Larson Says Congress Needs to \”Push Partisanship Aside\” and Get to Work

by Categorized: John Larson, D Date:

U.S. Rep. John Larson, a Democrat from Connecticut\’s 1st District, invokes the school massacre in Sandy Hook and the devastation of Storm Sandy in his statement asking House Republicans to get back to work.

\”The fast approaching fiscal cliff, now only five days away, has already created uncertainty for many and threatens to raise taxes and cut services for millions.

 “In Connecticut, New York and New Jersey Americans and their families wait for the relief aide that will help them rebuild following the devastation of Hurricane Sandy.

 “And after an unprecedented tragedy in Connecticut that shook the nation to its core and one of the worst acts of violence in our nation, Congress has a responsibility to act on legislation ready to help prevent future violence.

 “I am prepared to do the job I was sent to Washington to do. It\’s my hope that House Republicans will answer the call of millions of Americans who more than ever need Congress to put partisanship aside, and get back to work.”

The Courant is using Facebook comments on stories. To comment on courant.com articles, sign into Facebook and enter your comment in the field below. Comments will appear in your Facebook News Feed unless you choose otherwise. To report spam or abuse, click the X next to the comment. For guidelines on commenting, click here.

34 thoughts on “Larson Says Congress Needs to \”Push Partisanship Aside\” and Get to Work

  1. johngaltwhereru

    I am confused.

    The Republican controlled House has already passed legislation preventing both the spending cuts and tax increases which are coming next week. They have also passed a budget every year they have been in control.

    The Democrat Senate has failed to pass anything in regards to the fiscal cliff, or a budget in recent years.

    The Democrat President’s budget proposals have failed to garner a single vote; even from Democrats.

    If Larson really needs to lecture someone, shouldn’t it be the 2/3′s of the government that has failed offer any solution, instead of the 1/3 of government that has done their job?

    1. Jimmy Boggs

      Righto. It is all political posturing at this point. Since the Republicans get to look the worst if a compromise isn’t made quickly, then stall they will. And the Democrats (as well as myself) would like to clean out the remainder Tea Party no dealers next elections.

      Goodby by Tea.

      I suppose as a Libertarian, you are in favor of any kind of gun ownership. But as a doctor, you should be in favor or repeal of the2nd amendment. My opinion.

      1. johngaltwhereru

        You are half correct.

        Unless the proper methods (2/3 of the House and Senate voting for repeal, followed by 3/4 of the States ratifying) the 2nd Amendment should be preserved.

        I understand Liberal disdain for the Constitution and its’ proper amendment process, but that disdain is remarkably short-sighted. I am confident that folks like yourself would not like it if social and fiscal Conservatives had a small majority in Government, then disregarded the Constitution and set policy as they see fit. Roe v Wade, gone. Progressive taxation, gone. EPA, gone. Liberal control over the educational system, gone. The Bible having much more influence in public policy, hello.

        That wouldn’t be much fun for you at all, would it?

        As for my personal opinion on guns, I’d like some new regulations and very harsh penalties. For example, if you are in possesion of a gun while commiting a crime: Life in prison without possibility of parole. Convicted felon: Life in prison if you are ever found in possession of a gun. Been treated by a Psychiatrist, or with psychotropic medications: No guns for you.

        And plenty of doctors are pro-2nd Amendment. I’d be interested to find out if Dr. William Petit thinks he should have been allowed to have a gun.

        1. Mike Robinson

          As far as I know, Dr. Petit could have legally obtained a gun. Nancy Lanza was killed with her own self-defense gun. Both were tragic. Both happen too often. But in both cases the common thread is guns. Guns in the hands of maniacs, and legal self-defense guns that kill their owners (and family) by crime, accident, or suicide. Or legal guns stolen and used to kill others.

          What about the old, the infirm, children, those who cannot own or operate a gun? What is the answer for them? Doesn’t our legal gun ownership create a more hazardous world for them by increasing the pool of illegal guns?

          At some point in the future, decades from now, we will say goodbye to guns. Most of the civilized world is already there.

          1. Johngaltwhereru

            I disagree that legal gun ownership increases the pool of illegal guns. Making guns illegal makes the entire pool of guns illegal.

            Just like drugs, prostitutes, and anything else people want, no law is going to stop people from acquiring guns.

