Tea Party Congressman Asks Cokie Roberts: Why Does Compromise Always Mean Raising Taxes Now and Cutting Spending Later?
Cokie Roberts got quite a lesson Sunday on why compromise can be a dirty word in politics.
When she asked Congressman Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) why compromise isn't a "message that you hear," the Tea Partier responded, "Why is it that compromise always means increasing taxes today and doing cuts in ten years from now?" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
COKIE ROBERTS: Congressman, I'm curious though: how does it work politically to say that we won't raise taxes on billionaires, as the president keeps saying?
CONGRESSMAN RAUL LABRADOR (R-IDAHO): Let's talk about this. The House majority, the House Republicans passed a budget that actually talked about reforming the tax system. We already agreed to that. We said that we want to make sure that we broaden the base which means getting rid of those loopholes and we want to lower the rates. The difference between the Republicans and Democrats is that the president wants to get rid of these loopholes just to increase spending. That's all he’s wanted to do. Everybody gives him credit right now for being the adult at the table. This is the man who came to congress and asked us to raise the debt ceiling without any spending cuts. This is the man who gave us a budget that didn't even get a single vote in the Senate, and now she's saying that he's “serious,” a serious deficit hawk. I think that's a joke. He has never been a deficit hawk.
Moments later, Roberts pressed the issue:
ROBERTS: When Congressman Labrador says, “We were elected to do something,” what I think the American people keep saying is, “You were elected to do something: to come together, to make compromises and make government work. And why isn't that a message that you hear?
LABRADOR: Why is it that compromise always means increasing taxes today and doing cuts in ten years from now? I think that’s the problem the problem with the American people. The American people will not stand for that. I think we can do something, we can come to the table and actually work together. But it is pretty clear that the president is unwilling to, to not increase taxes. He's unwilling to do something serious. I want to know what his plan is. So far, we have no idea what his plan is. He has not put anything on the table. All he talks is, they have all used the same phrase: “grand compromise.” Because that's poll tested. Apparently the polls, people like that. But it doesn't mean anything.
In response, Roberts perfectly illustrated Charles Krauthammer's point about how we now have a "completely compliant, pliant, supine press accepting every leak out of the White House":
ROBERTS: But in the meetings with Vice President Biden, lots of specifics were talked about. They have, they have, what is the number, Jon, $1.4 trillion in...
Interesting. "Lots of specifics were talked about" - but she can't name any.
Even more delicious, the ally whose assistance she sought helped make the Congressman's point:
JONATHAN KARL, ABC NEWS: But as George points out, it’s only $2 billion in cuts until 2012…
LABRADOR: Yes
KARL: …which will never fly with these guys.
$2 billion in cuts, but Roberts thinks it's $1.4 trillion.
Maybe I should cut her some slack. She was only off by about 70,000 percent!
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
He's
Submitted by killa37 on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 2:05pm.
He's right....................'compromise' is also called 'bend over' to the Dems.
BOHICA, Killa.
Submitted by UpNorth on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 2:10pm.
That's what compromise is to the dems. You know, "reach across the aisle", and other McCainisms.
In another context, it's pass what we want now, we'll think about it sometime in the future, like the Congressman said.
I think what you have hear
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 2:33pm.
is the Ultimate Affirmative Action President, who probably aced his math SAT with a 400 or better. Recall his academic records are locked.
I can do a pretty good McCain
Submitted by killa37 on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 2:38pm.
I can do a pretty good McCain Mutiny inpersonation.........complete with the slobbery 's's and the agitated voice (disguised to sound 'calm' - for 'my friendshss').............I would crack up some of my conservative friends during the election, knowing that we HAD to vote for this phony-assed 'maverick'.....
I can't come close to mimicing Boy Blunder, however........he's definitly got an affected way of speaking - and I can't stand listening to him!!!!
We can have a debate, Killa.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 3:37pm.
I'm getting, ahh, uhh, ahh, ya'know, ahhhhh............ BAMBI down PRETTY GOOD!
