0

POLITICAL NOTEBOOK: Woodall: Make it difficult to say no

U.S. Rep. Rob Woodall is still hammering away at the White House, as part of the political fight over the fiscal cliff.

In a floor speech, Woodall urged President Barack Obama to be more aggressive on spending cuts as part of the negotiations with House Speaker John Boehner.

Woodall said he could not support a raise in income tax rates but said that if the president is committed to the idea of higher rates for top income earners, he should pair the proposal with spending cuts. Reducing spending, Woodall said, would make it more difficult for him to say no to a measured approach.

"Mr. Speaker, my challenge today to the White House, to my friends on the left: make it hard on me as a freshman and a conservative ... Lay out those tax increases right beside solutions to the real problem, which is spending, and make those spending reductions so large, and so helpful to the American economy, that I would have no choice but to agree to your tax increases so that we can save the country from the real problem, which is spending," Woodall said.

The Republican from Lawrenceville said the debated tax increases by themselves will not bring the budget to a balance. Moreover, the president's proposal, which he described as a "tax more and spend more" plan, would create never-ending deficits, which Woodall is committed to opposing.

Comments

Cleanupguy 1 year, 9 months ago

Are lemmings then to be considered heroes?

0

R 1 year, 9 months ago

Can't blame him for the mixed signals we the people send right here in Gwinnett..

CUT SPENDING!! CUT SPENDING!!

But give out awards to local government bodies, including CIDS for snagging and SPENDING ever more Federal grants or Fed Grant funds given to GA. state "giver-mint" to dole out on the FED's behalf...

Even Graduates from Maxwell have a challenge balancing THAT equation, irrespective of the ever higher math used in the attempt.

It's time for the left hand to meet the right hand, before there's nothing left between them.

1

Jan 1 year, 9 months ago

I am constantly amazed at the way Republicans buy into their ridiculous rhetoric. Here are some facts for you to continue to ignore.

  1. Average inflation is about 3%, This means that we should expect a 3% average annualized growth in spending.

  2. Since 1982, their have been five presidential terms that exceeded 4% growth. Reagan, both terms, Bush I and Bush II, both terms. Clinton's terms were held at 3.2% and 2.9% government spending increase and Obama has the lowest increase of only 1.4%, well below average inflation rate.

  3. Average annual spending increase under Republicans = 6.88%, more than twice average annual spending increase under Democrats = 2.83%.

  4. Republicans are only proposing to cut "entitlements". The issues they have put forth are increasing retirement & medicare eligibility age, increasing tax requirements on Social Security and reducing medicare benefits. People collecting these benefits have worked, paid taxes and paid for these benefits and congress should not steel the benefits because of their inability to agree on a fair taxation plan.

  5. The hypocrisy of Republicans now are saying we can't afford to continue Bush tax cuts for the middle class but we can afford to extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone. For those of you that are slow on the math, this is like saying you can't afford $100 so let's spend $1000.

  6. Cutting taxes on the wealthy has been tried and fails to create jobs, cutting taxes on those in lower income brackets has been demonstrated to boost the economy and increase jobs.

2

NorcrossDot 1 year, 9 months ago

Jan, apparently you did not research #6. In fact cutting taxes has always throughout history created more tax revenue for the government and created jobs. Quit buying the "talking points" memo. FYI I am a constitutionalists conservative independent. Both parties need to be dismantled and built from scratch.

3

Jan 1 year, 9 months ago

You have been brainwashed by Republican smoking mirrors. Cutting taxes has never increased tax revenue. George Bush the first labeled this idea as voodoo economics and was proven correct when Reagan attempted to implement such a policy, only managing to cause skyrocketing national debt. If Reaganomics had worked, then the national debt would have been significantly lower. Cutting taxes on the spenders will improve a weak economy. Cutting taxes on the wealthy hoarders only results in more hoarding of wealth. Maybe some math will help you understand. If you allow an investor to keep an extra $100. He will put it in the stock market. Stock sales do not create any job. If he is very good investor and luck is on his side, he might get an earning of $10 from the $100 invested. This is taxed at 15%. That means the Government has given him $100 but only got back $1.50. A $98.50 deficit for the government. I will agree with you that both parties need to be dismantled; however , their abolishment should be permanent. The Federalist Papers warn against allowing the formation of political parties. Doing away with government supported party primaries would be a significant savings also.

1

jack 1 year, 9 months ago

Jan- Take a look a what happened in Great Britain: In 2010 they raised taxes on those earning a million pounds a year from 40% to 50%. In 2009-10, there were 16,000 people reporting such income and the government received 13.4 billion pounds in revenue. When the higher tax was enacted, only 6,000 people reported, and revenue fell to 6.5 billion.

Something about punishing good behavior......

1

Jan 1 year, 9 months ago

Your example (assuming its correct, I did not look it up) ignores all other factors. We do know that Great Britain was going through a depression worse than we were experiencing and we know that tax revenue goes down in a depressed economy. Usually rate increases are accompanied by offsetting deductions and loopholes. Not being familiar with their tax code and all changes of the code, GDP and other financial conditions, one would be amiss to contribute this change solely to an increase in the tax rate. Just because two things occur does not prove these things are related. I have supported my position with explanation of the effect of lower taxes on the wealthy - those with great excess income.

