Letter: GOP charting unpopular course

I’m a Republican, but I’m about to change my registration. The fiscal cliff is looming. President Barack Obama keeps saying he wants to extend the Bush tax cuts for couples making under $250,000. The Senate has already passed a bill to do just that. The House refuses to do so. When asked about this, the Republicans stammer vaguely about doing something to help the economy, as Gov. Bobby Jindal did when interviewed recently on national TV by Chris Wallace.

I can only conclude that the Republicans haven’t passed the bill because they are holding those in this income group hostage to be used as pawns in negotiations on the tax treatment of the higher income group; that they will try to blame Obama if taxes go up on that income group on Jan. 1.

The Republicans wanted the Bush tax cuts extended for all taxpayers. They should at least accept what Obama has offered for 98 percent of the people while they negotiate on the rest.

I don’t think it is clear to the general public that the Republicans must pass legislation to make that happen and that they refuse to do so. The Republicans will be hard pressed to explain their position to the vast majority of Americans whose taxes will go up Jan. 1.

William Bonin

lawyer

New Iberia

Comments

1) Comment by agagent - 06/12/2012

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.” …….. Senator Barack Obama, 2006

2) Comment by agagent - 06/12/2012

Deficits do matter. “Deficits do not matter” was uttered by Dick Chaney of the Bush administration when deficits were much, much lower. Anyway, Bush was not a fiscal conservative but a “compassionate conservative” (translation- a big spender, but not in the same league as Obama).

3) Comment by 8point6 - 06/12/2012

My mistake. That was chris matthews that got the thrill up his leg. Also, look at finance.yahoo.com/news/what-end-of-bush-tax-cuts- means-for-you.html AGAIN!

4) Comment by 8point6 - 06/12/2012

"I’m a Republican, but I’m about to change my registration" I love when a letter starts out like that! I was a democrat and decided to change to Republican when Reagan ran for president. What?!! You don't believe me?! It's true! It's true!! Did chris wallace get a "tingle" up BOTH legs with the results of this past presidential elections?

5) Comment by DMJ - 06/12/2012

I'm with you on that one, nimby.

6) Comment by NearBarbarian - 06/12/2012

As usual, Loki nails it on the head (see below). (It's odd saying that when "Loki" is the name of the Scandinavian trickster god.) Yes, indeed, the ironies abound. In light of that, note how the free-market conservatives have abandoned one of their favorite credos--"Deficits don't matter"--spoken by none other than one of their most beloved patriarchs, Richard Bruce Cheney.

7) Comment by HerbF - 06/12/2012

I suspect President Obama received more than a few votes from moderate Republicans, such as Mr Bonin. The party was taken over by the extremists "tea party" members in 2010, and has become more conservative since. And, to be sure, I'm grateful to them, and I hope they stay in control for a long time. Of course, I'm a liberal Democrat. Traditionally both parties go to the extremes in the primaries, and then shift their appeal to the center for the election. The reason, of course, is that most of us are in the middle. Most of us "liberal" have some conservative positions and vice versa. But, the Republican party couldn't shift the appeal to the moderates in the last election because so much of it identifies with the extremes. Democrats controlled Congress for some thirty years, ending in the 90's, and may be beginning another long run now. If the Republican Party can't moderate their views to appeal to moderates like Mr Bonin, then their future does not look bright. And, to Scrooge: thanks for the term "platitude bombarding". Still smiling. :)

8) Comment by nimby? - 06/12/2012

solution to breaking the gridlock . lock the members of both houses in one room , not quite big enough . freeze their salaries , benefits , assets . turn off the heat/ac . no cameras , media or lobbyists . no communication in or out , including the white house . nothing to eat except 2 day old finger sandwiches , nothing to drink except warm Tab . would not take long ....

9) Comment by DMJ - 06/12/2012

Have the Dems brought up making capital gains equal the rates of regular income yet, at least for amounts above $250K? If not, they should. This one's a no-brainer.

