Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Hello -- have -- now according to press reports yesterday speaker of the house John Boehner is pushing for a deal with President Obama that would include.
A trillion dollars in entitlement cuts for a trillion in new revenue over ten years now here's one catch.
What -- really means is 400 billion dollars of the revenue now.
-- tax on millionaires and only 250 billion of the entitlement cuts will actually happen now.
And that will happen to a proposal to slow Social Security growth by using a different inflation formula.
To calculate cost of living increases and then a commitment -- process in 2013.
That brings the rest of the revenue and the rest of the cuts supposedly.
I don't trust it.
In addition Boehner is willing to give Obama a one year debt limit increase Obama wants Boehner to raise the nation's borrowing limit for two years.
Which would deny Republicans the leverage they have to force reductions in spending come 2013.
Obama also wants eighty billion in new stimulus spending unquote infrastructure and quote unemployment benefits.
Now right now Boehner is arguing that a proposal by Obama that includes one point three trillion in revenue for only 850.
Billion in spending cuts is not balanced.
Now in any event that's more or less planned AA and it captures the broad contours of a potential deal between the president.
And speaker Boehner the DL if they can agree to it they're gonna have to sell their party's.
Now in an indication of how far the negotiations over deficit reduction has shifted just in the past year.
Albania confirm that his definition now of a balanced agreement.
Well that means an equal amount of spending cuts and new revenue so in other words a trillion in cuts a trillion a new revenue.
He said most people would agree that that is quote balanced that's what he set have to go back to the grand bargain -- talked -- President Obama and 2011.
Boehner had insisted on a ratio at that time a year ago that was four to one cuts to revenue.
They talk about the goal post be moved.
Now the compromise from speaker Boehner would be that -- he is willing to increase the rates on some income earners.
Now he wants it to apply to only those making a million dollars a more.
All Obama while he wants it to apply to those making 400000 dollars a year by the way that includes small business.
To Boehner is willing to give Obama an increase in the debt limit.
Three he's not gonna get an increase in the Medicare eligibility age he want that from 65 to 67.
Now not only to the president rejected that offer the president just raced to the microphones today and he declared that he won the debate with Boehner on tax rates so clearly.
He now wants to humiliate.
All Republicans as I predicted.
I remain optimistic -- because if you look at.
What the speaker.
Has proposed he's conceded that.
Income tax rates should go up.
It's at right now he only wants to have -- go for millionaires.
If you're making 900 thousands -- -- thinks that you can't afford to -- or more in taxes.
But the principle that rates are gonna need to go up.
I've said come -- to make some cuts.
What separates us is probably a few hundred billion dollars.
The idea that we would put our economy at risk.
-- -- -- -- -- Doesn't make a lot of sense.
Now as I have said from the very beginning the president he wants the country to go over the fiscal cliff.
And Republicans from the beginning they have feared this now after all the president gets to raise taxes on every single American.
He gets the gut defense and then an added bonus he gets the blame Republicans now speaker Boehner has put forward what he calls plan B.
That's a bill that would allow tax rates on annual income above a million dollars to rise.
To 39 point 6% but make permanent lower rates on incomes below that threshold.
As well let's fix the Alternative Minimum Tax now the president is complaining -- taxes will not go up on businesses making 900000 dollars a year.
This president has never been and never will be serious about finding his so called balanced approached by the way I predicted that would be the case.
So what are we to make of all of us -- -- say this.
I am first of all disappointed in the Republicans they were not elected to be a rubber stamp.
For Barack Obama's agenda they are the only check and balance against this radical agenda.
If the Republicans don't stand up a lower taxes limited government less regulation and balanced budgets who will.
If they cannot effectively make the moral case against generational theft who's gonna make that case.
-- -- over the fiscal cliff it's not good for conservatism.
And I would argue it's not good for the country.
But neither is agreeing to another bad inside the beltway Washington deal.
And by the way stealing from our children and our grandchildren.
Which party now we'll stand up for them for our kids our -- -- which party's gonna stop the madness.
Joining me now from Washington with reaction is Florida senator Marco Rubio.
You know senator.
I'm a little frustrated here.
Because this is our one check and balance.
And that case is not been made.
What's wrong with making the case that they -- the party against generational theft and I think that's a winning issue for any party that makes that case.
Well Sean thanks for having me on is a very powerful introduction and and and and you're exactly right here's the fundamental problem look I recognize the difficult position that the speakers and now because -- on January 1 nothing happens.
