since the Great
Depression, it is painfully vague when it comes to where revenue would be found
to offset it. In fact, it ignores that part completely. It simply assumes
Congress will be able to get that done through tax reform.
“Well, there was
some analysis done on a proposal similar to Toomey’s. And what that found was
that in order to pay for the tax cuts for the rich, we would have to slash to
the bone: the personal and dependent exemptions, almost all itemized deductions,
including the most popular ones like home mortgage, charitable contributions,
and state and local taxes, the child tax credit, the college tuition credit, and
almost every other credit.
“So to spell out
the obvious: Under the Toomey plan, the richest Americans would get a huge tax
cut, while the middle class would lose the tax benefits that matter to them
most.
“In the analysis
of the similar plan, it was estimated that someone making over $1 million a year
would see an average tax cut of $31,700. In fact, anyone making over $200,000
would get a tax cut. But for anyone making less than that—the middle class and
the poor—the cuts in rates didn’t make up for the exemptions and deductions
lost.
“For example,
someone earning $55,000 would see an average increase of almost $1,000. So not
only is it deeply unfair to ask the middle class to foot the bill for another
deficit-busting tax cut for the rich, but the Toomey plan would lock them in
with no guarantee that the revenue will ever be found to pay for them.
“There’s nothing
responsible about that in my book. In fact, it’s offensive. You know, I was
actually reminded of the Toomey plan when I saw the Ryan budget this year.
Ryan’s budget cuts taxes for the rich even deeper than Toomey’s, down to a top
rate of 25%, and uses the same parlor trick to raise revenue that Toomey
does.
“Ryan, however,
needed the Congressional Budget Office to score his plan as a deficit
reducer—not the deficit-buster it really is. So he simply directed the CBO to
score his plan assuming it would raise 19% of GDP. That’s quite an assumption—if
only we could assume all our problems away like that.
“Former Reagan
advisor Bruce Bartlett slammed Ryan’s tax plan in a column in the Fiscal Times,
writing: ‘He offers only the sugar of rate reductions without telling us what
the medicine of base broadening will be.’”
“And I should add
Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s plan does something similar- it
cuts rates for the rich while refusing to name what deductions would be closed
to pay for it.
“So the Toomey
plan was a gimmick. A bait-and-switch. It wasn’t a step in our direction—it was
a leap toward the Tea Party. Away from a deal.
“Democrats were
willing to match the Republicans dollar-for-dollar on the spending side—and
more. We went even beyond the Toomey plan when it came to tackling
entitlements. We had backing from our leadership and our party to make a big
deal. We jumped right out into the middle of the ring. But Republicans refused
to move an inch in our direction on revenue.
“They actually
tried to use a deficit reduction Committee to cut taxes for the rich even
further. And they were so focused on how their extreme base would react that
they simply couldn’t summon the will to leave their partisan corner. But why is
this? Why is the modern Republican Party so opposed to allowing the rich to pay
just a bit more in taxes that they would prefer no deal at all? After all, it
wasn’t always this way.
“President Reagan
raised taxes 11 times. President George H.W. Bush famously raised taxes to rein
in the deficit. This really shouldn’t be controversial—and outside today’s
Republican Party—it really isn’t. Because if you believe the deficit and debt
are major problems that need to be addressed—as Democrats do, and Republicans
claim to— then you can’t simply ignore revenues at a time when, at 15.4% of GDP—
they are the lowest in 60 years.
“Poll after poll
shows the American people overwhelmingly want to reduce the deficit with a
combination of cuts and revenue. Every single bipartisan group that has made
progress in this area—from Simpson-Bowles, to Domenici-Rivlin, and others—they
were able to come together because their plans were balanced. And let’s be
clear—We don’t want to increase revenue for the sake of increasing revenue. Of
course not. But as a nation, we need to pay for the services and programs the
American people want. We need to rein in the deficit and debt—and we need to do
that in a responsible way.
“Democrats
understand this—and Congressional Republicans should too. Because this is all
coming to a head once again.
“Unlike last year,
the consequences of gridlock could start to be felt immediately. Millions of
jobs could be lost through the automatic cuts, programs families depend on would
be slashed irresponsibly across the board, and middle class tax cuts would
expire. And once again, if Republicans won’t work with us on a balanced
approach, we are not going to get a deal.