10) Comment by agagent - 06/12/2012

“That he’s willing to risk sending the economy back into recession and killing even more jobs leads me to believe his second term will be far more radical than the first. A stranger to humility, he thinks re-election confers a blank check. His demand that spending cuts and entitlement reform be put off, while Republicans give him the tax hikes and the stimulus he wants, suggests he’s not serious about facing the mountain of debt. In that case, no progress is possible as the nation hurtles toward disaster. The fear is reinforced with his sudden bid to have sole and permanent authority to raise the debt limit. As it stands, Congress’ power to set the ceiling serves as a practical check and balance. His effort to eliminate it is something that happens in a banana republic. Is that where Obama wants to take America?”--Michael Goodwin, NY Post

11) Comment by agagent - 06/12/2012

"This is the Obama era, it is [the president’s] economy,” he said. “Speaker Boehner’s an important player and this is significant, but it is Obama’s job to lead and define — so if there negative consequences here, particularly in the economy, it is going to be, ‘In the Obama era, things didn’t get fixed."--Bob Woodward

12) Comment by agagent - 06/12/2012

Obama is on a path to doubling the national debt in 8 years. He has taken a stand to increase taxes on the rich that will provide revenue for about 8.5 days of federal spending, according to one estimate. Taxing the rich will solve about 1.44% of his spending problem.

13) Comment by agagent - 05/12/2012

One Obama talking point is to go back to the tax rate during Clinton/Republican Congress. In 1998 the economy grew by 4.4% and federal government spending consumed 19.1% of GDP. Now the economy is growing about half the rate of 1998 and federal government spending consumes 24.6% of GDP (38% if you add state and local government spending). Add the drag of more regulations and other taxes like Obamacare and this economy cannot sustain the current level of federal government spending and increasing tax rates (Info from Washington Times).

14) Comment by MBW - 05/12/2012

I come from a family of small business owners....and they would all tell you this: They never hired a single person because they got a tax cut. They hire people when there is demand for their services. So stop pretending that tax cuts for rich people leads to more hiring....because it's nonsense.

15) Comment by wobonin - 05/12/2012

I'll try to get across the ONLY point I tried to make. I was not addressing the big picture about taxes, spending or the deficit. The point was take what you can get and negotiate on the rest later. This is an analogy: a guy robs a bank and holds ten hostages inside. The police negotiate with him and ask that he release all the hostages. He offers to release five. Some of you people would say all or none. That would make no sense; just as not accepting the lower taxes on the smaller earners and negotiating on the rest makes no sense.

16) Comment by Loki - 05/12/2012

Funny observation: people who believe markets are right and tell us the best price and value of something often completely disregard the the fact that market confidence in US debt is completely strong. It is in fact viewed as the safest investment. None of this concern about our deficit is necessary at this point. The concern should be adequate demand for goods and services, and that means helping people to get working and helping the working to feel like their economic lives are stable enough to improve their lives beyond their level of bare necessities. We have massive infrastructure needs such as engineering wetlands recovery, for one. The power grid is embarrassing among major nations when areas are down for more than a week after disasters. People who own debt or have piles of money saved should welcome the growth that expansive fiscal policy would encourage because they will be best positioned to profit from it. It is silly, honestly. This perverse disregard for market principles and logic shows that this debate is more about control and being perceived as right than pursuing real solutions to our problems.

