Revenue neutral
by digby
Can someone explain to me how in the hell anyone can saythis helps close the deficit? And since it doesn't, why in the hell should it be part of these stupid negotiations everyone insists we must have because "we can't kick the can down the road" for even one more minute?
“If the president wants to talk loopholes, we’ll be glad to talk loopholes,” Cantor said at his weekly roundtable with reporters. “We’ve said all along that preferences in the code aren’t something that helps economic growth overall. But listen, we’re not for any proposal that increases taxes, and any type of discussion should be coupled with offsetting tax cuts somewhere else.”
We are really down the rabbit hole now folks. Apparently the face saving "grown-up" compromise for the Big Deficit Reduction now on the table is to agree to close some loopholes in the tax code as long as it is revenue neutral. I guess they're just doing it for fun.
So far, the Senate isn't budging, since they're chomping at the bit to do "tax reform" (which means effective tax cuts for all the people who count.) So who knows where this will go? But it's indicative of just how ridiculous these negotiations have become. In a sane world, once one of the parties starts proposing to cut the deficit with revenue neutral policies, it's time to put us out of our misery and end this thing.
.