Sen. Murray, Dems: Perhaps drive over 'fiscal cliff,' then bargain

WASHINGTON (AP) - Some Democrats are pushing an unorthodox idea for coping with the "fiscal cliff": Let the government go over, temporarily at least, to give their party more bargaining leverage for changes later on.
The idea has plenty of skeptics, and the White House regards it frostily. But it illustrates the wide range of early negotiating positions being staked out by Republicans and Democrats as lawmakers gathered Tuesday for their first postelection talks on how to avoid the looming package of steep tax hikes and program cuts.
Just as brazen, in the eyes of many Democrats, is the GOP leaders' continued insistence on protecting tax cuts for the rich. President Barack Obama just won re-election, campaigning on a vow to end those breaks.
Democrats and Republicans appear heading toward another round of brinkmanship that will test who blinks first on questions of major importance. It's a dance that has infuriated many Americans, shaken financial markets and drawn ridicule from foreign commentators.
In late 2010, after big GOP midterm election wins, Obama backed off his pledge to raise taxes on the rich. In the summer of 2011, House Republicans pushed Congress within a hair of refusing to raise the debt ceiling, leading to the first-ever downgrade of the government's credit rating. And last December, it was the Republicans' turn to blink, yielding to Obama's demand to extend a payroll tax break.
The "fiscal cliff" deadline comes in seven weeks. One provision: Unless Congress acts, all Bush-era tax cuts would expire, raising 2013 tax bills for most Americans. Obama wants to end those tax cuts only for households making more than $250,000 a year. Republicans insist on no tax rate increases anywhere.
If the "fiscal cliff" takes effect, congressional Republicans would feel pressure to give ground in several areas to achieve their top goal: restoring tax cuts for as many people as possible. That's why Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and other Democrats have said their party's leaders should seriously consider letting the Jan. 1 deadline pass and then negotiate with Republicans under sharply different circumstances. Some or most of any new agreements could be made retroactive to Jan. 1, they say.
If Republicans refuse to let tax cuts expire for the wealthy, Murray told ABC's "This Week," ''we will reach a point at the end of this year where all the tax cuts expire and we'll start over next year. And whatever we do will be a tax cut for whatever package we put together. That may be the way to get past this."
Murray's allies say voters would blame Republicans for refusing to yield, especially on tax rates, given that Obama won re-election. A recent Pew Research poll supports that view. More than half of the respondents said they would chiefly blame congressional Republicans if there's no compromise on the fiscal cliff; 29 percent would blame Obama.
It's questionable whether Obama and Congress' Democratic leaders would let the government go over the fiscal cliff. Numerous financial analysts say the event would frighten markets, alarm employers and probably trigger a new recession.
However, there's a school of thought that the cliff is actually a slope, and the economy could withstand the effects of the automatic spending cuts and the renewal of Clinton-era tax rates for at least a few weeks to give time for negotiations to continue. Liberals note that tax rate increases would be felt gradually.
"In the first paycheck of the year, people will see that their withholding is up, but it's not the like the whole amount of their tax bill for the course of the year takes place in their first paycheck. It happens gradually," said Chad Stone, an economist with the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
The second part of the cliff package includes across-the-board spending cuts of $109 billion a year, split equally between military and domestic programs and known in Washington-speak as a sequester.
Some budget experts say the spending cuts would phase in gradually. Also, Social Security, Medicare and food stamps are exempt. And agency fiscal chiefs have flexibility to mitigate the effects of the sequester.
But such tools are limited. They might buy only a little time before the spending cuts begin to bite harshly, requiring agencies to furlough employees and causing delays in awarding government contracts.
Many say even talk of going over the cliff is sheer folly.
"You're going to have big financial market repercussions to this," warned economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office. "Those sorts of confidence measures you don't control - and they happen abruptly."
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., showed no interest in challenging the fiscal cliff. "I want you to be disabused of any notion that there is any widespread thought that it would be a good thing, for our country, for us to go over the cliff," she told reporters Tuesday.
Some Democrats think Republicans are ready to bargain anyway.
"Republicans have a pretty good track record of not blinking," said Jim Kessler, co-founder of the centrist-Democratic group Third Way. "But they had a bright white light shine in their eyes on Election Day."
