The Washington Post reports on John Boehner’s latest gambit:
People in both parties said talks broke down over tax reform: On Friday, the White House said changes in tax law must not shift the tax burden more heavily onto households earning less than $250,000 a year. After that, suddenly things went dark, said an administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private negotiations.
Some Republican aides said the deal was simply not good enough, in part because Obama refused to cut entitlement programs deeply enough to restore them to solvency. They also complained that, as part of a mechanism to force lawmakers to overhaul the tax code, the president wanted a trigger that would automatically raise taxes if tax legislation was not enacted by the end of this year.
But other Republicans said Boehner had finally realized that he could not sell the tax framework within his party. Many House Republicans, particularly the influential 87-member freshman class, won elections vowing to never raise taxes. At a Thursday meeting at the White House, Cantor said the tax package could not pass the House. And at a Friday morning news conference, every member of Boehner’s leadership team denounced the idea of including tax increases in the debt legislation.
Meanwhile, Republican presidential candidates have been putting additional pressure on Boehner. Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) vowed in her first campaign ad to never vote for any debt-ceiling increase, no matter what provisions were attached to it.
I’ve been saying it for quite a while. Speaker Boehner can’t pass anything without Democratic votes. His own caucus is crazy and irresponsible. Politically, the White House has done a great job of positioning themselves. They’ve put their sacred cows on the altar to await slaughter. They’ve identified nearly $2 trillion in spending cuts. They’ve talked about eliminating tax loopholes for millionaires and billionaires. And, after all this, Speaker Boehner says he can’t make a single compromise and he can’t pass anything.
I never thought that Boehner would cave easily. He likes his cushy job and his large office where he can break the rules and smoke cigarettes to his heart’s delight. But the White House has not only made as many concessions as anyone reasonable could expect them to make, they’ve won the messaging war with the public. Their positions not only poll better, but it’s obvious to everyone that one side is being obstinate. If Obama holds firm on this ground, Boehner won’t have a leg to stand on. He will have to crawl to Steny Hoyer and beg for the votes he needs to raise the debt ceiling. But I’m not sure he can succeed even if he capitulates. How many Republicans are willing to follow him off a cliff?
I thought this part was funny:
Ironically, it was Boehner who cajoled Obama into pushing for the big deal. His Saturday night announcement [that he was abandoning the big deal] capped a whirlwind courtship between the two men, beginning with a casual round of golf at Andrews Air Force Base on June 18.
A series of secret meetings followed, culminating in a decision to push for a landmark debt-reduction deal. Both leaders believed that divided government — with Republicans in charge of the House and Democrats holding the Senate and the presidency — might provide an opportunity to demonstrate that bipartisan cooperation was still possible on a grand scale.
I don’t think the Party of Hell No has any interest in bipartisan cooperation on any scale.
So, where do we go from here?
Options:
a.) Obama pays the debts anyway, regardless of what Congress says, and we move on saying their leverage is completely gone. Now let’s pass a budget.
b.) We crash the economy because neither party will move.
c.) Eventually Boehner caves and a bill is passed on Democratic terms (unlikely to the extreme).
d.) Obama caves and we pass the Biden talks with no tax increase (likely).
Wall Street doesn’t care which option is done, so long as it’s not option b.) They will go the path of least resistance, which also happens to be option d.)
The idea that a deal won’t happen is very likely. Right now, Bohner knows he can’t get the votes of his caucus and he will need Democratic votes for the 2 trillion deal and they won’t have Democratic votes without tax increases.
It’s a mess.
You forget.
Boehner cannot fail to pass something for the president to sign.
But the Biden deal has already been agreed to. Cantor is the one who played bad-cop and walked away. I suspect they wanted to push the envelope as far as they could get, and tried it with $4 trillion. I think they know where the limit is, and will go back to the $2 trillion that Biden has already agreed with.
I’ve already seen the Villagers saying “Why doesn’t Obama just cave?” And Republican-speak on this issue makes Obama look unreasonable, because they already agree on the cuts. Thus the Village will say, “Pass a debt limit deal on stuff you already agree on: $2 trillion in cuts. It’s too important to pass up, and we can always raise taxes later when we have more time to debate.”
Now if Obama tells them no-deal to Biden’s agreement, then it increasingly looks like we will never get a deal.
