Originally Posted by BKsBimmer
Yes, you nailed it. It's a pretty simple concept, really and both sides agree that solving the debt crises and balancing the budget will require BOTH spending cuts and increasing revenue. This was the recommendation of the much heralded Simpson Bowles commission plan.
Pretty straight forward. Not sure what all the fuss is about.
What is one of the primary principles of his plan for the "increasing revenue" half of his balanced approach ?
It's no secret he's keen to increase personal tax rates at the top end, as he's been very explicit about that many, many times, both before and after his re-election. So, it stands to reason that he would want any changes that are enacted to avoid the fiscal cliff to contain some component of increasing their taxes.
I'd bet he would like to bundle those increases with some spending cuts to make it easier to spin the final result as balanced, (ie: rather than make the top 20% handle a LOT more, I'll make them handle a LITTLE more, and cover the rest of the gap with spending cuts).
That plan would depend on the premise that most folks dont examine the amount of "rowing" that is being distributed across the board already. Probably a pretty safe bet, considering how far they were able to leverage the general publics ignorance of corporate bankruptcy proceedings when distorting Romney's comments on GM bailouts.
I would argue that even in half of the gap is covered by revenue increase, and half by spending cuts, that is still not balanced if the hard numbers behind the revenue increase are still in the same ballpark as the CBO figures.