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

[anvi]

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 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.

[anvi]

Lief, the Bush tax cuts are set to expire at the end of 2012, and the Congress has to pass a budget before then, and the Republicans had not been willing up to this point to let them expire for the top bracket.  In comparison, it's my understanding that the Gang of Six tax plan did not include a rollback of the Bush tax cuts, but instead a shifting of all the rates in exchange for closing loopholes and deductions.  One of the ironies of this argument is that the $800 billion tax deal Boehner was apparently offering, though generating less revenue in the next ten years, was farther left in terms of what Dems have said they wanted; namely a rate increase for the top bracket.  The Senate tax plan, though it raises more revenue, is farther right in terms of what Republicans have been seeking in tax reform.  Obama ended up at the end of last week pushing for the plan that was ideologically farther right, but may have generated more revenue.  The whole thing could cause vertigo if I stare at it long enough.

[anvi]

Torie, I don't know how I'd answer the question about Obama's courage, per se.  I do think he is in a tough spot electorally next year; if he makes the Dem base happy and alienates independents, he is toast, but if he draws back independents by pissing off the Dem base, he risks death there too.  He is in a tougher spot with the constituencies that won him the presidency than the Republicans are with the constituency that won them back the House.  But, after a while, one just has to choose, because at this point, there is no fail-safe deal for him.  I think if I were to fault Obama for anything, it would be less lack of courage than lack of vision; the guy doesn't have his own plan, and so he tries to be a broker and gets caught too easily between the many fronts at odds on the Hill. 

By the way, I've played bridge a few times, but haven't built up any skill at it yet.  Best for me to stick to the chessboard.  But, you know, even on a chessboard, one needs both vision and courage!

[anvi]

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.

[anvi]

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.

[anvi]

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.

[anvi]

Thanks for the clarification, Joe.

[anvi]

Nah, you're not a bad advocate, Torie.  You at least convinced me that Obama has been doing some bungling the last few days.  Well, that's not hard to believe anyway, I guess.  If it were you and I negotiating, I have a feeling we'd have solved this long ago.    But, there are five hundred thirty nine people or so in a high-pitched negotiation here, and it's pretty hard for any of us to figure out how to get them all unstuck.  

[anvi]

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.

[anvi]

Torie, I'd have to look in more detail at the HMO bid rates and all that, but it sounds interesting.  In any case, I'd be happy to be Mr. Congress and you can be Mr. President.  I honestly can't viscerally understand why anyone would want to be president.  I'd prefer be run over by a bus, myself.

t_host1, If it were up to me, I'd take the tax bracket overhauls  over the upper-tier tax hikes alone, so long as I could be reasonably confident that the former could raise more revenue.  But the tune didn't completely change on Nov. 2, 2010.  The folks you like only won one chamber, and the other chamber and the White House are still held by your "opposition."  The GOP House is not going to get everything it wants, no matter what happens, and neither is the opposition.

[anvi]

Marston,

Welcome to the forum!

Obama had better not take Reid's "deal."  The last offer Boehner had on the table is a lot better than Reid's cop-out and ultimately self-destructive gimmick.

[anvi]

Well, the last statement I heard from Boehner was that his last offer was still on the table.  If all that's left is Reid's $2.5 trillion deal and Boehner's last offer, the latter is better. 

I'm not sure whether I'm remembering this correctly, but when McConnell put forward his offer of handing over raising the debt ceiling powers to the president, Reid added on to that $1.5 trillion of spending cuts and government commissions to decide on a later package of revenue raisers and further cuts?  And, when that was put forward, the House rejected it.  I think that's what Joementum reminded me of the other day, should be on page 3 of this thread.

[anvi]

Obama will have to swallow spending cuts on and some restructuring of entitlements anyway; he will be in hot water with his base for accepting those, and he has, according to his public statements, expressed willingness to take that hit.  The reason the Boehner deal is better than the Reid one for Obama is that the former has revenue enhancements, the latter doesn't.  If Obama takes the Boehner deal, he can at least say he got them, which will at least play some with the Dems and even independents, who favor by around 60%, some revenue enhancements.  If he takes Reid, he gets no revenue enhancements just in trade for not being hit with the debt-ceiling threat again; there's not nearly as much upside, nobody will give him much credit for that.

[anvi]

Do you think there's any meat to the Obama administration's argument that a short debt ceiling extension would cause economic instability and bond problems? To me those claims sound strike me as an half-assed explanation to avoid the electoral problems a Boehner deal might entail. I don't think the President has any other option but to take the deal, Boehner's rhetoric is pretty strong and would win popular support if Obama doesn't take it and we get close to the deadline.