The Biden deal had tax hikes, or rather closing some loopholes to try to get DEM votes and that was unacceptable to the tea party folks. So, that’s what’s making me question if a deal can be done.
I believe it was unacceptable because this is all staged bullshit. It’s rare that I agree with John Aravosis, but I do here:
And everyone seems to think that the Village will label Boehner unreasonable, but I do not. The level of tax increases (literal ones) they’re fighting over are so damn small that there will be calls for Obama to just cave and pass a deal with no tax increases (maybe a few loopholes will be closed).
Sorry, the level is*
Not sure why you would think that Obama will “cave” and get nothing in revenues. I would think the opposite based on the fact that Boehner’s/GOP’s positioning has been considerably weakened by repetition of their “benefit the rich at all costs” meme (and without Obama having to hammer it like Ed Shultz), and based on the fact that Obama has gotten quite good deals for the average American in previous showdowns (temporary budget, and everything from the lame duck session).
In any case, the 2012 campaign is coming up, and Obama and the Democrats are in a good position to hammer this now, or rather, just refer to the obvious. Even the media won’t be able to resist the simple framing: GOP wants to protect the rich, while Dems want to protect entitlements. And, what’s more, Obama and Democrats because of him, now own the “we’re tough on the deficit” meme. Obama has undermined GOP ownership of that title in the same way that his killing of Bin Laden undermined the GOP ownership of “We’re the ones who are tough on terrorism.” And, even though many on the left are not noticing, he is doing it without triangulating. Obama is a disaster for the GOP, five times the disaster for them that Bill Clinton was, but they still can’t see it, because to them he’s just a black boy.
“And, even though many on the left are not noticing, he is doing it without triangulating. Obama is a disaster for the GOP, five times the disaster for them that Bill Clinton was, but they still can’t see it, because to them he’s just a black boy.”
Who are “they” and “them” in this sentence?
Because it can be read either way.
/troublemaker
the GOP
yeah, that’s what I meant, the GOP, though I’d say certain parts of the left, too, at least the “they can’t see it” part.
Nope, I don’t buy the spin. We’ll see how it ends up. I’d love to be wrong.
Also, I’d love to continue hammering him regardless of whether I’m wrong or not. Because if I don’t see the policy gain, I will oppose what he’s trying to do, regardless. I can’t read Obama’s head, all I have are actions. I don’t trust politicians.
And again, there is a way to do this that’s not on the FDL level. They’re just outright annoying, antagonistic, and do nothing to help.
Well, if there are 400 billion in new revenues and the “cuts” to medicare and social security and medicaid are mostly about efficiencies, you may still call that spin, but I wouldn’t. Just as I don’t consider it “spin” to describe as significant wins (given the circumstances) the deals he managed to strike with the GOP in the lame duck and also in the temporary budget.
He offered to cut Medicare, Medicaid and, most unforgiveably, Social Security. He will face many, many more points of brinksmanship from the Republicans; the 2012 budget and the next time we hit the debt ceiling are two examples.
Last December, he allowed an extension of the Bush tax cuts. If those MASSIVE cuts are not done away with and soon, we will have a revenue problem sunk into concrete which will prevent us from maintaining the social and regulatory programs Democratic Party can be most proud of. We just won’t have enough revenue to continue them.
A Democratic President now threatens to shred the New Deal and Great Society programs which are most beloved by the people. I know, we don’t know what spending cuts Obama considered. THAT’S TRIANGULATING. And for what benefit?
For God’s sake, recently we just had a PRODUCTIVE Medicare spending cut from the ACA which does not cut benificiaries, the slicing of Medicare Advantage subsidies to private insurers. What was the electoral result?
One of the chief reasons the GOP was able to install many more crazy, stupid idealogues in Congress this year was the nonstop ads in 2010 saying “The Democrats cut $500 million from Medicare!” How bad will it be electorally if a Democratic President actually participated in cutting real benefits, such as changing SS to the Chained CPI floated this week?
The incredible gift we were given by the Ryan budget is that it was very clear that social insurance programs for the elderly are under attack by Republicans and protected by Democrats. Now, who the fuck knows?
Finally, Obama has allowed the Republicans to threaten government shutdown and the failure of the credit of the US to be used as legitimate negotiating tactics. Why should we believe that he will use the GOP’s obvious economic terrorism against them in the next negotiations?