Third Way is floating a possible compromise, designed to raise $1.3 trillion in new revenue over 10 years without changing the Bush-era income tax rates. It would cap itemized tax deductions at $35,000. Charitable deductions, however, would be exempt, a nod to the powerful lobbies of universities and other charity beneficiaries.
The plan also would move upwardly mobile earners into higher tax brackets more quickly. It would reinstate the 2009 estate tax exclusion to $3.5 million, with a tax rate of 45 percent for values above that threshold. And it would raise the tax rate for capital gains and dividends by 5 percentage points, to 23.8 percent.
"Nearly all revenue from this package comes from upper income earners," Kessler said. His group would prefer to raise tax rates on the wealthiest, he said. But the compromise plan gives Republicans a break on that contentious issue.
Also embroiled in the end-of-year negotiations is the Alternative Minimum Tax, which Congress routinely adjusts to prevent big tax hikes on millions. If Congress fails to act by Dec. 31, an additional 28 million middle-income families would be hit with a large and unexpected tax increase when they file their 2012 returns next spring, the IRS says. Also, the annual AMT "patch" usually includes a rule that affects how tax credits are calculated for about 60 million taxpayers. Those taxpayers - about half of all individual filers - would have to wait until at least the end of March to file their returns while the IRS reworks its systems to account for the existing AMT patch expiring, the agency said.
White House spokesman Jay Carney said Obama hopes for a big bipartisan compromise that will include spending cuts, revenue increases and other features to avert the fiscal cliff. Obama has made it clear, Carney said, "that he is not wedded to every aspect of his plan, and that he understands that in order to reach an agreement, everyone needs to compromise, and that compromise should not be a dirty word in Washington."
The idea has plenty of skeptics, and the White House regards it frostily. But it illustrates the wide range of early negotiating positions being staked out by Republicans and Democrats as lawmakers gathered Tuesday for their first postelection talks on how to avoid the looming package of steep tax hikes and program cuts.
Just as brazen, in the eyes of many Democrats, is the GOP leaders' continued insistence on protecting tax cuts for the rich. President Barack Obama just won re-election, campaigning on a vow to end those breaks.
Democrats and Republicans appear heading toward another round of brinkmanship that will test who blinks first on questions of major importance. It's a dance that has infuriated many Americans, shaken financial markets and drawn ridicule from foreign commentators.
In late 2010, after big GOP midterm election wins, Obama backed off his pledge to raise taxes on the rich. In the summer of 2011, House Republicans pushed Congress within a hair of refusing to raise the debt ceiling, leading to the first-ever downgrade of the government's credit rating. And last December, it was the Republicans' turn to blink, yielding to Obama's demand to extend a payroll tax break.
The "fiscal cliff" deadline comes in seven weeks. One provision: Unless Congress acts, all Bush-era tax cuts would expire, raising 2013 tax bills for most Americans. Obama wants to end those tax cuts only for households making more than $250,000 a year. Republicans insist on no tax rate increases anywhere.
If the "fiscal cliff" takes effect, congressional Republicans would feel pressure to give ground in several areas to achieve their top goal: restoring tax cuts for as many people as possible. That's why Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and other Democrats have said their party's leaders should seriously consider letting the Jan. 1 deadline pass and then negotiate with Republicans under sharply different circumstances. Some or most of any new agreements could be made retroactive to Jan. 1, they say.
If Republicans refuse to let tax cuts expire for the wealthy, Murray told ABC's "This Week," ''we will reach a point at the end of this year where all the tax cuts expire and we'll start over next year. And whatever we do will be a tax cut for whatever package we put together. That may be the way to get past this."
Murray's allies say voters would blame Republicans for refusing to yield, especially on tax rates, given that Obama won re-election. A recent Pew Research poll supports that view. More than half of the respondents said they would chiefly blame congressional Republicans if there's no compromise on the fiscal cliff; 29 percent would blame Obama.
It's questionable whether Obama and Congress' Democratic leaders would let the government go over the fiscal cliff. Numerous financial analysts say the event would frighten markets, alarm employers and probably trigger a new recession.
