Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said Wednesday that she is open to discussing how to raise new revenues as part of a “balanced proposal” to head off the so-called “fiscal cliff,” but she said Congress “simply must look at the mandatory side of the budget,” as well as reductions in discretionary spending, for savings as part of any solution.
Speaking on a conference call with reporters, Murkowski stressed that she wants to see a resolution to the issue before the deadline at the end of the month elapses.
Without a deal in Washington, D.C., to avert the “cliff,” across-the-board tax increases and spending cuts are set to take effect in 2013.
The automatic spending cuts, termed “sequestration,” are a cocktail of drastic deficit-reduction measures seeded with elements anathema to both parties in Congress, crafted as part of last summer’s deal to raise the debt ceiling in order to compel both houses of Congress and the White House to continue working together on lowering the deficit.
The tax increases would stem, in large part, from the temporary extension in 2010 of tax cuts originally passed in 2001 and 2003. President Barack Obama and other Democrats have argued that some of these cuts, often called the “Bush tax cuts” in reference to former President George W. Bush, should be allowed to expire, raising tax rates on top income earners.
Murkowski suggested that both spending cuts and tax increases should be under consideration.
“We simply cannot take revenue off the table, as some have suggested,” Murkowski said.
But while Murkowski said she is “not opposed to having us talk about those of means paying more,” she argued that taxation alone will not put the country’s finances in order.
“Simply raising taxes on the wealthy in this country is not going to solve our spending problem,” said Murkowski. “We need immediate action on real mandatory spending reforms if we’re ever going to rein in federal spending. Without a comprehensive approach, we can’t pay down our debt, we can’t avoid the sequestration and address these expiring tax provisions.”
Murkowski repeatedly referred to the United States’ national debt, which now exceeds $16.3 trillion, in her comments.
“In my mind, this is a crisis of our own doing. We’ve got a $16 trillion national debt. We’ve had four straight years of trillion-dollar deficits,” Murkowski said. She added, “You can present the blame to President Bush. You can present the blame to President Obama. But assigning blame doesn’t solve the problem. Whatever the circumstances that got us here, I see this crisis as an opportunity to finally enact meaningful reform. This is a big problem, and it calls for big solutions.”
Because of Alaska’s large number of federal employees and military veterans relative to the size of its population, as well as because federal dollars contribute so heavily to the state’s economy, Murkowski said she is concerned sequestration will have an especially large impact on Alaska.
“I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that failing to address this cliff will result in lost jobs, lower wages, negative growth and a generally weakened Alaskan economy,” said Murkowski, who asserted that Alaskan taxpayers will owe $1,749 more on average, per tax return, next year to the federal government if no deal is reached and tax rates go up across the board.
Murkowski said Congress should look at ways to reduce spending on “safety net programs,” including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, as part of a deal. She suggested raising the eligibility age of Medicare as one option for reform.
“As much as I want to make sure that our seniors are cared for, I also want to make sure that our young people who also want to have the benefits of the program … that are paying in will have the same opportunity to enjoy benefits,” said Murkowski, adding that “nobody is talking about changing those benefits for those seniors” who are already eligible.
Alaska’s other U.S. senator, Democrat Mark Begich, said in a recent KTUU-TV interview that “the reality is we’re probably going to have a little bit of both” spending cuts and tax increases in order to address the fiscal cliff issue.
“These decisions we’re going to make are going to be tough, and everyone’s going to feel a little bit of it,” Begich told anchor Mike Ross last Friday. “But in order to get this deficit under control, we all have to participate. We can’t afford all the Bush tax cuts, because we don’t have the money. Second, we can’t afford some of these spending packages that folks are talking about. We have to cut the budget.”
• Contact reporter Mark D. Miller at 523-2279 or at mark.d.miller@juneauempire.com.





Comments (6)
Add commentAlaskans do better...
...if the solution is weighted towards taxing the rich. By and large our state doesn't have a lot of the 0.1% crowd compared to down south, but we sure use a lot of federal programs.
" But in order to get this
" But in order to get this deficit under control, we all have to participate. We can’t afford all the Bush tax cuts, because we don’t have the money. Second, we can’t afford some of these spending packages that folks are talking about. We have to cut the budget.”
Begich, you are a idiot.
The tax increases on the top 2% that the Lord of the Moochers is demanding, will only pay for 8 days of his welfare state. But "sticking" it to the so called " rich" sounds good to the simple minded. Hence the support of Begich.
It's about perceived fairness
It's about perceived fairness Madison. Because of all the BS from everywhere people will not understand that taxing the rich more will do nothing. There isn't enough of them. But it makes people feel better to blame someone and make it someone else's problem.
Here's an idea, make American companies employ Americans and make them make their products here. It's time to start taxing imports more then exports.
why do conservatives
never identify any of the cost for the Iraq and Afghanistan military offensives as having contributed to the National Debt. Perhpas these two ten year actions have been free.
Why when conservatives harp on cutting SS and Medicare , which do need some changes, do the same conservative balk at any changes to the military budget or the military retirement cost. A CBO report indicates 25% of the $600 plus billion dollar budget is for military retiree cost. In that report are suggestion to examine issues such as changing the retirement program similar to the changes proposed by the GOP for SS and Medicare. Yet those are sacred and can not be considered.
Yes there are many things that could probably be done across the board. That requires complete and full examination of everything and the end of the sacred cow and pork barrel projects funded by both parties.
safety
nets are needed, whats not is the pork. Cut funding for shrimps on the tredmill, & things like bo's newist scam EV battery think tank. Make both huoses forgo thier pay & bennies until they preform to our expectations. Only then look at taxing us more
tax hikes on the “rich” which
tax hikes on the “rich” which would fund the government for a mere 8 days and crush small businesses!
this admin needs to quit spending money we do not have. have to make cuts, quit raising the debt ceiling. hope people are prepared for what is going to come.
Hand Outs
Mitt Romney, is a poster child for the American financial industry that gets more government assistance than any other group.
The American financial sector would not exist in its current form if not for egregiously charitable tax policies (capital gains, cough) crafted specifically for its benefit. The industry has been the beneficiary of constant and massive bailouts and
is the single biggest recipient of American government largess, and are in fact so dependent on it that the sector as currently formulated would not even exist if it were not for that largess.
Hands Out
The 1% get their government hand outs via the heavy use of lobbying, massive campaign donations to both parties and to other politically-minded groups, and the hiring of ex-politicians who are then paid to rattle on in public about how students getting Pell Grants and the children of unemployed Americans getting a token amount of assistance during a recession in order to keep eating is dooming America through rampant parasitism.
And how the only good fix for it all is to end that nonsense and hand over Social Security, Medicare, and all of our tax money to the financial sector so that they can give the rest of us not jobs, but the mere satisfaction of knowing that some unadulterated, gambling-addicted, fabulously wealthy shi*head, somewhere, is achieving "prosperity" on our behalf and on our dime.
@Islander
If you want to be honest, you are going to have to agree that for many, many years there have been two hands in the cookie jar.
THE LEFT HAND
AND
THE RIGHT HAND
I am as conservative as they come and for a many years have been saying that both hands are in need of a good "slapping".