Talk Elections

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 (http://keithhennessey.com/2011/07/23/why-talks-fell-apart/) 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.

Well now, that's a spin not found in the other articles posted.......and basically a lie by the President.....interesting.

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.

I'm sorry, but including the Bush tax cuts for the rich as some big compromise from the Republicans is just ridiculous. If Congress does nothing they expire anyway. Repealing the Bush tax cuts is already established policy.

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 (http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile/52244274-68/boehner-obama-tax-aide.html.csp) I relied on for my analysis.

Edit: And there is another article up at Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59709.html). 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.

The article confirms the fact that negotiations were ongoing and then Boehner decided he didn't want to participate anymore because he didn't like where they were headed. Such a choice is incredibly irresponsible when we're 10 days away from catastrophe.

The article also fails to mention that Boehner wouldn't've even return the President's phone call for nearly a day and announced to the press he was pulling out of the talks before he told the President. Difficult to get more childish than that.

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!  :)

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.

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, 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!

The nature of negotiations is that it is an ongoing process. You could also say that Obama took Boehner's original offer, existence of which was not disclosed until Monday, back to his party (House and Senate) and found that it was unacceptable, even though the White House themselves would have accepted it. I think, if you want to say X was so inherently bad that it's at fault for everything, you need to say it as soon as X is proposed-- that would have been in Boehner's case, Tuesday or at the very latest Wednesday once he had a chance to poll his members. You can't continue negotiations with this hanging out there for three days and then at the end of the three days say that something that was done on Tuesday was at fault for everything irrevocably breaking down.

It's the same as the Republican behavior on the health care bill-- if Republicans think the mandate is unconstitutional they should have said it straight from the beginning, rather than trying to argue against it on legislative grounds and then only turn to the Courts once they'd lost in Congress. It smacks of changing the rules in the middle of the game.

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?

I don't remember hearing about that during the debate-- the main Republican objections seemed to be that it would cost too much money, 'death panels', procedural things like they were 'going too fast', and objection to the mandate on policy grounds. It's certainly possible that Republicans were also making a constitutional argument but it wasn't very prominent.

If something is unconstitutional, you'd expect that to be the first argument made, and we simply didn't see it. Most legal experts at the time the bill passed had no idea it would face such a strong challenge in the Courts. Had this discussion been more prominent from the beginning, the law might have been designed differently-- maybe the Torie finesse would have been taken. But it certainly seemed like a bait and switch to me, and most legal scholars would probably feel the same way.

In any case, this is not to rehash the health care debate.

Umm, if a law is Unconstitutional, it is Unconstitutional because the party whom has standing has had his Constitutional rights violated by the legislation. The opinion of each political party is irrelevent. If that political class takes offense, screw them!

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.

The article says:


That's lowering the tax rate on the richest.  There is no chance the GOP would agree to anything they couldn't argue was a tax cut.  If they are too afraid of their caucus to go back with a plan that's 3/4 spending cuts, that's their issue.

Democrats and Obama should be uniting around a simple message.  We and Republicans agree we can't agree.  Let's take an easy step to raise the ceiling clean and enough to get us past the next election, we'll both present visions and you decide at the voting booth how you want to reduce the debt.  Anyone who votes to let us default is responsible for what happens.

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.

Well, if there is consensus to raise the debt limit, and a consensus to cut spending, but no consensus to raise taxes, the obvious solution is to agree to a package of spending cuts with an increase in the debt limit.

This solution seems obvious, unless, of course, the Democrats don't really want to cut spending.

Neither party has a ridiculous position here. One wants to raise revenue by $800 Billion over 10 years and the other wants to raise it by $1.2 Trillion. The difference isn't huge enough to abandon a long term plan imo. Of course, regardless of what Torie says, both Obama AND the Republicans are scared of doing anything big, whether that be cutting back on entitlements or raising taxes. :)

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.

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.

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.