“Because I feel
very strongly that we simply cannot allow middle class families and the most
vulnerable Americans to bear this burden alone. It’s just not fair.
“So if we can’t
get a good deal—a balanced deal that calls on the wealthy to pay their fair
share—then I will absolutely continue this debate into 2013, rather than lock in
a long-term deal this year that throws middle class families under the bus.
“And I think my
party, and the American people, will support that.
“But I hope it
doesn’t come to that. And I think we have some good reasons to think a deal can
happen before the end of the year. I know Democrats are willing to compromise.
We just need a partner.
“Thankfully, I’m
seeing some encouraging signs from Republicans who are sick and tired of being
boxed in by the most extreme elements of their base—who don’t like being
responsible for continued manufactured crises that hurt the economy and destroy
our nation’s faith in its government— and who are concerned about the impact of
sequestration.
“In the privacy of
back rooms and in small gangs, Republicans are far more willing to discuss the
need for revenue. And there are some Republicans passionate about national
defense and willing to make some tough choices on revenue to protect the
Pentagon.
“In fact, some of
the productive conversations my Republican colleagues have been having have led
Grover Norquist to decry their ‘impure thoughts’ when it comes to taxes. Well,
I hope those ‘impure thoughts’ continue. If Norquist is mad, then we must be on
the right track.
“Because the only
way we can get a balanced and bipartisan deal is if reasonable Republicans can
persuade their leadership to stand up to the most extreme elements of their
base— and come to the table with real compromises.
“I also think many
Republicans are starting to realize something important: On January
1st, if we haven’t gotten to a deal, Grover Norquist and his pledge
are no longer relevant to this conversation.
“A name I heard
repeated by Republicans over and over in the supercommittee will no longer be a
part of this debate. We will have a new fiscal and political reality.
“If the Bush tax
cuts expire, every proposal will be a tax cut proposal, and the pledge will no
longer keep Republicans boxed in and unable to compromise. If middle class
families start seeing more money coming out of their paychecks next year—Are
Republicans really going to stand up and fight for new tax cuts for the rich?
Are they going to continue opposing the Democrats’ middle class tax cut once the
slate has been wiped clean? I think they know this would be an untenable
political position.
“And I hope this
pushes them to come to the table with real revenue now before being forced to
the table if we don’t get a deal before the New Year.
“Because we really
shouldn’t wait. It’s not good for the economy, not good for the markets, and
most importantly—not good for taxpayers and small business owners across
America.
“So when it comes
to the expiring Bush tax cuts, I agree with President Obama. Let’s extend them
for the 98% of workers and 97% of small business owners Democrats and
Republicans agree should have their taxes cut—and then have a real debate about
the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans we disagree on.
“Before August, we
are going to have a vote to do exactly that in the Senate. Senate Republicans
have indicated they are going to make an effort to extend all the Bush tax
cuts—including those for the rich. But I challenge them to do something
different. To be honest about what they really want, and allow everyone to
clearly state their position on the issues.
“I challenge them
to offer an amendment to our middle class tax cut that would simply extend the
tax cuts they are fighting for —the tax cuts for the rich. Not a political
amendment offered simply to give their members a way out of voting against a
middle class tax cut—a real amendment.
“If they do this,
all of the Bush tax cuts would be up for a clean, honest extension vote. And
the American people would know where everyone stands. Any senator who supports
extending tax cuts for the middle class—they can vote for our bill. Any senator
who supports extending tax cuts for the rich—they can vote for the Republican
amendment. And any senator who supports extending all the tax cuts—well, they
can vote for them both.
“That would give
everyone the opportunity to vote for exactly what they want, and it would make
sure political gimmicks don’t get in the way of delivering results for the 98%
of workers both sides agree should have their tax cuts extended.
“If Republicans
don’t do this, if they continue playing political games with this vote— and
only offer an amendment in order to kill the bill, then they will have proven
conclusively they don’t care about certainty They care about extending those tax
cuts for the rich—And they will use every bit of leverage they have to do it.
“If we are really
going to address these issues we have to cut through the political smokescreens.
It’s time to put our cards on the table, offer real choices, and have a debate
that’s worthy of the Senate.
