On Sunday’s This Week, ABC’s Christiane Amanpour repeatedly hit Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell with the White House’s plea for “revenue raising” measures, often the new euphemism for tax hikes, but when she talked to Democratic Congressman Jim Clyburn, the Assistant Minority Leader in the House, she failed to press him about agreeing to GOP spending cut proposals and instead only asked him about prospects for a deal.
Amanpour began with how reasonable President Obama and Democrats, who “need revenue,” are acting: “Democrats are saying they’re not putting, for the moment, tax hikes on the table, but they need revenue, they’re talking about closing loopholes, subsidies for wealthy corporations. Is that out of the question for you, or are you willing to entertain that?”
Are you willing, I mean this is a negotiation after all, to talk about any kind of revenue raising, for instance, ethanol subsidies, for instance, tax breaks for oil and gas corporations or corporate jets. Is there anywhere where revenue raising can happen without you saying it's a tax hike?
She wouldn’t let it go, despairing: “Are you now basically saying, all revenue increases off the table?”
After some questions on the implications of not raising the debt ceiling, Amanpour returned to taxes, I mean “revenue raising,” seeing “hope” some options can be found:
On this issue of raising revenue, you talked about not wanting any sort of tax hikes but you did agree to cut ethanol subsidies, the Senate did agree. Isn't that sort of -- doesn't that give some kind of hope that there is some sort of flexibility on this issue?
Instead, however, of showing some balance with Clyburn by pushing him on why he’s so insistent upon “raising revenue” or quizzing him about cutting spending a little more, Amanpour stuck to process questions:
> You just heard Senator McConnell talking about what is not on the table and what will not pass, as he says, any kind of revenue or tax hikes. So where is there room for any negotiation?
> Congressman Clyburn, you have seen, though, what you heard was Senator McConnell just been saying, and obviously they want to see more tax -- more rather spending cuts. So what do you think is going to be the result of the meetings between President Obama and the leadership when they start tomorrow?
> So what then gets one to a result because this has to come to some kind of a result?
Later, during the roundtable, Chrystia Freeland of Thomson Reuters touted Jon Huntsman as a “Republican version of Obama” – she meant it as a compliment -- and described Huntsman as the “darling” of the “media elite.” She opined:
Ananpour’s push-questions to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on the Sunday, June 26 This Week on ABC:
> Let me ask you this. It seems to have boiled down to a battle over taxes. Now the White House, the administration, the Democrats are saying they’re not putting, for the moment, tax hikes on the table, but they need revenue, they’re talking about closing loopholes, subsidies for wealthy corporations. Is that out of the question for you, or are you willing to entertain that?
> You’re saying there should be progress and everybody’s saying there has been fairly good progress in the talks that were led by Vice President Biden, that they were somewhere between $1.4 trillion to $2 trillion of cuts agreed to, but that the $4 trillion or so that’s required is not going to happen, say the administration, without some kind of revenue raising. So, putting aside the tax hikes, basic raw tax hikes, are you willing, I mean this is a negotiation after all, to talk about any kind of revenue raising, for instance, ethanol subsidies, for instance, tax breaks for oil and gas corporations or corporate jets. Is there anywhere where revenue raising can happen without you saying it's a tax hike?
> Are you now basically saying, all revenue increases off the table? Are you closing the door to closing any of these loopholes that we've been discussing?
....
> And one final question. On this issue of raising revenue, you talked about not wanting any sort of tax hikes but you did agree to cut ethanol subsidies, the Senate did agree. Isn't that sort of -- doesn't that give some kind of hope that there is some sort of flexibility on this issue?
