At What Point Does This Become a Constitutional Crisis?

[cardboardbox]

Udall was suggesting $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in increased tax revenue and the tax revenue would not come from raising tax rates but from closing loopholes and such... He does seem to be fairly moderate on this issue.

[Lucky]

Sure, it's brilliant. Is someone on the Dem side proposing 10/1?

Carping about hypothetical resistance to phantom proposals that have never been made and will never be made makes for clever gamesmanship, but it's all empty bluster until you actually put some chips at risk. If 10/1 was seriously put on the table, I'll bet The Repub's would take it. I'll also bet that The Dems will never seriously put 10/1 on the table.

Didn't Obama offer a 6-to-1 plan with the 6 being cuts and the 1 being revenue enhancements? My recollection is that he did, but didn't even get a counteroffer.

[chancellor]

Didn't Obama offer a 6-to-1 plan with the 6 being cuts and the 1 being revenue enhancements? My recollection is that he did, but didn't even get a counteroffer.

Obama didn't offer a plan, much to the consternation of both sides of the aisle. The 6:1 plan, I believe, was about how the numbers in Harry Reid's plan worked out.

[senorsheep]

Didn't Obama offer a 6-to-1 plan with the 6 being cuts and the 1 being revenue enhancements? My recollection is that he did, but didn't even get a counteroffer.

3:1 was the last proposal I remember from him, in April, I think. If he's floated a new offer since then, I missed it.

In any case, The Republicans will probably reject any ratio that The Dems would reasonably offer, because they know that changes in tax rates and rules are less mutable than budget cuts. It'd be very easy for The Dems to get their tax rate increase, make budget cuts for the current fiscal year, than ramp the spending back up in ensuing years. In the long haul, that 10:1 or 6:1 or 3:1 ratio is likely to diminish quite a bit, barring some ironclad long term spending guarantees.

[onejayhawk]

This won't go over well here, but it seems to me that the Tea Party is intransigent because they believe they are 100% right on every issue, which is very seldom the case. On the other side, Obama continues his futile efforts to reach out to the Republican leadership, which has gotten him pretty much zero in two plus years. He needs to settle upon a set of positions and stick to his guns. Maybe then, both sides will realize they have to compromise a little.

I dont think the Tea Party thinks it is 100% right. I think the Tea Party believes in reducing the debt. If you say they believe that 100% of Capital Hill is not behind reducing the debt, then you have a point.

It's just irresponsibility and craven cowardice for every Republican candidate to say they wouldn't accept a debt reduction plan with $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in revenue enhancements. Will anyone openly disagree with this? Will anyone here say that a 10/1 deficit reduction plan is not a brilliant beginning to finding our way out of the wilderness?

Not to belabor the point, but no one offered them this. I would love to see an actual plan to eliminate the deficit, by anyone, over any reasonable time frame. Not even the GOP has come up with one. If it includes $4 in cuts to $1 in uncreases, I would still love to see it.

I've asked several times before, and nobody here will claim membership in the Tea Party. Will any Tea Party sympathizers denounce their absolute one-sided plan for deficit reduction? Anyone?

No one in the Tea Party swims in shark waters like these. For myself, show me a plan.

J