.

Kirk, Schakowsky, Dold Talk Debt Ceiling Compromise

Dold, Kirk support legislation; Schakowsky opposes it.

Local members of Congress responded to calls from citizens to compromise Sunday night by offering support for a bipartisan effort to prevent the nation from defaulting on its financial obligations.

Leaders of the Senate and House of Representatives worked with President Barack Obama to craft a deal to increase the debt ceiling to allow the country to pay its bills. The legislation also cut spending approximately $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years. 

The spending reductions come in two groups. Initially, the lawmakers agreed $900 billion would be cut over 10 years. A bipartisan commission would be created to recommend slashing an additional $1.5 trillion by late November. If no agreement is reached, there will be automatic triggers that still must be negotiated.

Read More on Patch:

voted for the bill while opposed it. will vote for the measure in the Senate Tuesday. 

“The best way to achieve economic stability, reassure our allies and strengthen financial markets is by tackling our unsustainable spending trend,” Kirk said. “This deal is a balance of immediate cuts and a promise of long-term reforms, coupled with a strong backstop.” 

Schakowsky was unwilling to support legislation she felt left America’s most vulnerable citizens potentially unprotected because members of the Republican Party were willing to sacrifice the economy in exchange for an increase in the debt ceiling. 

“This legislation once again forces the middle class, the poor and the seniors to be the ones to hold the reins of debt reduction,” Schakowsky said. “The Republicans have held us hostage to the debt ceiling and they succeeded in collecting their ransom.” 

Had the bill failed, Schakowsky would have encouraged the President use the 14th Amendment of the Constitution to unilaterally extend the debt ceiling.

“He would have done that because it was suggested by Vice President (Joseph) Biden he would when he came to our caucus,” Schakowsky said. 

Dold spent the weekend in and out of meetings with the Republican House Caucus learning about progress on debt ceiling negotiations between Congressional leadership and the President. 

“I am optimistic that Washington is finally coming together and finding common ground on the debt ceiling debate,” Dold said on the House floor. “We must move forward. Hardworking taxpayers have had enough and I get it.” 

Dold has also has been inundated with communication from his constituents on the issue, according to Communications Director Stefani Zimmerman. 

“Over the past couple of weeks, both of Rep. Dold’s offices have received an overwhelming response from his constituents to work towards a bipartisan solution and he is listening to them,” Zimmerman said. 

One of two Democrats seeking Dold’s 10th District seat in the 2012 general election, Deerfield management consultant , was relieved an agreement was reached. He felt, however, that the tenor of the debate prevented the country from getting the kind of law he would have preferred.

“The freshmen created a circumstance that did not allow the government to get the deal that needed to get done,” Schneider said. “I am happy that Congress found a way to avoid default. We need to address our fiscal challenges in a more strategic, more comprehensive way. 

Schneider’s opponent in the March Democratic primary, Waukegan community organizer , does not like the deal. He would also prefer the 14th Amendment option. 

“It would be irresponsible to support legislation that reduces the deficit on the backs of struggling working families and the most vulnerable” Sheyman said. "By putting at risk Medicare and other core services, this plan will make conditions worse at a time of tremendous economic strain."