And I just get better with more to drink.
How bout dat first half, yo?
Lemmmeee sssshhhay
Submitted by killa37 on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 6:03pm.
Lemmmeee sssshhhay sshomething to you, Newsshh Bubba!!! Do you know who I am??? I'm Jshon the McCain Mutiny!!! I'm a friggin' maverick!!! The presshs are my friendsshs!!! And I will crosshs the aisle and work with my friendsshs from the other sshide!!! So sshscrew you!!!
I can do the ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhs and uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhs and mmmmmmmmmmmmmms and stuttering that Boy Blah-Blah is known for, and I can even say 'now, let me be clear' pretty well...........but the guys whole speech pattern is just so affected and disingenuous.........and he changes it around a lot. It's a reflection of who he is - which is a falsehood, a LIE, and a total fabrication...........and somehow this guy is our PRESIDENT????
That does it...........I'm taking a swim and then buying some beer!!!
LOL!
Submitted by Rukus on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 7:12pm.
Hic!
I'm back from my swim and
Submitted by killa37 on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 9:19pm.
I'm back from my swim and going to the store.........I've put a couple beers in the freezer so that they almost cystalize, and then.........POP, SLURP SLURP SLURP!!!!
I'm still upset about the game............
Boy, did he nail it!
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 2:14pm.
Just like "bi-partisanship means Republicans go along with what Democrats want.
I watched that segment, and Congressman Raul Labrador was
Submitted by Rush Fan on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 2:22pm.
very impressive. He was articulate and straightforward in expressing the differences between what Republicans want (less spending, less taxes) and what Democrats want ( more spending, more taxes). This is not only the type of Republican we need in Congress, but on network talk shows representing the Republican Party. I'm tired of the liberal media using RINOs like Lindsey Gramnesty or John (can't we all get along and compromise) McCain as Republican spokespersons. Unfortunately, Congressman Raul Labrador is too articulate and blunt-spoken to be invited often on the liberal media.
When Congressman Labrador discussed how liberals define compromise, I swear I thought I was listening to Rush Limbaugh. Something tells me that Raul Labrador listens to Rush Limbaugh.
Kudos to whoever selected the guests this week, with the exception of Roberts.
Cokie Roberts
Submitted by ferv888 on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 2:20pm.
Hey Cokie, did you and Steve use the long form this year to figure your taxes for 2010, and took all your legal deductions, oh you did? Then shut the hell up about mine. You guys could have writen a bigger check than what you owed, no, shut the hell up about mine.
These idiots only have to look back at GHWB for the 3/1 spending cuts vs. taxes that we all have paid for. over 20 times has the debt celing been raised since that deal.
Zero told McCain that elections have consequences, well, Zero, 2010 happend and we won, get over it, and cut the spending!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FERV888
They Need Too
Submitted by bmac32 on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 2:22pm.
Democrats had two long years to get a budget passed but instead they kicked the can down the road all the while spend, spend, spend. Well they came to the fork in the road while running out of money so now because of the Democrats they have a huge problem. Obama is full steam ahead with spending NOW and cuts down the road. That won't solve a thing and the blame falls squarely on the Democrats.
minor correction
Submitted by jon_torlin on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 2:34pm.
Let me correct one sentence: Obama is full steam ahead with spending NOW and NO cuts down the road.
Anytime a dem wants a cut in spending is something so vastly insignificant.....no wait, I can't think of a dem spending cut.
And I'm not talking about their desire to cut military spending either, they've been wanting to make us defenseless for years.
-Jon
Oh, please.
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 2:33pm.
You were elected to do something: to come together, to make compromises and make government work.
What B as in B, S as in S!!
This is the same tired horse that they drag out every time they can't get what they want.
And at the same time we have the president saying (paraphrasing) This may bring down my presidency but I'm not giving in on this
And this from the president who said he was the one who was going to change how Washington works.
Where's Cokie's distress over that?
Cokie will probably retire, too
Submitted by ChrisNH on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 2:59pm.