            But that was not my point. My point is that if it is so one-sidedly obvious and clear that the 2nd Amendment should be repealed, it should be no problem to garner the required votes. It is hard to amend The Constitution for a reason.

          2. Mike Robinson

            Johngaltwhereru, just like drugs, prostitutes, guns, and anything else people want, no law is going to stop people from getting abortions if they want them.

            Agreed, the Constitution is hard to amend.

          3. Johngaltwhereru

            Mike,
            I find abortion to be the most repulsive, selfish act of violence and convenience any human can commit.

            I also think abortion should remain legal.

            I am able to think for myself, and feel no need to toe any parties line.

  2. Kim

    Larson might remind his Democratic cronies that they agreed to certain things in order to get their last tax increase – I believe it was called ‘sequestration’. Now that the time has come to honor that agreement, all they want to do is point fingers and renege on the deal.

    And the gullible public can’t seem to recall anything beyond this morning.

    1. Kim

      What are the chances that Larson will remind taxpayers that on Aug. 1, 2012, the House of Representatives passed an extension of the Bush tax cuts, sent it to the Senate, and Harry Reid wouldn’t even bring it up for a vote?

      Or that Democrats have twice promised to cut spending if Republicans caved in and passed a spending increase, then failed to cut spending either time? Why should anyone believe them now?

  3. John R. McCommas

    John Larson would do well to take his own advice and put HIS partisanship aside too. Why didn’t he vote for Plan B? That was a compromise.

    Larson never was so shrill until he went to DC. That’s pretty low to exploit Hurricane Sandy and the school shooting as an excuse to not do budget cuts.

    Back in the State Senate I always thought Larson was pretty reasonable for a Democrat. Where did that guy go?

    I for one think that if there isn’t meaningful budget cuts, I say go for sequestration. We got to cut the spending one way or another. We just keep borrowing forever. Our dollar will collapse.

    1. Kim

      agreed. Let’s do the right thing and cut some spending. Enough is enough with making bargains that aren’t honored by the Democrats. Let’s look long-term. Let the people feel the effects of the results of Democratic failure to create budgets and cut spending – then maybe the taxpayers will wake up

  4. CTtax

    Let’s face it. Larson only cares about his career. He is always standing on Pelosi’s right. Always invokes Obama’s name. He is looking for more power in Washington. How much legislation has he introduced in his 14 years in congress? In that time, he’s collected over 2 million in salary. What other benefits and side deals has he taken? How often does he meet with his republican constituents? He is a complete fraud.

  5. Numbers

    Wait, get back to work? Really, John? As if you’ve been sitting around looking to compromise and having no one to compromise with?

    Democrats are always bragging about how great the tax rates were under Clinton, and why we should go back. They’re about to get their wish. Of course, this will result in a tax increase on millions of Americans, but who cares? Besides, do any of them *EVER* give credit to George Bush for cutting tax rates on the middle class? Of course not.

    1. Mike Robinson

      I’m a Democrat and I have always given George Bush credit for his tax cut. No problem there.

      Will you give President Obama credit for the 2% reduction in Social Security tax for all of 2011 and 2012?

      Either one of these cuts could be continued going forward.

      I make a middleclass wage and in my case the Obama tax cut was a bit more than the Bush tax cut. So I prefer the Obama tax cut.

      1. DaTroof

        Mike, I thought the 2% social security tax cut was a temporary stimulative measure. The social security fund is in deficit and the “fund” itself is simply a pile of Government IOUs (e.g. bonds). The Treasury has been raiding the fund for years to pay the bills. Recall the Gore-Bush “lock box” debate? Continuing that tax cut just puts that program further in the hole.

        Given Obama’s appetite for spending, we can’t afford all the Bush tax cuts. That said, eliminating the Bush tax for those earning $250K/year just raises $80B/year. Where will the other $1.1T come from to balance the Federal budget? That’s the part of the story the Democrats or the media won’t tell anyone about.

        I would welcome an honest discussion of our mammoth fiscal problems. Given the current characters in the White House and in the Congress/Senate, it seems unlikely to happen.