Clark Kent August 02, 2011 at 12:57 PM
Rep. Schakowsky has never been known for humility. She and her husband orchestrate a political "machine" which plays whatever tune THEY think harmonizes with their personal interests. They jointly signed IRS forms for which her "activist" hubby was sentenced to prison. Jan said she just signed the document...she's so busy chasing billionaires she didn't have the time to check her own tax returns...but plenty of time to check everybody else's money. News reports: "In 2004, Creamer was indicted on 16 counts of bank fraud and 18 counts of tax fraud after failing to pay more than $300,000 in income taxes and pulling a $1 million overdraft in a check kiting scheme. In 2005, Creamer pleaded guilty to two felonies, bank fraud and failure to pay federal taxes. In 2006, Creamer was sentenced to five months in prison and 11 months home confinement." Tax everybody but Jan and Bob! They're so special. What a magnet for money! http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00004724&type=I
Richard Becker AIA August 02, 2011 at 01:09 PM
Jan, Please enlighten us as to how YOU plan to balance our books. With quotes like “This legislation once again forces the middle class, the poor and the seniors to be the ones to hold the reins of debt reduction,” you continue to obfuscate and evade responsibility for our financial state. There is certainly responsibility all around here, but at this point, continuing to borrow is clearly not the solution.
Melanie August 02, 2011 at 03:37 PM
The greedy, wealthy people, and corporations in this country need to give up their tax breaks and pay more in taxes, period. Taking businesses and jobs to other countries is not helping our economy. The poor working class keep getting poorer while the wealthy keep getting richer because of these tax breaks. The top 20%, mostly white Americans, own 80% of the wealth while the rest of the population share only 20% of the wealth thanks to the tax breaks they received under the Republican administrations of Reagan and the Bushes while they were in office. Jan Schakowsky is trying to fight for the poor, hardworking, majority. The solution is simply making the rich pay their fare share! Greed will ultimately bring this country to a halt.
Richard Becker AIA August 02, 2011 at 04:12 PM
According to taxfoundation.org, a non-partisan organization, the top 1% of income earners pay 38.02% of total tax revenues; the top 5% pay 58.72% of total tax revenues. What percentage would constitute paying their "fair" share ?
Steven Cohn August 02, 2011 at 04:50 PM
Dear Melanie: How much federal income tax have you paid inthe past 10 years? I thought so. As the old saying goes, "Put your money where your mouth is." As reported on CNN last night, 49% of Americans pay ZERO federal income tax. ZERO. I would just like them to pay Any share; then we can talk about "fair share". As to those "greedy, wealthy people," their "tax breaks" mainly consist of the mortgage deduction, the charitable contributions deduction, and the deductions for state income and property taxes (so the same income is not taxed multiple times). These have existed for generations; they are not the creations of Reagan or either Bush. In fact, many previous deductions were eliminated years ago as part of the compromise through which the pool of taxable income was expanded and the marginal rates were lowered. The efficacy of these deductions -- and for that matter the personal exemptions for one's spouse and dependents -- has been reduced due to the phase-out. The phase out of the exemption for one's spouse and dependent children is especially galling -- are not my wife and children as dear to me as another man's are to him? If you prick them, do they not bleed?
RonnieTheLimoDriver August 02, 2011 at 05:12 PM
Completely agree. Despite that, Tax Reform is urgently needed, so the system is more fair on both ends of the spectrum. Different groups report different numbers, but whether its 49% or 38%, all Americans that make any amount of money should pay into the system. As a result we should have 90% of Americans paying federal income tax, assuming we have around 10% unemployed now. We should also eliminate the refundable Earned Income Tax Credit as it doesn’t make any sense to me why anybody should get paid by the federal government through tax credits. There are plenty of other welfare programs for those truly in need, the EI credit is not needed. There should be no phase out of personal exemptions of any kind. They should exist or not exist, and not be dependent on income. At the same time, I would like to see the addition of another bracket at 1 million, with a rate of 38 or 40%. After all, statistics show that most of the people that would fall in that bracket earn much of their money from investments, where the long term capital gains rate is 15%, or 20% starting in 2013. On the corporate side, reform is needed as well. We should not have large corporations such as GE paying $0 in taxes in the US. We should eliminate almost all tax breaks specific to given industries. Most obvious is the one for oil expiration, but also timber, farming, etc. In addition R&D credits should be eliminated except for 1-2 urgently needed areas such as Green Power. Just my 2 cents.
Mike August 02, 2011 at 05:53 PM
Not sure how bringing up things like your doing matter as they have NOTHING to do with this article or this vote. However, since your wanting to point things out, I am sure it was just a "oversight" that you forget to mention the wonderful Joe Walsh of the Tea Party screaming on TV about getting our house in order when he evaded paying well over 100k in child support AND lost a condo to foreclosure.