Obame and the last Congress accomplished great things despite a level of obstruction by the minority party never seen before in our Nation. However, at some point we have to believe Obama’s words, not pray with great hope about his deppest intentions. In 2009, he said he wanted to do the Great Bargain which would reduce long-term debt by, amongst other things, cutting SS/Medi/Medi growth of spending. This threatens benificiaries. It would be horrible public policy, and would destroy the Democratic Party as THE protectors of these programs. We could easily lose the Presidency in 2012 or 2016, and the Republicans would finish the crown jewels of the Democreatic Party off quickly.
With stagnation/regression in job compensation for the middle and lower classes, and the wholesale theft of defined-benefit pension plans, seniors will need these programs to give MORE benefits in the future, not less.
Thanks for your response. I really don’t think he wants to cut Medicare and Social Security. I think Clinton triangulated, but I think Obama doesn’t. And it seems to me you accept a rumor (about chained CPI, for example) as fact that damns Obama as the big sell out and traitor to the new deal, but we don’t even know if that particular instance is true. Same with the Bush tax cuts–he extended them for two years in exchange for twice as much for those making under 250,000 at a time when the economy desperately needed the infusion. And “reforming entitlements” actually needs to happen, if we want to keep them. I think he actually wants to keep them.
But, I can see that you and I are pretty far apart on what we believe to be true about Obama and the context in which he’s operating (which you seem to think is of his own design, while I think he’s doing an amazing job in spite of it)–it’s at the point where we might need some very good scotch (or something else) and a good sit down to even agree about where we disagree.
I thought the leaking of the SS “cuts” proposal was intended to demonstrate some political reality to Boehner and McConnell about what can’t pass Congress, too.
I just wasn’t sure what their end game was. That makes sense.
yup, all cuts, no tax increase. That’ll be seen as a cave, which it will be. The president will pretend it was the best he could do.
The silver lining, of course, is that the wealthy won’t have to pay higher taxes. And really, why should they?
And he saved Medicare and Social Security and he didn’t raise taxes for people making under $250,000, so that’s good, too.
I’ll wait and see on that one, seabe.
Bill Daley was on TV this morning saying that SS and Medicare have to be cut regardless of the debt ceiling talks. Does he speak for Obama or not?
I was being facetious. And they’re going to be cut, just saying they “saved them” for now, and that’s what they’ll tell us when they pass these cuts.
they’ll be back for them when we talk the next budget.
The Biden deal has not been agreed to.
Interestingly as this plays out Boehner’s weakness as a Leader and a politician are becoming more and more glaring. But likewise, dare I say it, Obama seems to be showing signs of more strength.
Boehner is the poster child now of a party that has lost the ability much less the will to compromise; to create new ideas and so relies heavily on covering their lackings by calling up the NO factor and hope no one notices they’re really empty vessels. Nothing new here, just that these discussions are underscoring this big time and the public is watching.
Obama has showed his bent to pre-compromise on these deals, has taken Boehner under his wing and since the T’s just throw rocks at everybody now Boehner has no one to bail him out but Obama, Nancy & Harry.
“Dare I say it?”
…Really, it’s that shocking of a thing to see a reaffirmation of the President’s considerable political skills?
I’ve been saying from the beginning (as Booman has) that Republicans were always politically fucked from the beginning. The party is more afraid of Grover Norquist than they are of the public. Those are dangerous waters to swim in. And easy as hell to demagogue against.
That’s why it’s not a political loss for the President to still agree to broad based (but not entitlement related) discretionary and defense cuts to get the ceiling raised. It’s not a loss. It makes him look reasonable, and sets him up to spend the next twelve months asking “Why won’t Republicans raise taxes on the rich? I’m willing to do my part to control spending. So why won’t Republicans raise taxes on the rich?”
Obama’s put together a really nice first term, and has a really nice reelection campaign coming together. If only unemployment wasn’t an ongoing slow-motion disaster, it’d be perfect.
you really think tax cuts are going to be repealed in an election year?
because that’s REALLY funny.
Tax cuts expire this December. It doesn’t take an act of Congress to let them expire.
And the public now wants those higher taxes as a result of this debt ceiling debate.
