Desperate to make a deal, Speaker Boehner met secretly with the president on Sunday. Then the president called for a summit at the White House on Thursday. The Republicans don’t want to get lectured and they hope the president will take several valiums. Meanwhile, Boehner seems to be painting himself into a corner.
“We’re not dealing just with talking points about corporate jets or other ‘loopholes.’ The legislation the President has asked for — which would increase taxes on small businesses and destroy more American jobs — cannot pass the House, as I have stated repeatedly,” Boehner said in a statement. “I’m happy to discuss these issues at the White House, but such discussions will be fruitless until the President recognizes economic and legislative reality.”
Boehner will have to capitulate. It’s his responsibility to pass something that the Senate Democrats will endorse and that the president will sign. That’s his job. Unless he wants the U.S. to default on its debts, he has no choice.
His caucus will kill him for it. New speaker by Christmas.
I still say that the real money men have already locked him in a closet without his Jack Daniels, and told him what had to happen.
“without his Jack Daniels” – very good!
What does “capitulate” mean, exactly?
I’ve been busy with Sam the past week, but have seen glimpses in the Times of “tens of billions in medicare and medicaid cuts” on the table now, and the whole “85% cuts/15% revenue” trope is still floating around.
If that’s the working definition of “capitulation”, who’s actually capitulating, and who’s begging not to be thrown into the briar patch? A deal where your opponent gets 85% of what he wants and you only get 15% is no deal at all.
Personally, I don’t know if Boner can or will back down: cole has a great allegory here.
The cuts in Medicare amount to telling hospitals that we won’t pay them for Medicare patients who don’t pay their bills. It’s the “hire your own collection agency” amendment.
It could have some nasty effects, mainly through cost-shifting, but it’s not something I’d get upset about.
I’m more concerned about Medicaid cuts.
There’s a bit of a pattern with these high stakes legislative logjams in which the media and a certain part of the left become respectively over-dramatic and suicidal about some horrendous deal Obama’s going to cut, and then it turns out he cuts a pretty good deal, and the reason is the “preparation” (thanks GOP, and thanks Obama for knowing how to let them “prepare”) that precedes the final moves. I think you’ve outlined well the limits the GOP have to work with. And, I predict that Obama will have played this somewhere between well, and very well, with the worst thing being the Medicaid issue, but I also predict that will come out better than expected by people like Ezra Klein. We’ll see soon enough.
So “playing this well” is now defined as slashing Medicaid, cutting Medicare and Social Security, and exacerbating unemployment by focusing on deficit reduction. This is good to know. I would hate to see how “playing this poorly” would look.
By playing it well I mean playing it well given the circumstances, of course. The way you try to avoid that circumstances thing in your argument is to imply that Obama is largely responsible for creating the circumstances within which he has to operate, to me a preposterous notion. The only example you specifically bring up to support that position here is the deficit reduction framing (and I note that the heavy weaponry you bring out is merely about how poor telepromter-dependent Obama handles rhetoric–unless you you think Obama actually prefers Wall Street to helping the poor, a position I think you can only take by ignoring a massive amount of evidence).
But the deficit reduction issue was coming no matter what because it is an actual problem. I perceive the Obama approach as long term, and he benefits because he is about the only one around that seems willing to combine urgency with patience, which is my newly-coined definition for thinking strategically. The GOP strategy is to keep Medicare a problem until it finally collapses under the weight of its insolvence. Obama’s strategy is to force some kind of attention on the Medicare issue because it is actually necessary to address the issue of it’s solvency if we want to preserve it. The reason it’s probably possible to get something done in spite of the Dems not controlling both houses is that the GOP has created an opportunity for a strong counterpunch to their strenuous fake concern about the deficit. Similarly, the GOP’s fake concern about the deficit will be used by Obama to avoid extending tax breaks for the rich, and by the time that happens, the popular tide in favor of not extending the cuts, and against GOP holding the country hostage for the rich, will be even greater.
Again, based on what I’ve seen from Obama, I don’t expect a “slash” in Medicaid, but I could be wrong, and if it does come, it will have some kind of impact on the mid and long-term GOP prospects that is reversible once Dems control both houses again, since the way you actually pass laws is by controlling the Congress, not by brilliant framing or Rambo-like public ass-kickings.
The point is that either way the fight is long term. First this bit, then another fight on not extending taxes for the rich which will have an even bigger swell of popular support after the GOP, with the media’s help, have wound the rope around their necks again and again, revealing their “we’re for the rich” identity with a clarity not seen in decades. Then a sweep to power in 2012 followed by work on things that you can’t do when the GOP has an overwhelming majority in the House.
Correction to my already super-long response:
instead of:
Again, based on what I’ve seen from Obama, I don’t expect a “slash” in Medicaid, but I could be wrong, and if it does come, it will have some kind of impact on the mid and long-term GOP prospects that is reversible once Dems control both houses again, since the way you actually pass laws is by controlling the Congress, not by brilliant framing or Rambo-like public ass-kickings.
this (SEE CAPS):
Again, based on what I’ve seen from Obama, I don’t expect a “slash” in Medicaid, but I could be wrong, and if it does come, it will have some kind of NEGATIVE impact on the mid and long-term GOP prospectS, WHILE ITS IMPACTS ON THE POOR WILL BE reversible once Dems control both houses again, since the way you actually pass laws is by controlling the Congress, not by brilliant framing or Rambo-like public ass-kickings.