17) Comment by NearBarbarian - 05/12/2012

As DMJ notes, going over this “fiscal cliff” is unlikely. However, if we did happen to breach it, the US probably deserves/needs it. President Bush II and the Republicans promised and promised and promised that their “tax relief” vote buying during the 00’s was supposed to be temporary (even though no serious person believed that lie). The majority of Democrats, as has become the norm, enabled them. On top of that, we launched a half-hearted attack on Afghanistan—expensive regardless of commitment—and allowed ourselves to be deceived into Iraq. On a seemingly limitless credit card, the overgrown US military got to play with its toys, war contractors got to make a killing (pun intended), and neoconservatives got to give form to their delusions. We even were (and still are) protected from those military personnel who had been maimed (physically and mentally) or who had died. We Americans were by and large not asked or required to sacrifice anything; in fact, we were told to consume, buy, spend, own, ad nauseam. We dutifully did so. Add on top of that the incredible deregulation of the markets. Those of us who did protest the aforementioned policies, criminal activities, and negligence were dismissed as (at least) naïve and as (at worst) treasonous. But the fete is over, and the piper must be paid. I’m not typically one for draconian, scorched-earth measures, but passing through the fiscal [analogy here] will at least unify us in some semblance of shared sacrifice, if nothing else. All that said, though, we will probably let ourselves off the hook via our representatives.

18) Comment by The_Host - 05/12/2012

You all do realize you are dithering over what amounts to nothing when it comes to fixing anything right? None of the deals floated will accomplish anything. $800 billion over 10 years in new taxes mixed with increases in spending and lifting the debt ceiling. Hello earth to anyone with a pencil and paper that can do math, what are we getting here? Nowhere that's what we are getting. No amount of taxes can feed the pig of government any longer. Where are the spending cuts? Since roughly 50% of the country seems to want some fiscal sanity perhaps they should demand cuts and not a dime in increased taxes first and foremost. Otherwise we strike. It seems to work well for the Unions who only make up 1/5th the number. It is time for the workers that foot the bill to say enough and stop working. I don't get to claim anyone that collected the trillion plus in welfare on my taxes as a dependent so they shouldn't be depending on me! I really wonder how old some of you are or what your true level of critical thinking skills happens to be. It is like you can't see what is plainly right there in your face and you believe people that have never given you any reason to believe a thing they tell you. Do you do this with everyone you meet or just politicians?

19) Comment by Whatchange - 05/12/2012

No idea what happen there people

20) Comment by Whatchange - 05/12/2012

I do believe you are right DMJ, I do believe yoiu are right. But

21) Comment by Whatchange - 05/12/2012

I do believe you are right DMJ, I do believe yoiu are right. But

22) Comment by Whatchange - 05/12/2012

I do believe you are right DMJ, I do believe yoiu are right. But

23) Comment by Whatchange - 05/12/2012

I do believe you are right DMJ, I do believe yoiu are right. But

24) Comment by DMJ - 05/12/2012

I'll say this again... relax. These are starting positions. GOP's 1.2 trillion in cuts contains no cuts in military spending and cuts taxes for the wealthy even further. Obviously this is unacceptable. Democrats say cuts in Social Security and Medicare are off the table. Obviously, both parties will have to cede some ground. It seems to me that the GOP shouldn't feign outrage over the Dem's starting position, considering how negotiations went last time- Republicans taught them a lesson and they get mad at the Dems for learning it. Silly. And hey, even if they don' t come to an agreement, the result will be huge spending cuts and the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts. More revenue and less spending is what's needed to reduce the debt. Sure, I'd like to wait until unemployment improved by another 2 or 3 points, but hey.... we don't always get what we want.

25) Comment by gofigger - 05/12/2012

Let's just pass the bill, we can read it later!

26) Comment by Whatchange - 05/12/2012

Mr. Bonin; I found my infomation on the site "about.com" Tax Planing U.S., Comparison of House and Senate Tax Bills.

27) Comment by Whatchange - 05/12/2012

Mr. Bonin or wobonin No.6; here is what I found when reaching your Senate Bill 3412, House bill (H.R. 8), passed on August 1, 2012. It appears they have both passed a bill, which goes to further show neither one of us know what we are talking about.