Leftist media hacks like Cokie know that the sand is running low in their hourglass of Liberalism. Their arguments are weak and are easily swatted away. Indeed, one might ask Cokie about GE making tens of billions in profit with NO taxes paid. And ever more violently hypocritical is that GE has actually SHED jobs over the past few years. GE and Immelt: The biggest Obama breast-feeders around not connected to the 'media.' They are 'billionaires' at GE; they pay ZERO taxes; and they FIRE people...in other words, sitting on the sidelines hoarding cash.
Not even a question about GE from these leftist media hacks.
Congressman Labrador is no one's lap dog unlike some
Submitted by gmaniac1 on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 3:01pm.
"get along" conservatives types. I like how he challenged Cookie Roberts on her snooty attempt to discredit what the republicans are actually trying to do. He even made it a point to go beyond her lame questioning and criticize Obama as being the "adult," which is laughable at best, while still staying on point.
This is why liberals can never win the war on ideas with conservatives because their world view is so unreal. They want all these goodies for their uneducated minions but vilify the people that would pay for them. Let's keep in mind if said people as a whole could afford their childish and crazy spending habits. It's almost like you have to talk to the liberals like you would you child before going shopping by saying "now we're hear to pick up specifics items so no toys or candy." I mean seriously do the Democrats realize that they're not kids in a candy shop when it comes to spending?
Socialists define compromise
Submitted by Rusty Shackleford on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 3:33pm.
Socialists define compromise the same way they define tolerance: i.e. you will be assimilated, resistance is futile.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Matthews: The Joy Behar of MSNBC.
Bill Maher: The Joy Behar of HBO.
Paul Krugman: The Joy Behar of The New York Times.
Socialists define compromise as ...
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 3:39pm.
They get half of what they want and you get half of what they want.
Right, Kookie. Let's just keep doing the same thing we have been
Submitted by Dave. on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 3:36pm.
...doing repeatedly for the last seven or eight decades. Yeah, maybe we will actually get a different result this time around.
You do know what the definition of insanity is, don't you?
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Cokie must be really hungry now. . .
Submitted by rickbren on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 3:53pm.
Rep. Labrador ATE HER LUNCH!!!
Generations?
Submitted by okiehawk44 on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 6:10pm.
I've been pleasantly surprised lately to see more and more 30 & 40 yr olds speaking out on the Republican side of these issues and the same old tired 60 & 70 yr olds doing the same thing they have for years on the Democrat side -- Cokie, Bob Schieffer, Eleanor Cliff etc. The baton has at long last been passed it seems -- thank God -- my generation really did a terrible job.
generations....
Submitted by jon_torlin on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 6:29pm.
Speaking as someone in the 40s, I grew up during the Reagan years which was during my time in high school, so I'm quite familiar with him.
The thing is, even with that, there are plenty people in my age group that were just smitten by DatWon as there are who believe in conservative principles.
I don't know, it's hard to say which group won out sometimes.
It's practically a war.
-Jon
I'm quite disappointed with
Submitted by poseA on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 7:47pm.
I'm quite disappointed with many seniors. Most of the many people over 60 years old that I know think more spending will mean more money for the middle class and a better economy. They apparently want a dictatorship built on the fealty of the masses.
Agreed
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 8:05am.
I think these folks spent their adult lives trusting the Federal government and believing that programs like Social Security and Medicare would always be there for them and their posterity. They can't come to grips with the idea that that trust has been betrayed. Even more disturbing to them are the charges by conservatives that the very social safety net programs that these people are benefiting from today will not be around for their grandchildren. So, rather than accepting that and trying to fix it, they are in denial, because to accept the facts would be to acknowledge that their lifelong trust in government was misplaced. And when you're old, you resist change.
The Democrats are playing on this, and turning their angst into fear. They know that the elderly vote in large numbers, so they are scaring them into believing that the evil Republicans are trying to break a viable system. And if my 87 year-old father-in-law is any example, it's working.
No I didn't!