But much of the 'legal homework' consists in anticipating how judges will rule on a particular issue. In other words, it's not so cut and dry, it relies on inherent guesswork and a lot of politics. What's really put the mandate at judicial risk is not anything written down on paper prior to passage, it's that the conservative and tea party movements have made it a political priority to have it struck down in courts strongly enough that it has become a mainstream conservative judicial position (and don't try to argue that courts aren't political institutions, that would only be doubling down on the disingenuousness). It's particularly underhanded for anyone who believes it's unconstitutional to argue against the bill on policy grounds without at first stating their belief in its unconstitutionality, because the latter invalidates the whole point of the former. And yes, the broad principle of the individual mandate was known well before passage.

It's like, your wife comes to you and says she wants to go out and see a movie with her. You spend half an hour arguing about which movie to see, which is finally settled with a coin toss which she wins. Then you say 'I never wanted to see a movie in the beginning. It was your responsibility to ask me that.' Technically correct, but substantively dishonest and unfair.

The relevent question is whether, or not, the underlying bill is Unconstitutional. What is irrelevent, is the timing the political class in its comments on the bill.

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!  :)

It's not an odd position at all.

It's true that there are some really far out Pubbies who claim old stuff is unconstitutional, and get laughed off, and deserve to get laughed off because they're not mainstream. There isn't a 40% chance that their views will get imposed, no more than that the SCOTUS will strike down Social Security as unconstitutional, or child labor laws. (But if there is, I'd like to know about it now, because it seems that if Social Security is unconstitutional, there's no point in arguing about what its funding level should be. At least you can agree on this, right?)

We need to make a distinction between them and mainstream Pubbies, by which I mean the Pubbie judges who are actually sitting on the court, Pubbie politicians, and most Pubbie voters. This is important to me because had I known that the mainstream Pubbies, would actually make this such a huge deal, then I would have supported a different wording of the law in order to make it safer and legally stronger. Just as your wife wouldn't have spent 30 minutes arguing with you over which movie to see if she'd known you didn't want to see any movie. Maybe, had I known of the Constitutional objection, I wouldn't have supported Obama spending so much political capital on something that had a 60% chance of being struck down. Everything would have been different, and we all would have been saved a lot of bickering and useless arguing. I feel I was made to play one game, only to be told after I thought I'd won by the very difficult and intricate rules that it meant nothing.

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?

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.

Edit: In response to your edit: Torie. A bill with 99% chance of being upheld is worth a lot more than a bill with a 40% chance of being upheld. Many who would fight like hell for the former-- give up 30 seats in Congress for the former-- would take a pass on the latter.

Yes, you could say that the Republicans simply had more determination in the Courts than the Democrats realized, but then you're admitting that it's not about the merits of the case (constitutional or unconstitutional), it's about moving the goalposts to a different branch of government after losing in the other two.

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? 

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!   

It's time for Obama to man up and say "I'll immediately sign any clean bill, but I'm done playing this extortion game, and will spend my time on other matters."

That is always the case, yes, but usually these claimants don't have much chance of success, let alone a presumption of success. That's why we fight so hard over the outcomes in the public square. Otherwise you are going to bring the judiciary in, explicitly as a lawmaking body, with extra veto power over everything.

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.

That assumption could be valid, though. Many Republicans are probably hoping that the economy collapses so that their anointed one can win next year.

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.

Thanks for the clarification, Joe.

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?  :(

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

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.  :(

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?  :)

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.  :P

The Potomac two step?  The tune, the music changed Nov. 2. 2010. The vision, it's tune and beat may take a little getting use to.

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.

Again, you have asserted that this is an inside-the-beltway issue of subjection motivations.

This is a question of law. The Republicans are doing better in the Courts than you expected because they have a more meritorious  case than you initially believed.

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.

Actually, the case is all about government "intrusion," in theory, although in practice it is quite often about politics too.

1) Well, Courts haven't always shared your opinion.


2) Why are you bitching and moaning about a lack of Republicans stating their Constitutional objections to the bill when they aren't meritorious? If they are bound to lose, why complain?

In theory, the case is about whether the doctrine of limited, enumerated powers has any real  meaning, or is an defacto fiction.

OK. Obama must not carry through with his veto threat. It's time for him to cave. This is a Judgment of Solomon moment.

