The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Obama: Boehner Concedes on Taxes: Rejecting Reagan, Kemp

By on 12.19.12 @ 2:15PM

So the President strolls into the White House press room and, among other things, announces that Speaker Boehner has conceded on taxes… that taxes must go up.

This is exactly what Obama has been after all along. A rejection of conservatism, and a specific rejection of the legacies of Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp.

In an act of massive political malpractice, Speaker Boehner has effectively lent his name to this repudiation of Reagan and Kemp.

Will House Republicans go along with this? Where is Paul Ryan?

One suspects hell will freeze over — at least in the GOP outside the precincts of the House.

View all comments (49) |

RCV| 12.19.12 @ 2:33PM

Boehner, unlike you, understands that the GOP lost the 2012 election. He also understands that allowing the sequestration to kick in, raising taxes on virtually all Americans and slashing the military and other budgets would lead to a backlash among the public that the GOP would never recover from. And he's also come to understand the damage that accommodating his party's far-right wing has led to.

mike 3/505| 12.19.12 @ 2:40PM

The rest of us understand (unlike you) that there are 3 branches of government. Republicans control 5/9th of one, half of one and none of the third. Please learn some math and some civics. The problem woth our sytem of late...is "compromise." Sandy Hook casualty rate can be laid directly at the feet of compromise with Liberal/Statist policies.

Get this...We are a Republic. That means, just because you get 51 percent of the vote, that does not give you the legal or moral authority to steal from me or deprive me of the means to defend myself, my family and even you.

mike 3/505| 12.19.12 @ 2:40PM

**with**

RCV| 12.19.12 @ 2:46PM

But in our constitutional republic, Mike, it does give Congress the right to tax your income at rates deemed appropriate. And even this Supreme Court understands that the Second Amendment permits reasonable restrictions on armaments.

Learn some Constitutional law.

JmsA| 12.19.12 @ 3:59PM

Reasonable, particularly insofar as to those in charge now, is a very pliable or relative term--to mean our way or the highway, irrespective of those constitutional premises you refer to. Obama knows he's dealing with a less than stellar speaker of the house, whose main concern is to retain his sinecure.

Tom Kyba| 12.21.12 @ 11:41AM

This isn't just about the math and what congress is allowed to do. It's about right and wrong. And when Obama is in charge, to people like you, everything he does is right. All you've got are churlish nyah nyahs, which is all that ever motivates you. nwever anything of useful substance.

JimH| 12.19.12 @ 3:23PM

The Dems, including BO have the attitude of 'we won, you lost, so we can do what we want'. Winning by one percent is taken as a mandate.The thing is Mike, as you say the founders created a Republic. But every increase in democracy in our government has resulted in further intrusion on our Liberty. We were a Republic once. We are now a Kleptocracy where the prez with the support of the Plebs can do as he likes since there are five morons and cowards in black robes saying it is all kosher.

Albert Constantine Jr.| 12.19.12 @ 3:24PM

Crude Reference Alert

I am reminded of an episode from the HBO series “The Wire”. Baltimore drug detective Herc is questioned by his colleagues regarding this premise: If, in order to have sex with any woman that he could choose (including the Olsen twins), he had to first perform oral sex on a man, which man would he choose. Herc rejects the premise, and refuses to participate or acknowledge such an objectionable IF to get to such a desirable THAN.

Eventually, he decides to give a hypothetical answer, and offers up former Baltimore Orioles catcher Gus Triandos as someone who might be deserving of his service.

Once he agrees to this premise, Herc is humiliated and taunted mercilessly by his colleagues as a c*%^$&cker; whose manhood is now in question.

I see by the headlines that Boehner has picked Gus Triandos, and is trying to get others to help him on with the knee pads.

CJW| 12.19.12 @ 4:59PM

Albert,
Bush made a mistake in 2002 to agree to the law that made the tax rate cuts temporary, to expire in 2010. We got the two year extension, and now the Bush tax rates will expire on Dec 31.

Now the Dems want to raise the tax rates on income over $400,000 and the Reps proposed one million. Neither will raise that much compared to the deficit.

This is all theater for Obama to divide the Reps, he does not care at all about the deficit and welfare of the country.

Boehner's choices are 1) pass the bill for a tax rate hike on income over a million,and hope that the Reid Senate votes it down. But there may be Dems in the senate that will vote for Boehner's bill. Or, 2) walk away, let the Bush rates expire, and then start negotiations again in January.

It seems either way, there will be a tax rate increase on the highest income, somewhere between 400k and a million.

Merry Christmas.