Well, as mentioned, in my view, the Boehner deal is actually better for Obama electorally; it allows him to claim he got something that was important not only to his own constituency, but to a majority of self-identified independents too.  I don't think the Boehner deal is a short-term deal either; it lays out ten-year budget targets.  

I do think there is truth to the charge that not wanting to accept a short-term deal reflects Obama's hope that he won't have to have the debt ceiling leveraged against him before election time.  But the initial McConnell solution, allowing Obama to raise the ceiling three times before the '12 election time, had political intentions as well; it was a fail-safe on the debt-ceiling and at the same time would allow the GOP to pot-shot Obama every time he raised the ceiling until November of '12.  So, the fact that Obama had political worries about that scenario, since it had a political aim to begin with, is at least understandable.  Anyway, given what seems to be on the table at the moment, Boehner's offer is better than Reid's, both in terms of policy and even electorally for Obama.

[anvi]

Reid's $1.2 trillion figure is still quite a lot for discretionary spending. It has to include defense. How could it not?

I'm not sure I'd take Boehner's offer without knowing all the specifics, first. I know the general framework came out after Boehner walked out but the devil is in the details. Raising the Medicare eligibility age to 67 would be quite difficult to stomach for a single-payer advocate like myself. I'm also not totally bought into this chained-CPI for SS COLA's. Just keeping the cuts to discretionary spending as it is in Reid's plan would at least guarantee entitlements are saved from the Tea Party's and Obama's hatchet for the next couple years.  

Yeah, I see where you're coming from.  I think the discretionary cuts proposed by Reid would have to include defense, sure.  Going down the road, though, without revenue enhancements, entitlements may be in even bigger danger a few years down the road than they would be with those, admittedly very tough, adjustments.  I think means testing would work better for SS adjustments.  But, in any case, none of us know enough of the details. 

[anvi]

So, let me get this straight.  Democrats now are focusing attention on the timing of debt-ceiling raising measures over the next two years, and tearing into discretionary spending with a bunch of wishful thinking, so they can forestall entitlement cuts until the next election?  Or, per what Barney Frank said, they're ok with taking revenue enhancements off the table so long as they can trade a slightly higher eligibility age for Medicare and Social Security Cost of Living Adjustments for means testing and higher co-pays?  

In other words, they're bargaining away revenue enhancements over the long term so they can wall off entitlements for one and a half years?  They think that's a win?  Wow, I really can't watch anymore.  

[anvi]

Of course, you're right, NC Yankee, it's nothing new.  But, for me, that doesn't make it any less depressing. 

[anvi]

Ok, dear Democrats, rant alert:

My worry, Joementum, is about what can possibly pass both chambers anymore.  I mean, it's a perfectly good thing to argue about what is the best method for reforming entitlements.  But, the thing is, they do have to undergo some reform, that bullet has to be eaten.  Over the long term, there is no viable way to protect those programs without revenue enhancements; you can't bargain those away and justifiably claim that those programs are being protected.  After rejecting $800 billion over the next ten years from Boehner, after trying for the $1.2 trillion from the Gang of Six and coming up short, is it even possible to go back for revenue enhancements after you've said; "no, you can have them all so long as we can wall off entitlements till the next election"?  Since the GOP didn't want any revenue enhancements in the first bloody place, I doubt it.  I mean, come on, the leveraging of the debt ceiling, for all the hue and cry, was a huge bluff by the GOP; they can't let the deadline pass without raising the ceiling; their leaders have said it multiple times, and even the most unrealistic of budgets, Cut, Cap and Balance, had a debt ceiling lift too, since even that plan requires more borrowing.  Without more money in the very, very near future, the Democrats, for all their bluster about defending entitlements, are putting them in grave danger in the easily foreseeable future.  This Reid-Polosi move was a terribly, terribly bad one.  A stronger president would never have let them go there.   

Rant ended.  Going to bed.  Can't watch anymore.  Good grief. 

[anvi]

I wonder if Obama-Pelosi-Reid are really just really banking on the House being beholden to the Republican's who don't want any debt ceiling increase whatsoever to kill any plan they offer. Perhaps they know that even Reid's all-cuts plan will not sit well with the Tea Party elements and they just want to be able to say "hey, we tried to compromise and cut spending without any tax hikes and the GOP wouldn't even accept that". It's an interesting, but risky, theory.

It's way too risky of a theory, in my view.  And entirely unnecessary.  Unnecessary because something like Reid's present plan was already offered and rejected by the House, and upping the costs to just discretionary spending is not going to get any of the House GOP on board.  Risky because, even if Reid and Pelosi did this to just create a narrative on purpose, having suddenly said "no" to revenue enhancements after Obama and his team spent, what, three months to get them, you can't go back to the well for them with any real confidence they'll be put back on the table.  I mean, yesterday, in my view, Reid and Pelosi positively undermined the president's negotiations just so they can spin a narrative about the next election...and if Reid is to be believed, Obama went along with it.  To borrow a chess analogy, the Democrats just moved their king right into a mating net, and at a point in the game where they actually had a very decent position that was in line with what they've been saying all along they wanted.  One of the worst moves I've seen in all my years of observing politics.

