[2]
-
[3]
-
[4]
SAVOY — Congressman-elect Rodney Davis addressed the so-called fiscal cliff Monday, saying he would be open to discussing closing "tax loopholes," but that he would not favor changing tax rates, including higher taxes on the wealthy.
"I've said all along that it's about tax rates. Let's extend the tax rates permanently so that we can begin to grow our economy and create jobs that the small business owners talk to me about on an almost daily basis," Davis said after a Veterans Day ceremony at the Savoy Village Hall.
Unless the current Congress and President Barack Obama can agree to a new tax-and-spending plan before the end of 2012, the federal government will undergo on Jan. 2 a combination of automatic tax increases and spending cuts to reduce the deficit by $503 billion through next September. The new Congress — including Davis — will be sworn in on Jan. 3.
The Taylorville Republican, who won a narrow victory last week over Democrat David Gill of Bloomington, adopted a position similar to House Speaker John Boehner's: no to higher tax rates on the wealthy but a possible yes on limiting deductions and tax breaks.
"I don't think we'll have to shift on tax rates. I think a good compromise between Republicans and Democrats will be to keep our current tax rates and begin to address growing our economy and working toward paying down our national debt and controlling spending," said Davis.
In remarks to reporters, Davis repeatedly spoke of compromise, bipartisanship and working together with Democrats.
"We have to work in a bipartisan way to make sure that we address the fiscal cliff. I don't think that most Americans realize that if Republicans and Democrats continue to fight and not act on this, every American will experience the largest income tax increase in American history come January first," he said. "The tax tables will revert back to 2001 levels, and when that happens, every single paycheck will be reduced in January. It's imperative that Republicans and Democrats get along, and I think what the American people said last Tuesday was that they like a divided government but that it doesn't mean the status quo is acceptable. It means they want us to come together, find compromise and find a way to address some of the most important issues that have been left on the table due to politics."
Davis acknowledged that his plan "to repeal and replace Obamacare," a signature issue of his campaign, is dead. But he still thinks the health care program can be revised.
"I'm a realist. I understand that with President Obama in office, Obamacare is not going to be repealed, and I think what we have to do in Congress is wait for the full implementation of the law and the inevitable problems that will occur. We need to address those problems as they arise," he said.
Other items:
— Davis said his top three choices for House committee assignments are the Agriculture, Transportation, and Education & Workforce committees.
"That's not a decision I'll make. I'll gladly accept whatever committees I'm given. And I'm just honored to be able to have the opportunity to serve on any of the committees in Congress and serve this great district," he said. Orientation for House freshmen begins today in Washington.
— He and his family will remain in Taylorville and will not move to Washington.
— He had no reaction to last week's resignation of CIA Director David Petraeus. "I don't have enough information on that issue to be able to comment. I look forward to getting more information as a member of Congress once I'm sworn in, in January, and then I'll be able to adequately answer a question like that," Davis said.
More
I'm not sure what parallel universe Mr. Davis is living in, but according to all reputable sources, the deficit cannot be fixed without tax increases to boost revenue. Polls clearly show the majority of Americans favor increasing taxes on the wealthiest among us.
I think his talk of bipartisan cooperation is purely lip service, but as a constituent in his district I will try to hold out some faint hope that he will fulfill that promise.
Nothing new here---so much for the independence he was professing to have---more party line.
In remarks to reporters, Davis repeatedly spoke of compromise, bipartisanship and working together with Democrats.
And by that he means he gets everything he wants and the Democrats just accept it. When the numbers don't add up that's what the Democrats are there for.
Compromise means being willing to give. He hasn't even been sworn in and he has closed his mind.
What about flag burning? WHAT ABOUT FLAG BURNING?
http://www.sj-r.com/opinions/x1805317262/Bernard-Schoenburg-Davis-backs-... [13]
https://www.facebook.com/GillforIL13/posts/152103154924382 [14]
http://www.electrodney.com/index.php/rodney-davis-for-congress-statement... [15]
If Rodney "Insider Hack" Davis is anything intellectually like his former boss Shimkus, we of the 13th are in a for a long two years.
I'm in favor of flag burning. I think it's free speech and the proper way to dispose of a flag. It's how the boy scouts do it. If it's good enough for the boy scouts it's good enough for me. Maybe Rodney Davis doesn't like the boy scouts.
I hope you are joking.
A flag cannot be disposed of by burning unless all of the proper etiquette is observed and the ORGANIZATION that is destroying said flags is qualified to do so.
It is NOT okay for a solitary individual to burn the flag. That is considered desecration.
Since you VERY OBVIOUSLY know NOTHING of flag etiquette, those are the facts. Now on to the opinion portion.