Choice: higher taxes or cut Social Security and Medicare? That’s the simple calculus operating right now, and the public is saying taxes, please. That choice won’t disappear in 2012. Indeed, I think that closing loopholes might be a major campaign issue.
especially if the repubs can’t do anything, dems can “do nothing” and let tax cuts expire. doesn’t the math show that solves the deficit?
That, bringing the troops home on schedule, and allowing the Medicare provider rate cuts to take effect does it. All of those are in motion and require no Congressional action.
I think this point is overstated. Not wrong, entirely, but overstated.
If the political winds require something, the specifics of what action Congress must take or not take to make it happen aren’t that important.
The phrasing “Congress needs to do nothing” isn’t strictly true. Congress must vote no on bills and amendments which would do that thing. Somebody is going to file legislation to do it, so they’ll have to take an action to stop it.
not if they are already in motion. congress must do something to stop them (e.g., vote to extend the Bush tax cuts last year)
Yes, if they are already in motion. All someone has to do is file a bill to change the law/policy, and Congress has to vote it down.
Take the “Doc Fix,” aka, the Medicare cuts. Every single time, the lower payments were “already in motion,” and every single time, Congress voted to change them.
The tax cut extension is just another example. There were bills filed to extend them, and Congress would have had to vote those bills down.
There is always going to be a bill filed to stop the things you like that are already in motion, because the people who don’t agree with you don’t lose one vote and then never file another bill.
So the question is always going to be, will Congress vote down the proposals to stop what is in motion?
Stopping stuff is generally easier than getting it done. Especially if the Congress is a loggerheads over the debt ceiling and the FY 2012 budget. What the Democrats have to give up is the idea that they need to preserve the puny (per person) Bush tax cuts for the middle class.
Easier, yes, that’s why I wrote “overstated” instead of wrong.
It’s certainly easier to stick with current law than to pass a new law, yes.
But “easier” isn’t “easy.”
Every “Doc Fix” in the history of Medicare required Congress to actually pass something to change current law – and yet, one of the items on your list of what Congress simply has to “not do” is to not pass a Doc Fix.
Maybe they won’t, but it won’t be easy, and it will require Congress to go on record voting against it. Probably several times, since it will probably keep getting attached to bill after bill.
I haven’t seen this much smug faux-certainty since Lucy was, of course, going to pull away the football on DADT repeal in the Senate.
Yes, the tax cut extension won’t be renewed in 2012. The Democrats will be in a much, much stronger political position than they were in the second half of 2010.
Unemployment is a slow-moving disaster because the folks that use the GOP as a political front intended it to be that way to make Obama a one-termer. So here are the campaign obstacles:
Unemployment, which is not going to get dramatically better after all of the local, state, and federal austerity
Floods of media cash from Citizens United-type groups carpet-bombing American consciousness probably starting in November of this year and stretching into November 2012.
A bunch of states with new voter ID laws designed to attack Democratic constituencies.
A bunch of states with looser election notification laws making it harder for folks to find the poll at which they are eligible to vote — and restriction instead of expansion of early voting in a lot of states.
Redistricting, which adds Congressional seats in red states and takes them away from blue states. And which has primarily been done by the GOP because of the 2010 shellacking in the state legislatures. (When will Democratic voters learn that there is more offices than President and important elections almost every year?)
the people with the money aren’t playing with Orange Julius. they could give a shyt if the 218 comes from Dems or Republicans – they just want it DONE.
Politically, the White House has done a great job of positioning themselves. They’ve put their sacred cows on the altar to await slaughter.
Yeah Democrats in Congress would get slaughtered if Social Security, and Medicare, cuts were enacted. Because we all know what would happen. The GOP would run from the left on the issue, just like last year(despite HCR actually firming up Medicare’s finances at the time) and we know how that turned out.
Politically the GOP can’t pass anything. There are 87 Tea Party House Republicans who can’t take the label of raising the debt. That means that it will require closing tax loopholes to bring Democrats on board. But because you have 50-something Blue Dogs who can’t take the label of raising the debt or raising taxes, that means that the rest of the Republicans would have to walk the plank on taxes.
Without some dramatic changes in the politics (watch FoxNews for some quantitative easing), a vote is not likely to happen.
