Cornilles: Washington DC needs results, not partisan bickering

Cornilles for Congress

BEAVERTON, OR — Today, Rob Cornilles released a statement on the failure of the Super Committee to reach an agreement on deficit reduction. Rob is running to fill the vacant seat in Oregon’s First Congressional District.

We hear a lot about cuts and we hear a lot about tax increases. One thing we don’t hear about is a Congress that knows how to get things done—like growing the economy and creating jobs.

It’s shameful that Congress is heading home for Thanksgiving without a deficit reduction plan. The failure of the so-called Super Committee to reach an agreement marks the third time in a year that partisanship has thrown up a roadblock to any meaningful progress on deficit reduction.

While nothing gets done in Washington, Oregonians struggle to find work and even put food on the table. I intend to go to Congress and change the culture by striving for solutions and delivering results instead of partisan bickering and inaction. Compromise in Washington, DC is doable. Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill worked together; Bill Clinton joined with a Republican Congress to pass a deficit reduction package that led to several years of strong economic growth and balanced budgets.

Washington, DC is failing because of a lack of political courage, not a lack of ideas. Voters in this special election in Oregon’s First Congressional District can send someone who has voted 98 percent of the time with her party, but isn’t that the problem in Washington today? Or, they can send a small business owner who knows how to work with a diverse group of people to solve problems and provide value.

It’s time Oregon sent a proven job creator to enact policies that will help Northwest Oregon.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 02:41 | Posted in Congressional Races, Federal Budget | 37 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • If “getting things done” means raising taxes, then I am glad they didn’t get it done.

  • MarkGrundig

    Turkeys are they all!!!

  • HBguy

    Mr. Cornilles is promising tax increases in many different ways here.
    When he says compromise is doable.When he praises the Clinton and Republican congress compromise for a debt reduction package which included tax increasesWhen he criticizes Sen. Bonimicci for voting with her party 98% of the time, indicating he will not support his party on everything.But while he is signaling to all the CD-1 independents and moderate Dem’s that he WILL vote to raise taxes and support a package if it “goes big”, whether he will or not, remains to be seen. 

  • valley person

    Congress has a deficit reduction plan. Its the one they already agreed to if the super committee failed. And when the Bush tax cuts expire next year, most of the deficit goes away along with it. So a do-nothing Congress is the best chance of success if you want the deficit reduced.

  • chana cox

    Valley person,

    The deficit will not go away merely because some taxes are raised on the wealthy.  The debt is too big for that now.  It will only go away if the economy grows as well.   

    In Oregon we voted in a tax the rich increase which makes us the state with the highest personal income tax for the wealthy in the nation.  We are higher than New York State.  Since the tax increase, total revenue has gone down for the state. 

    At this point, I don’t think anyone knows what will grow the economy although all kinds of people have theories about what will stunt the growth of the economy.

    • 3H

      People have theories about everything.   You’re implying cause and effect…  less tax revenues after the tax increase on wealthier individuals.   Do you have studies to back up that implication?   Can you show that increasing those taxes actually resulted in lower tax receipts?  

    • valley person

      Chana, the Bush tax cuts, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will cost over $5 trillion in lost revenues over the 10 years starting in 2013, when they are set to expire. Simply allowing them to expire would take care of most of the projected deficit.

      The last time we ran a balanced budget was after Clinton raised taxes.  Its basic math.

      On your last point, we totally agree. The drivers of future economic growth are not known, and can’t be known in advance because we don’t now who is going to invent what.   

  • Guest

    No, Rob, we do NOT need another Republican who is willing to work with the democrats.  We need more Republicans who are willing to say ENOUGH! and stand firm against increased taxation, increased spending, and increased regulation.  We need more Republicans who will draw a line in the sand and say “the system is broken and we need to REPLACE it, not work within it.” 

  • chana cox

    “Chana, the Bush tax cuts, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will cost over $5 trillion in lost revenues over the 10 years starting in 2013, when they are set to expire. Simply allowing them to expire would take care of most of the projected deficit.”

    Valley person, are you assuming all Bush tax cuts will expire or only the tax cuts on the wealthy?  Last I heard the current administration was not contemplating a “middle class” tax increase.  I may be wrong on that of course. 

    • valley person

      I’m saying that under current policy ALL the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire, and if Congress does nothing that is what will happen, and the budget deficit will get down to a quite manageable level. You are correct on Obama’s position. He advocates extending the tax cuts for incomes below $200K a year. I happen to disagree with him on this. 

    • Rupert in Springfield

      It really doesn’t matter one way or the other on taxes. We simply are not going to tax our way out of our current problems.

      Do revenues go down when you raise a tax? Sure, sometimes they do, but not always, sometimes revenues go up.

      Do revenues go down when you lower a tax? Nope, sometimes revenues go down, sometimes revenues go up.

      The important thing to remember here is there is no serious argument out there, either in this country or the world, that argues that raising taxes alone will solve our problems. Whether you go to Greece, Spain, Italy or Germany, no one is saying current services can be continued and all problems solved simply by raising taxes.

      There is only one person out there who is maintaining that not only can services be maintained, but expanded, simply by raising taxes. That man is Obama. And that is the reason why the Europeans largely told him to buzz off two years ago.

      If the Bush tax cuts expire, taxes on the lowest rate taxpayers increase dramatically – by 50%

      The rest experience more modest increases of around 10% but those in the lowest bracket get hammered.

      Obviously if the Bush tax cuts do expire in total the economy will take a very severe blow. It very likely may be one of those instances where taxes go up and revenues go down. Essentially it would be the Detroit experiment on a nationwide scale.

