October 8th, 2010
08:02 PM ET
4 years ago

Lame duck politicians spar over tax cuts

(CNN) – Two politicians in their final terms in office faced off Friday over a series of tax cuts that are set to expire on January 1.

Democratic Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm said that a small business jobs bill signed by President Obama last week "provided some certainty," but argued the Republican argument for extending the Bush tax cuts for individuals making more than $200,000 a year smacks of hypocrisy.

"That was a good bill last week. That provided some certainty," the Michigan Democrat told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King. "The - the ability to extend the tax cuts for the middle class and down, I think, are very important. Do the top two percent need that? If you get back to the fiscal conservative argument about paying for it, I think it's really speaking out of both sides of your mouth."

Retiring New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, a Republican, countered: "It would be hard for me to disagree with that more strongly."


"That small business bill...that the governor talked about – conceptually, it was a good idea. It just wasn't paid for," the Republican said.

When Granholm interjected to say that the $30 billion legislation was paid for, a frustrated Gregg said "Governor – you don't know what you're talking about."

"I happen to be the ranking member on the Budget Committee; I'll tell you, it wasn't paid for,” Gregg said. “Next year it added $88 billion to the deficit. Over 10 years, they allege it was paid for. In the last three or four years, they allege that there's an adjustment which accomplishes that in the seventh, eighth and ninth years. [...] It’s the same little game and gimmick that they play around here on almost everything.”

"If you want to continue to run these deficits up on our kids, you go ahead and do it, governor," Gregg added.

Granholm said that while the budget deficit is important, what’s weighing on the minds of voters is job creation and the primary way to create jobs is to invest in small businesses.

“That will reduce the deficit more quickly than slashing and slashing and slashing and laying people off and creating a downward spiral,” Granholm said.


Filed under: issues • Jennifer Granholm • JKUSA • John King USA • Judd Gregg • Taxes
soundoff (10 Responses)
  1. Claudia, Houston, Tx

    Sarah Palin is about as "thick" as they come, which part of America is she referring to when she says "if the people want her". Is that the 20% she's referring to and furthermore, I am not a "challenged" American that she refers to.

    October 8, 2010 07:29 pm at 7:29 pm |
  2. D. Bunker

    More blatant lies from the GOBPbaggers. The small business bill WAS paid for with cuts in other programs. And the stimulus has helped Michigan tremendously. It saved the domestic auto industry and recently it added more jobs than any other state. Too bad the teatards and their corporate enablers are allergic to facts.

    October 8, 2010 07:39 pm at 7:39 pm |
  3. Greg

    I am really sad to see Judd Gregg retire....he is one of the good guys and tells it like it is. Way to go slapping down the ditzy Governor from Michigan when she started spouting the insane democratic party talking points and tried to pass on the absolute stupid way they think about economics....take care Mr. Gregg, you will be missed.

    October 8, 2010 08:14 pm at 8:14 pm |
  4. anthony

    Republicans oppose deficits, unless tax cuts are involved. Unfortunately for the nation, when Republicans are in power, tax cuts are always involved, that is why we had 8 trillion dollars added to our national debt from the last three Republicans presidents.

    Republicans may argue that that Obama had two budgets with deficit over a trillion dollars. What they fail to notice is that the 2009 budget was actually submitted by Bush, because the 2009 fiscal year started on October 1 of 2008, and a president is required to submit the budget before the start of a fiscal year. They also fail to notice that the deficit for the 2010 fiiscal year actually went down compared to 2009.

    October 8, 2010 08:48 pm at 8:48 pm |
  5. southern cousin

    How did that "summer of properity" work out for you Janet. The union bosses got their money from the stimulus, to bad most of you constituents got nothing.

    October 8, 2010 09:24 pm at 9:24 pm |
  6. Clwyd

    That is because Gregg is a repulsive republican zombie only programed to say , "NO!" Look at the republican votes and it shows that none of them have a brain and can think for themselves as far as what would help Americans who are not associated with Big Oil, Big Business and Big Wall Street!

    October 8, 2010 10:19 pm at 10:19 pm |
  7. Frank in Valparaiso Indiana

    Kill all the tax cuts, we can't afford them.

    October 8, 2010 10:59 pm at 10:59 pm |
  8. J.V.Hodgson

    I suggest JUDD takes a lesson in English the correct interpretation technically of his english is that he cannot disagree with Granholm whether that strongly or more strongly is irrelevant.
    Regards,
    Hodgson.

    October 9, 2010 12:00 am at 12:00 am |
  9. MR AMERICA

    The GOP still hasn't explained how if all the evil spending is so bad...how do they propose to pay for the tax cuts for the over 250k group? They don't need it, nor are they mythical "job creators." So who's paying for it, GOP?

    October 9, 2010 03:14 am at 3:14 am |
  10. bill stapp

    The federal government always says everything is paid for. But each year, we sink into more debt. It is frustrating to see that the elected leaders may be wealthy or may live frugally, but they never hesitate to spend more for the government programs. They "Party On" no matter which party they belong to.

    They all know the day is coming when there will be no way to raise enough revenue to pay for the unfunded mandated programs such as medicare, social security, and federal and military pensions. but they keep spending in order to get re-elected.

    Doesn't their oath of office or the Constitution mean anything to them? How do they manage to interpret "promote the general welfare" into such large, expensive and expanding programs? Is there no limit to how much promoting of the gerneral welfare that the federal government is allowed to do?

    October 9, 2010 04:37 am at 4:37 am |