When Erick Erickson wrote two days ago that the Republicans were winning the fight over ObamaCare, I chalked it up to him reading little more than The Drudge Report and some Breitbart rags. Likewise, his selective reading of polls. But his main concern in that piece was that conjoining the debt ceiling fight with the battle over the government shutdown would take the focus off ObamaCare and lead to no change in the law. Considering that he simultaneously thought that the Republicans could eliminate the medical device tax and enact the Vitter Amendment (eliminating the employer subsidy for some federal workers), he was plainly operating in a delusional otherworld.
Since then, things have deteriorated. Now, Erickson is simply distraught. First, the president held a press conference yesterday in which no reporters asked him about ObamaCare, then Rep. Paul Ryan wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal in which he similarly failed to mention the health care law.
This is what desperation looks like:
I think somebody like Steve Scalise, who chairs the Republican Study Committee, needs to propose a short-term debt limit for a few weeks and attach to it the Full Faith and Credit Act that ensures the Treasury Department prioritizes interest payments in the event the debt limit is ever not increased. This would buy us some time to finish the fight to defund Obamacare and set us up well to fight the next long-term debt limit increase to the death by removing some of the President’s scare tactics. How do Republican Leaders not adopt and push such a proposal? How does Obama not accept it without looking completely unreasonable?
The Full Faith and Credit Act says that, in the event of a government default, the treasury bondholders get paid first. The proponents of this bill think that we could thereby avoid a technical “default” and avoid the consequences of a default. That idea is so wrongheaded that it would be dangerous to even humor such a bill. Remember that our credit rating was downgraded in 2011 and our borrowing costs were increased even though we never failed to pay a single bill. Moreover, imagine politicians trying to explain their vote for a bill that makes bondholders priority one and Social Security and Medicare recipients priority four and five, respectively? “How do Republican Leaders not adopt and push such a proposal? How does Obama not accept it without looking completely unreasonable?”
This suicide by the right would be more entertaining if all our livelihoods weren’t impacted.
Erickson’s position is interesting because his focus is so intensely locked on ObamaCare that he’s being critical of Paul Ryan for asking for much bigger concessions.
Republican Leaders are begging us to merge the continuing resolution fight and debt ceiling fight. They covet this with all their mind and heart.
They do not want a stand alone fight on Obamacare. They want to conflate it with the debt ceiling so they can do a grand bargain and leave Obamacare alone.
This shows how, in Erickson’s mind, the numbers in the budget and the generosity of our entitlement programs are peripheral and transitory concerns. For him, ObamaCare is a mortal threat that must be smothered in its crib. But, for all his thrashing and screaming, the GOP has already abandoned that fight. The best they can do now is to get some kind of language that will commit the administration to a new round of negotiations over a Grand Bargain.
And progressives should be fine with that. Standing strong has shattered Republican unity and exposed many of their fantasies. Working out a budget deal with the Republicans is never pleasant, but it is a legitimate and necessary part of governing in a divided government. In that process, they actually have the right to expect some concessions. May they learn how to accept them.
And progressives should be fine with that. Standing strong has shattered Republican unity and exposed many of their fantasies. Working out a budget deal with the Republicans is never pleasant, but it is a legitimate and necessary part of governing in a divided government. In that process, they actually have the right to expect some concessions. May they learn how to accept them.
Sure, but why does that revolve around a grand bargain and other mandatory spending? It should revolve around tax policy and the discretionary budget. I don’t ever recall the Democrats getting their way on taxes, let alone entitlements, when Bush was president, and they controlled both houses for the final two years. Did they even get their way on the discretionary budget?
Just to kind of indicate how different the two parties are, remember that the Democrats passed a Stimulus Bill in 2008, which was an election year, because the chairman of the Federal Reserve said one was needed. We tried to help the economy rather than make it worse in an effort to increase our chances of winning the presidency.
That’s what a responsible party does.
Likewise, a responsible party doesn’t refuse to make concessions on the budget when it doesn’t control the House of Representatives.
But the converse of this is that we don’t give up any concessions unless we get some concessions. The president wants money for transportation and research and renewable energy. If he doesn’t get what he wants, then we’re not going to agree to Chained CPI or Medicare means-testing or anything else on the GOP’s wish list.
Yes concessions go back and forth. The problem is that what the president considers a concession from the GOP I consider a pittance, especially paired with something like Chained-CPI.
Besides, we both disagree with his movies anyway. I think he believes it’s good policy on the merits. Win-win for him. Only reason he’s holding out is because he knows damn well his caucuses don’t agree.
Remember that every time the president has discussed Chained CPI it has come with important caveats.
Number one, that it would be exchange for new revenue. Number two, that it would protect the truly indigent. And number three, that anyone who lived into their late-80s would get a reset to compensate for the cumulative impact of the CPI change over time.