However, there's a school of thought that the cliff is actually a slope, and the economy could withstand the effects of the automatic spending cuts and the renewal of Clinton-era tax rates for at least a few weeks to give time for negotiations to continue. Liberals note that tax rate increases would be felt gradually.
"In the first paycheck of the year, people will see that their withholding is up, but it's not the like the whole amount of their tax bill for the course of the year takes place in their first paycheck. It happens gradually," said Chad Stone, an economist with the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
The second part of the cliff package includes across-the-board spending cuts of $109 billion a year, split equally between military and domestic programs and known in Washington-speak as a sequester.
Some budget experts say the spending cuts would phase in gradually. Also, Social Security, Medicare and food stamps are exempt. And agency fiscal chiefs have flexibility to mitigate the effects of the sequester.
But such tools are limited. They might buy only a little time before the spending cuts begin to bite harshly, requiring agencies to furlough employees and causing delays in awarding government contracts.
Many say even talk of going over the cliff is sheer folly.
"You're going to have big financial market repercussions to this," warned economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office. "Those sorts of confidence measures you don't control - and they happen abruptly."
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., showed no interest in challenging the fiscal cliff. "I want you to be disabused of any notion that there is any widespread thought that it would be a good thing, for our country, for us to go over the cliff," she told reporters Tuesday.
Some Democrats think Republicans are ready to bargain anyway.
"Republicans have a pretty good track record of not blinking," said Jim Kessler, co-founder of the centrist-Democratic group Third Way. "But they had a bright white light shine in their eyes on Election Day."
Third Way is floating a possible compromise, designed to raise $1.3 trillion in new revenue over 10 years without changing the Bush-era income tax rates. It would cap itemized tax deductions at $35,000. Charitable deductions, however, would be exempt, a nod to the powerful lobbies of universities and other charity beneficiaries.
The plan also would move upwardly mobile earners into higher tax brackets more quickly. It would reinstate the 2009 estate tax exclusion to $3.5 million, with a tax rate of 45 percent for values above that threshold. And it would raise the tax rate for capital gains and dividends by 5 percentage points, to 23.8 percent.
"Nearly all revenue from this package comes from upper income earners," Kessler said. His group would prefer to raise tax rates on the wealthiest, he said. But the compromise plan gives Republicans a break on that contentious issue.
Also embroiled in the end-of-year negotiations is the Alternative Minimum Tax, which Congress routinely adjusts to prevent big tax hikes on millions. If Congress fails to act by Dec. 31, an additional 28 million middle-income families would be hit with a large and unexpected tax increase when they file their 2012 returns next spring, the IRS says. Also, the annual AMT "patch" usually includes a rule that affects how tax credits are calculated for about 60 million taxpayers. Those taxpayers - about half of all individual filers - would have to wait until at least the end of March to file their returns while the IRS reworks its systems to account for the existing AMT patch expiring, the agency said.
White House spokesman Jay Carney said Obama hopes for a big bipartisan compromise that will include spending cuts, revenue increases and other features to avert the fiscal cliff. Obama has made it clear, Carney said, "that he is not wedded to every aspect of his plan, and that he understands that in order to reach an agreement, everyone needs to compromise, and that compromise should not be a dirty word in Washington."
Patty Murray, if you or any others want to damage this country to allow more negotiations and gain more votes and power to be in control, then you are so F*****ed up and mentally sick!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wait, before we all get drug over the cliff, can I get my obamaphone first?
Â
Congrssional Budget Office :Â A new recession, CBO says a 1.3% decrease in the GDP, after an increase in 2012 of 1.9%Â caused by the fiscal cliff.
Â
You people still dont get it do you?? Our government doesnt work for our best interest. Its all about the new Global economy. America is the last stumbling block to thier plans. They want us to fail. They need to destroy our economy so we can be brought into the fold. Why do you think they have been so hesitant to actually do something about our debt?Â
 @Busyhands Point A its not about the debt. They don't care they generate a LOT of it. Point B they benifit from it. Point C money they generate out of the country is taxed by the country the money is generated in. Point D we are pawns to be traded and expendable if we won't be good slave I mean workers that are glad to have a job to provide for our loves and likes and spend what little we have left to support their largess.