Occam's Tool| 12.19.12 @ 7:01PM

I think the compromise sucks, but, seeing as I made $350 K gross last year and will make about the same this year, I can live with it for now. Most of what I save is put into tax deferred accounts and lower my declared income anyway by about $32K.

I see a bad moon rising, folks. So far, my personal Karma has been good. I'm just hoping Ryan runs for President in 2016 and wins.

CJW| 12.19.12 @ 7:26PM

We would not be having this discussion if Romney would have won.
I believe Obama does not want a deal. He wants the Bush rates to expire, then he will propose a bill in January to restore the lower rates on the "middle classs" retroactive to Jan 1, 2013 and take credit for a tax cut.

Mike G| 12.20.12 @ 11:42AM

I am assuming you, like many others consider are considering Roberts as a conservative. With respect, I believe that idea to be debatable considering his approval of the government's intrusion on my right to not have health insurance.

JP| 12.20.12 @ 8:49AM

RCV,
Boehner concocted this entire charade last year. Why would he create such a ghastly scenario knowing that when it approaches the President holds all the cards?

RCV| 12.20.12 @ 11:39AM

Most Republicans shared the delusion that President Obama was unpopular with the American people and could not be reelected.

Quartermaster| 12.20.12 @ 12:50PM

If the GOP had put up a conservative rather than a Progie like Mittens, it's not likely you would be here trolling.

Simon Templar| 12.20.12 @ 11:16AM

Yes, that same constitution gives powers and responsibility of the purse strings to the House of Representatives. It is now under the control of Republicans. That was a direct result of an election that apparently you do not understand, comrade.
Boner is an idiot and incapable of negotiating anything. Raising taxes on virtually all Americans and slashing the military is the objective of the current democratic party and has been for 50 years.

RCV| 12.20.12 @ 11:41AM

And Boehner understands, unlike you Mr. Templar, that that very thing will happen unless he can reach a compromise deal with the President before then. That's why the left wing of the Democratic party is so upset with Obama for offering Boehner any compromise on the issue of tax rates.

Simon Templar| 12.20.12 @ 1:20PM

Do you really believe the crap you spout? I hope not. I am not sure what is worse, being a useful idiot or knowing you are lying to advance an agenda.
Comrade you win either way because you control the media and have dumbed down the electorate.
Your fraud will take it either way; they want, as Reid has suggested, to drive right over the cliff...it will suit them both politically and practically. If they get Boner to "compromise," they win also. Spending continues, debt continues, and the ridiculous sham of raising of taxes on millionaires, which will do nothing about the other two problems, continues unabated.

Simon Templar| 12.20.12 @ 1:26PM

If you think that taxes will not go up on everyone eventually then you are the ideologue. As long as everyone, including Republicans, keeps focusing on the tax rates, then the spending and debt goes unquestioned and unabated, which is what you apparently want, as well as the idiots in DC. The rest of us will suffer for it and will pick up the bill.

C. Vernon Crisler | 12.19.12 @ 3:51PM

Boehner is governing like a loser because, well, that's what he is.

DRed| 12.19.12 @ 5:38PM

What exactly is conservative about never ever raising taxes? It's blind adherence to ideology. There's nothing conservative about that.

JmsA| 12.19.12 @ 10:28PM

Well, DRed, maybe it's got something to do with people working hard for their money, an increasing amount of which is confiscated by the government, which in turn buys votes for the democrat party with it, as it continues to grow itself in size and scope, resulting in an unending vicious circle of both diminishing liberty and opportunity for all.

Simon Templar| 12.20.12 @ 11:05AM

That nicely sums it up!

JP| 12.20.12 @ 8:53AM

Well, let's see... name one instance when raising taxes led to an immediate decrease in budget deficits (hint, they never do)? Obama, in addition to higher taxes, is now demanding immediate increases in spending (Stimulus III, further extensions in unemployment compensation, and increases in "infrastructure and education" spending). These spending increases will total some $380 billion. Finally, Obama wants further tax increases on the wealthy, which come to $1.6 trillion.

No, it has nothing to do with ideology.

Simon Templar| 12.20.12 @ 10:57AM

It is not conservative. It would be blind if it were the only thing being proposed. But it is not.
Once again for the millionth time.
This is not solely a tax issue or a lack of revenue issue. It is a MASSIVE spending problem and no rate of taxes will fix it. It is also a massive government regulation issue, an insane tax code, a severe government waste issue, and ever growing massive tax supported government bureaucracy issue, and a severe demographic shift issue. If conservatives knew that raising rates 2 percent would make all these problems go away, I and others would sign up for it in a millisecond. Heck, I will give you the Clinton rates and then we can have about 8 to 12 days of a balanced budget and then be in the same exact spot afterward.

DRed| 12.20.12 @ 12:02PM

When every single Republican candidate for President says they would not accept a 10-1 ratio of spending cuts to tax raises, you're not dealing with conservatives. You're dealing with radical ideologues.

Quartermaster| 12.20.12 @ 12:54PM

Pot, meet Kettle. People such as yourself and the "leadership" of the Dimocrats are radicals and demogogues. You know a number of radical ideologues. One looks back at you in the mirror, and your regressive friends are of the same stripe.

Simon Templar| 12.20.12 @ 12:59PM

Show us who said that, direct quotes please. Once again, when your beat you fall back to outright lies.
The current crop of establishment Republicans can not find their way out of a paper bag let alone stick to any ideology, left or right or in between. There is no ideology here, it is get me reelected and get me the chair appointments I want. Anyone with half a brain would accept 1 dollar increase in taxes for ten dollars of spending cuts but that is not what is being proposed.
What we have is one group who would take 100 percent of your money if they could and spend all of it if allowed and the other which can only pander to their electorate to get elected and the capitulate to the other.

DRed| 12.20.12 @ 4:32PM

http://tinyurl.com/3wyv59s

Outright lie, chump?

Quartermaster| 12.20.12 @ 6:25PM

So what! The problem is far beyond the reach of any so called compromise. We've had 40 years to solve the spending problem and all you regressives can do is say MORE!

Such compromises are offered by radical ideologues and demagogues like you and your friends. Such a rejection is not radical by any stretch of the imagination. It's called something you moonbats don't have attachment to - reasonable.

DRed| 12.20.12 @ 10:10PM

So, if we radical ideologues and demagogues offered a deal like that, which would cut spending by a large margin, the reasonable thing to do would be to reject it? Are you high? That's preposterously stupid. It shows clearly how blindly ideological Republicans are. That's a great deal-it's far better than anything Democrats would agree to in real life

Tom Kyba| 12.21.12 @ 11:43AM

And when have conservatives "never ever raised taxes" Mr. Straw Man?

wombat1| 12.19.12 @ 6:51PM

Boehner is the Republican version of Marshall Petain. The GOP has gone back to being an echo, rather than a choice. In the current state of affairs if this does not amount to treason, you can damn well see it from here.

wombat1| 12.19.12 @ 6:53PM

spellchecker error: that should have been Marshal Petain.

LarryK| 12.19.12 @ 8:07PM

Time to lock and load!

Fiscal| 12.19.12 @ 11:45PM

The problem is not Boehner -- or for that matter -- Obama. The problem is that the tax code doesn't make sense and the rhetoric is dumbed down for the ideologues. Every time I hear that we need to keep tax rates low to stimulate the economy, I can tell how stupid the electorate is. Lowering taxes does NOT stimulate the economy -- that is a proven fact for those who understand econometrics. We are also talking about MARGINAL tax rates, not total taxes nor the lowered rate paid by the very wealthy because of capital gains and carried interest.

The other side is just as bad talking about "fairness". What is fair about seniors receiving much more than they paid in? What is fair about progressive rates in the first place?

Even the Tea Party activists don't seem to realize that our current taxes are not paying for their Social Security and Medicare. They are under the notion that they paid in and thus the government should pay for ALL of their healthcare with no limits. (That's socialism, my friends).

When is someone at AmSpec going to speak the truth here?

JP| 12.20.12 @ 8:57AM

"The other side is just as bad talking about "fairness". What is fair about seniors receiving much more than they paid in? What is fair about progressive rates in the first place?"

You yourself do not understand how SS is funded. It is a pay-as-you-go system. There are no accounts; all SS revenues get dumped into the General Fund at Treasury. Today's workers subsidize today's retirees. There is no "Trust Fund" - that is a trick of Congress. SS in the past enjoyed a ratio of workers to retirees as high as 40-1 (1937); today it is at best 3-1 and will fall to 2-1 very soon.

Fiscal| 12.21.12 @ 5:22AM

That's exactly why SS is unfair. Of course I understand there is no trust fund. What is your point? It seems that seniors want everything they can get from Social Security and Medicare even if it is much more than they paid in. That's socialism....