I personally believe the BSA should not be allowed to perform the ceremony. They are not, in my eyes, a qualified organiztion. I believe that only people who have served under that flag should have the right to oversee that ceremony. Say, Veterans' organizations like the Legion or VFW, for example. I think the BSA is a great organization, but they are not qualified to conduct this ceremony.
I also do not feel that burning the flag is an act of free speech. I think it is an act of treason. A loathsome and horrific act of dishonor toward the people who served it and died for it. Why don't you just walk into Arlington and start kicking over crosses? It would have the same effect on a group of veterans. Any act that affects people this strongly cannot be permitted. There need to be a law against it.
As a veteran, I feel that if someone thinks it is their right to desecrate and dishonor my flag, then I should have the right to rearrange their facial features. As I will...even at my own peril.
Thank you for fighting for our right to express ourselves only as you see fit!
Wow, little hardheaded there.
Sometimes you've got to take a stand. If that makes me hardheaded...call me Rockytop.
Your argument is seriously flawed.
Do you think veterans should receive "extra" rights just because they are veterans? Such as the right to cause bodily harm to someone who burns the flag? I am unaware what the law says about flag burning, but I am certain that it does not give veterans the right in any circumstance to take it into their own hands. You might have some sympathy, but the law would still have to haul you off to jail for such an act.
Also, to say that "Any act that affects people this strongly cannot be permitted." is also unacceptable. There is a huge group of people that do not like it when women do not wear veils or modestly cover themselves, and has been known to react quite strongly to it too. Should we begin legislation to make it a law that all women must be covered and wear the veil?
Where did I say veterans had extra rights?...or deserve extra rights? I was making the point that I will throw a whoopin' at anyone I see burning my flag. You are right. I will go to jail. I care not. I feel it is still my duty to defend that flag. I never said I have the right to strike anyone...but I will. There are millions of people who feel the same way I do.
We won't go into all of the ways in which to avoid arrest or prosecution for kicking someone's butt.
Allow me to rephrase the second part. "Any act" that affects half of the population this strongly should garner serious consideration as to whether to legally allow it. (I know someone is going to take a stab at this too.) ("How do you figure 'half"?")
My argument is not flawed. My argument is my opinion. I did not call anyone else's argument flawed based on their opinions. I called rsp's STUPID comments flawed based on FACTS. It is not appropriate flag etiquitte to burn your own flags for purposes of retiring it. The BSA is not burning the flags in protest...and their ceremonious retirement as a qualified organization does not offer the unqualifed person the authority to destroy a flag in the same manner.
I love the comment about fighting for only my right to an opinion, btw. Read my post again. I clearly outlined the facts before I stated MY OPINION. And I never called anyone else's opinion into question.
Servicemen fought for everyone to have the right to vote their concious and express their opinion, whether they agree with it or not. But burn a flag in front of a serviceman or a veteran and see what happens. Go ahead. I dare you...
You are not a defender of free speech if you threaten violence against anybody exercising their Constitutional rights of non-violent political speech. I understand your opinion perfectly; MY opinion is that you display a distressing lack of commitment to the values you claim your service upheld.
I am proud that many veterans recognize the importance of respect for both the flag and the freedom to burn it: http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/their-own-words-compendium-veterans-quot... [28]
So it hasn't occured to you that I DO NOT VIEW FLAG BURNING AS FREE SPEECH? I view it as a treasonous act of agression. That's why I feel there should be a law against it.
The American Flag is not a political prop to be heinously disrespected because you disagree with a President who never served it.
And there is no clearly outlined Constitution protection for flag burning. It is not addressed, and is therefore assumed to be legal. The CFA would push a bill to make it illegal. Burning a flag as free speech is not, and never was a value I upheld.
The Supreme Court has twice found that flag desecration is protected by the First Amendment, once in Texas v. Johnson and again in United States v. Eichman. These decisions were made by a group ideologically diverse as to include both Justices Scalia and Blackmun.
As World War II veteran and U.S. Senator John Chaffee once said, "In its more than 200 years, the Constitution has been amended only 27 times--one time was acknowledged to be a mistake, and repealed. The amendments have reaffirmed and expanded individual freedoms. This proposed Amendment [banning the burning of American flags] would not expand the list of freedoms. This Amendment for the first time would limit freedom."
Again, I share my disappointment that you favor stifling non-violent political speech, as well as my appreciation for those veterans who understand that true patriotism and love of American ideals encompasses more than blind-eyed fealty towards a national symbol printed on a piece of cloth.
And in both cases that was due to a lack of clarity and language in the amendment, not a concrete passage. And there was dissent. It was not unanimous. And there are as many interpretations against as there are for protection of the flag. That is all it is; interpretation.