When will it end though?  Reagan caved to radical Islamic guerillas and 20 years later we had 9/11.  If Obama rewards economic terrorism, it'll encourage it as a tactic and American democracy will be permanently damaged.  14th, like Clinton said.  Let the GOP sue to destroy the economy.

Obama should just declare that the 14th amendment lets him raise the debt ceiling.  Let the Supreme Court decide whether to make the country default.

I'd like to improve my bridge game - I've played a lot of whist, but bridge only a couple of times.

Absolutely not. The reason the GOP is so bold is because they know the Dems almost always cave when the heat's on. Screw them. Let them cave for once.

Hi everyone,

This is my first post on this forum. It seems to be a reputable forum but, as I see, it does have its fair share of hacks (what forum doesn't?). However, unlike other forums, this one seems to have some thought-provoking commentary.

Anyways, I just heard that Harry Reid is offering spending cuts amounting to around $2 trillion in "his own plan" this evening that would take us past the election. The specifics aren't clear but with Boehner and Reid now seemingly having competing plans, It seems that we are, again, at an impasse.

I don't know if Reid's plan can get get Pelosi's and her liberal posse's support, however. A 100% spending cut plan would go against everything they've said previously and I don't think that Reid can get to $2 trillion without including entitlements unless he really squeezes domestic and defense discretionary...

I never thought we would get this close to default but with all these competing ultimatums... I just don't know...

Reports are it's 2.5 trillion from Reid.  The odd thing about this story is that reports last week that Obama was about to do a deal with Boehner for no revenue spurred Reid to protest against a revenue-free plan.  I apologize in advance for being a hack.  I've considered not being one, but the Republicans suck so I have no choice.  Welcome.

You're right. It is $2.5 trillion. I apologize. Well that makes it even harder to see how they get there without including entitlements. Even the plan to grow discretionary spending at one-half of inflation doesn't get us 'that' far.

 

From David Dayen's twitter.

I guarantee Reid will use $1T gimmick savings from "ending wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan, add $1.2T discretionary cuts, interest savings

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.

I would have to agree with you on that point. Frankly, I don't even know if that plan could pass the House. They seem hell-bent against any deal or plan even remotely associated with the Democrats and/or Obama.

Right now, I'm rooting for the old McConnell plan of shifting the debt-raising burden onto Obama. It'll get us past 2012 and I really don't believe it would be that politically damaging to Obama. Maybe it'll make a come-back in the last minute. 

This whole debt-ceiling + deficit reduction debate is manufactured crap, quite honestly. We need to be focusing on job creation, not this.

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.

Is the "half-trillion" deal still possible? It's the best option on the table for Obama, I'd say. Too bad Plouffe and company must be advising him to rule it out because of electoral reasons. The main risk in taking the McConnell plan is that the economic damage and anger at the entitlement cuts that would come with the incremental budget cuts would be mostly focused on Obama. After all, his administration would be the one proposing them. That plan is just a no-go for Obama. If I wasn't so scared of a Romney presidency, I'd support it because policy-wise it would lead to the best outcomes. It would also make Obama an almost guaranteed one term president.

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.

What if Dems unite around: this new Reid plan + announce intention to expire Bush tax cuts for the top 2% (unless GOP can agree to a tax reform plan that generates more revenue in a fair way) + we'll tackle entitlements in the 113th which will hopefully be less insane?

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.

Thanks for the info.

The Tea Party has already won in the sense that they shifted D.C.'s focus onto deficit reduction. Quite dispiriting for a Keynesian like myself.

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.  

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.

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. 

