.

Congressman-Elect Eric Swalwell Wants Fiscal Cliff Conudrum Solved — Now!

Swalwell, who will be the new congressman for the 15th Congressional District, says going over the fiscal cliff could have terrible consequences for an already fragile economy.

Eric Swalwell hasn't even gotten the keys yet to his new Congressional office and just recently found a room to call home while in Washington.

But when he is officially sworn in on Jan. 3 to represent California's 15th Congressional District, the 32-year-old Democrat and the rest of the new Congress might be forced to quickly find a solution to something that has left the current Congress in a quagmire — the fiscal cliff.

One of Swalwell's most influential constituents, his mother, has given the congressman-elect an earful over the holidays on the importance of not going over the fiscal cliff.

"My mom has never made over $100,000 in her life," Swalwell said. "She calculated how much she will owe if we go over the fiscal cliff and it's about $3,000. I know if it's going to hit her, it's going to hit a lot of middle-class families in the district."

Swalwell, who won his seat by defeating 20-term Congressman Pete Stark in November, says he hopes the current Congress and the President can come to an agreement by the end of the year. If not, Swalwell said the consequences of falling over the cliff could have dire consequences for his district and the country.

What makes Jan. 1, 2013 financially important to almost every American, and why the phrase "fiscal cliff" has been uttered way too many times this holiday season, is because that's the day the Bush tax cuts expire.

The tax cuts, first implemented in 2001 and extended for two years in 2010, lowered the marginal tax rates for all tax brackets. On the first day of 2013, the tax cuts expire and everyone's marginal tax rate goes back to the pre-Bush levels.

Along with the marginal tax raise, if no deal in Washington is met by the end of the year, the payroll tax will immediately increase by 2 percent. On top of $500 billion tax increase, there will be broad spending cuts — impacting everything from defense spending to unemployment insurance — totaling about $200 billion.

The fiscal cliff in one sentence, as described by The Washington Post's Wonkblog, is, "Much too much austerity, much too quickly." If no agreement is made, the Congressional Budget Office projects that the U.S. economy will go back into recession and the unemployment rate will rise to 9.1 percent (it's currently at 7.7 percent) by the end of 2013.

Swalwell said he backs President Barack Obama's solution to the fiscal cliff conundrum. He would like the tax cuts to become permanent for everyone making less than $250,000, but for the rates to rise for everyone making more. Republicans would like to the Bush tax cuts to become permanent for all incomes.

"Congress needs to, right now, keep tax rates where they are for 98 percent of Americans," Swalwell said. "Asking the wealthiest 2 percent to pay their fair share seems reasonable."

With the clock ticking, Swalwell believes there isn't time to tackle the long-term fiscal problems facing the country, like Social Security and Medicare spending. For the time being, Republicans and Democrats should focus on not raising taxes on middle-class families but rather on trying to solve the big issues during the 113th Congress, Swalwell said.

"I'm optimistic that the cry of the American people to avoid the fiscal cliff will be heard," Swalwell said.

If those cries go unanswered, the new Congress will have try and remedy the situation before there is too much economic damage.

That's a distinct possibility. House Speaker John Boehner said he's waiting for the Senate to pass a bill before he will call Congress back into session, Politico reported Wednesday.

It will take two days for congressional representatives to return to Washington.

There are four days before the country goes cliff-diving.

Do you think Congress and the President will come to an agreement before we go over the fiscal cliff? What do you think will be a fair compromise? Tell us in the comments section.