I would suggest starting the process of fielding some “no cuts to Social Security and Medicare” Democrats in dark red states. Don’t want to miss a big opportunity is this moves counterintuitively.
However it turns out, Dems would win some surprising districts and states by campaigning on the stark choice between the Republican options — driving the US into bankruptcy or wounding Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid — and the Democratic offer to end tax loopholes for the oil and gas industries, owners of personal jets, and the Wall Street operators who profited most from the economic meltdown they caused.
Dems could pull in or discourage significant teabaggers as well as a large majority of clueless indies and whatever is left of old-tyme Republicans. All bets would be off for 2012.
I wish I thought this is how it will go. Maybe it’s just shellshock, but my gut screams that Obama and the party “leadership” will undercut the “partisan” message and leave the voters still unpersuaded that there’s any important difference between the parties. I hope to hell I’m wrong, but the trajectory so far says otherwise.
The debt limit means about as much as passing a balanced budget amendment that has not yet passed the state legislatures. Squat.
What determines whether there is new debt is the flow of revenues in, which will not stop just because we blew through the debt ceiling and the Congressional appropriations that have been authorized already. If Obama can keep spending less than revenues, he doesn’t need to issue any additional debt.
So, how does he trim spending? First of all, all discretionary spending after Oct 1 is unauthorized unless there is continuing resolution of Congress or an appropriations bill. So one important factor will be which appropriations bills have already been enacted by Congress and signed by the President for FY 2012. Have there been any?
Have legislative and judiciary branch appropriations been passed? If the GOP is going to provoke a Constitutional crisis, well then let’s have a Constitutional crisis for real.
Have military appropriations for FY 2012 been passed? The entire military budget (except for VA) is discretionary. Which means that the President can accelerate the withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan because the GOP cut off the funds (indirectly). He can withdraw some training exercises and bring home troops from bases that we likely need to close anyway. Okinawa, for example. He can delay issuing for RFP’s for development of military hardware and software. (That should wake up even more people in suburban DC and Texas.)
There might be enough in there to keep the cash flow going. But revenues are going to drop as all of these things shut down, but not in the first month or so because of the delay in sending collected tax revenue to the IRS.
Directing revenue to the IRS for increased enforcement of tax laws would be a wise move practically and politically. And emphasize who is playing by the rules and who isn’t.
The entitlements must continue to be paid. Social Security is not in trouble on that score and will even benefit by not having to risk losing more of the Trust Fund investments. Pensions for ex-presidents, former Congresscritters and their widows/widowers, and retired judges will continue to be paid. Another instructive lesson for the public. Why do Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush need to keep raiding the Treasury?
Well-handled, this crisis could be a good civics lesson for a public who have been deceived for thirty years about how government finance works.
Then at the end of the year let the Bush tax cuts on the middle class and the wealthy expire. The impact won’t show up for the middle class until April 2013. But it will increase the income stream in the run-up to the November election.
It will be tough. But that and similar sorts of decisions are where we go from here.
Call the bluff. Let the markets know you are calling the bluff and that you have an emergency plan. And keep paying what you have to pay on time.
Obama has independents and centrists screaming about not cutting Social Security and Medicare. He has positioned himself as more of a deficit hawk than any Republican. The public now wants and increase in taxes to deal with the deficit and debt. And they want closed the loopholes that allow 51% of taxable units to pay no taxes. (See Politifact’s Fact Check of John Cornyn’s assertion of this. True, for all the reasons that Cornyn doesn’t want to acknowledge.)
Impressive how Obama has positioned himself as more of a deficit hawk than the Republicans. And I’m impressed with the discussion that’s taking place (the huffing and puffing aside) about gap between rich and poor, raising taxes, etc. A year ago, occasional Paul Krugman columns aside, iirc, this was not happening outside the margins.
Excellent plan. Too bad the Dems continue to be guided by Beltway crooks and idiots. By Boo’s ongoing faith in Obama’s long game, this would be the where the endgame finally emerges.
I’m curious: how much of this scenario do you think has a prayer of happening? How much of it do you think Obama would even want to happen?
This does not depend on the Congressional Dems. Nor does it depend on what Obama “wants” or “does not want” to do.
It depends only on a sense of survival and muddling through after the GOP kills the hostage.