If you consider Chained CPI outside of the context of those caveats, it sounds like starving granny. But with those caveats, it would really just change the budget picture so that it has more room for future discretionary spending, which is why Democratic budgeters love the idea.
Ah, but nobody considers those caveats as anything but means testing-whichis exactly what it is.
And we’ve all seen what happens to those programs over time, especially when standard are handed off to the states. Care to try and qualify for Medicaid in Alabama?
So you want to means test ANOTHER governed program and pretend that it’s ok to enact in exchange for tip money and “investments” in energy (which likely includes natural gas and clean coal). All that’s left that isn’t means-tested is public schools, but that’s because the rich fled them anyway and they’re funded with property taxes.
You have real difficulty with the meaning of the word ‘want.’
I’m also not convinced of your use of the word “means-test.”
You are certainly not using it in its normal context.
I want universal benefits. I don’t want the rich to get less than the poor and I don’t want the poor to get more than the rich. I want extremely generous benefits for everyone, and if the rich are getting such a good deal, then increase their taxes.
What you propose is some technocratic mumbojumbo (which is why Democratic budgeters really support it, they love them some complex bs rules). It’s means testing in the sense that if you are over a certain income, your benefits will be cut more than below that threshold. That is garden variety means testing, just as your subsidies for the ACA decrease as your income goes up (which is one of its biggest flaws).
More to the point, if chained CPI isn’t a cut, why do we need to fix it at all? Let the president argue on the merits without being a liar.
So the “truly indigent” would be spared and those who live longer would see some increased benefits. That leaves the rest of us on the hook. And let’s be honest. There are likely more proposals down the road to close the revenue gap for retiring baby boomers. Are R’s gonna put more revenues on the table? Hell no. Many financial folks say an individual needs $250k for medical expenses as they get older. We’re supposed to accept lower SS for infrastructure spending? Not gonna fly. And that will truly be surrendering any political advantage this mess may give Dems.
There’s nothing to worry about. The Republicans can’t agree to anything even vaguely reasonable. Nothing will come from any kind of Grand Bargain negotiations. If this were the 1990’s Republican Congress I’d be worried, given Obama’s inclination but with this bunch of nutcases there’s no problem.
Well I sure hope he doesn’t think infrastructure spending and other investments are a good trade for chained CPI. My understanding has been that Social Security and Medicare adjustments would only happen with revenue from loophole closing. Proposing those changes without significant concessions from R’s would cause a revolt on the Dem side. Think the Syria debate was a loser? Try that one out.
The syria debate that ended in Russia capitulating and the chemical weapons now in a process of being dismantled? That was a loser?
Seriously, how do democrats win a single election in this country when we run around bashing even obvious achievements of our own politicians.
The end result that had Russia taking a stake in dismantling of Syria’s chemical weapons was absolutley good. But it wasn’t looking good at all for Congressional approval and it splintered the Dems. And Obama is still on the mend from that effort which did not enjoy popular support.
Once again he trades our birthright for a temporary meal. Just like he traded the Bush tax cuts in perpetuity for a six month extension of unemployment benefits. The benefits are long gone but we are saddled with the Bush tax cuts forever. Now he wants to trade Social Security and Medicare for some short term road pork. FDR & LBJ must be spinning in their graves.
We are not “saddled with the Bush tax cuts forever.” We got rid of them for the top earners, and we need a better Congress to change them for others.
I’m plenty worried about Obama’s Grand Bargain inclinations and don’t like Chained CPI at all, but you’re being preposterous in claiming that he and the Senate Dems will “trade Social Security and Medicare for some short term road pork.” That’s not the President’s proposal at all.
That’s what I read in the MSM, admittedly not a very reliable source.
Also, per Booman above:
A bit sloppy on my part, as the way the president proposed Chained CPI in his budget was as part of a tax reform that would add revenue.
ok then…when pigs fly.
Yeah, I mean, when pigs fly.
Or, you know, when the Norquist Pledge is finally relegated to the dustbin.
I mean, would I trade Chained CPI with the protections the president has outlined for a mass violation of the Norquist Pledge and a tax reform that adds revenue? Yes. Yes, I would. Particularly if it came in the context of marginalizing the fucking crazies in the Tea Party.
Would you trade chained CPI without the caveats? Yes, I think you would. How good of you.
No, I would not.
Would I give you five dollars for a sandwich and not expect you to give me the sandwich?
I have zero interest in Chained CPI on the merits. I don’t even want the sandwich.
However, I recognize that at some point, after the Republicans have completely fallen on their face, we will have to have a reasonable negotiation and that it will involve our long-term fiscal deficit. I would rather give up a Chained CPI with caveats that would actually improve the situation for the very elderly than raise the retirement age for Medicare or means-test Social Security or cut rates outright or do pretty much anything to harm seniors.