Stephania Widger December 27, 2012 at 09:21 PM
Mr Swallwell is way to virginal in politics to be spouting like he is. Califorians did NOT research him and his supporters before they voted for him. Mr Swallwell is supported by quite a few Teabaggers who just wanted to push Pete Stark out. Let's vote Swallwell out as soon as we can.. so he will cause as little damage as he can..
Edward December 28, 2012 at 05:35 AM
We will have to wait and see it he is a moderate Democrat or a Republican in Democratic Clothing. He did not have labor, Environmental or teachers support because they all Owed Congrssman Pete Stark Loyalty for his 40 years of supporting Labor and Environmental Laws. Over the next 12 months we will see his voting record and if he does not come through for Alameda County and the Majority of Workers, he will find himself running in a primary and General election against a more Liberal Democrat. His Mother does not want to see her taxes go up, but, a deal that cuts $3,000.00 off her Medicare so she does not have to pay the $3,000.00 Taxes won't be a good trade. Remember, she also has to pay an aditional $2,000.00 in Income taxes since they now tax her Social Security that used to be paid to receipiants "TAX FREE" before they Made a deal that used the Taxation on Social Security Benefits a trade not to raise the Social Security Contributions on the Higher wage earning workers. (Another taxbreak for the Rich on the Backs of Seniors)
Tom December 28, 2012 at 02:45 PM
Swalwell actively sought the Republicans/Tea Party votes while claiming to be a Democrat. In my eyes, that makes him a Repub in Democratic clothing. I hope he didn't sign a lease for more than two years as he will be gone after the next election.
Edward December 30, 2012 at 12:27 AM
Seniors on Social Security and Pensions will not see much of an increase in taxes because of the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts ending, but, will get a COLA increase on their benefits of $30.00 to $40.00 per month. The Republicans want Seniors to feel more pain by raising the medicare Age, reducing COLA Social Security increases, so that the Wealthy can keep paying historiclay low Taxes. 18 years ago, Seniors were hit with new taxes on their Social Security Benefits those taxes have been going up every years with each COLA increase. They were promised that if they paid taxes on their Social Security Contibutions while they were working, they would receive "TAX FREE" benefits. (Just like the ROTH IRA). But Congress changed the rules and the LAW that now makes Seniors Pay just to get Tax Breaks on the Rich so they did not have to pay higher FICA contribution limits. Every time there is a "Grand Bargain, Seniors LOSE. The Bush tax cuts gave Seniors a total of $90.00. So losing that $90.00 and geting back $360.00 a year in COLA Benefits is just fine. Seniors who are living on Dividends and Capital Gains rather than Penions and Social Security will pay more.
Mark December 30, 2012 at 03:12 AM
Tom , and everyone similarly inclined, the result of the 2012 election is exactly what we as Californians desired when we overwhelmingly voted for Proposition 14 - the Open Primary initiative. And the result is exactly as predicted - candidates that trend to the middle and have support from both sides will win. Candidates that are on the lunatic fringes of either party will are dinosaurs. The alameda county democratic central committee did not get it. Pete Stark did not get it. And you do not get it if you think that the result wil be any different in 2014 if the Democratic Party puts up anther left wing nut case - the party will render itself irrelevant Wake up. This is the way to end the stalemate in Washington and California and its working People before party
Edward December 30, 2012 at 07:10 PM
The Alameda County Democtatic Centeral Committee wanted a Candidate that would hot Cave in to Republican Stonewalling. Pete Stark was the Hard line liberal that voted against every war, voted to save Social Security and maintain Medicare. He worked hard for us for 40 years and his Retirement should have been his choice, not the Republicans of Alameda County as an Anti-Liberal Vote. It will be interesting to see who the Republicans put forward in 2012 to run against Swalwell,
Edward December 30, 2012 at 07:13 PM
I meant 2014 to run against Swalwell. It will also be interesting if his voting record will get the ACDCC to endorse him in 2014.
Edward December 30, 2012 at 07:23 PM
To extend Unemployment the Republicans want to Cut Social Security to your MOM Mr. Swalwell. A bitter pill for all Seniors from the Republicans so their rich buddies can keep more and your out of work neighbors are not thrown under the Republican Stone Wall Bus. Would you compromise Seniors just to get a Grand Bargain?
Mark December 31, 2012 at 10:34 PM
Edward, you said "...his Retirement should have been his choice, not the Republicans of Alameda County..." REALLY? I thought it was the voter's choice to retire politicians? But be that as it may, you implicitly are saying (and I agree) that is Stark ran against a REP - that he would have won. The implication is that Swalwell pulled a lot of DEM votes, specifically those DEMs who were not as "...hard line liberal..." as was Stark. The AC central committee should have figured that out... It is common knowledge that that is what happens with open primaries. This is not an argument AGAINST Stark as much as it is for the need for the party leaders to better understand the dynamics of the election they are in, including the reality that it is an open primary and redistributing left Stark with a district decidedly less aligned with his views. So in 2014, if you don't like Swalwell, fine...but don't run another far left lunatic against him - the playing field will be the same and so will the results
Edward December 31, 2012 at 10:54 PM
Well said, Mark. We will see what his voting record is and how he lines up with other Bay Area Democrats and in 12 months, we will see if he fits the 15th district demographics and political needs.
Edward December 31, 2012 at 11:04 PM
In the Democratic primary, Congressman elect Swalwell had only a little more than 1/3 the Democrats vote compared to Congressman Pete Stark. Democrats wanted Pete Stark. Swalwell unseated a 40 year seniority Congressman only by using this open primary and top two vote getter run off General Election to garner Republican votes. It is a shame that Pete Stark had not chosen to retire and not run in 2012. Then it would have been a "clean win" Democrat against Republican in the new 15th District that has a larger Republican electorate than the previouse 13th District Pete Stark Represented. He could be another 20 term Democrat if he does not step on those toes that traditionally elect Democrats in the Bay Area.

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