      • 3H

        “here is only one person out there who is maintaining that not only can services be maintained, but expanded, simply by raising taxes. That man is Obama.

        That is just completely wrong Rupert.  Obama has been willing to consider cuts to programs that provide services.  The Democrats are willing to consider budget cuts as long as there are tax hikes included.  There is actually only one group that is no longer willing to consider ANY tax increase: the Republicans.  

        (Obama’s plan)

        “The plan includes $580 billion in cuts to mandatory benefit programs, including $248 billion from Medicare and $72 billion from Medicaid and other health programs. Obama said it would also target farm subsidies. 
        It includes no changes in Social Security and no increase in the Medicare eligibility age, which the president had been willing to accept this summer. 
        Administration officials said 90 percent of the $248 billion in 10-year Medicare cuts would be squeezed from service providers. The plan does shift some additional costs to beneficiaries, but those changes would not start until 2017. 
        Read more: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/19/obama-to-present-balanced-plan-to-tackle-deficit/#ixzz1eSzQHDMm”

      • valley person

        If the Bush tax cuts expire, 50% of the projected deficit vanishes. And it isn’t a matter of “guessing.” The revenues have been modeled by the CBO, not just guessed at.

        Obama hasn’t said all services can be maintained. He put cuts on the table. He just said he would veto any effort to undo the future cuts already agreed to.

        Taxes on lower rate payers would go up by 50%? Let me see your math dude. Is 50% like instead of paying $1 they will pay $2?

        Yes, the economy will take a hit if we pay more in taxes. Just like it took that huge hit after Clinton raised taxes.

          

  • Fool

    Taxes are a necessary evil. However, we must have them to pay for people like me who simply choose not to work.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Actually if congress announced it was switching to bi-annual sessions, in effect getting nothing done every other year, you could probably double the economic growth rate overnight.

    Congress not doing anything is the most vastly underrated commodity our country has.

  • chana cox

    3H and Valley person,

    In the just failed negotiations of “the committee,” Republicans offered a great deal of tax increases by means of eliminating special interest loop holes.  Those were also documented by the CBO.  The democrats rejected those tax increases. 

    CBO calculations are done on the basis of a clear set of assumptions.  Eliminating the Bush tax cuts will cut the deficit — assuming all other things (including the economy) are equal.  The argument against eliminating the tax cuts is that it will hurt the economy and therefore may not even increase revenue.  Look at the tax policy of California and Oregon.  Compare it to the tax policy of states where jobs continue to be creating.

    The Clinton tax increases were part of packages that involved fundamental spending cuts.  They were also made in a relatively strong economic situation with its own, as yet, unburst .com bubble.  The situation now is very different.   

    • 3H

      Specifically which states do you have in mind?  And, you need to show that it’s the tax policies that is driving job creation, not simply a coincidence: logically speaking, correlation does not imply causation.  

    • HBguy

      Check out page 5
      https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/laus.pdfJob changes from October 2010 to October 2011. California and Oregon both have what the BLS calls significant changes. And they are to the positive. While most states are up, One, Georgia, is significantly down. Not sure why. But there are some news stories that GA is suffering because of the out migration of Hispanic families who are either here illegally, or have relatives who are here illegally, or who just don’t want to stay in GA anymore.

      So, I guess I don’t understand what you mean by “look at the tax policies of states where jobs continue to be created” Do you mean that what Oregon and California are doing are good? Or do you not trust the BLS? Or is this 12 month net gain about to reverse?

      • HBguy

        Not sure why that link didn’t work. Try again. If this doesn’t work either, go to prior post, and when it says not available, you need to go to address and delete all extra characters after pdf
        https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/laus.pdf

    • valley person

      They offered to cut $250B in unspecified tax breaks in exchange for  lowered top marginal rates AND permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts. Its like trying to fill a crater with a spoonful of dirt while you have a backhoe digging the crater deeper.

      The CBO factors in the temporary negative effect a tax raise will have on GDP when it makes its projections. Even with that, allowing the tax cuts to expire on schedule raises over 50% of the amount of the projected deficit. That is not chump change.

      The same argument  that raising taxes will harm the economy is true for cutting government spending. Either action lowers aggregate demand and lowers GDP at least for a while. The point of closing the deficit is the long term beneficial impact.

      Lower taxes at the state level do not translate into more jobs. if they did, the South would be doing great. It isn’t. Unemployment rates there are as high or higher than in blue states with higher taxes.

      Yes, the Clinton tax raise was paired with long term spending restraint (not cuts). The two worked in tandem, along with very good sustained growth, to result in a surplus 4 years after taxes were raised. What this demonstrates is that raising taxes does not depress growth for very long.

      Obama and the democrats have said they would agree to spending restraints on every government program in return for a  modest tax raise on upper income Americans.  Its basically what Clinton did.

  • Pingback: Blue Coaster33()

  • Pingback: free movie downloads()

  • Pingback: lan penge()

  • Pingback: Instagram likes kopen()

  • Pingback: car parking()

  • Pingback: water ionizer plans()

  • Pingback: p wilkes electrician()

  • Pingback: parking()

  • Pingback: plumbing supply stores in brooklyn()

  • Pingback: house blue()

  • Pingback: electricians quotes()

  • Pingback: pay per day loans plan()

  • Pingback: pay day loans()

  • Pingback: alkaline water brands()

  • Pingback: water ionizer payment plan()

  • Pingback: alkaline water()

  • Pingback: weblink()

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)