28) Comment by Whatnow - 05/12/2012

On July 22, 2011 President Obama offered raising the debt ceiling last summer by closing loopholes and not raising taxes. OBAMA: What we said was give us $1.2 trillion in additional revenues, which could be accomplished without hiking tax rates. It could simply be accomplished by eliminating loopholes, eliminating some deductions and engaging in a tax reform process that could lower rates generally while broadening the base. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/12/05/obama_in_2011_we_can_get_12_trillion_in_revenue_without_raising_rates.html

29) Comment by tradewinns - 05/12/2012

postscript56: i'm just reciting history. if i were a republican in congress, i would want everything in the same bill so any "misunderstandings" could be fixed by reading the bill. which speaks to wobonin's comments about pass this now and argue later. that's what the previous examples showed, you cannot trust the other party, period (i will antagonize everyone at the same time). if the republicans give up their only "chip" in the game, they give up everything. (being i'm not even close to that limit, and i feel they can afford to give more than the average person, so they should step up and give more) one thing i try to do is see both sides position before making a decision on where i stand on an issue. while even i am reluctently ready to send more "revenue" to the government, i will only do so kicking and screaming if spending is not cut significantly. items such as the "free cell phone" debacle exposed recently shows how much money is wasted by the government, and stuff like that doesn't even take into account economy of scales. we can not continue on this same path of borrowing/spending well past our fiscal abilities.

30) Comment by billynurse - 05/12/2012

Additional revenue that the Liberals are fighting for = $85 billion a year = 8.5 days of current spending rates. Are they even going to discuss entitlement reform? What part of "out of control spending" do they not understand? It is literally insane.

31) Comment by Whatnow - 05/12/2012

Obama to stress need to raise debt limit "without drama" http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/05/us-usa-fiscal-obama-idUSBRE8B30W920121205

32) Comment by Whatnow - 05/12/2012

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies." -Obama 2006.

33) Comment by wobonin - 05/12/2012

To Whatchange #22, that bill referenced in my letter is Senate Bill 3412 that was passed by the Senate on July 25,2012. I'm to the right of Attila the Hun, but I don't appreciate being used as a bargaining chip by the Republicans. Passage of the Senate bill will simply keep the existing tax rates in effect for a year for those earning under $250K. The Republicans can pass that and still fight about taxes on incomes over that amount. Are all of you people willing to have your taxes go up next year if you make under that amount? I guess the people who criticized me make over that. Sorry, I'm not willing to be thrown under the bus for you. William O. Bonin

34) Comment by Scrooge - 05/12/2012

Wallop, Bighug, actually I caught the irony was just adding to Bighug's point. I see agagent is back to platitude bombarding again. Helpful for a mercifully short summary of the daily administrations of Rush, Sean, and Bill. Keep buying their products agagent, otherwise they might change their views.

35) Comment by Bighug - 05/12/2012

Thanks, Wallop. I was being sarcastic.

36) Comment by NearBarbarian - 05/12/2012

A sign that the exodus is imminent. Traditional conservatives and moderates who've given their votes and donations to the GOP for decades will make a pragmatic decision to separate themselves from a self-marginalizing political party/movement.

37) Comment by postscript56 - 05/12/2012

tradewinns - not only am i senior enough to remember, i struggled through the reagan years working in a stagnant economy. these were the years when we first learned about "junk bonds" and "hostile takeovers" and when businesses coined the phrase "downsizing" to mean layoffs. reagan slashed taxes and that does what it always does - generated a little economic activity. but since the economy is hugely more diverse than tax rates it had little overall effect. the economy remained stagnant throughout reagan's second term, forcing him to continually find some taxes he could increase to address the growing debt resulting from his policies. the give and take between reagan and congressiolnal democrats was called compromise then, but i guess it's called "getting burned" by modern conservatives. it wasn't until ghw bush finally did increase income taxes and applied that to the debt that provided the sense of stability investors were looking for. the resulting economic boom could have addressed all those debt concerns...except some folks kept insisting lower taxes on the uber wealthy was the road to economic paradise and we tried it again under gwb. same results. a little activity initially but no lasting impact because too many other factors are at play. it's a real-life, factual lesson conservatives can't acknowledge because it shoots their taxes argument full of holes.