The problem with the short-term solution is that it sets a precedent for toll-booth spending cuts so the GOP can effect austerity as brutal as Cut, Cap, Balance piecemeal.  I do also think it's a plausible argument that Moody's and S&P will downgrade anyway because of the probability of a repeat.  Now, that the GOP took the entire economy hostage and made real the prospect for default, S&P has changed their tune from months ago and now demands political prescriptions.  They say they will downgrade our rating anyway without a $4 trillion debt cut.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/92552/obama-wanted-deal-payroll-holiday-unemployment-ratings-downgrade (http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/92552/obama-wanted-deal-payroll-holiday-unemployment-ratings-downgrade)

That article also cites sources that Obama was going for jobs stimulus in his deal with Boehner, by the way.  I think Obama thought jobs stimulus and doing what he could to avoid the downgrade the GOP is driving towards would help his re-election more than the specifics of a deal which would piss off not only his base.  I don't know how he responds to the GOP go-it-alone strategy now.  I think he needs to outline spending cuts, threaten the expiration of Bush tax cuts for rich and hopefully give the GOP vicious criticism for creating this crisis, as well as a large part of our debt in the first place.

Reid just put out the following statement:

“Tonight, talks broke down over Republicans’ continued insistence on a short-term raise of the debt ceiling, which is something that President Obama, Leader Pelosi and I have been clear we would not support. A short-term extension would not provide the certainty the markets are looking for, and risks many of the same dire economic consequences that would be triggered by default itself. Speaker Boehner’s plan, no matter how he tries to dress it up, is simply a short-term plan, and is therefore a non-starter in the Senate and with the President.

“In an effort to reach a bipartisan compromise, we are putting together a $2.7 trillion deficit reduction package that meets Republicans’ two major criteria: it will include enough spending cuts to meet or exceed the amount of a debt ceiling raise through the end of 2012, and it will not include revenues. We hope Speaker Boehner will abandon his ‘my way or the highway’ approach, and join us in forging a bipartisan compromise along these lines.”

-----

Yeah, so nothing new except that the Democrats are holding strong on the anti-short-term extension.

And it does look like Reid's plan has Obama's and Pelosi's blessing, though. At least that's my interpretation of "we". So it seems the Dems have already caved on revenues. Depressing.

Oh, and it looks like they increased their cuts from $2.5 trillion to $2.7 trillion.

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

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

We'll have to end them to avoid hitting the ceiling and crashing into the 30s.  Terrorists finally scare the US into withdrawing from the Islamic world.  (Except not Islamic terrorists.)

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.  :(

As I said, all sides of the politics have degraded and thus self-preservation is priority number one. Atleast the tea party cares somewhat about ideology and has a real motivation to force something to be done on this, though admittedly that motivation makes deal making more impossible. Ironic that we are in a situation where the only thing that is making it possible to deal with this issue, also has a side effect, making compromise impossible.

When you consider the character and priorities of these people, were it not for hitching it to debt ceiling, nothing would get done for sure till it's too late. Considering the crap they are now arguing over, nothing may be the result anyway. Either way, why stop watching now? It's not like this revelation should be anything new. Putting the best policy at the back of the bus has been standard procedure in Washington for a long time, the front seats are occupied by selfist political interest.

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

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

Don't worry, Anvi, Reid's plan won't pass the House.  Even if it did, revenue will be enhanced in 18 months when Bush cuts expire.

By the way, all, I don't think rejecting short-term is because it helps Obama's re-election as much as it is an effort to say that's enough playing with the ing ceiling for the 112th.  Look at how all-consuming this thing is.  The worst, least-productive congress in history.  I can't recall a party winning back a chamber and becoming so deeply unpopular so quickly.

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.  :(

Whats different? In the 111th all they did was pass three deeply flawed bills that cause more problems then they solve, and a bunch of useless jobs bills that tossed a little money around in the hope that it would trick enough voters in actually thinking they were doing something about jobs, in way that was cheap, easy and had no political price to pay. Actually doing something on jobs, whether it's spending on infrastructure (requires ponying up larger sums), education reform (pisses off the teachers union), tax code reform (someone is going to have to run counter to their rhetoric, most likely both parties), energy independence (see infrastructure),  or fiscal solvency (entitlement reform and tax hikes, you want to bite that bazooka) all bare a price. The 111th ran around doing things in certain ways to ensure that some of their bills got passed, even if content was thrown under and to ensure that they did everything possible to avoid loosing their majority. And in the end, they ended up loosing it, anyway.  I hardly call that being productive.