What makes this happen is the GOP determination to not raise the debt ceiling at all and Democrats in the House standing together. I give it a 50-50 chance of happening if only by the negotiations going past August 2.
NOW I think I know what you mean when you say pivot: it has to be sufficiently big to upend things, and, like the Nixon going to China thing, the facts on the ground have to be overwhelming but sort of hidden until somebody (like NIxon) jumps up and says “watch this,” at which point the general public accepts it and the bold move succeeds. Which, I think is what Obama does, and that’s why I say he does pivot–but pivot THIS boldly?
The problem is assembling a coalition of stakeholders that is an obvious and vocal majority because if you have anything less, then they call you Chavez, and you’re screwed because there is no Harry the Communist to shut down the west coast and scare the Chamber into playing nice: the blogs are really just virtual, and equal a drop in the bucket compared to unions or organizers life OFA, who are peanuts compared to what was pushing the country left in FDR’s day.
This scenario of yours would be pretty wild, but it’s interesting how converging currents of idiocy have made it an actual possibility–there is now a pretty large group of stakeholders quietly lining up against GOP madness. If the economy hadn’t been in the tank the GOP would have never received this injection of absurd hubris that came with the 2010 midterms, but now that they have it, it’s hard to tell where they’ll stop.
I actually predict the Biden plan passes with significant loophole closing to increase revenue, but if I’m wrong, who knows. This feels a lot like the lame duck and temporary budget showdown, both of which ended way better than expected. But still, it’s a little more electrified and nutty, so who knows.
I assume the deal negotiated by Biden includes closing loopholes–does anyone know if that’s correct? If that deal in its final form includes something in farm subsidies, ethanol subsidies and oil subsidies–i.e. “revenue enhancements” rather that tax increases–it may be a deal worth taking, especially if Boehner, now that he’s wounded, has to soften the cuts that we progressives don’t like to the point where it’s a deal worth making. But TarHeel Dem’s scenario leaves them more screwed because the sooner we can stop this negotiating-with-terrorists on a regular basis, the better.
The nice thing about my scenario. Obama can legitimately fight like hell to avoid it. It is the GOP and the GOP alone who will force us past the debt ceiling.
As has been said, the Congress can pass a debt ceiling increase that is good until December 2012 (after the election) just by passing a clean bill with a voice vote.
I suspect not a few Republicans want to keep the hostage during 2012.
Perhaps making a deal on the AMT will still convince a majority of Republicans to go along? As I understand it, we’d offer to make a permanent fix to the AMT to offset the increased revenue from closing loopholes. Since such a deal would happen anyway, Democrats wouldn’t really be losing anything from the offer, and it would allow Republicans to say they didn’t increase net taxes.
As it stands, it seems Boehner expects Democrats to save the Republicans from themselves; to support an unpopular deal in the house that gives Republicans most everything they wanted in large enough numbers that most of the Republicans don’t have to vote for it. That would be quite a deal if he could pull it off.
Where do we go from here?
More in a sadness than in anger, Obama and the Democrats walk out of the negotiations and announce that they will only support a clean debt limit increase. No tax increases, no spending cuts, not deficit reduction, nothing as part of this deal except a clean debt limit bill.
That would seem like a pretty good outcome politically, assuming Obama and the Dems were willing to run with it now and during the campaign. “We bent over backwards to negotiate fair budget reform, but the Republicans nuked every option in their obsession with protecting tax loopholes for the oil and coal industry and the super-rich who profited from the economic disaster they caused. They even fought to end a loophole subsidizing owners of private jets. The Republican Party got their chance to be a partner in governing this country and simply proved that they are too extremist to take part in running a government they hate. If we want to repair the damage done over a decade, we have no choice but to return Democrats to power.”
Do you think Obama and the Dems would grab that kind of message, or would they as usual blur the lines of responsibility?
Bill Maher sums it all up
The tree that doesn’t bend breaks. A tree that bends to far is already broken.
I think the Democrats have bent enough, if orange julius can’t keep Kantor in line than it is all the Republican’s fault.
In a way, this piece by Douthat (which I don’t agree with in all specifics) agrees with you:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/opinion/11douthat.html?_r=1
and is pretty insightful in several areas. What it points to as a real possibility, indirectly, I think, is the “all bets are off” scenario that GOP lunacy is heading towards.