[anvi]

Joementum,

Oh, I certainly don't think the Democrats should accept the version of Boehner's offer that repeals the mandate.  They also shouldn't accept a balanced-budget amendment proposal.  Both proposals are jokes.  I think Boehner only put that garbage on his offer after Obama decided he would prefer the $1.2 trillion in revenue enhancements to the $800 billion in Boehner's original offer.  It should be easy, in a negotiation process, to walk some of the joke stuff back.  Get Beohner to shelve the mandate and balanced budget amendment nonsense, exchange chained-CPI Cost of Living Adjustments in Social Security for means testing and a slightly upwardly revised, phased-in retirement age, and split the difference on revenues to $1 trillion over ten years, however you work the formula.  If the established lines of negotiation are stuck to, it really shouldn't be that hard to still make a deal.

The problem I have with Reid's move is that, first of all, the intended narrative he wants to create: "we offered them only spending cuts in exchange for a more stable debt-ceiling" and "we've walled off entitlements till the next election" doesn't even itself sound like an electoral winner to me.  The GOP can just respond by saying: "we offered the Democrats some trillion dollars in new revenues over the next ten years so they can do what they say they want to do, protect Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid for the future, and they said no."  Secondly, just in terms of policy, the longer we kick the can down the road on revenue raisers and spending cuts, the harder this will be after 2012.  Even in Reid's dream scenario, if Obama is reelected next year and even if the Democrats narrowly hold the Senate, they won't take back the House, and we're still stuck, except in an even bigger hole.  And, once again, the Bush tax cuts (not just for the top 2%, but for everyone) are not just going to expire at the end of next year; another budget has to be worked out before the next election, and everyone can bet their bottom dollar that preserving them will be item number one on the Republican agenda in those talks.  Then, you go into them trying to get more revenue from their expiration after you've already turned more revenue down this time round.

I can't speak with great authority on this, because I sure haven't done the math myself.  But, from what I've read, if the Bush tax cuts on the top 2% expire at the end of 2012, and if Democrats got the estate tax deal they've wanted, the revenues that would be brought in from that don't quite reach $800 billion.  On the other hand, Conrad and the Democrats on the Gang of Six claim that adjusting the rates will bring in $1.2 trillion over the next ten years, even though that assumes a certain rate of economic growth, of course.  Now, as far as I'm concerned, as someone who does want to preserve a robust but better crafted set of entitlement programs, if I'm negotiating, I'm going to try to get whatever makes more revenue, so we have more money to fund them, especially as baby boomers retire and costs of health care continue to rise.  Cutting costs is necessary, certainly, but anyone who wants to preserve entitlements in any form better be looking for ways to bring them more money.  Shelving that in order to craft a political narrative that is by no means guaranteed to even work, and which on top of that will only make fixes harder later, strikes me as a bad bargain.      

[anvi]

It's a sad day to be a Democrat when your leaders consider $2.7 trillion in cuts and no revenue a "win".

Amen.

[anvi]

So, the narrative that's been going around about the $400 billion isn't quite right, and the White House didn't offer sufficient clarification to Boehner, or wasn't able to communicate it, or something. 

It still leaves the question open about how to get these bigger talks going again.  Can't Obama just pick up the damned phone, straighten the issue out with Boehner and get the ball rolling again?  He is the president after all, and not just a broker between other parties, even if he himself forgets that far too often.  They've been bargaining for revenue enhancements for months, for God's sake; they can't just let Reid snap them off the table so he can game Senate races--this is too important.

[anvi]

I assume that, Joementum, because Obama signed on to Reid's approach on Sunday.  It might be the case, given the Chait article you posted, that Boehner just decided to jump ship at some point, knowing or believing that the Obama-Boehner deal in the making was just not going to pass his chamber, and at that point, the White House just decided to huddle with Reid.  But I still think that Obama shouldn't have given up that easily--smart and effective revenue enhancements are essential to the long-term survival of entitlements.  The White House should keep trying to get the House Democratic caucus unanimously on board with that, and try to relieve the pressure on Boehner so he can disregard the lunatic and self-destructive TEAers in that chamber.  Signing on to Reid's deal so quickly only pushed Boehner farther into the arms of that caucus, and now he is wasting days doing cartwheels, backflips and getting caught in even further weakening miscalculations just to satisfy those guys.