38) Comment by agagent - 05/12/2012

Obama is giving? No he is taking and redistributing.

39) Comment by agagent - 05/12/2012

"Detroit councilwoman to Obama: We voted for you, now bail us out" Obama needs the money to pay off his voters. Washington cannot keep doing this. The well will run dry.

40) Comment by Lannonmac - 05/12/2012

My mistake, that should have read “cut federal spending by about $400 BILLION, followed by cutting around $500 BILLION over the next 10 years, thereby pulling about $900 BILLION out of an already fragile US recovery.”

41) Comment by Lannonmac - 05/12/2012

Over the last 30 years the Republicans have been telling America that running a deficit is bad, while they run up huge deficits and now they are telling us that running a deficit is bad, while protecting at all costs a low, low income tax rate for the wealthiest Americans. The Republicans have been yelling that “government does not create jobs” and that “government does not create wealth”, yet the danger posed to the US economy by the “fiscal crisis” is caused by rapid deficit reduction, rather than deficit expansion. So the problem caused by the “fiscal cliff” has nothing to do with the deficit, but because the US government will immediately cut federal spending by about $400 million, followed by cutting around $500 million over the next 10 years, thereby pulling about $900 million out of an already fragile US recovery. And what is worse is that the Republicans are willing to let the US economy slide back into recession because they absolutely refuse to allow an increase of income tax rates in the top income brackets. They are willing to wreck the US economy to protect the very, very wealthy. Given the Republican’s history of ballooning the US deficit over the last 30 years and the fact that they obviously don’t think deficit reduction is important enough to increase the taxes of the very wealthy by about 4%, I got to question if the US deficit is all that important in the short term? After all, is there any proof that the deficit is putting a drag on the economy? NO. In fact interest rates are at near historic lows, with short term Treasury bonds paying less than 1% and inflation is only about 2%, both of which indicates that the real problem with our economy is the lack of jobs and the lack of consumer demand, not the deficit.

42) Comment by tradewinns - 05/12/2012

postscript56: perhaps this may help you remember (if you are senior enough). "In 1982, Reagan agreed to increase some excise taxes on a promise from House Speaker Tip O’Neill that every dollar increase in tax revenue would be matched by 3 dollars in spending cuts. Famously, O’Neill reneged. So much for compromise: When later asked again to raise some taxes, Reagan would reply, “I’m still waiting for those spending cuts.” (forbes magazine) and HW Bush: "the President and Congress reached a compromise with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. The budget included measures to reduce the deficit by cutting government expenditures and raising taxes. Many conservative Republicans felt betrayed when Bush agreed to raise taxes, or to include "revenue increases" as he called them in his statement after signing the bill" the "cuts" were dropped from 3 to 1 to 2 to 1. dang, wouldn't you know someone would write it down.

43) Comment by DMJ - 05/12/2012

Relax, everyone. They'll meet in the middle. Republicans will because they know they're on the losing side of this issue and Democrats will because...well...they're Democrats and that's what Democrats do. If not, we'll have spending cuts and tax increases, which is what's needed to address our national debt. The media is hyping this for all it's worth. Judging from some of the comments, it's working.

44) Comment by Ivy - 05/12/2012

Does it make me a DINO, if I am one of the 47% but NOT waiting with hand out "more, please" mentality? I am pro-life, but insist we take part in the "after" show, in which a caring infrastructure is in place to provide for the child. I believe in Jesus Christ, but the discovery of dinosaur bones only shows what clever little diggers we are. I don't believe the wealthy have any concern for job creation, however. After all, what's a few off-shore accounts between fellow Americans, eh?

45) Comment by [e-mail] - 05/12/2012

Bonin is shilling for the Democrats' position; maybe he should change parties, or even philosophies.