Submitted by almostacowboy on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 11:45am.
And, No I'm not! Sorry about YOUR family. It's the kids (35 and under) who are expecting a free ride in my family.
From my vantage point - not too surprising
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 9:51pm.
Don't be too surprised - I can't think of anyone over 40 who thinks Social Security will be here for them. For that matter, I can think of quite a few people I know in their 40s who have zero faith in Social Security or other government babying programs.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Roberts is irrelevent
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 8:02pm.
She grew up in Washington as the daughter of Democratic Senators. She's out of touch.
Heh.
Submitted by amyshulk on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 8:50pm.
Heh.
Ronald Reagan
Idaho folks
Submitted by owlpellets on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 10:22pm.
Mr Labrador,
I am from East Idaho (Trout Central) and am not in your district. I have never been more proud to be from Idaho.
A day to look forward to
Submitted by NotFondOfLibs on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 1:22am.
There will come a day when a Republican appears on these Sunday morning shows and not have to take questions from cretins like Cokie Roberts, Bob Schieffert, Christiana Amanpour, David Gregory, etc. Then, again, they will probably be replaced by other liberal hacks who have no journalistic credibility and integrity and would rather carry water for the democrat office holder or candidate. Cokie Roberts obviously thinks that it is the Republicans who should always compromise so that Obama or the democrats get their way. Sorry, Cokie, it's not going to be that way.
Based on the very last sentence from the above...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 3:16am.
story, Cokie Roberts is "off" alright!
"$2 billion in cuts, but
Submitted by amyshulk on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 1:27pm.
"$2 billion in cuts, but Roberts thinks it's $1.4 trillion" The bemused look on her face was hilarious, but rather than being chagrined that she was so very wrong, she knew she'd get a pass. I wonder if she knows she got that pass because they felt sorry for her?
Ronald Reagan
Says who?
Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 2:11pm.
"You were elected to do something: to come together, to make compromises and make government work."
No, Cookie, that's NOT why they were elected. They were elected to fight against the tax and spend Democrats, to stand up to the "status quo," to FIX the problems, like ever increasing national debt and out of control spending, that government has created for each and every one of us. If the constitutes wanted to elect a bunch of "yes men," they would have reelected their existing Representatives and Senators, correct? But that's not what happened, was it? No, of course not. So, please, afford to us all at least a modicum of intelligence and stop trying to claim that these people were elected to "compromise" with the people who created this mess when, in fact, they were elected to LEAD us out of fiscal Armageddon.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Again, raising the debt limit
Submitted by deerjerkydave on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 6:21pm.
Again, raising the debt limit by over two trillion dollars is the compromise. Republicans play their cards way too fast. From the start they should have said there will be no debt limit increase. Since they already gave that away the liberals in congress and in the media are begging for more concessions.
------------------------
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. -James MadisonYep, but...
Submitted by amyshulk on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 7:56pm.
With months of chicken little squawking, like: "the sky will fall if they don't raise the debt ceiling" the D's/msm were successful in framing the narrative. '96 is still fresh in some minds, and they *know* they'd of been pilloried if they started at NO raise.
Too bad - then they could have negotiated from a position of strength, and "outed" the truth!
This "We'll only raise by what we cut" is inane - the R's need to change the narrative, which is the purpose of:
http://www.cutcapandbalanceact.com/
I pledge to urge my Senators and Member of the House of Representatives to oppose any debt limit increase unless all three of the following conditions have been met:
1. Cut - Substantial cuts in spending that will reduce the deficit next year and thereafter.
2. Cap - Enforceable spending caps that will put federal spending on a path to a balanced budget.
3. Balance - Congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- but only if it includes both a spending limitation and a super-majority for raising taxes, in addition to balancing revenues and expenses.
I just saw on Special Report that Moody's is suggesting removing the debt ceiling altogether to get rid of "uncertainty" and these people get paid big $$$ for this analysis???
We are in a war of ideas, and instead of honesty, we get magical thinking.
Ronald Reagan