Mike August 02, 2011 at 05:57 PM
Wouldn't it make logical sense that those who make more should pay more? I guess you don't see the issue when people that make 50k a year pay the same for Groceries, gas, utliities, car loans, credit cards, mortgages as someone who makes 5 million a year. I will answer your question, their fair share should be at LEAST what they paid during the Clinton years, or a top rate of 39.6%.
Mike August 02, 2011 at 06:03 PM
Steve, I didnt see where Melanie answered your question about how much Federal Tax she paid. You must have extraordinary powers that you could "see" that she clearly paid zero federal tax. Why, just because she points out what most of America feels, that means she pays no Federal Tax? Well I pay a huge amount in Federal Tax and would no issue with us going back to where rates where during the Clinton years. Glad to see you fit my definition of a Conservative: Always complaining and worried that someone else is getting something your not. Why should you get a write off for you rmortgage? Why should the Government give you a deduction for your wife and kids? The Mortgage deduction is welfare for homeowners (myself included). The deductions for wife, kids is discriminatory against single people and those without kids. So Steve, quit worrying as your getting your welfare just like everyone else. Also, nice try about Reagan and Bush. You just left out the MAIN point (especially with Bush) as he lowered the tax rates to their lowest levels in 40-50 years.
Jon Hall August 02, 2011 at 06:32 PM
The white elephant party and the media combine to diminish portfolio values across the board. If the value of my discretionary wealth fund continues to fall and I should have to chose between a golf resort weekend or a campaign contribution...Business experience since 1980 suggests that, when extended, tax breaks tend to go more towards owners and executives pockets, than towards creating new jobs. See ya on the golf course.
Richard Schulte August 02, 2011 at 08:43 PM
Mike, I couldn't agree with you more-those who make more should pay more. In fact that's what happens now, because tax rates are percentages of income. If the tax rate was the same for every taxpayer, those who earn more would pay more. But, of course, that's not the case. Tax rates increase with income. So those who earn more pay even more than if the tax rates were the same for every taxpayer. The IRS statistics on who pays what shows that the bottom 50 percent of wage earners only pay a total of 3 percent of the total of income taxes collected. In other words, half of taxpayers don't pay much in income taxes. No wonder we have a revenue problem. It's not the wealthy who don't pay enough in taxes. It's the 50 percent of taxpayers who don't pay any income taxes that are the problem.
Jeff August 02, 2011 at 08:51 PM
Mike, Lets look at real numbers from the IRS tables. In 1995 a married couple making $50,000 with standard deduction and 2 exemptions paid $8,930 in tax a 17.8% rate. Lets grow the 50,000 at 2.5% inflation so in 2010 the amount is now $72,414. The income tax on that amount is now $7,221 or 10%. An actual DROP in Income Taxes paid. Now if we look at the greedy, not fair share couple making $200,000 in 1995. Their tax is $52,765 or 26.4% with the same standard exemption and exemptions as the $50,000 couple. In 2010, after inflation, the greedy rich couple will be at $289,660 and will have a tax bill of $67,198 or 23.2%. Although their rate went down their taxes went up. How much should each pay to make Obama happy?
Richard Schulte August 02, 2011 at 08:52 PM
Although not a member of the white elephant party, I haven't voted for a Democrat since I voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976. Although I am the president of a company, I am also the janitor of the firm. I don't play golf. It's rather silly of people to think that those who want lower taxes are all executives and that we all play golf. As for me, my business is down about 80 percent since election day, 2008. My home was just foreclosed on and I'll be talking with an attorney about fiing for bankruptcy in the next few days. Yes, us wealthy executive types are evil because we want lower taxes so that the economy picks up so that we can afford to buy food. From my perspective, I'd say Democrat economics is a failure, but I'm an executive, so what the hell do I know about real life.
Richard Schulte August 02, 2011 at 09:06 PM
"How much should each pay to make Obama happy?" 100%. Of course if that greedy couple would quit working, then they would be entitled to a part of somebody else's paycheck. Why bother working? The harder you work, the more evil you are. That's life in America with a socialist president.
Clark Kent August 02, 2011 at 09:29 PM