 @BusyhandsYes they are padding their pockets with the well being of a great nation and both major parties are fully culpable, until independents and third party canadates are allowed a voice, and or the electorate gets gutsy and votes against the two. Consider it business as usual and enjoy getting sold out. Unless they can show some willingness to go beyond their partisan crap soon It's time to vote them out starting in the preliminarys esp. in the off yr elections.
Â
ÂThe lower middle class makes approximately $40k to $60k per year. ÂTax rate currently is 15%, this will increase by 13% to 28%. Â13% of $60,000 = $7800 in more tax burden. ÂIn a family with 2 children, you also lose $1000 in child tax credit or 13% of $1000. ÂThat is $7930 less that family will have to spend.Â
Medicare payments to Doctors will decrease by 27%.ÂMedicare SURTAX of 3.8%. Â0.9% on earned income up to $200,000. ÂOn top of the 1.45% already paying. ÂUp to a 3.8% Surtax on the highest income earners.Â
ÂAutomatic Federal Spending cuts. ÂBudget Control Act requires cuts. ÂCuts will be $1.2 Trillion in ten years. ÂHalf will be from Defense Budget ÂThis will include a $55 Billion cut in the first year. ÂAnalysts and CBO agree this will cause a loss of 1 Million jobs over 2 years (Sahadi, 2012). ÂThe other $55 Billion will come from non defense budget, this will cut spending for education, food inspections and air travel safety to name a few.
Seriously? The tax cuts that are about to go away... do some research, the richest only got a 3% tax cut, so their taxes go up that amount. The 2 poorest tax brackets will go from 10% to 15%, and the second from 15% to 28%.... and your child tax credit will go down from $1000 to $500... earned income credit expanded eligibility goes away... SS tax goes from 4.2% to 6.4%, marriage penalty tax break goes away.... yep... Obama and the Dem's are really looking out for the poor and the middle class. DO SOME FACT CHECKING!
So now we get to pay for those two, ten year long,unfunded wars that we have borrowed money to pay for? Or are we still going to let others in the future pay for them?
I really cannot believe how dumb most Americans are. The rich have moved their money, they are not going to be taxed any more. The tax will come on those who are not stupid enough to manage their income to be below $250,000. I say the Republicans play their game and let the tax cuts take effect because who it will hurt is the working people. Go for it! BTW look at the tax rate schedules for 2013 we all are going to get it, especially when Obamacare kicks in. What you want are politicians who are smart and know how to manage a country, not the politicians who play games like this. We will never get out of this mess until people educate themselves and chose politicians who can manage a country.
@justsayin Re: âThe tax will come on those who are not stupid enough to manage their income to be below $250,000.â hmmmmâ¦â¦ Pretty straightforward huh? It appears that you have it all figured out. Not.
 @justsayin We need politicians willing to close those off shore loopholes, even though most of it is corporate earned off shore, something that from what I gather has been supported or tolerated by both parties. Other than those that maybe moving money under the $10k threshold.
Very slanted journalism here.   Is it about ending "tax cuts for the rich" or increasing "wealth redistribution".
Â
Go ahead and drive over the cliff, then bargain... wow, so very responsible. Wonder if that' s what Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Italy's leaders were thinking back in the day. Will we be having to take sever austerity measures 5, 10, maybe 20 years from now to fix the inevitable consequences of this entitlement economic philosophy we're building?
Â
Sooner or later, you really do run out of "other people's money". Â
@newspuppy Wow. Talk about a slanted post. Go figure.
 @newspuppy I just love the Wealth redistribution" argument. Let's see low tax rates on pay by stock instead of cash that an exec./CEO could buy by cash, Low tax percentage of tax on high income? add in that they have their pay increase over the last in comparison to the average worker by near or better than 300% over the last 20 yrs or so. Oh I get it they are upwardly mobile and not upwardly redistributing wealth and not creating jobs the last 4 yrs. The really dumb thing is create jobs there is more revenue to move up. These holes are the real drag on the country just because they hate the president and no I didn't vote for him on either occasion.
Most people voted for this government again after listening to shallow promises and retoric. We will pay the price for ignorance.
Come on Patty gotta lot the sheeple know which line to stand in for more free stuff....
What is so difficult for politicians to work together? Do they even understand the meaning of the word compromise. Itâs too bad they stopped even bothering to try and work together.