It didn't help that Obama was absolutely incompetent in working with even his own party members in congress. The lesson: next time a guy promises a change in the political discourse, and he has only been in the Senate for 4 years, RUN AWAY!!! He is either hopelessly naive and foolish, or outright lying to get elected. Either is disqualifying in my opinion.

This a point I was hoping someone else could make, since it would undoubtedly be more eloquent then what I could manage. Reid and Pelosi must have made a political decision in a backroom early this year that they were going to try and take away the GOP advantage among seniors by exposing the tea party and GOP as whole and their plans to change those programs. So they put on their armor and got on their horses to become great knights in shining armor, coming to the rescue of the seniors and their Social Security and Medicare. A damned great strategy for winning Florida for Obama in 2012, but a horrible one for actually reforming those programs to save both them and their recipients from even more drastic sacrifices down the road. Politics first, policy second. In so doing doing our two knights became shockingly hilarious proponents of shining counter-productive policy with more concern for the politics then actually trying to protect the seniors.

Atleast Obama was smart enough not to do that as well, that is to say unless it was a pre-planned strategy of him not doing so, to be the new Clinton triangulating his way to a second term and only this time with a revived Dem House.

The GOP confuses the hell out of me.  Reid, Pelosi, and Obama have found themselves way to the right of goddamn Ronald Reagan and are offering the GOP stuff it could never have dreamed of even during the Bush years.  And the GOP is turning it down?

Even Niall Ferguson is not on board with the GOP's anti-tax dogmatism:

"In the words of CBO Director Doug Elmendorf: “If Social Security and the major health programs faced no cuts, then defense and other noninterest spending would need to be cut by about 60 percent. Alternatively…outlays for Social Security and the major health programs would need to be cut by about 40 percent.

Reduce national security by three fifths or Social Security (and Medicare) by two fifths. That is the choice implied by the “No New Revenue” dogmatists, who oppose even the elimination of tax loopholes. It does not sound to me like an election-winning platform—more like a domestic row gone nuts."

Heck, even Grover Norquist said that it would be ok to let the Bush tax cuts expire. I'm leaning towards anvikshiki's position though... of the plans out there right now, Boehner's original plan with 800 billion in revenues is marginally better.

Wasn't the gang of 6 plan even better yet?
Honestly I feel like if they had somehow passed it through the senate then the house would have followed suit due to mounting pressure.

I'm not going to allow lumping Medicaid with Medicare without comment. Social Security and Medicare could be left untouched, but cuts to Medicaid could amelorate the alleged necessary cuts below.

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.

In any case, entitlements will need to be tackled relatively soon. There's no doubt about that. There are ways to sustain the programs without gutting them, however. Linking Medicare premiums to income is one way that comes to mind.

 

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.

I agree with you. It's something I would never offer at the negotiating table.

Even so, an Administration official said this morning that the chances are 50/50 that we won't have a deal by August 2nd. Boehner is also still trying to force his balanced-budget amendment into any sort of deal that takes place.

Yes, of course rejection is the Democrats' expectation.  This is essentially McConnell-Reid.   Entitlements don't need to be tackled in this congress and I prefer they be used to reverse GOP 2010 gains (largely powered by Mediscare tactics).  The GOP exploited Mediscare to win a House majority and then threatens deliberately crashing the economy for leverage to demand deep cuts to Medicare.  Guess what?  I have no problem with Democrats now using Medicare as a tool to undo that majority and approach entitlement reform in a more precise way and from a dominant position.  The prposals don't even dig at the root of the problem of medical inflation.  We should be starting with trying to cut out waste and using cheaper drugs before we play with eligibility age if necessary.

We didn't even need to deal with the debt in the 112th until the GOP created potential Depression as a consequence for not doing so.  Trying to cut spending with unemployment over 9% is a counterproductive way to tackle the debt, like the GOP describes raising taxes.  It's almost as foolish as cutting taxes when you go to war.