@Mike "I am sure it was just a* "oversight" that you forget to mention the wonderful Joe Walsh of the Tea Party..." so claims Mike. No, not an oversight. He's not my Congressman. You are apparently concerned about Walsh's domestic problems, I am not. Let Jan work to confiscate the billions of George Soros, the wealth of Diane Finestein, Oprah, John Kerry, the Kennedys, Michael Bloomberg, Ronald Perelman, Steven Spielberg, Leona Helmsley, Larry Ellison, Samuel Zell, Larry Page, the Pritzker family and others of that ilk. Your inability to follow a sequence of complaints on the taxing misconduct of Jan is just that...your inability. All she seems to be able to do is spend taxpayers' money and complain about decent people like the Tea Party patriots.Why not sell your house and give the residuals to her campaign so she doesn't have to take so much from lobbyists who might try to compromise such a national treasure like Jan? BTW: Stop your mortgage deductions and get off of welfare! * in conventional language it should be "an." After briefly skimming your other comments it appears that you are really challanged by the English language, spelling and punctuation. "You are" is properly "you're" and not what you use chronically- "your." Perhaps you might spend a little money (but lots and lots and lots and lots of time) on http://www.amazon.com/McGraw-Hill-Handbook-English-Grammar-ebook/dp/B004HHP340/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2 Good Luck!
Clark Kent August 02, 2011 at 09:36 PM
At which golf course are you a caddy?
Richard Schulte August 02, 2011 at 09:52 PM
Mr. Kent, thank you for the suggestion as to how to survive in the Obama economy. I could just shut down my business and become a caddy. I've watched "Caddy Shack" several times, so I think that I might be qualified for that job. I'm hoping the bankruptcy judge will accept that as a steady job. Actually, I'd kind of like to be a greenskeeper, like the Bill Murray character. Why didn't my bankruptcy attorney suggest that?
Harry Steindler August 02, 2011 at 09:52 PM
Ignored in the arguments about the large percentage of tax paid by the top percent of taxpayers is the many ways in which lower earners are “taxed” at a higher rate than higher earners - social security tax paid by wage earners is a regressive tax - lower wage earners pay a larger percentage of their income in social security tax than the top earners – wealthier tax payers generally are more able to defer paying tax because of opportunities to defer income through 401k, profit sharing and pension plans - state income tax in Illinois and many other states is a flat tax - all taxpayers are taxed at the same rate - gasoline taxes, utility taxes and other "sin" taxes are flat taxes generally absorbing a larger percentage of lower earners’ income – staples such as food, clothing, transportation, housing, education, etc., make up a larger percentage of lower earners’ income - lower earners, who are more often renters, do not get the advantage of mortgage and real estate tax deductions. In our society higher income citizens should continue to take care of those that need taking care of – those with higher earnings can afford to pay a much greater percentage of tax than those with lower earnings. Do we need to do a better job of managing how all governments (and businesses and families and individuals) spend their money; absolutely. Should higher earners be willing to share at a higher level to make our society better as a whole; I believe they should.
Clark Kent August 02, 2011 at 10:14 PM
Maybe she has other things on her mind. http://www.bradblog.com/?cat=437 Maybe she wants to be a banker someday http://rogersparkbench.blogspot.com/2010/05/failing-shorebank-cap-and-trade-and-jan.html This arrogant politician had the nerve some years ago to bring a House committe on utilities to Chicago and "wanted to see" the BOOKS of the electric power company to determine if there might be "racism" in the company's equipment replacement practices. She never does anything unless there is some manufactured crisis- usually the product of the left hemisphere in her cranium. She thrives on contention and confrontation only if it advances her career and power trips. Definite control freak. Then came her gas attack http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/268407/chicago_utility_disconnects_households_with_outstanding_bills/ . Right after that she and hubby Bobby signed their joint IRS form for which Bobby later went to jail and Jan went on with her House keeping "duties." She's soooooo talent and smart.
RonnieTheLimoDriver August 02, 2011 at 11:03 PM
President Obama is the problem, but so is the entire House and Senate. As evidenced by their behavior over the past 2-3 weeks on this debt ceiling issue, none of them are fit for the positions they hold. This is not a democrat or republican problem, this is an American problem.
Mike August 02, 2011 at 11:39 PM
Clark, Thank you so much for your assessment of my post. Possibly I will take your suggestion and go to Amazon to make the purchase you suggest. Then when I am done with it, I will forward it to you so you can learn how to spell. Go look up the word challenged in the dictionary, I believe its not spelled as you wrote it: challanged. Also, if I sold my house, I wouldn't be giving "residuals" to her campaign, the CORRECT word is proceeds. So possibly you should take a little of your own advice before coming on here and lecturing me. Also, my inability to follow Jans conduct? I never mentioned anything about her conduct. She is not my Congressional Representative. However, I believe that since these crimes by her husband were brought to light (and he is a sleazeball), hasn't Jan been re-elected twice by her constituents?
Clark Kent August 03, 2011 at 05:13 AM
