Boehner in a Box, Obama in a Rage
The Tea Party won’t take yes for an answer. Even as the President caves in to their debt-ceiling demands, the Speaker of the House comes out like a ventriloquist’s dummy and demolishes the deal they were making.
“I have decided,” John Boehner harrumphs, “to end discussions with the White House and begin conversations with the leaders of the Senate in an effort to find a path forward…
“The president is emphatic that taxes have to be raised. As a former small businessman, I know tax increases destroy jobs.”
The Speaker’s lips are moving, but clearly Eric Cantor is pulling the strings for the House’s class of 2009, which has put Boehner into a box with no room for negotiation of any kind.
Barack Obama shows his anger: “Can they say yes to anything?…I have been left at the altar a couple of times now.”
30 Responses to “Boehner in a Box, Obama in a Rage”
The problem is that Democrats have no credibility in discussing spending cuts. Everyone knows that if the Democrats regain control of the House in 2013 that none of the promised budgets will occur. Supporting tax increases today to get a promise of future spending cuts.
The only thing that the Republicans should be focusing on should be budget cuts in the current budget year and taxes in the current budget year.
Any long term deal is a joke and will never occur.
“The Tea Party won’t take yes for an answer.”
Didn’t the Democrats just kill a deal that made it to the Senate?
Please, let’s try to be honest here. The dems are bending over with cuts but the reps are only throwing tantrums. They are digging their own graves. I hope. Obama is right to be angry. If the solution isn’t “balanced” it isn’t legit. The TP does NOT want a balanced solution.
JSpencer..Yes the Dems are bending over with cuts because they know the cuts will not come to reality. Who really beleives that a proposed budget today will be the budget in 8-10 years. That is 5 election cycles and not one Represenatative is going to run for election or reelection on something passed 10 years earlier. The voters memory last not much longer than 6 months or the next crisis, whichever occurs first.
I will say that Obama has played the Republicans like they were puppets on a string. Why Boehner and the Republicans allowed him to come out and announce first that “Boehner walked away from the table” sit the stage where the Republicans are the bad guys and Obama was the one giving in to all their demands and then have the rug pulled out from under him.
“Didn’t the Democrats just kill a deal that made it to the Senate?”
No actually they killed something with a party line vote that was passed in the House with a party line vote. When you have split gov a deal would be something that both groups could agree on. Voting on something you know will not pass the other chamber is not called a deal but wasting time, kinda like the public option.
RP- If we want to live in the land of “trust no one” we might as well stop talking now and start banging the drums of civil war. That sounds extreme but so does the “those cuts will never happen we cant trust them” or the “those tax increases will never happen we cant trust them” crying. Governing is about making deals. When we no longer trust each other enough to make deals we can not be governed. If we have reached that point neither the left nor the right wins, instead we all lose.
If you want to ensure the cuts take place or the tax increases you have to ensure those involved in the talks not only stay in power but more importantly that they do not try to change for personal benefit, like maybe a new weapons plant in their district.
MSF, I share your frustration and I agree with your reasons for endorsing the rejection the “cut, cap, and balance” bill in the Senate, but I also have some sympathy for those frustrated with the move by the President to try to pocket a deal and then move the goalposts by abruptly demanding another $400 billion tax increase at the 11th hour. That is equally as much political gamesmanship as the many Republican moves that have been condemned here in harsh terms in recent days.
MSF,
You mean like the ACA was passed on a party line vote?
And why didn’t the Senate send a bill back to the House as opposed to voting no and doing nothing in return. Seems obstructionist to me.
As to cuts and tax increases never happening, both sides are right, the only negotiation really should be over next year’s budget. The rest of it is sound and fury signifying nothing.
SteveinCH-Actually that would be more like the public option. You see the difference is that the public option could not pass in the Senate but could in the house. In the current situation the House GOP only package could not pass the Senate nor the WH. This is what we call wasting time.
I do agree that this should be a discussion about next years budget, sadly the GOP decided to hold the debt limit hostage instead of dealing with it as it should have been which is during budget negotiations.
Seriously MSF, you are funny.
The GOP passed a budget in the House. The Senate voted it down and offered nothing in its place.
The entire ACA was voted entirely party line in the House (do you remember?). Cut cap and balance got more dem votes in the House than the ACA got rep votes (public option or not).
SteveinCH-You are a very good comedian yourself. See noting that the ACA got less support from the GOP is another way of saying that the GOP is more locked into ideology versus good governance than the Dems are. You seem to think that is a good thing but I do not. It is the Houses JOB to pass a budget that can pass the Senate and be signed by the POTUS not create legislation that is dead on arrival. The House Dems did the same with many things, should the Senate have passed all of those pieces of legislation or offered an alternative?? Funny I do not remember you making that argument then. Cut and cap would force a 2/3 vote for tax increases, how well has that worked out for CA? Are you saying that the US should follow the example of CA, here I thought you were a fiscal conservative. I would note a fiscal and a tax conservative are different things. Fiscal conservatives want to ensure we pay our bills and can afford to. Tax conservatives want to pay as little as possible in taxes regardless of the effects.
It would have worked out fine, if it also took a 2/3 vote to increase spending.
“It would have worked out fine, if it also took a 2/3 vote to increase spending.”
1. It didn’t.
2. What do you base that on other than hope? We have an example in CA which does not look all that pretty.
To take your points 1 at a time.
1. You do realize your first argument (about level of support) is a heads I win tails you lose argument right? If the House reps had supported the ACA, you’d argue it was a bipartisan bill. If on the other hand, they don’t, they are partisan. It’s a pretty weak form of argumentation but maybe you believe it just the same.
2. Actually it’s not the House’s job to pass a budget that can be passed by the Senate, it’s the House’s job to pass a budget. If the Senate doesn’t like that budget, it’s the Senate’s job to amend it and send it back to the House. Telling the House to pass a bill the Senate likes is telling the Reps to negotiate with themselves rather than with the Senate. You know more about the process than that argument would suggest. And of course the “dead on arrival” bill was 5 votes short of passing. I didn’t see you arguing about the Dem House passing the DREAM act which stood no chance of passing the Senate now did I?
3. CA is a trainwreck but lack of revenues is hardly the problem. CA is in the top 10 in taxes per capita, about 30 percent over the national average. But still folks on the left say “there’s not enough revenue….”
http://www.census.gov/govs/statetax/05staxrank.html
4. Fiscal conservatives don’t just want a balanced budget. To take a crazy example…if we had a balanced Federal budget at 30 percent of GDP next year (versus this year’s 25 in spending) would you expect fiscal conservatives to vote for it? If so, you are just playing at semantics.
1. Yes and no, the point is still true. The GOP has been voting as a block and negotiating only with itself for a few years now and that is the point. To ensure that the ACA was not a bipartisan bill for political reasons they voted against it as a block. The Dems are split between libs and a few that lean GOP. The GOP is split between the GOP and the TP. The result is Dems voting for GOP ideas is not stunning, members of the GOP voting for Dem ideas is and that is what we call ideological paralysis. If memory serves one member of the GOP house did vote for the ACA but he had a short career and came from a heavily lefty district, much as the current Dem crossover votes usually come from conservative districts.
2. You do realize with the GOP split between the TP and the regular GOP they already are negotiating with themselves right? For instance we have a 3 to 1 cuts to revenue increases deal that has been tried in many forms that a large block of the GOP refuses to back come hell or highwater even though it gives more to the GOP than the last 3 GOP POTUS offered combined. As for 5 votes short of passing…really dude it could have been one and that still means it is dead on arrival. Also if it would have been close defections of supporters would have been likely. Much like the public option stances change when something may actually get passed.
3. I am not saying there is not enough revenue, I am saying that putting in 2/3′s votes type firewalls makes governance nearly impossible and CA is a wonderful real life example that you now seem to think is a good one to follow.
4. I would expect a split between the low debt and the low tax fiscal conservatives which are actually different groups that just happen to align in certain ways. For instance when discussing Bowles Simpson, which Obama’s and the gang of 6′s offer is gathering ever closer to, you sounded like a low debt fiscal conservative. This caused major confusion when you go on anti-progressive taxation rants. I know many fiscal conservatives that are also heavily pro-progressive taxation but they hate debt, not taxing those with the most money to tax. Just because you support both does not make it common, in fact many on the left and libertarians are anti-debt while still being pro-progressive taxation. This is one of the reasons Dems tend to lower the debt while raising taxes and the GOP tends to raise the debt by lowering them. Without progressive taxation the nation would need to cut things that would get them voted out or raise taxes on those that can afford it the least resulting in them getting voted out. Instead we currently rely on accounting gimmicks to hand off bad fiscal problems to the next Dem admin and then acting like we really really really wanted to cut those things and lower the debt after all, now that it can be blamed on the Dem POTUS
. Progressive taxation costs those at the top the most, high debt costs those at the bottom the most. Things that cost those at the bottom the most has never been a problem for the GOP and they have yet to swim against that trend.
I’ll just focus on 4. The tax code is more progressive today than it was in 1970.
Your view of history is highly skewed. Progressive taxation is by no means required to fund government; it is simply the way you prefer to do it.
See, my point is simple, I’m happy to raise revenue by eliminating tax loopholes. It’s the President who isn’t. He wants to cap deductions, making a complex system ever more complex because for him (and I suspect for you) progressivity is more important than the amount of income raised.
As to the 3:1 deal, it never existed. At best, a 1.7:1 deal existed in the mind of the White House.
The consequence of a 2/3 firewall should be a lack of revenue. Since there isn’t one, I guess it isn’t such a big deal.
As you point out, we didn’t do that in California. But even so, the mildness of our two previous bouts of bankruptcy suggests the panic over federal default is way overblown.
SteveinCH-and no matter how many times you repeat that I still hear many libertarians and centrists no less lefties crying that it is less progressive, and that is ignoring the many many articles and studies on the subject. Of course I will admit that much of this is because we do not tax all income equally to the benefit of the mega rich but I do not see you arguing to resolve that as much as arguing against further progressivity. If you did you would likely find a great deal more supporters.
And actually from everything I have read and seen the President IS supportive of closing loopholes for revenue increases since this gives the GOP cover on their election promises (something that in my view he should not care about since the favor would not be returned). It is Cantor and the House TP wing that has argued that all closed loopholes and tax changes have to be 100% revenue neutral. Boehner has talked and talked but I have yet to hear of a single raise of revenue that he thought he could pass through the House or even sneak past Eric Cantor.
As to the 3:1 deal…um you realize every bargain that has come close so far from the one Cantor walked away from to the latest all hover around 3:1 right? The discussions go on but the numbers have changed little probably because as the GOP stacks minimum cuts the Dems stack needed revenues and the pace is rather equal. At this point I would guess that we will get McConnels punt, a clean debt ceiling raise or a…3:1 deal since that is what we keep getting over and over. Push comes to shove I still hope that the 14th amendment gets pulled out to slap down this idiocy though so that we can then discuss this where it belongs in BUDGET discussions not on the debt ceiling.
Dr.J-Problem is when CA had problems it could go to uncle Sam, now we are talking about uncle Sam’s money being cut by around 40%. Subtract 40% from the largest employer and consumer in the world and yea I think we will have large problems not to mention our debt will actually grow since the interest will rise on default. The road warrior will not be roaming western highways but the pain felt will likely look much like the great depression.
MSF,
The data is out there for those who care to look. I guess you are not one such person. One of the hallmarks of a good analyst is someone who wants to look at the data not just find someone saying what he or she believes. I’d post it (again) for you but since you ignore it every time, I’m not sure what the point would be.
As to loopholes, you have heard incorrectly. The President is for some silly corporate loophole closures and that’s it. On the personal side, he is not for closures but for caps. Again, you’ve accepted what you wanted to believe.
On the 3:1 deal, go back and read the President’s press conference. He claims that he and Boehner had agreed on $800 billion in revenue and $1.65 trillion in cuts. That’s 2:1, not 3 to 1 and it’s less than that because about 20% of any deal is interest savings which should be a separate category. So that deal was really $800 in revenue, about $1.2 trillion in cuts and $450 billion in interest or a ratio of about 3:2.
Now the President’s desired $4 trillion deal was $1.2 trillion in revenue and $2.8 trillion in cuts. This is his reporting in the presser. But again, we have to correct for interest so $1.2 trillion in revenue $2 trillion in cuts and $800 billion in interest, aka about 1.7:1.
Pesky facts. So annoying when they don’t accord with the headlines published by pundits.
The data may be out ther, but Steve’s methods of analysis are so partisan that any use of them in his posts is always questionable.
LOL Jim. I’ve never seen you dispute the analysis just claim it’s partisan. Math pretty much isn’t partisan even though partisans often claim that it is.
Do you disagree that interest should be considered separately, given that it declines whether spending goes down or revenues go up?
Do you disagree with the notion of roughly 20 percent of the savings coming from interest changes?
Do you disagree with the numbers I used?
Or are you just being difficult because the facts can’t possibly conflict with the stories you’ve been told or read?
Feel free to let me know.
Yeah, maybe. It depends what alternatives investors have.
Poor Steve (in Chicago), with his partisan Dem critics denying reality!
Never mind Obama’s early-2010 shocker of a budget idea, deficits forever (reviling better people promptly). Don’t people here recall that among the other misdeeds the Dems did that Americans chose to repudiate strongly in November 2010 include the lack of any real budget by Obama and any budget or budget plan at all by Dems in Congress?
No, many don’t recall, because they can’t or won’t recall.
And all they can propose now are stupid class warrior attacks and mindlessness on entitlements, the core of reform, which involves spending? What losers. As smarter observers have noted, the GOP’s obstinacy and silliness at times is matched if not exceeded (as even liberal observers have claimed) by what Dems are doing.
Keith Hennessey put up a good read using only each side’s negotiating points and their quotes……always fun to see how divergent TMV headlines and facts can be.
Steve in Chicago wrote:
Don’t forget that this may also be pre-2012-election public opinion testing of various agenda (2012 campaign) items. I suspect this is so, at least.
* * *
I’m not as worried as some because the debt limit is an issue all its own and doesn’t require any budget agreement (irresponsibly not drafting and passing a budget has been a problem for many months). If no budget agreement can be had, the debt limit can and should be raised by Congress the same day that is decided.
C.O., consider the source of the TMV headlines (Hint: Mesozoic Era).
Steve, notice that you say that the interest “should” be considered as a separate item and then use that as the point for your criticism. You may prefer it that way, but the fact is that interest is a cost like any other, whether in the government or the business world and any savings from reducing interest cos are just as valid as any others. That kind of attempt to game the argument is why your analyses fall short so often.
That’s only because you fail to understand the logic Jim. If taxes are increased and no spending is cut, interest goes down. Counting that as a spending cut equivalent to others is putting your thumb on the scale of the ratio.
And even 2.8 to 1.2 which is the most charitable read is below 2.5 to 1.
No, Steve, I just disagree with your claims. That is not failure to understand the logic, just recognizing that it is “logic” tinged by your partisan views.
Well then Jim, feel free to make a counterargument. And as you do it realize that an “all tax” solution is impossible if you count the way you prefer.
Talk about being tinged by partisan views…but hey, it’s TMV…nothing new.