0

jack 1 year, 9 months ago

My data was from the Wall Street Journal, but you may also look at France as well. They just raised rates to 75% on the top earners, who are now moving to Belgium. Like the actor, Gerard Depardieu.

1

notblind 1 year, 9 months ago

Jan, How do you think companies make that next big growth step ???? They go public and sell stock. With the proceeds they grow their business thereby creating jobs.

1

Jan 1 year, 9 months ago

Yes, companies raise money through stock sales. They do this with an IPO (Initial Public Offering). IPOs are a minute fraction of total stock sales. Because of the high risk of IPOs, a wise investor will only put a small fraction of his/her portfolio into these. My example was to demonstrate the results of the great majority of the investment changes by additional tax reduction for the wealthy.

0

FordGalaxy 1 year, 9 months ago

"That means the Government has given him $100 but only got back $1.50."


With that line, Jan, you revealed something. It seems you believe that money earned by an individual actually belongs to government and it is only thorugh the goodwill of government that people are allowed to keep it. Your scenario seems to indicate essentially a $100 tax cut on the investor, but you frame it as government "giving" the investor $100.

Or am I reading that wrong, because that is definitely the sense I got. And it's something I see from my more liberal friends all the time. Someone brings up tax cuts and they say that the government cannot afford it. Apparently, they too believe that income belongs to government, since it apparently "costs" the government to let us keep the money we earn.

2

BangChuWui 1 year, 9 months ago

The one brainwashed is Jan. Social security is a fraud, the average payout is more than you pay in which is why social security is broke and if you had payed attendtion to John Linder, he would have told you congress has took money from social security after it paid claims to balance the budget. Social security is not a retirement program but a supplemental program. You can't tax you way out of this, there are not enough rich people to pay for Obama's Trillion dollar deficits. All have done the country a disservice, demokratic and republicans but when Woodall trys to point out faults with Democratic policy you and other claim smoke and mirrors. Just like the claim Clinton left the country with a surplus, false, a recession and congress -the Republicans also made Clinton implement policies to balance the budget. They just fell off the wagon and drunk the Democratic power-aid and financial stupidity bread.

1

Cleanupguy 1 year, 9 months ago

Actually, Jan is correct, NorcrossDot. The Congressional Research Service was contracted by the GOP to independently evaluate the correlation between top tax rates and economic growth prior to the last election (surely the timing was just coincidental). When it was concluded that there is absolutely no correlation between tax rates of the wealthy and economic growth, in September the report was quashed by the GOP that had commissioned it. Mr. Logic says that had the tactic worked, we'd have had to import even more illegals after the Bush tax cuts to (while putting two wars on a credit card) fill all the jobs. Reagan also learned that cutting taxes did not create jobs, as his cut was followed by a 10.3% unemployment rate - just before tax revenues were increased the last 7 of his 8 years in office.

1

Why_not 1 year, 9 months ago

There is absolutely no proof anywhere that cutting taxes on higher earners creates jobs or anything else other than lowering the net revenue of the federal government. A prosperous middle class drives the demand for products and in turn, increases jobs....

1

FordGalaxy 1 year, 9 months ago

Jan - Much of what you write makes sense, but we still have a problem. Why should we expect 3% growth in spending on average? The problem is that politicians on both sides think that government should be doing everything for everbody. Should entitlement spending be cut? Yes. Along with defense spending.


And I really hate how both sides have hijacked the language of the debate and made it sound like a cost to government if they aren't allowed to take your money. Both sides need to back off spending, and both sides need to agree to leave money in the hands of those who can produce economic growth. It is not the role of government to create jobs. If anything, government should foster an atmosphere in which private industry has to create more jobs to keep up with demand.


As for spending and taxation, I'm waiting on the day when someone will go to Congress and propose an amendment stating the following:


  1. If we have three consecutive years of budget deficits, it is an automatic 10% pay cut to all elected officials, with an additional 10% for every year thereafter until the budget is balanced or surplused.

  1. If we run more than five consecutive years of budget deficit, then every member of Congress is automatically prohibited from running for re-election.

  1. Any spending bill proposed before Congress must include proposal for spending cuts elsewhere.
1

kevin 1 year, 9 months ago

Liberal, get your head out of the sand. More tax increases will only allow Obama to spend more, which is what you are supporting. What about the lovely fact that the Liberals are the spending problem in this country, not taxes. If you like tax increases so much, donate more on your tax return and leave the rest of us alone. None of this debate would be going on if not for the outrageous spending over the past 4 yrs and the more that is on the way. Your stats above that show the spending increase inaccurate facts. Try comparing Bush's last budget spending to Obama's. Scared I know. $1 trillion vs. approx $5 trillion. Your Federal government is sitting there printing money on worthless paper since 2008. I sure hope to donate on your 2012 tax return. IF you voted for Obama, you should donate to his causes. You reap what you sow.