And are you saying you DON'T appreciate the insanely large majority of veterans who see it the same way I do? Because I can guarantee you that out of the thousand-plus veterans I know, only about 3 of them support flag burning as free speech, whereas probably 500 feel so strongly that they would give up some overnight freedoms to protect the flag from a desecrator. To many, it is more than a simple piece of cloth.
This is a fundamental difference that will divide. You will never change my opinion. My original intent was to stifle some pretty stupid comments about "if the BSA can do it, I can do it." I just felt I'd inject my opinion in there as well. I think I'm entitled.
Of course you're entitled. So are the many veterans who value freedom of political speech, as well as non-military Americans who come down on both sides of this issue. Thank goodness enough of our legislators and Supreme Court justices have stood on the side of liberty and free expression rather than grandstanding symbolism.
Incidentally, what other non-violent actions do other people engage in that make you want to pretend you're a big man by threatening to hit them behind the safety of your computer monitor?
If a veteran burns a flag, does he have to beat himself up?
lol. Yes, yes he does.
My brother burned a flag. He was 82nd Airborne. It was in front of other veterans, too.
You really like trying to get a rise out of people, don't you? I'd accept if we were face to face.
I am just stating a fact. I've known a lot of vets. There have been a lot of them in my family who disagree with you. So far you have called my comments stupid, etc. I'm just waiting to see what you will say about my dead brother who served his country with honor.
Admit it. Your comment about BSA burning the flag was stupid if you were using that to justify desecration. THat's ridiculous. And I would bet my life that less than 1% of all Vets from all wars (yes, Vietnam included) support flag desecration as a form of free speech.
I'm using the fact that it's free speech. And you would be wrong on the Vets. They didn't fight to protect a piece of cloth. They fought for their country. When my uncle's ship was sank and he waited three days in the ocean to be rescued he wasn't thinking about the flag that went down with the ship. He was thinking about his fellow shipmates, and his family back home.
I'm really sorry you can't separate what the flag is and what it represents. It is a piece of cloth. When this great nation of ours doesn't live up to it's ideals it is up to all of us to change that. The Founding Fathers understood that.
Another nice bit of pointless stenography from Kacich, and some lovely poses struck by apparatchnik Davis as he read the lines provided to him, but it all has nothing to do with what is going to happen between now and Jan 1. The Repubs bet it all and lost and now are busted. The Dems have all the cards and Davis is irrelevant.
Another party hack.
I'm a Libertarian, but I can't help notice how Republicans are the only ones ever to be singled out a uncompromising "party hacks". How come that doesn't apply to democrats? What would Gill have been?
Just an observation...
Tax loopholes maybe tax deductions. During the election, there was talk of ceasing the home mortgage deduction along with many others. Everything is on the table now. If the republicans are not in agreement with the majority of citizens that the tax rate on the wealthy needs to go up from 35% to 39.25%, they can drive the country over the fiscal cliff. If that happens, the anger of the citizens will fall on their heads for protecting the top earners from paying 4.25% more in taxes. They are willing to do that in order to stay in lock step with the pledge to Grover Norquist. It is a game of chicken with the citizens being served up as fried chicken.
Don't buy this "fiscal cliff" hysteria. It's not a cliff at all. You can look at the various recent writings of Krugman and Jonathan Chait for a more realistic assessment. And, from a progressive perspective, the best thing the Democrats can do is nothing. The Republicans are in a trap of their own making. Letting all the tax cuts expire and the cuts to the bloated military and other programs go into effect might have a modest effect on the recovery in the short term, but in the longer term the increased revenue would allow for fairer tax cuts and a much improved deficit and much stronger economy. The Republicans who have been cynically whining about the deficit for so long are about to be hung by their own petard. The only ones worried about being fried chicken are the big defense contractors.
At least the News -Gazette is asking the tough questions,the kind that really matter to citizens.We now know Congressman-elect Davis will gather information on the David Petraeus situation. That means we can be sure of two absolute truths about Rodney Davis.( 1 ) He will work for the wealthiest and most powerful members of our society. ( 2 ) He is going to get the information on the David Petraeus situation,and some day soon, will answer a question about that issue, which is so vital to the lives of working class Americans.
Mr. Davis.....which loopholes? ....please provide some specifics. Perhaps it's a good idea, but without concrete specifics how can we judge the merits of that idea? If they are loopholes that primarily only the rich take advantage of.....AND, new tax language can be correctly written that doesn't provide them with a new loophole, then maybe this idea can fly. Anything that raises the "effective" tax rate for the extremely wealthy to fair levels may be a workable solution......seems like it shouldn't matter how we get there......but, until the specifics are laid out, I remain extremely skeptical.