        1. Mike Robinson

          DaTroof, the Bush tax cut is also temporary. Both put real dollars in your pocket from the federal bucket. Is the Bush cut any more valid when Bush had to borrow every dollar in the cut? Why is a 2 year tax cut not a tax cut? Come on, you can say it without turning to stone: Obama reduced my taxes. Maybe that is too much to ask. You can just say Obama is not the devil incarnate if you prefer.

          We do not need to cut $1.1 trillion and go to zero. A deficit that is some percent of GDP is acceptable.

          I have not heard any good proposals from either side that really go after the spending problem in a big way. Everyone is vague because cuts are so politically dangerous.

          1. CTtax

            Why does everyone seem to be ok with the fact that the gov’t counts the money you earn as theirs and that they allow you to have some. Mike your quote of the “federal bucket” proves my point. This is our money. The feds, state or locals do not go out and work for it. Why should they claim it’s theirs? The initial Bush tax rates were based off of a surplus (more of our money in the gov’t hands). The fact is both parties are living large off of we the people!!!

          2. Mike Robinson

            CTtax, The Constitution says:

            “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises..”

            The government also has the power to kill you.

            Do you favor the death penalty?

          3. Johngaltwhereru

            Mike,

            Your link does nothing but list 1 year of tax rates.

            I will go with the tax tables from IRS.gov. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf and http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040tt–2000.pdf

            Please note that, contrary to the math you performed based on your arbitrary website, the IRS thinks differently.

            As you can see, in 2000, the IRS wanted $13395 of your $60K of taxable income. This is $2264 more dollars than the $11131 the IRS wanted of your $60K taxable income in 2011.

            Unless you can provide an example of someone who has successfully used the “elegant pie” link you provided to successfully appeal a lower tax than the IRS demanded, this argument is over.

            There is no possible way the temporary and now over Obama tax cut saved you more than the Bush tax cuts.

      2. Johngaltwhereru

        Mike,

        I find it mathematically impossible that your 2% drop in Social Security Taxes trumped the sum total of all the Bush tax cuts.

        If you are married, have children, have investments, or make just about any amount of money, the Bush Tax cuts benefited you more.

        The one exception would be if you were making substantially less money in 2000, and you are comparing a much higher current salary dollar for dollar. I know that as a liberal, you would never be so dishonest as to make such a wildly fallacious argument.

        1. Mike Robinson

          I’m single, no children, no investments, and assume I made about 80K in wages. I have investments in tax-deferred IRA and 401K that are not included in my current taxes.

          Virtually no deductions allowed on SS wages except 401K and HSA contributions. Obama 2.0% cut applied to this number.

          Bush cut is applied after all deductions for 401K and HSA, property tax, mortgage interest, state tax, personal exemption. Bush cut is 5.0 percent below $8,700. Bush cut is zero from $8,700 to $35,000. Bush cut is 3.0% above $35,000.

          1. Johngaltwhereru

            So, let’s say you invest 10%, and your total deductions take your MAGI down to $60K.

            Taking the 2% off of 72K, which would be the absolute high end of the Obama temporary Social Security tax cut would total $1440.

            Using the $60K MAGI the Bush Tax Cuts lowered your taxes by $2368.

            Dropping your MAGI to $50K, which would mean your mortgage and car value are well beyond your means, or you invest at a superhero’s rate, The Bush Tax Cut lower your taxes by $2058.

            In order for your Obama $1440 take cut to trump the Bush Tax Cut, your MAGI would have to be lowered to less than $30,000.

            If you can reduce your taxable income to 37.5% or less of your gross income with the deductions you listed, I would really like the contact info for your accountant.

          2. Kim

            as always, nicely done johngalt and datroof. I too automatically distrust any statement by ANYONE who starts from the position that the government owns my income and anything they decide not to keep is a gift to me (see: “Both put real dollars in your pocket from the federal bucket” by Mike Robinson.

            I also want to point out Mike’s continuing hangup with insisting that Obama’s reducing SS deductions from our paychecks is a ‘tax cut’. It may return a small portion of our earnings back into our pockets on a weekly or bi-weekly basis, but we lose all that and then some on the back end when we start collecting some of the money we’ve paid into SS for so long. It’s sleight of hand, nothing more.

  6. Johngaltwhereru

    Mike,

    Sorry, posted in the wrong spot. Your link does nothing but list 1 year of tax rates.