1

John_Smith 1 year, 9 months ago

"You have been brainwashed by Republican smoking mirrors." Jan, I think it is "smoke and mirrors".

1

skygirl 1 year, 9 months ago

Poor delusional Jan. It reminds me of that commercial that says, "if its on the internet it has to be true." I guess if the inaccurate liberal blather is repeated enough, some will eventually take it as fact. Sad.

1

Cleanupguy 1 year, 9 months ago

And if one repeats a lie loudly and for long enough it will become true. That one came from Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Propaganda Minister.

0

hubertsaam 1 year, 9 months ago

when they run out of arguments supported by logic and rational thoughts they resort to name calling...that's what's sad

2

notblind 1 year, 9 months ago

The "due to inflation government spending is going to grow 3% every year" sounds great on the surface. What happens when gov policy causes the economy to tank and revenues fall off precipitously for several years in a row ? What about if the cost of living grows 3% every year but at the same time real wages are dropping ?? None of this even address the new spending under Uncle Bo .

1

Cleanupguy 1 year, 9 months ago

Has everyone forgotten that Congress and not the President controls the purse strings? Apparently the former is unaware of this. Personally, I think that we should start by cutting the DOD by half, then get rid of Socialized Security and Medicare.

0

WhirledPeas 1 year, 9 months ago

Cleanupguy, have you forgotten that Democrats control the Senate and the Whitehouse?

1

Why_not 1 year, 9 months ago

Whirled Pee.....have you forgotten that both the Senate and the House can still block about any legislation?

0

Jan 1 year, 9 months ago

Everybody wants something to cut. Seems like most want those cuts to be retired American Citizens, people that planned their future including reliance on their investment in Social Security and Medicare. How can you now tell your elderly relatives that you are going to take away part of that investment? I propose that the first cuts should be the billions we give in foreign aid to countries with no net national debt. Why should we borrow money to help these countries avoid debt?

0

Sandykin 1 year, 9 months ago

Excuse me, but who in their right mind has planned to rely on social security for their retirement that is under 65? Since 1981 when I began working full time, my employers have ALL been telling me social security will be gone by the time I retire and I should save in a 401k to fund my own retirement salary. This was the pitch every single year at enrollment time and those meetings were always mandatory. Not heeding the warning was sheer stupidity. Even tho my portfolio lost quite a bit during the great recession, there's still enough funds in there to be a safety net of funds to live off when I do retire at age 67.

1

Jan 1 year, 9 months ago

There you go again. Misinterpreting what I said. You will notice the word "including". I did not say "only". Also, SS should be there even if your investments don't work out or the company declares bankruptcy and you lose most of your pension. I know someone that planned with a good pension, then a car accident and years of medical costs almost wiped out their entire investment. If it hadn't been for social security, they would not have been able to keep housing and food. With social security, which was reduced because of the "notch years" and what remained of their retirement funds, they did not become destitute. Cases like this is the reasoning behind social security. The "social security will be gone" argument has been around since social security was started. It is easy to increase funding by simply moving up the amount on which FICA is taken out of wages and charging FICA on capital gains. Currently, someone with only capital gain income pays no social security.

0

kevin 1 year, 9 months ago

Obama Care has already cut $500 billion to seniors. Have you forgotten that little piece of the 2,500 page joke of a bill? No more Medicare Advantage payments from 2014 on. Of course, LIberals only say what they want to say and not all the facts and lies their president has said.

1

WhirledPeas 1 year, 9 months ago

Social Security is not an entitlement. I paid for it. Indeed in 43 years of working I have paid enough to also buy someone else's food stamps, free school lunches, Obamaphone, and pay the salary of several Washington bureaucrats. Those are entitlements. Woodall and Republicans, grow a backbone and stand up to Obama and the Democrats who want to increase taxes without cutting spending.

1

Jan 1 year, 9 months ago

From the Cambridge dictionary:

Entitlement: something that you have right to do or have, or when you have the right to do or have something.

Hence, since you paid for SS and Medicare, they are entitlements and you are entitled to them. I will agree that food stamps, free lunches etc should not be classified under the same heading. If you follow something other than the Republican shouting, you will see that the Democrats have proposed spending cuts, some of which have already been put into place. The problem is the Republicans want tax cuts for the wealthy so they blame their failure to change the tax code on the democrats not wanting to make the cuts in SS and Medicare that Republicans are wanting to make. If they were serious about saving money, they would fix the wasteful medicare drug plan passed under Bush.

0

citized 1 year, 9 months ago

Lets just cut all their pay and make them spend their own money on gas and food. Oh yea lets not forget the "free" event tickets thet receive.

po'd

1

jack 1 year, 9 months ago

A recent NBC/WSJ poll showed 24% of the people would blame the Republicans and 18% would blame the Democrats if we go over the fiscal cliff. These are the only numbers to which the politicians are paying any attention.

Certainly not the other number in the poll showing 56% would blame BOTH!

2

news2me 1 year, 9 months ago

You have been brainwashed by Republican smoking mirrors.

Jan, Say_that_again? LMAO!

1

Sign in to comment