@Mike Yup. I confess before the entire world- definitely a typo...but quite unlike your chronically systematic errors. There I go again using shop-talk! Don't forget to use this link as an inspiration for your personal growth and as a useful "Word-for-the-Day" with special attention at the bottom to (1). http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/residual The following does not reflect my personal views. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaYR5lwzomE&feature=related
grandpa August 03, 2011 at 03:24 PM
"Someone said President Obama was wrong for telling the American people to call their representatives about the debt ceiling. If there's one thing that congressmen hate, it's being told what to do by the people that put them there." --comedian Jay Leno That just about sums it up.
Stephanie Brent August 03, 2011 at 04:12 PM
1. You can't have a consumer-based economy without jobs for most everyone. The rich would do better to take care of us unwashed masses than to worry about tax avoidance. Otherwise, without jobs and awash in shoddy, defective imports that drain dollars from this nation (never to return), we're all going down together. 2. The rich never spend much--the poor have no choice but to spend every penny they get just to survive. 3. If our elected leaders had Social Security instead of huge pensions and if they didn't have such fabulous medical insurance at our expense, they might be more in touch with the reality of existence that the rest of us share. 4. Don't tell me you are acting on principle if you are ignoring the damage you are doing to others. 5. A representative government is about listening to the electorate. 6. I don't know any tea party supporter who thought they were voting for insanity to reign.
grandpa August 03, 2011 at 05:27 PM
1. It's not up to the "rich" to take care of the "unwashed masses", it's up to the "unwashed masses", (it might be a start to take a bath). 2. How many of "the poor" have cell phones, (oops, I forgot, cell phones are now provided by a government program); cable TV; a car less than 5 years old; a big screen plasma TV set or "high speed" internet? 3. I agree that the politicians should not have special privileges, they are supposed to be "public servant" not "elite rulers" 4. Whom are you referring to here? If it's the politicos, they never worry about anything but getting reelected... that's their job. If they do anything else they usually feel sorry about it. 5. We don't have a representative government, we have an elite oligarchy of the "elite", (and it really doesn't matter if they have (D) or (R) after their names). 6. "It doesn't matter who votes. What matters is who counts the votes." Socialist extraordinare, Josef Stalin
forest barbieri August 03, 2011 at 10:45 PM
You go Grandpa:) There are a few things that you can never get complete agreement on, Politics, Taxes, Religion and when the Cubs will bring home the World Series. This ridiculous Washington fiasco made us look like such idiots that Czar Putin is even crushing cooking utensils and scolding us. Our problems today are minor relative to what we are creating for our children. Did the America we knew and loved historically, end in 2007? Wait until we have to take on the real issues including, jobs, inflation, pensions across the board and the future of facing a cunning China that is buying up natural resources around the world while they economically tie Africa, South America and many countries to them. Unfortunately, in a time of need, we will find that we have been out thought, out flanked, and out to lunch...is that still tax deductible? Europe obviously, remains in a constant state of being out to lunch. The world, she is a changing and hopefully we will begin to focus our leadership and country on important issues and take the painful but needed steps to ensure a decent future for our kids
Stephanie Brent August 05, 2011 at 06:02 PM
Grandpa--My car is 11 years old. I don't have a big screen tv. My emergency cell phone costs me $10 every three months. I go to the library to use the internet. I do indulge in cable tv but not the premium channels and I don't go to movies or travel... But I am not among the poorest of the poor. I live on ssn but manage to keep aside a little something for a rainy day. I know from my volunteer work that there are many elderly and disabled far worse off than me. They have no cars, tiny old tvs and no cell phone and no cable. They literally wouldn't have eaten if their checks came "a few days late." Right here in Deerfield are old ladies who could starve to death without their ssn checks on time. It doesn't matter whether the "conservatives" want to kill granny because they want granny dead or if they just don't care whether or not their principles kill granny off. At least--it doesn't matter to granny. The fact is that trickle down won't work. If there ain't no trickle up--there ain't no economy. If you want a consumer society for larger profits for the select few--the consumer has to have money to consume with. If all the jobs are in other countries, no one around here will be shopping and in the end the rich won't be so rich. Of course, It might be amusing to see what would happen if they tried to take their wealth stored in China out of China. Wonder if China would let that money leave that country????
grandpa August 05, 2011 at 10:07 PM
Stephanie; If class warfare works for you, Mazel Tov. As for me, I will continue to take care of myself as best I can since that is my duty, (and the way I was raised). If it comes to that, I prefer to die like a man on my feet than live on my knees as a slave. It matters not to me who the slave owner is.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something