Â
Personally I think everyone should pay the same level of taxes. What that percentage should be I have no idea. I donât think itâs fair that some people pay less and some people pay more.
Â
There are a number of ways I think spending could be modified or reduced to help out:
Â
Cut back on military spending. An article awhile back said Army generals advised Congress they donât need more tanks. Yet Congress choose to keep building them.
Â
Eliminate foreign aid. We need to get our stuff in order before we should be helping other countries.
Â
Eliminate any funding to anyone not within the united states legally.
Â
Revise and rework the social programs in existence. Donât eliminate them as that safety net should be there. But change the programs so the people who continually abuse them or just leech off them get booted off it. Itâs there to help you get back on your feet. Not for you to sit on your ass at home and collect checks doing nothing. Unfortunately I know someone who does just that. Pisses me off!
Â
Eliminate the various tax breaks big oil and other companies receive. While they are at it they should revise some of the commercial tax structures. It should be taxed, but it should be a fair tax for everyone across the board regardless of industry. Once again I donât claim to know what that amount should be. It just seems like a fair solution.
Â
I am sure there are plenty of other ways to reach compromises about the fiscal cliff and any other political agenda. It would be nice to see all parties sit down and have an give and take session to make it work for us the people vs. their highest contributing parties to their re-election.
 @DreamTravler Not just compromise but think out side the box and both sides take a long hard look at making things better for all and quit this damndable game of chicken with this great country. Its economy and the well being of the populous at large not just the rare few. Party politics is not just sending us down the drain but getting to the point of flushing the whole country. One caveat though, Major changes of economic policy such as dramatic changes to; the tax code like a flat tax, big cuts to military spending or also major changes to "entitlement programs" that also include corporate welfare the likes of farm, tobacco, energy, as well as social, could put many out of work and many may have no where to go. We need a well reasoned and phased transition to reduce and simplify all these issues.
  @AvgDude
I agree that it could put some people out of work and I donât like to see that. I donât claim to have the answers. I just want to see the politicians actually work together for the common good vs. just their party and their beliefs. While I tend to vote more D vs. R each of them have ideas, suggestions, and policies I like and dislike. I understand that my view is not the only view and know that compromise is what allows us to move forward. Do I want to pay more taxes then I do now⦠of course not. However if its something that is across the board and fair to all players then I donât mind paying more because everyone else is in the same boat.
 @DreamTravler  @AvgDude Absolutely, I have tended to vote R in the past but the sad attitudes and other trickery coupled with an agenda based on rhetoric and hyperbole was more than I could take. So quite the mixed bag on my ballot.
Â
I think many expect instant results in reclaiming our prosperity by varying cuts and tax changes. However trying for too much too fast is asking for disaster. By bringing on well thought out and reasoned cuts and rethinking of personal biases with measured expectation there is hope.
Â
Yes there is much need now to put partisanship aside and work for an economy, foreign policy and country that others can be inspired by. Especially by example and not by force.
Still blaming Bush are we? Pretty funny. I'm hoping after four more years, say by 2017 - we could begin assigning "blame" for those that must, to the most recent or current President. then again, it really falls back on the voters that elected them, doesn't it?
@sentryone Who do we still mainly blame for the Great Depression, fairly or unfairly? Guess who will be blamed, even a century from now, for this Great Recession?
 @flyskiwindsurf  @sentryone Yeah - when it was really Hebert Hoover...and no, that it NOT a typo - there was a famous case where a radio reporter mispronounced the name of the 31st President.
Reid's bright idea is to up the debt limit. Surprise. The left is always in favor of spending. If I was China I'd get off this iceburg. If there is no money to pay the debt they will never see a return on their loans.
It's not just Murray who is saying this. The entire left wing is opting for the cliff. People elect the government they deserve.
@lin I didn't elect these clowns...
Like Lemmings, we are supposed to follow them over the cliff? I don't think so.
Â
Its time to make serious cuts in funding illegal aliens, welfare, pet projects, foreign aid to countries who do not appreciate it, etc. You cannot spend spend spend.
Rich people don't create jobs. Customers create jobs. Â Â http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g
While I see this as a "trial balloon" by the Dems, it would have one positive impact - when the Bush tax cuts die, and the Dems enact new cuts JUST for the middle class and the poor. the Reps will either have to agree or be branded the party that wouldn't cut taxes...
I still think that it's too big of a risk.
My guess is that there will be a compromise the last week in the year that has both spending cuts - AND a removal of many of the tax deductions that help mostly the very rich and the corporations. Everyone gets something of what they wanted, and the rich end up paying higher taxes...not in rates but because they won't be able to hide the money as easily.
 @OrcasThunder I see. Let the Bush tax cuts die, expunge the name Bush so everyone will now have "The Obama tax cuts"....very clever.
 @Controlled-Insanity "expunge the name Bush"
Well, the right wing has been doing it for over 4 years, and the Republic Party virtually denied that he existed when they held the RNC...
@Controlled-Insanity bwahahahaâ¦.. Yep. Pretty cool huh?
Yeah, this is a brilliant idea.  Let's wait until next year to fix it.  Except,  oh, wait - we didn't patch the Alternative Minimum Tax yet for 2012  and  if we wait until 2013, we can only fix retroactive to the beginning of 2013.  So most everyone should get ready to pay more when you file your 2012 tax returns.  But aside from that, brilliant idea. Â
When the sheep follow one another over the cliff, it is a matter of time before the sacred cows get in line.
Tony Robbins made a simple video explaining just how hopeless the situation is......not even the rich can afford Progressives Ameritopia.  Â
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRaLytkf6vU&feature=youtu.be
Â
Tax Away Moonbats!!
Â
It's a GREAT idea! Let EVERYBODY feel the pain for a change, instead of JUST the middle class! The tax cuts for the middle and lower incomes can be reinstated later. But we have to get past the GOP's obstructionism!
 @ladylib1 That might be an option if they could make a tax cut retroactive to a prior year.  But seeing that the AMT lower threshold amounts took effect on January 1, 2012, the legislators wouldn't be able to change that for the middle class people who would be impacted by it.  And the tax rates for AMT are 26% and 28%.  In reviewing our tax client base, we estimate that over 50% of them would be impacted.  Not high income people, but single moms trying to take care of their families and retired people on Social Security.  And they'd have to start paying when returns are filed between January and April of next year. Â
 @ladylib1 You and the other liberals just don't get it.... raising taxes on the "2% of the wealthiest Americans" would generate a mere 68 billion dollars. A pittance in comparison to the annual deficits.
Â
The fact is, there are going to have to be some draconian cuts to our spending in order to bring the budget under control. That means a reduction in entitlements, a reduction in military spending and not giving other countries billions of dollars. They hate us and giving them truckloads of money isn't going to change their opinions of us.
Â
In summary - you're kidding yourself if you think we're going to get ourselves out of this huge hole without touching all the programs that liberals have championed for years.
hmmmmmâ¦â¦. All of the right wing wacko nut jobs are against it so maybe it is actually a pretty good plan after all.
 @flyskiwindsurf do you even have a job? And if you do does it pay more than minimum wage?
@Rick4001CS But thanks for asking and worrying about me. Would you like me to put in a recommendation for you somewhere? I can definitely think of a few areas where you would fit in just perfectly.
@Rick4001CS Yep. And yep. A LOT more. Do you? Does it?
Less government is the only answer. These bureaucrats are all a bunch of dopes!Â
Â
@javajoe Well this would definitely get you a lot less govt. And really fast.
Why these retards keep getting elected is beyond me.
OK/ we get your meaning. but you obviously do not have an intelletually disabled loved one. we do not care what side of the political isle you are on - the derogatory use of the word "retard" speaks volumes about you and your callus use of "free speech".
 @jennieb Retard is a term used to describe someone with a mental disability, so I think it is fitting for someone such as Patty. If you got my meaning why say anything?Â
 @jennieb I do hav an intellectually disabled loved one.  And I agree that this use of the word retard is offensive.
@TheBronze Ah yes. The tone deaf clueless guy posts even again.
@T2q Mom @jennieb I'm offended too, retards are smarter than these guys.
 sadly, point taken
 @T2q Mom  @jennieb the question is, do you think someone who makes his blog handle "kitty smasher" cares?