You mean like the deal he cut to extend the tax cuts for billionaires, and he got in return 3 cracker-jack boxes and a toy water gun?
The middle class and poor got roughly twice as much actual $$ benefit from the deal that Obama and the Dem leadership got out of the GOP. I’m not sure how you can call that “cracker jack and a water gun” and still call yourself “data” guy.
You mean the passage of START, repeal of DADT, and also tax cuts extended for middle class?
Yeah… toy guns indeed.
Medicare if rapidly becoming a cruel joke when hospitals and other providers start playing the co-pay and deduction game by creative billing. Supposed no-cost preventive procedures can be billed as regular visits costing hundreds of dollars. And the patient is caught between Medicare and the provider, with the provider setting loose their collection agencies with multiple daily calls from blind telephone numbers.
Anyone whose sole support comes from Social Security cannot afford Medicare anymore.
And they are going to structure to doc fix to make a bad situation worse?
I’m having trouble deciding who’re the bigger bastards–the bullies or the wimps.
If Boehner capitulates, everybody loses but the bankers. Because the administration has already given away the farm.
Large medical systems don’t cost-shift anymore unless they absolutely have to. The ironic thing about it that if they would lower their fees, they would save all of the money currently lost to hiring people to do creative billing, IT costs for micromanagement, and collection costs both from the insurers (like Medicare) and patients.
My physician is trapped in this system by having traded payment of his med school bills for servitude. He sees that the crap is increasing and does not like it because more and more of his patients are skipping necessary screenings and appointments–and “stretching” medications.
Republicans hate the 1960s so much they are trying to kill all of the boomers who didn’t “look out for #1”.
You’re thinking in rational, progressive terms. Republicans aren’t rational. Or progressive. They want nothing less than the destruction of the welfare state. And they’re not gonna get it.
Nor is Obama “giving up” 85% of anything.
From your mouth…
I have no idea how this will come out, just the options for each eventuality.
It’s a hell of a thing when the act of raising the most minimal of revenues is now ideological and practical capitulation. Congratulations, Grover Norquist.
Also, does it bother anybody else that “with only two weeks to go” until the compromise has to be passed that no broad details have been released about what’s in it? Surely, if the two sides have already agreed to more than a trillion in discretionary and security related cuts, they could start laying the groundwork publicly to release details to show some sort of tangible progress? Are they afraid to show what’s in them? And who is protecting who if that’s the case?
Interesting observation.
Springing the legislative language on Congress could be beneficial to either of the sides. Republicans are betting on a backlash against Democrats for “sacrificing Social Security and Medicare”. Democrats are betting on a Tea Party backlash against Republicans for allowing “taxes to be raised” by closing loopholes.
And then there’s the possibility that the current resulting legislation will not soothe the bankers.
It might not be friendly protection but deterrence through mutual assured destruction.
The most unlikely (but still not excludable) possibility is an agreement between the President and the leadership to stiff the Tea Party by blowing past the debt ceiling and dealing with actual Congressional authorizations.
I’m not sure I’d call trading a few hundred billion dollars in revenue enhances for trillions in cuts “capitulation.”
Result will be to the left of the Catfood Panel’s recommendations, so Obama will crow about victory, but the truth is the argument has been shifted so far to the right, it will be a GOP victory, despite the harping of Tea Party types.
I disagree with the media consensus that such a ‘capitulation’ will actually hurt the GOP very much, in fact, much of their base, as well as most independents, may actually applaud their return to apparent sanity and compromise, as well as their fight.
Thank goodness Obama is getting out front with his whole avuncular reasonableness thing (see recent press-room speech), so he can steal as much of that thunder for himself.
Obama will probably get a better deal than we expect as has been in the past. Here is a decent blog post break down on his style.
http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2011/07/hostage-negotiations.html
My issue is that all of these were preventable in the first place and Congressional Democrats take responsibility. Health Care took way too long. Thanks Max. Democrats should have passed a budget before the last election and definitely should have done something on Bush tax cuts. This debt ceiling crap should have been included in Bush Tax Cuts/Unemployment deal. Obama and Reid’s quotes about GOP taking ownership on debt ceiling was short sighted.
I do not know if all of these are Obama’s main fault but decision making between White House and Dem Leadership leads them into situations that could have been avoided.
The fault is the Dem rank-and-file in Congress. With a little research, you can tally up the names. With some organization in their districts you might get them replaced before the Republicans can take the seat.
And all you have to look at is (1) who donates to them, (2) which lobbying firms contributed personnel to their staffs, (3) which lobbying firms provided a home for their former staff members, (4) what industries are in their district, and (5) which lobbying firm or industry association members of their family work for.
Neither the “leadership” nor President Obama “leads” the way a general or dictator would. They mostly state publicly the consensus of the pack. (The GOP leadership does the same thing: watch McConnell up against DeMint and Coburn and Imhofe or Boehner up against Ryan and Cantor and Issa). The tone of the leadership reflects the tone of the backbenchers without whose votes nothing passes.
The link to smarty pants discussing hostage taking and negotiating with hostage takers was brilliant.