    I will go with the tax tables from IRS.gov. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf and http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040tt–2000.pdf

    Please note that, contrary to the math you performed based on your arbitrary website, the IRS thinks differently.

    As you can see, in 2000, the IRS wanted $13395 of your $60K of taxable income. This is $2264 more dollars than the $11131 the IRS wanted of your $60K taxable income in 2011.

    Unless you can provide an example of someone who has successfully used the “elegant pie” link you provided to successfully appeal a lower tax than the IRS demanded, this argument is over.

    There is no possible way the temporary and now over Obama tax cut saved you more than the Bush tax cuts.

    1. Mike Robinson

      For tax year 2011 your first link shows $11,131 and I show $11,125. No significant difference.

      For tax year 2000 your second link gives incorrect results for current year 2011 because the brackets have moved over the last 11 years due to inflation adjustment. The percentages remain the same for each bracket. This is sometimes called “bracket creep.”

      Your second link year 2000, last page says:

      $3,937.50 plus 28% of the amount over 26,250

      Your first link year 2011, last page says:

      $4,750 plus plus 25% of amount over 34,500

      See? The bracket line moved from 26,250 to 34,500 So the higher 25% is charged for 8,250 more income back in 2000.

      These are the equations used to generate the tables. Same calculation as my link for 2011.

      The link I provided was not meant to be deceptive. It was cut from a valid IRS Publication 17 that can be used to defend an IRS court action. I was very careful to provide specific identification of the source in my link. I thought I was being helpful by cut and paste rather than have you search through a 70 page document. My link is identical to the last page of your first link. I’m fine with using a table or the equation since they are the same. Since you question my link, my numbers in this comment are from your links, not mine.

      To do a calculation of the pre-Bush cut you need to use current 2011 brackets, but replace the percentages for each bracket. This is what I did.

      1. johngaltwhereru

        Mike,

        I have taken the bracket creep argument into consideration, and the Bush Tax Cuts still win.

        Bracket creep between 2004, the 1st full year of implementation of the Bush Tax Cuts, and 2011 accounted for a difference of $613.

        When you subtract the $613 from the $2264 decrease in taxation provided by the Bush Tax Cuts, you get $1651. This is a larger tax cut than the $1440 cut Obama temporarily provided to you.

        Further, the Bush Tax Cuts have benefited you every year for a decade, and are now permanent. Obama’s cuts benefited you for 2 years and are now over.

        This has been fun. If this story is still around in a week, I hope to hear your reply. Otherwise, I will be disconnected for about a week.

        Enjoy your weather.

        1. Mike Robinson

          They end up pretty close in your calculation and in mine.

          Thanks to the Fiscal Cliff deal, we can now put to bed the term “The Bush Tax Cuts.”

          As of now, they’re the Obama Tax Cuts.

          It should be noted, that income taxes are lower for everyone today than they would have been without the deal. While top marginal rates are rising for those making over $400K, those earners still get a cut on their income up to $400K.

          The difference between the Obama Tax Cuts and the Bush Tax Cuts? Obama’s are permanent. (Technically nothing is permanent, but they don’t have an expiry date.)

          1. DaTroof

            Gee Mike, I thought liberals were always against the Bush tax cuts. Now that the teleprompter-in-chief had something to do with them, all is great eh?

            Now that tax rates are settled, when are we going to have an honest discussion about the dollar-killng debt we’re piling up at the rate of over $1T per year? (Not to mention the monetization of $85B in Fed debt per month).

          2. Da Troof

            Gee Mike, how are you libs going to find the money for your spending addiction if you make the Bush tax cuts permanent? What are you going to do when your “tax the rich” scam puts only a small dent in the federal deficit?

          3. Kim

            ‘Obama’s” tax cuts are permanent? As ‘permanent’ as the 2% reduction in SS that he initiated and that you touted so highly as a tax reduction? Kiss that 2% goodbye.

            The net effect of Obama’s efforts as of today is to reduce take-home pay for virtually everyone. More to come over the next two months.

          4. Mike Robinson

            Conservatives have told me many times that the Obama 2% decrease in Social Security was not a tax cut. So there is nothing to complain about. You get all that money back when you retire! Tell that to your friends when they see their smaller paychecks next week. I’d like to see that conversation.

Comments are closed.