“Holding the
middle class tax cuts hostage may be a smart tactical move if the goal is to
protect the rich. But it’s not good policy, it’s not good politics, and
Democrats are going to keep reminding the American people why middle class tax
cuts aren’t being extended immediately—even though both sides say they want them
to be.
“You know, I’ve
also heard the claim made that we need to extend all the tax cuts to give us
time to reform the tax code. Well, we absolutely need to reform the tax code.
It’s badly broken. And I am certainly willing to discuss a fast-track process
for getting that done. But there is absolutely no reason—not one—that we need
to extend the tax cuts for the rich as a precondition for reforming the tax
code. And when we do get to work on this, Republicans are going to have to
accept that tax reform isn’t going to be a backdoor way for them sneak through
more tax cuts for the rich. And it is going to have to raise revenue to help
rein in the deficit and debt.
“In addition to
the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, we also face $1.2 trillion in automatic
spending cuts. As you all remember, sequestration was included in the
bipartisan Budget Control Act to give both sides an incentive to
compromise.
“But Republicans
weren’t willing to offer any concessions to get to a deal—and now they want to
have their cake and eat it too. They want all the deficit reduction, but without
any of the bipartisan compromise or shared sacrifice.
“If Democrats were
willing to accept a wildly imbalanced deficit reduction plan to avoid the
automatic cuts— we would have done that back in the supercommittee. But we
didn’t then, and we won’t now.
“So anyone who
tells you sequestration is going to simply disappear because both sides want to
avoid it is either fooling themselves, or trying to fool you. It is going to
have to be replaced, and that replacement is going to have to be balanced.
“We are also not
going to allow just the defense cuts to be replaced without addressing the
domestic spending cuts that would be devastating to the middle class. None of
the automatic cuts are good policy. They were packaged together in a bipartisan
fashion to get both sides to the table, and they will be replaced, or not—as a
package. Here in D.C the defense cuts get most of the attention—but across
America, all the automatic cuts would be deeply damaging to families and
communities.
“That’s why I’ve
been working across the aisle with Senator McCain on legislation calling for an
analysis of the impact of sequestration across both defense and non-defense
spending. And I am hopeful this information will help us bring that same spirit
of bipartisanship to a balanced and bipartisan approach to replacing the
automatic cuts.
“Because once
again, I will not agree to a deal that throws middle class families under the
bus and forces them to bear this burden alone. Unless Republicans end their
commitment to protecting the rich above all else, our country is going to have
to face the consequences of Republican intransigence
“This is about
more than tackling our debt and deficit, it’s about our nation. We can’t
ignore this great challenge—we need to rein in the debt— but it is not all that
defines our budget. Our budget, and our nation, will be defined by: the
scientists who come out of our schools—by the businesses we create—by our
communities, our universities, our research, development, and innovation. And we
will be defined by: the opportunities we afford to every one of our families and
workers— by the fairness of our society— and by how we treat the most vulnerable
among us.
“When I go back
home to Washington state, my constituents don’t tell me they want the federal
government to spend 18% of GDP. Or 20%. Or 25%. They tell me they want a strong
school system for their kids, for them to be able to go to college if they want
to. They want good jobs in their community. Safe roads. They want government
to be there for them when they need some support getting back on their feet. In
other words, they want government to do what it did for my family. What it has
done for millions of families for generations. Yes, they want us to tackle our
deficits and debt— they certainly don’t want us to hand the bill to their
kids—but they want that done in a balanced and fair way that doesn’t leave the
middle class holding the bag.
“Those are the
priorities I will be pushing for when we vote on the tax cuts next week. And in
the weeks, months, and years ahead. I believe they reflect the American values
that have carried our nation forward for generations. And the vision that will
continue our great nation’s leadership into the 21st century and
beyond.
“I know Democrats are ready to get to work. We want to
make a deal. We are ready to compromise. I am personally willing to talk to
anyone, from either party, who wants to solve this problem. And as soon as
Republicans decide to work with us, I am confident we can get to the balanced
and bipartisan deal the American people expect and deserve.
“Thank you.”
###
Meghan Roh
Deputy Press Secretary | Social Media
Director
Office of U.S. Senator Patty
Murray
202-224-2834
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq the independent john rentoul all iraq news
al rafidayn al mada kitabat
all iraqi news
niqash mustafa habib iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq
iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq
