Showing posts with label compromise. Show all posts
Showing posts with label compromise. Show all posts

Thursday, November 11, 2010

White House Denies Folding on Bush Tax Cuts, but Still ‘Open to Compromise’

From WashingtonIndependent.com:

A lot of hubbub this morning surrounding a Huffington Post article that suggested the White House was willing to cave on its position of permanently extending tax cuts for most Americans while only temporarily extending those for the upper two percent and instead accept the idea of a temporary extension of all the tax cuts. Following the story’s publication, White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer emailed Greg Sargent to set the record straight:

The story is overwritten. Nothing has changed from what the President said last week. We believe we need to extend the middle class tax cuts, we cannot afford to borrow 700 billion to pay for extending the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and we are open to compromise and are looking forward to talking to the Congressional leadership next week to discuss how to move forward. Full Stop, period, end of sentence.

That still leaves unclear, however, whether the White House will keep demanding that the majority of the tax cuts be permanent while the ones for individuals making more than $200,000 be temporary. Republicans are pretty much categorically opposed to “decoupling” the time frames of tax cuts for these two groups, because then they’d be forced to advocate for an extension of tax cuts just for the rich at some point down the line.

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Senators Near Bipartisan Health Deal

Earlier today, I came across a new entry on the Huffington Post asserting that a bipartisan group of Senators are nearing a compromise on health care reform. The compromise is said to exclude several key democratic priorities, but is low on costs, which they are hoping will generate support for the bill. But with a month long recess only a few days away, will these last minute negotiations be successful?

The fiscally conservative Blue Dogs were at odds with the leadership over how to pay providers in a government-run health plan that would compete with private insurance. The House bill models the payments based on Medicare, but the so-called Blue Dogs want a negotiated rate similar to private insurance. Other issues remain sticking points for the Democrats.

"We're not ready to support a bill yet," said Rep. Baron Hill, D-Ind., a member of the Blue Dog group, who added: "We'll get there. We are going to pass a health care bill, whether it's now or in the fall remains to be seen."

Without the backing of the 52-member Blue Dogs, it would be difficult for Democratic leaders to pass a bill, especially since no Republican supports the legislation.

"I think there's still a bit of daylight between the positions," said Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D. "I think the bottom line of Blue Dogs has not been met as of this time."

Continue reading here…

Blog Archive