Even Speaker Boehner Calls White House Proposal on Fiscal Cliff Ridiculous

Earlier today, the Washington Post circulated the White House's opening bid on fiscal cliff negotiations. The Post says it got the plan from Republican aides. Here 'tis:


  • Immediate increase in both top marginal rates, as well as capital gains and dividends: +$960 Billion
  • Additional taxes: +$600 Billion
  • 2009-level estate tax
  • AMT and business tax extenders: -$236 Billion
  • Payroll tax extension or alternative policy: -$110B
  • Bonus depreciation extension


  • $50 billion stimulus package in FY13
  • Mass refi mortgage proposal
  • Deferral of sequester
  • Savings from non-entitlement mandatory programs
  • Extension of unemployment insurance: $30 billion
  • Medicare SGR Patch: $25 Billion
  • Increase in the debt limit to avoid requiring Congress to vote to increase


  • Tax reform consistent with $1.6 trillion tax increase
  • Entitlement policies from President’s FY13 budget that could total $400 billion in savings

So basically, what we're looking at here is the same thing Politico was reporting yesterday: Substantial net increases in federal revenue that start in 2013 with the promise of meager savings ($400 billion) somewhere way down the road. Politico suggested that Obama would make do with "just" $1.2 trillion in tax hikes and that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) would be happy with a deal that averts the cliff, even if it raising taxes three dollars for every one dollar in spending cuts.

Today, Boehner told the press, "There's a stalemate. Let's not kid ourselves" and that Obama's proposal was not a "serious" offering.

Given Boehner's weak limited government bona fides, thank heavens for small miracles.

All members of Congress should read Reason's special November 2010 issue - so special it was printed in 3D! The issue is chock full of real-life examples of countries (including the United States right after World War II and Canada and New Zealand in the 1990s) that cut spending, right-sized debt-to-GDP ratios, and were rewarded with booming economies.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Jerry on the road||

    I'm missing the part where they say to cut spending.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I believe they actually say to increase spending to the tune of $105 billion, unless I'm misreading that section.

  • Loki||

    Yep, it looks like an immediate increase of $105 billion (50B stimulus + 30B unemployment benies + 25B Medicare SGR patch) and a pinky swear to cut $400 billion in entitlements later (yeah right).

  • Brutus||

    Here's a video from the WH explaining it all:




  • Brutus||

    I loved that show.

  • Tim||

    DC cocktail party invitations show a three fold increase over the short term for every republican who signs on.

  • Loki||

    If that's the best Captain 0 can do, I say Fuck it, let's bring on the fiscal cliff.

    Or, alternatively the Repubs could just give him what he want and when the double dip hits just say "we told you so... elections have consequences... getting what you asked for...etc."

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Well, patch AMT. Then proceed off the cliff.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Increase in the debt limit to avoid requiring Congress to vote to increase

    Go. Fuck. Yourself.

  • Brutus||

    Sideways. With a red-hot poker.

  • waaminn||

    lol, coming from a bought and paid for, corrupt pompous windbag, I am not surprised.


  • ||

    I know, right? B.O.'s not even trying.

  • IceTrey||

    Is the tax figures over ten years?

  • ||

    Today, Boehner told the press, "There's a stalemate. Let's not kid ourselves" and that Obama's proposal was not a "serious" offering.

    I really wish Boehner would have said:

    You can put this on the record. That is not a serious proposal. That is not a serious proposal.
  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    Followed by, "Fuck you, cut spending."

  • John Thacker||

    The problem is that people believe Obama's vague comments about wanting a balanced approach, and disregard the actual devil in the details that his approach isn't balanced at all. Yes, the media abets that, but a lot of people just want to believe.

    More spending now, and tax raises, in exchange for a promise of spending cuts in the far future?

  • Phil_EngAmer||

    Right now the focus should be avoiding the fiscal cliff. The way the debate is going on right now, it seems like we’re heading towards a long stalemate, which would not help us. Recommendations have been to not extending the Bush/Obama tax cuts for those making over $250,000, but only 2% of households would be subject to increased taxes (http://bit.ly/Trz7D8). If you instead let these households keep their tax cuts for one more it will go a long way in avoiding the fiscal cliff, and you would be able to work on a debt deal without having to worry about the cliff. If the name of the game is avoiding the cliff, perhaps this would be the best course of action to help us figure out how to tackle this mess (http://bit.ly/TrCYjE).


Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties