Mirror, mirror on the wall, who was the most "childish" of them all?

[Torie]

Picking up my little debate with px, and continuing for the sake of continuity if nothing else with the maturity, or lack thereof, meme, I thought I would throw this article on the pile as my next counterpunch.  I mean two can play this game, and this one is quite detailed, and to my little no doubt biased mind has considerable verisimilitude. In that regard, please focus on the text, rather than trashing the author as yet another right wing hack. Sometimes even hacks get it right. Thanks.

[Torie]

Read the article and it sounds right to me.  It's a little strange, since grabbing what Boehner was offering, $800 billion in taxes which seems to have included rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the top 2.5% and maybe the Dem estate tax package, would have given the Dems more bragging rights too-they have been pushing for the upper-tier rollback for quite a while.  But, when the Senate Dems found out the Gang of Six tax plan had been basically ignored, they got pissed, probably threatened not to pass the Boehner-Obama deal, and Obama caved to that and tried to get Boehner on board with the Senate tax plan.  In response, the House GOP caucus got pissed and said: "ok, if you're going to crank up your demands, big O, so are we; give us your mandate."

I think the article's indictment of Obama is reasonable.  It might however not be clear which is more the case here, whether Obama simply lacks leadership, or whether the Senate [and House] Dems muscled him and basically undermined his deal with Boehner.  Probably a good share of both.  In any event, the two chambers don't agree on the tax plan going forward, so Boehner talking to Reid makes some sense.

My God, what a sad mess.

Obama, perhaps for good reason, and perhaps not, is just not willing to have his Sister Souljah moment with the left wing of his party, which is about two thirds of it. Obama really did want a bigger deal I think. It certainly would have been to his electoral advantage. But Obama is really rather light in the courage department is my perception. Don't you agree Anvik with that?

In any event, Obama is a very good chess player (btw, do you play bridge too, in which event perhaps we can have a rubber match or two someday?), and managed quite well to make it seem like the plug was pulled by the Tea Party or something. Part of that is due to Boehner not being a very effective spokesman for himself. He should hire the author of this article to write what appears on his teleprompter for him to read!  

[Torie]

This analysis is too simplistic, for pinning everything on the extra 400 billion. Obama asked for the extra 400 billion on Tuesday, and talks continued for an extra three days. If there had been something inherent about this that killed the deal, then Boehner would have pulled out right there and then. Instead negotiations continued about other provisions. I don't think the evidence is inconsistent with that Obama genuinely wanted a deal and was trying to put together a bipartisan coalition with a majority in the House, and his asking for an extra 400 billion, which his aide says was negotiable, was a bid for more Democratic votes. On Friday morning the talks were in progress. The bottom line, was that Boehner was the one who refused to talk to Obama all Friday afternoon, and pulled out of talks.

Here is the article I relied on for my analysis.

Edit: And there is another article up at Politico. It makes clear that Boehner appears to have decided to end all talks by the end of Thursday and didn't notify the President for a day.

Boehner took Obama's ratchet up to his membership, which took some time, and when he got his answer that it was a deal killer, he told Obama that negotiations were going backwards, and that there was no point in talking further about a big deal, unless the ball moved back to where it was. It is that simple. Sure he should have taken Obama's call, and told him a response would be forthcoming, but that the tea leaves did not look good. He got back to Obama when he had a firm answer.

Don't you think it fair to characterize the side that killed negotiations, the one who backtracks on some major items (it was not just the 400 billion, but also the revenue floor and ceiling business), at the last moment? And that point, the optics obviously preclude any deal that includes the backtrack items. And that is the point of the article I think.

[Torie]

Many Pubbies have been asserting that the mandate is unconsitutional since rocks cooled. To suggest that it was some kind of bait and switch or whatever you are doing, confused me really.

 The Dems made a mistake in not finessing the mandate conundrum with the Torie approach, because I think they got a bit arrogant in those heady days for them. Where have all the flowers gone - long time passing? Maybe they were hoping one of the more conservative five on SCOTUS would die or something in the interim. In any event, it is up to the side that enacts something to weigh its legal risks. Obviously the opposition will test its legality. That goes without saying no?

[Torie]

I agree with Beet on the mandate issue as a matter of process in the health care debate.  In the negotiations of 2009, I don't remember hearing the alleged unconstitutionality of the mandate brought up until very late, when the bill was in the final stages of negotiations in the Senate, either.  As a matter of fact, I have a suspicion the language of the mandate was adjusted at the very end of the process, stripping away enforcement powers of the IRS if fines for violation weren't paid, in deference to the late objections.  Of course, it's true that when the GOP introduced their counter-proposal to Clintoncare in '93-94, which included a stronger mandate than is in current legislation, a lot of conservatives at the time balked, and by the end of that spectacle, Dole had abandoned the mandate too.  But, anyway, this discussion is about a different issue, and yes, the constitutionality of the mandate will now be decided by the courts.  The House throwing the mandate demand down in the face of Obama's request for Gang of Six revenue outlays the other day was an act of spite.  But, you know, I think the Obama people should have taken a little more time, maybe a day, to huddle with Senate Dems to get them more on board with the Boehner offer, or something closer to it; it may have just been that lack of consultation that ticked the Senate Dems off.

Boehner tossed the mandate repeal on the table at the last minute if spending targets are not met, to match Obama's last minute "demand" that the tax rates on the 250K plus earners go up if the targets are not met. Both triggers are deal killers, and both sides knew it.  Boehner was just making that point.

At the risk of beating the mandate thing to death, it was the responsibility of the Dems to do their legal homework. It was an obvious legal risk to me, when after the bill was passed, I finally understood how the mandate worked. That was another problem. As Pelosi said, the bill had to be passed to find out what was in it.  That hopefully will never happen again.

[Torie]

Well, if the Constitution enshired the rights of political parties you might have a point. But, the Constitution enshires the rights of the American people. The Constitution clearly places the onus on the legislature passing Constitiutional laws in the first place, and, not, on potential objectors filing their Constitutional objections prior to the passage of the legislation.

I don't know what the first comment about the constitutional rights of political parties means.  The point is that even the GOP, as far as I remember it, did not raise a constitutionality objection until very late in the negotiations, when it looked like the health care bill might pass in the Senate, and they knew about the mandate long, long before that point.  And, back in the early '90's, mandates were originally a GOP idea, so for many Dems, the fact that their constitutionality was questioned all of a sudden by the GOP came as a surprise.  The only thing I'm talking about on that score is process.  But the constitutionality of a law can be questioned by the courts only after the law has been passed.  And, FYI, more courts have upheld the constitutionality of the mandate than have rejected it so far.  If SCOTUS says it's unconstitutional, then it will be unconstitutional, and none of us yet knows what they will decide.  We'll see.

And, by the way, no "consensus" on spending cuts will pass the Senate unless a "consensus" on revenue enhancements is reached too; that would be just as true of a short-term fix as of a long-term fix.  Divided government means everyone has to give a little, not that the party that controls one chamber gets to dictate to the other party that controls the other chamber and the White House what to do.  Even the Constitution acknowledges that.

You think the Dem position is that they won't cut anything at all, unless they get more revenue?  If so, they need to go on record with that, per the Pubbies forcing a vote on that very issue. The Pubbies need to pass a bill that cuts just the most popular cut items, and see if the Dems want to explore what happens after August 2nd if they won't pass it.

The Pubbies should also say they will entertain more revenues as part of a larger tax reform bill that is growth friendly, and will continue to work on that with the Dems in the interim. But at the moment, time has run out. It is tough to rework our entire financial system in such a short period really.

[Torie]

Odd position Beet to me, but OK. In any event, I bet you dollars to donuts a lot of Pubbies at the time did say it was unconstitutional, but they were laughed off, because a fair number of them claim stuff is unconstitutional that SCOTUS long ago ruled in fact is, and those Pubbies are just SCOTUS nullification artists. But not this time!  As I said it is a risk - but it is only a risk. There is certainly a 40% or so chance that Kennedy will uphold the mandate perhaps. So hope is left in that particular Pandora's box for you. Be happy!  

[Torie]

What it is odd is this notion that the opposition has some duty to help the other party avoid stubbing its toe and suffering political damage for doing so.  Good luck with that Beet.

And sure, when you are not sure what the legalities are, in the off chance or maybe better that something may be upheld, you fight like hell on the merits of bills that are in the legal twilight zone - absolutely!  Doesn't that go without saying?

[Torie]

What it is odd is this notion that the opposition has some duty to help the other party avoid stubbing its toe and suffering political damage for doing so.  Good luck with that Beet.

Not help the other party, but at least debate in good faith. If you can't see anything wrong with the scenario I've outlined above, you're choosing not to look.

I don't consider that bad faith. I also don't think the Pubbies were laying in the weeds on this one. Do you have any evidence that they were, and just laughing their butts off at their most clever sting? Maybe - just maybe - they missed the legal risks too, because they are just as dumb as the Dems on this one. Is that at all possible - that the Pubbies are not in fact smarter than the Dems on Constitutional law and its assorted and sundry opacities? 

[Torie]

I don't think it was a deliberate strategy, I just think the Republicans care so passionately about overturning this law that they couldn't accept they'd lost in the democratic process (after a grueling hard fought fight) and were willing to shift over to a few unelected men sitting on benches, even if that meant surprising most legal experts in the process.

It was inevitable that somebody would bring such lawsuits. And both parties sue if they can find a reasonably plausible way after losing in the public square. Always have, always will. That is part of the process. Look at all those lawsuits in Wisconsin lately!   

[Torie]

You think the Dem position is that they won't cut anything at all, unless they get more revenue?  If so, they need to go on record with that, per the Pubbies forcing a vote on that very issue. The Pubbies need to pass a bill that cuts just the most popular cut items, and see if the Dems want to explore what happens after August 2nd if they won't pass it.

The Pubbies should also say they will entertain more revenues as part of a larger tax reform bill that is growth friendly, and will continue to work on that with the Dems in the interim. But at the moment, time has run out. It is tough to rework our entire financial system in such a short period really.

I don't know what the Dem "strategy" is, exactly.  I'm finding out daily just like everyone else.  What I'm saying is that what you're suggesting boils down to the Dems accepting immediate spending cuts up to $500 billion in exchange for the debt ceiling being raised.  That solution assumes 1.) that raising the debt ceiling is only in the Dems interest, and 2.) the Dems should just take the Republicans at their word that they'll work out tax hikes later, even though the initial deal is a total win for the GOP and they'd have no incentive to work out any tax deals "in the interim" before the election, having made their base ecstatic by not giving in on any tax hikes.  I doubt that the Dems would exactly jump at that solution.

My assumption, giving the Dems the benefit of the doubt, it is that they believe that some cuts are in the nation's best interest in some areas, even if not a dime of additional revenue is raised. Heck, let's start with the defense department!  

I don't seem to be making any progress here. Am I really that poor an advocate?  

[Torie]

Just to clarify here...  Obama is not interested in a clean lift (though presumably would sign one).  I think he ought to rake the Republicans over the coals for using the entire economy as a hostage but he's not doing that.  He continues to frame the situation as an opportunity for a big debt reduction deal.  I don't get why they're linked but that's that.

Harry Reid added 1.5 trillion in spending cuts to McConnell's escape hatch offer: to raise the debt ceiling clean provided Republicans could fake like their trying to stop it.  The Democrats added 1.5 tril in cuts into the mix.  McConnell-Reid received a chilly reception from House Republicans initially and it's gotten even colder today.  Going by reports, $1.5 trillion in cuts and no revenue in exchange for a ceiling lift big enough to get us into 2013 is being rejected by House Republican leaders (who voted repeatedly to raise the ceiling clean when the debt kept growing under a Republican president).  That is all.

That is because the cut thing down the road was not bankable.

[Torie]

What you and I would have done is first figure out how much revenue we can get from reforming the tax code in a way I love, and you can tolerate, while you love the amount of revenue raised, and I can tolerate it, and then with that money in the bank to move the ball down the field towards solvency, proceed to figure out how to get the debt beast under control to the promise land of actual solvency. And you and I would get it done, because we are both willing to piss off the geezers, and just take the political hit. Do I have that about right, Anvik?  

[Torie]

You have that right on the money, Torie!    Just as long as we can continue to adequately help the geezers that are truly in need, I don't mind pissing off the rest.

Heck, we could clean up Obamacare too while we are at it, since I think you and I got close to agreement on how to approach that puppy too. (The only thing I would add there to our previous discussion, is that the subsidization number for medical insurance premiums (partially means tested), as well as for medicare and medicaid services for that matter, should be based on HMO bids, and as to the latter, delivered by HMO's, but I digress.)  So the only thing left to work out is which one of us will be Mr. Congress, and which Mr. President.  

[Torie]

I don't believe the Republicans have anything close to a 'meritorious' case. Health care insurance is one of the most complex industries in the whole economy, and it passes the interstate test with flying colors if any form of commerce does. And forcing someone to buy something on the private market is actually a lot less intrusive than forcing someone to buy something from the government, which is what programs like Medicare and Medicaid do. If the former is unconstitutional, the latter should be unconstitutional even more so.

Then you should have no worries!    Why all the angst?

Moving right along, Medicare and Medicaid are government largess, funded with taxes. And you need not toke. The test is not the quantum of government "intrusion," and never has been, when it comes to the Constitution and SCOTUS. That is a public square issue.

[Torie]

Here is the revenue-free plan Pelosi outlined last week that TPM speculates this resembles.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/pelosi-outlines-revenue-free-path-forward-on-debt-limit-fight.php

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Cuts" from ending wars that hopefully will end, but maybe not. Whatever.  We have a long ways to go yet methinks.

[Torie]

Here is the revenue-free plan Pelosi outlined last week that TPM speculates this resembles.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/pelosi-outlines-revenue-free-path-forward-on-debt-limit-fight.php

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Cuts" from ending wars that hopefully will end, but maybe not. Whatever.  We have a long ways to go yet methinks.

[Torie]

If the two sides cannot agree on spending levels, then either 1) the side who wants to spend the most gets its way, or 2) there is a partial government shutdown. For those who don't want "1)" to always  be the ineluctable default option, "2)" has to be in play - always. And yes, to call that "terrorism" is indeed hyperbole.

Nice political analysis though Joementum. I quite admire it actually.

[Torie]

In other news, Rush Limbaugh claimed 45 minutes ago on his show that Boehner called him up a couple of hours ago and told him he had a deal that the debt limit would be raised 1.1 trillion carrying cash flow to next April, and that an evenly split by party panel of 6 members from each house would specify the spending cuts, and then there would be a round two. Although what Rush said Boehner said was not as conclusive on the matter has Rush interpreted it, Rush's interpretation was that Reid had folded and agreed to this deal, and that it would be put on Obama's desk to sign or veto.  This version of events has not yet been confirmed elsewhere in the media to my knowledge.

I just thought I would toss this one on the pile to add to the confusion and chaos of it all. Why not!

[Torie]

And now it's all over the Dems not wanting another vote before the election, so now it's time to score the planned wind down of the twin wars as "cuts" to shove stuff past the election. Charming.

[Torie]

Curious that the Obama never officially "clarified" that the 400 billion was just an idea in exchange for something else, and if not acceptable, OK, we will drop it. That is the spin of this version. Obama not saying that is what happened, either by him, or his press spokesman, to wit that the original deal was still on the table, like Boehner said just yesterday, in fact, suggests perhaps the answer as to why.

So much spin, so little substance, so little ...

[Torie]

Also CBO just scored Reid's plan as saving more than twice as much as Boehner's.  Sort of hilarious.

Yes, the CBO scores the phony cuts from winding down the twin wars as cuts. S and P will not for rating purposes. Next!