46) Comment by agagent - 05/12/2012

Higher rates will harm the fragile economy, the federal government will continues to waste our taxes, and the national debt will continue to grow. However, if you want to raise tax rates, raise on everyone as equal treatment and “fairness” dictate that everyone has higher taxes rather than just raising taxes on one group.

47) Comment by agagent - 05/12/2012

The Democratic Party put in a top income tax rate of 94% when income tax rates were their highest. That gives you an idead of what they think is fair. Obama really wants it to be 100% so that he can decide what is “fair” for you to keep. We can go back to the Republican/Clinton tax rate (Democrat opposed the lower rates) but we would also have to reduce federal spending of that time. Things won’t be equal though since the Democrats have added many other taxes since Clinton left office.

48) Comment by jdk944 - 05/12/2012

So what are you going to change your registration to Mr. Bonin, a Democrat?? Sounds like you are a RINO. Of course, I'm not sure the established Republicans even understand what the "real" positions of the Republican party were/are!!! Fiscal responsiblity is what we are talking about and if you are focused on one issue, then you are short sighted as others who rant and rave about 1 item changing their political affiliation. But then if we are talking abortion, ie. murder, I can understand the strong "revolting" feelings over that. The House just offered a $800 million tax increase, which I disagree with and Obama said, "no way". I'm for falling off the cliff!! This so called plan by this Administration is moving beyond "cutting our fiscal" wrists and slowly bleeding to death. Now they are moving to just stepping out into the middle of the road, playing Chicken with the US for their own political gain. So be it, I'm for "calling Obama's" hand on this one!!!!!!!!!!

49) Comment by postscript56 - 05/12/2012

tradewinns - Where do you get your informations? Conservatives blogs and FOX news? Are you revising history now to claim Reagan did not cut taxes, but actually increased taxes on the promise of Democrats approving cuts, then got burned? And you're claiming the same thing happened to HW Bush? Maybe you need to relearn your history from a public school teacher. Not only that but it used to be conservatives who claimed liberals always think they know better than you do what's good for you. But now it is conservatives like you who think they know better than everyone else what's good for them - going over the cliff to "save" the country from that lazy "taker" majority.

50) Comment by Wallop - 05/12/2012

Scrooge, gary, Bighug's last statement "Just ask any Republican politician" seems to indicate he was being sarcastic.

51) Comment by gary - 05/12/2012

@Scrooge, excellent point.

52) Comment by Scrooge - 05/12/2012

Bighug, so shouldn't the economy and employment be booming right now? At what tax rate do the job creators start creating more jobs? Why was the economy so well off in the 90's with higher tax rates? Something isn't making sense but I am no economist.

53) Comment by Bighug - 05/12/2012

Cutting taxes for the less wealthy would hurt the economy, since they don't have enough money to hire a lot of people. On the other hand, less tax for multi-millionaires will help the economy by allowing them to use the extra money to increase business and hire more people. Just ask any Republican politician.

54) Comment by tradewinns - 04/12/2012

the republicans have been burned twice by the democrats on pass something now and we'll help your side out later. reagan was suckered first and "read my lips, no new taxes" bush was second. both times the democrats promised to cut spending if the republicans would go along and increase taxes. the taxes passed, the cuts never saw the light of day. the republicans are now a bunch of hard headed folks. they stuck their heads out twice and got suckered both times. the democrats have NO intention of cutting spending, the only card the republicans have to play is to go over the cliff with them. that will at least get $500 Billions in cuts. if i was a representative or senator in congress, given the history, i wouldn't vote for the tax cut either. better to go over the cliff trying to save the nation than literally do nothing and watch the nation sink into the Greece pile.

55) Comment by Whatchange - 04/12/2012

Mr. Bonin, not sure where you got your information that the Senate has passed a bill on the budget, but you sure received some wrong information. Not I do agree, the Republicans need to do something, and the plan they just submitted sure isn't it. They sure are a hard headed bunch.