Simon Templar| 12.20.12 @ 10:30AM

Truth. Seems in short supply these days as all is propaganda. So, here is the truth. Both Boner and The Fraud are the problem as well as a vast number of the electorate who continue to be distracted, uninformed, and apathetic. Second, the lowering of tax rates does in fact stimulate the economy and there are mountains of evidence to prove this. But the lowering of taxes and its stimulus effects do not occur in a vacuum nor are they a single cause or element for economic success. There also countervailing economic forces that also play a significant role in ruining an economy, one of the most insidious is massive government spending and taxation relative to growth and revenue. Regulation, crony capitalism, and a whole host of factors play into the inevitable results of a sick and ailing economy.
Tea Party conservatives do know that this a complex problem that is more than just lowering taxes. This is just a cheap shot attempt to dismiss a whole group of people with a sweeping generalization and falsehood. They are as much concerned about spending and fiscal responsibility to balanced budgets and waste as they are about their concerns about being taxed enough already.

Simon Templar| 12.20.12 @ 10:39AM

Now, entitlement spending always seems to be thrown into the discussion for quick emotional manipulation and confusion. JP is essentially correct. The real issue here is the deception and irresponsibility of government in managing these programs and their failure to meet their promises and obligations. It is more than reasonable after a lifetime of paying into a system involuntarily to expect something back from it and it to be solvent. This is also a severe demographic problem as well, one which was ignored for decades as they knew it was coming and as usual kicked the can down the road.

Simon Templar| 12.20.12 @ 10:47AM

Yes, part of the problem is the tax code, another great achievement of big government and government that is out of control and no longer functioning as a true representative Republic.
The real underlying problem is the inability, or perhaps unwillingness, for many of us to see the whole picture without our biases, hidden agendas, and self preoccupied interest. Beyond this lack of honesty is the lack of leadership so prevalent in society today.

Simon Templar| 12.20.12 @ 11:03AM

Oh, and by the way, Tea party, Taxed Enough Already. Its not about lowering taxes or not be willing to pay taxes, it is about raising them again and again as we are already taxed enough and raising taxes is not going to fix the debt and spending problems.

Quartermaster| 12.20.12 @ 12:56PM

True taxation is what government actually spends. It is only loosely related to tax rates.

Simon Templar| 12.20.12 @ 1:08PM

If you are talking about inflation from massive government spending, then of course. If you are are talking about debt created by guvmint spending that devalues the currency, you are correct. Your making my point that out of control guvmint spending leads to hidden and greater taxes. No free lunch. This basic concept is not understood by liberals who still believe that the government is the basis of growth and a stimulus to an economy.

Quartermaster| 12.20.12 @ 6:28PM

I was adding to what you said, not trying to correct you.

Fiscal| 12.21.12 @ 5:19AM

In polls I've seen, you're Tea Party people don't want cuts in Social Security and Medicare but want less government spending. Given that entitlements are the bulk of the federal budget, that perspective is just dumb. How can you be a sentient human being and not understand this?

Simon Templar| 12.20.12 @ 11:25AM

He concede on taxes and got NOTHING for it, that is the issue. He also punished and disenfranchised conservatives in the process. This is what Reagan and Kemp would be most upset about.....
There was no compromise, nothing gained, no negotiation, no progress.

Simon Templar| 12.20.12 @ 11:28AM

The Fraud strolled out there to gloat about the fact that he got them to cave on their number one principle and gave nothing up to do it. That is what happened. Of course, Boner did not see this coming, no pun intended.

Quartermaster| 12.20.12 @ 6:29PM

I spell his name Boner as well. His occupation of the Speaker's chair is indeed, a very large, hefty, boner.

More Blog Posts by Jeffrey Lord

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/12/19/obama-boehner-concedes-on-taxe

ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

The Spectator’s Spectacular: May 18-May 25

Patrick Ryan | 10:45AM

Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Felonious Attorney General?

Kaylin Bugos | 5.24.13

Did the Boy Scouts Cave to Pressure?

Claire Healey | 5.24.13

BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity

Aaron Goldstein | 5.24.13

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Stein on IRS Scandal

Patrick Ryan | 5.24.13

The Restricted Engine

Yogi Love | 5.24.13

Latest Headlines

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|79 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|43 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|58 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|89 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|33 comments

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|25 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|2 comments

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

H/T to National Review Online

Most Popular Articles

#FreeKate? Movement to Normalize Pedophilia Finds Its Poster Girl

Robert Stacy McCain | 5.23.13

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

Jeffrey Lord | 5.20.13

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord | 5.23.13

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey | 5.23.13

Obama's Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. | 5.23.13

Lerner's Plea

Ray V. Hartwell | 5.23.13

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara | 5.22.13

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer | 5.23.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.