The taxes go up on everybody we go over the fiscal cliff and all the implications that would have.
But -- right in the point you're making and that is this you know this is the great flaw -- all these arguments the president's making that I wish more people were talking about.
If you raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans or -- what he calls the wealthiest Americans.
People making 250000 dollars or more -- you -- up by a 100% that doesn't solve anything -- the proposal the president standing for it doesn't solve anything.
It creates a bunch of problems and I explain this to someone the other day that I mad at someone who works at a law firm.
And us and actually said to me -- let the taxes go up on the richest people -- -- -- that's that may sound great -- but let me explain to what that means.
That means your boss when -- corporation in a single lawyer single law firm.
And and I also met someone a dental clinic -- a similar position.
If their taxes go up next -- by 50000 dollars they're gonna have to find that money from somewhere and it might be from your benefits that might be from your hours that might be from your job.
Those are the people -- gonna get hurt by this and in return you generate 678.
Days worth of government spending.
The only that that's not a solution that's the problem with -- all of us.
These tax increases the president wants it doesn't solve anything but it does her job creation and growing this economy is the.
Only way to solve the real fiscal cliff.
Which is a sixteen trillion dollar debt that continues to grow and will continue to grow -- no matter which one of these plans -- why are Republicans.
Of afraid to take that issue want just the way you're articulating it here in other words why -- they operate in the fiscal -- why they afraid of saying.
That we have a spending problem we don't have a a revenue problem.
Well you and fairness I think Republicans for the most part.
What what's good for the country they're afraid of the impact the fiscal cliff what have the counter argument that I have to that is that the real fiscal cliff.
It's not what we're facing now the real fiscal cliff is a sixteen trillion dollar debt -- no plan to pay for it.
And an economy that isn't growing fast enough and what we should -- for its pro growth strategies the only solution to our problem.
The only solution is the combination of fiscal discipline and real economic growth and what the president is proposing.
For the president's proposing is neither there is no fiscal discipline aspect to it back what the president is proposing does nothing to lower the debt short term or long term.
And it kills job creation and economic incentive I and that's what we're headed towards what -- senator 46 cents of every dollar trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see sixteen truly will soon be twenty truly will soon be 25 trillion.
You know I go back to I once worked in a ball yard.
If you put a luxury tax on boats and people buy fewer -- who gets hurt the guys and I held in the boat.
I worked in construction I worked in restaurants you take away money from people that have.
That have it.
-- -- They're gonna hire fewer contractors they're gonna go on fewer vacations they gonna spend less money in restaurants who does hurt all those senators had a -- turn into a battle brewing that.
That has such class envy witnesses all come back and and that's my point and that's the point I tried to make it's not -- Look it's not the business owner -- direct that's gonna get impact that it's the people that work for them that are gonna lose their jobs are gonna lose hours they're gonna lose benefits.
The cost of these tax tax increases will be paid by the workers in the employees of these small businesses.
And here's the other point and it's really exposes the great hypocrisy of the left.
They claim that tax increases had no impact on the economy are -- how people behave.
Well then why are they in favor of cigarette taxes why are they in favor of a carbon tax why are they in favor they say of lowering the corporate tax.
Because they recognize that eighty tax cigarettes people smoke the -- they recognize that if you tax carbon people produce less of it.
Tax rates do have and the more you tax something the less people will do it.
And so the bottom line is it does have an impact it is really going to hurt the workers -- those are the people that are gonna have to pay the price of this tax increase -- when President Reagan.
Rhetorically asked the question is -- a third party we need or a revitalized second party isn't a question you said we need a party.
Not with -- pale pastels but bold colored differences.
Did Republicans miss an opportunity here to communicate how their vision for the country is different than Barack Obama is.
Debt deficit socialist view of the world.
Absolutely and I and I think that's still an opportunity we need to take because this debate's not -- and would that -- this conversation here in December about the fiscal cliff.
The fundamentals irrespective -- what happens on the fiscal cliff remain the same our economy's not growing fast enough.
And the people were gonna get hurt the most by these tax increases are the people that work -- these small businesses who may lose their jobs and their benefits.
Because of a Barack Obama's proposing we do we get nothing in return -- it solves nothing.
The good news is we've got debates coming up on the debt ceiling continuing resolutions there will be opportunities.
Will they take a stand we're gonna watch very closely.
Senator running out of time we are -- -- at a time it's really important time America our country's history thank you sir thank you.
Filter by section