The Daily Caller

The Daily Caller

GOP leaders hint at compromise on tax cuts, jobless benefits

The Senate Republican leadership telegraphed on the Sunday- morning talk shows that a compromise to extend unemployment compensation and the George W. Bush-era tax cuts is in the offing.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sen. Jon Kyl (Ariz.), the Republican whip, told different interviewers that they expect Congress to vote for the tax cuts, which have been in effect for almost a decade, to continue unaltered for at least several years in exchange for an agreement to extend an emergency unemployment program that expired last week for millions of people.

“Obviously, the president won’t sign a permanent extension of the current tax rates. So we’re going to have some kind of extension. I’d like one as long as possible,” McConnell told host David Gregory on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” Moments later, he added: “I think we will extend unemployment compensation. . . . We’re working on that package. . . . I think we’re going to get there.”

Full Story: GOP leaders hint at compromise on tax cuts, jobless benefits

  • talibangelical

    Here comes that messy governing part after an election when accountability and compromise come into play. I know Boner and Cantor are “new, fresh” faces in the Congress, so it will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

    Just watch when they vote to raise the debt ceiling. They will let a few TP candidates do a symbolic “no” vote, but they will raise it and vote to funnel more of our debt to China.

  • Tess_Comments

    Yes to a temporary extension of the tax cut for ALL.
    Do NOT turn unemployment insurance into WELFARE. Collecting a total of 50 weeks should be more than sufficient. 99 weeks is excessive.
    NO to START.
    NO to the DREAM ACT.
    Yes to Legal Immigration according to Current US Immigration Laws.
    Offer tax cuts to Small Businesses taht create jobs and hire someone who has been collecting Unemployment for 10 weeks or more.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Sd-Winkler/100001889695873 Sd Winkler

    Um, the GOP and Obama can agree all they want, but the House liberals are not going along. Nor is Paul Krugman now. We’be been right on this since early November and remain correct. Look here:

    http://bit.ly/dnKWes

    The liberal House Democrats would rather taxes rise on everyone than be seen as capitulating to the GOP again.

  • rick013

    Part of the extension of the Bush tax cuts is the continuation of unemployment checks and the approval of the START treaty. Yep, the repugnuts will roll over to get its belly scratched and went along to get along.

    This tready does nothing to benefit the US. Now Russia will be able to build and locate missiles in Iran, China, NK, or any country outside the borders of Mother Russia with impunity.

  • redvette1960

    As long as millionaires are forced to carry the disproportionate percentage of the tax burden. As of 2007, the top 5% of income earners paid well over half of the Federal income tax revenue. Institute a (17%) flat tax if you want to see real fiscal growth in this country.

    • GunTotingLibertarian.PhD

      Don’t the top 5% also control something like 80% of the money? How is it surprising that they pay more in taxes if they make all the money?

  • loudog

    So, fiscal conservatives, how does the country pay for tax cuts for millionaires?

    • Satchmo

      Tax cuts don’t cost the government money because it isn’t theirs to begin with. Apparently you’re operating under the communist belief that all wealth belongs to the state.

      • loudog

        apparently you’re under the belief that we can just borrow what we need from the chinese to pay for wars and unfunded entitlements.

        • Satchmo

          Clearly you’re an intellectual giant and a master of logic. How else would you have been able to deftly try and change the subject while completely evading my point, especially when I said nothing about wars or the Chinese? You are describing a spending problem, not a revenue problem. None of this, however, addresses my original response.

          • loudog

            How do you propose we pay for what we need/want o’mighty giant of intellect? How do we pay for wars? How do we pay down a $14 trillion debt?

          • Satchmo

            You still have not addressed the fact that tax cuts don’t cost the government anything because the money isn’t the governments to begin with. The government doesn’t give people money with a tax cut; tax cuts allow people to keep more of what they’ve earned. Please address this.

          • loudog

            Is that your only point, that it’s our money and not the governments? Right, the money is ours and so is the national debt. We can choose to fund the government and our debt or become Somolia. By not letting the law expire as it was written to do, the loss of revenue over the next 10 yrs is 2.7 trillion. We can continue to rely on China and Saudi Arabia to fund us every year or pay our way for a change.

            “Last week, CBO projected a fiscal year 2010 deficit of $1.34 trillion, second-largest since World War II (with last year’s being the largest). It also projected deficits totaling more than $6 trillion over the next decade. These are huge numbers, even though they track closely with earlier reports. But CBO’s predictions are based on current law — meaning that they assume that the tax cuts expire on schedule. Extending all the Bush cuts through 2020 would add another $2.7 trillion to the debt.”

            http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Issues/Taxes/2010/08/23/Extending-Tax-Cuts-Could-Have-Huge-Debt-Impact.aspx

          • loudog

            So, fiscal conservatives, how does the country pay for it’s debts with tax cuts for millionaires?

            Better?

    • snappercat

      Better question would be how does the federal government live within its means.

      • loudog

        good qustion, but hard to do when you occupy two countries, pay unemployment benefits to millions and are trying to stimulate economic growth.

    • mikeyh0

      Kennedy lowered the tax rate in the sixties and the government took in more revenue. Reagan lowered taxes in the eighties and the government took in more revenue. Do you see a pattern here? When you lower taxes, you increase economic activity and that increases revenue to the government in the form of sales tax and income tax,etc.Or maybe you think that people having less money is a good thing? If so, I’ll give you my address and you can prove your point by sending me some. I’m pretty broke right now and you want to do the right thing don’t you? You don’t have it? Borrow it! That’s what the government is doing. Then send it to me. Of course, I’ll need more next month.

      • loudog

        old, stale arguement. Kennedy reduced a 90% top marginal tax rate that nobody wants to go back to. Reagan lowered the tax rate from 50% and also increased gov’t spending enough to double the debt. Same with Bush’s 4% decrease. Not even Bush’s own economists thought it was a good idea economically. Of course, politically it was great for voters who don’t have to balance a budget. Cutting taxes while increasing borrowing from China isn’t exactly “fiscal conservatism”. What we have now is the biggest disparity in income between the middle class and the rich since the 1920′s and a $14 trillion debt.

        “The Economists’ statement opposing the Bush tax cuts was a statement signed by roughly 450 economists, including ten of the twenty four American Nobel Prize Laureates alive at the time, in February 2003 who urged the U.S. President George W. Bush not to enact the 2003 tax cuts.” – since the debt doubled, looks like the were correct.

      • loudog

        Clinto raised the top tax rate from 31 to 39% and we had record economic growth and supposedly a budget surplus for the first time since the 60′s. How can that be if what you say is true? Not even Greenspan and Reagans own Budget Director, David Stockman agree with you.

        “It is therefore unseemly for the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, to insist that the nation’s wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase,” writes Stockman. “More fundamentally, Mr. McConnell’s stand puts the lie to the Republican pretense that its new monetarist and supply-side doctrines are rooted in its traditional financial philosophy.”

      • loudog

        Meanwhile on NBC’s Meet the Press, Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman who famously idolized libertarian Ayn Rand, echoed Stockman’s sentiments. “I’m very much in favor of tax cuts, but not with borrowed money, and the problem that we have gotten into in recent years is spending programs with borrowed money, tax cuts with borrowed money,” said Greenspan. “And at the end of the day that proves disastrous.”

    • minicapt

      Increase the taxes of registered Democrats. That will capture the contributions of those who need to pay more.

      Cheers