The thing about Boehner's offer is that the repeal of the individual mandate makes it impossible to cover people with pre-existing.  And that's obviously a trap Obama can't take because the GOP is probably more interested in repealing that then tackling entitlements (since they don't really care about the debt but are obsessed with stripping away any victories for him) so what's their incentive not to block Medicare changes in order to fatally wound Obamacare.  The end of which would take away from millions potential to access healthcare. And grow the debt.  In any case, trying to use the debt ceiling to fight Obamacare is like trying to use a continuing to fight Planned Parenthood.

Nor do I see why the voodoo revenue offered by Boehner via top tax rates dropping by 5-10% is so much more desirable than just doing nothing and letting the Bush tax cuts expire in 18 months.  Is the 800 billion in revenue in comparison to permanent Bush tax cut rates? Expiring top 2%?
In any case, not the Democrats' fault conservative Republicans went public with another plan and undercut Boehner (and McConnell and Reid and everyone else).

If it comes down to the GOP saying, take our bad offer or we'll blow up the economy in an unprecedented step, which it seems we're at, Obama at least has to draw the country's attention to the fact that the Republicans are acting like terrorists.  I know that gets called out as hyperbole but I don't see how it's not an apt way to describe people introducing a threat to deliberately expose the economy to collapse unless their demands are met.

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.

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.      

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! :)

Nothing says Good Government like asking Rush Limbaugh to give his seal of approval before you take any action.

Well, that is because there aren't any cuts proposed in the Reid Bill. We now see the specter of accounting gimmicks being tortured one step further. Everyone knows that the "baseline" assumption is that we will withdraw from Afghanistan, and Iraq eventually. Somehow, that eventuality is being deemed a trillion dollar "cut."

The Tea Party folks aren't stupid.

More details are emerging about Reid's proposal.  Supposedly, it's going to include detailed discretionary cuts taken right out of Paul Ryan's budget. It's going to include cuts that Republican's previously went on record as voting for so as to back Republican's into a corner and define them as hypocrites if they vote against the Reid proposal.  

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

What exactly has our current political class got us? A 14 trillion dollar national debt? 100 trillion dollars of real actuarial debt? Porous borders? 16% unemployment? Need I go one?

Why follow the same narrative of failure?

Not to mention the GOP already came out against a short-term deal recently.  How long until the GOP insists any deal MUST include revenue?  This is like a Bugs Bunny argument.

BigSkyBob,

I really don't see how the 'peace dividend' and interest savings could account for the entire $2.7 Trillion in Reid's proposal.  Even the most optimistic estimates regarding the 'peace dividend' only gets us to $1.3 trillion in deficit reduction. Where does the difference come from?

Amen.

This is all you have to know: White House organ in press announces of the Reid plan, "Nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to." That is, there is not single dime of current spending that the Democrats are willing cut for the sake of fiscal discipline no matter what is done about the debt ceiling.

In a nutshell, if the debt ceiling is not raised, they are against any cuts whatsoever. That is why we have a 14 trillion dollar national debt.

Seriously, guys, this is no time to talk about the debt ceiling.

Go to DailyKos and notice the absurdity as the site tries to promote a proposal that last week would have been considered a dream compromise concocted by Grover Norquist and Eric Cantor. Talk about cognitive dissonance, it feels like many progressives at this point are just trying to justify opposition to anything proposed by a Republican even if on the merits it might be the best deal policy-wise.

I'm really sick of the political posturing and electoral calculus, at this point I'm starting to think that a government shutdown would force these vain fools to come to a serious agreement that isn't rooted in gimmicks or scapegoating.

Obama's going to address the Nation at 9 PM on the debt ceiling.

Now, about "100" GOP congressmen are resisting any hike in the debt ceiling, according to Politico. They even oppose Boehner's two-step plan. They're just that hell bent on it.

Well, it's to the brink, I guess.

 

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.

Well, I suppose this means that Obama is going to be lying to the American People because he is already being cited as contacting banksters to reassure them if the debt ceiling isn't raised by August 2nd all our debts will be honored. Instead of telling the American people what he is telling banksters, I'm sure he continue to hype the doomsday scenario. Irresponsible.

Care to provide a link?

As reported by Charlie Gasperino.

It is a accounting-gimmick. I'll give you that. To assume that the Overseas Contingency fund will deplete by that much when we're such a war-happy nation is, well, do I even have to finish that sentence?

 

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/92664/republican-debunks-myth-400-billion-tax-demand (http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/92664/republican-debunks-myth-400-billion-tax-demand)

Unsurprisingly, Boehner's account of why he walked away from a grand bargain with Obama turns out to be a lie.  Is it a surprise after his dishonest speech last night (in an unprecedented allotment of equal time for response to the oppostion)? Obama wants a blank check?  Created this crisis? Can't take yes for an answer? 

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 ...

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.

Why is it always the onus on Obama to prove that he is negotiating in good faith? I find it astonishing that after all the concessions he made during the last year(to the point that he strained his relationship with congressional Democrats) he is still treated by some people like some kind of duplicitous, conniving snake-oil salesman who has to constantly prove that he isn't an elephant.

*btw let's drop the fantasy that Boehner misunderstood Obama.  Boehner's primetime address destroyed any credibility he had in reporting what's going on here.  His walk was most probably a move to up the pressure on Obama and Democrats so he could get to a deal less poisonous to his trying to stay Speaker.  Like many Boehner gambits, it sort of backfired.

Torie, Obama hasn't that I recall divulged any specific numbers of negotiations or negotiated in public.  He did say Boehner was refusing to call him back and informed him he was breaking off negotiations.  Who knows how few GOP votes JB could deliver on a Grand Bargain?  He can't even pass his own horrible plan for all we know. Is it so implausible that Boehner is just too scared to close the deal and ran and Obama didnt delve into specific offers?  

Anvi, why do you assume Obama hasn't?  Geithner hinted at as much on Sunday shows.  And Obama's speech seemed to rally the public to push for grand bargain over Reid.  I'm skeptical (but open-minded) about the extra revenue from lower taxes even with closed loopholes.  Let's not forget the Bush tax cuts didn't create jobs.  There's also the chance Bush tax cuts at all levels may be repealed if GOP holds them hostage for leverage to get richest tax cuts and Obama refuses to sign extension for all.  So both sides blame each other and disagree while the rev comes in.   Even if it doesn't happen, the politically risky prospect of it for both sides could motivate both sides to do tax reform that brings in less revenue than a full repeal

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.  

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!

 The other night I was thinking of this thread when these two, Juan Williams of fox news a big Obama defender telling Shepard Smith, another Obama supporter, agreeing that future generations indebtedness for their 401k’s staying solvent was the most important reason why the country must incur trillions more in debt.
  Meanwhile, a growing number of SS recipients are making big batches of margaritas, preparing their front row seats, for the price of giving up their checks to watch the Clinton progressive movement and the Obama Marxist assault on America die before their eyes. 

Manchin to vote against Reid plan.

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/article/36991--manchin-balks-at-democrat-gop-debt-ceiling-plans



I wonder whether Reid gets 60 votes. Might be the first time Senate Democrats actually come up with their own ideas in this Congress.

After Boehner refused to negotiate with Obama anymore and went to Reid, McConnell is now refusing to negotiate with Reid.  He'll only talk to Obama.  What was the question again?

Why are Democrats behaving like children with no budget and no plan?

Children are notorious for not having a budget.

Good. Ending Bush's policies is now phony. Let's end the Bush tax cuts since that would be phony also. Would shrink the debt substantially and wouldn't be a "real" tax hike.

The point is that we are already going to withdraw troops from the Middle East and S&P has already taken that into account. If we try to derive any more "savings" from there, they won't take it seriously. That is unless we change policy and immediately withdraw all our troops, which is not how these "savings" are being gotten.

Rather than offering budgeting gimmicks, the Dems should try their hardest to raise taxes. Be like the GOP and not give a sh**t about default unless taxes are raised, just like the GOP will not cave unless spending cuts are made. That would require having a pair of balls, and the willingness to lose the next election in order to do what is right. Of course the Democrats only care about being elected while the Republicans only care about not being primaried. And that is why we are in the situation we are in.

Why are Republicans behaving like greedy pricks who, after someone caves in to their demands, turn around and decide they want even more?

You see, two can play at that game.