I don’t like having this purity argument with progressives in a vacuum. If you want to badmouth my position, then explain what you would be willing to offer the Republicans and what you would reasonably expect in return.
Nothing to change the nature of SS, period. Raise the cap to reflect the inflation that has taken place since the last rise. Yes.
I don’t care if the government needs SS surpluses to hide its true deficit. I want to see the Republicans agree to pass a tax as punishment to them for this shit. And it should come from their backers–the 1%!!!!!!
And transportation, research and renewable energy is NOT “road pork”. Obama would need a lot of that transportation funding to go to next-generation public transit and sustainable communities. And then there’s the last two, which you dismiss as though they were nothing.
Well Ray LaHood is a champion pork cooker from one of the, if not the, champion pork states. All the crappy roads here have been plastered with tar three times since he became Secretary of Road Pork. They are being torn up again just in time for Winter. Amazingly, Illinois government officials are surprised every year to find that the ground is unaccountably frozen in December.
That’s State government. We’re talking Federal here. Do you recall all the wailing and complaining from GOP leaders about all the high speed rail and public transit money in the 2009 stimulus deal?
And in the meantime, while Erickson frets, Obamacare might be getting another boost here in Ohio, as Kasich is considering going around the GOP caucus in the legislature and accepting the Medicaid expansion.
Will Kasich Bypass Legislature On Medicaid Expansion?
Been keeping an eye on Redstate, at this point they seem almost as delusional as Free Republic and that is saying a lot
Unless I’m missing something, you think that because Republican solidarity has been smashed in abstract via non-elected Republicans disagreeing with elected Republicans, we should now negotiate with the terrorists?
I must be missing something.
Why must Republicans, who are wrong, get something from the Democrats, who aren’t wrong?
It’s still terrorism and Democrats should still refuse to negotiate until the Republican party has been smashed – in reality.
When someone comes after you and attempts to kill you, and you have your foot on their throat, you don’t just hold it there and make them promise to be nice.
You keep stomping until the threat can never be a threat again.
Then again, I’m young(ish) and have less at stake than older Americans who stand to actually lose something if/when the economy takes a shit.
Revolutions every generation and all that…until you yourself get so old as to want stability. Some radical/non-radical 3d President stated something like that. Maybe his younger self was right.
To be clear, the president’s terms are that there will be no negotiations until the hostages are released. Once they are released, then the House and Senate have to agree on spending levels for 2014. As part of that, there may be some Grand Bargain. Progressives tend to focus only on what we would give up and not on what we would insist on getting. But, the point is, getting back to passing appropriations bills is a victory in itself. Getting smart investments in targeted areas is much better than across-the-board sequester cuts.
Sure, I get that.
But the Republicans need to pass a clean CR in the House without any concessions at all, first. Otherwise, it’s just 2011 all over again.
Personally, I’d rather see the Republican party destroyed nationally, forever, even if it causes a default.
And I think that can happen by Democrats letting Republicans take us to 11:59:59, and Obama/Treasury stepping in, reassuring the world that the US pays its debts, and Republicans taking the bait and impeaching Obama.
We need to crush the fascists. They love off-year elections, and we need 2014 to actually destroy them. Assuming Clinton runs in 2016 and wins with many coattails, it could significantly change the course this country takes for decades.
Yes, people will be hurt. People are hurt every day. Short term pain is better than a chronic illness. We should be in disease prevention mode, not just fighting symptoms.
I’m young(ish) so you’ll have to forgive me. The world economy taking a slight shit for a week will have less of an effect on me than others, so I kinda want to see it go to the wire, especially if the fascists can be permanently relegated to state and local power. You can always self-deport yourself out of a red state shithole.
There is agreement – even among some R’s – that the sequester is harming growth. And targeted investment would certainly help. But trading for those remedies for chained CPI, which reduces retirees’ income over the long haul is bad and will not get Dem votes. One can argue that chained CPI is the best of the bad options for reducing long term spending, but that should be handled separately from the immediate appropriation debate. Renewing the Bush tax cuts at the $400k level was a mistake, and it was done with the aniticipation that loophole closing would help close the long term gap. If R’s cannot accept more revenues as part of the long term solution, then retirees cannot be asked to sacrifice for short term gains.
Do you know how many retirees are already at poverty level incomes? And how many more, who have been stripped of their earned pensions, are looking that in the eye.
But they should be the ones to pay for O’s Grand Bargain? You can fancy it up with promises but that is the bedrock situation. Combine that with Keystone and watch your House prospects go up in flames.
Here’s the Heritage Foundation, explaining why Obama’s Chained CPI offer isn’t sufficiently dickish.
What are they referring to?
This.
And what does that Heritage quote tell you about the long term prospects for those caveats, hmmm?
Nothing.
Even if we were to believe that the Dems will retake control of the House in 2014 (and I don’t), the government cannot operate between now and January 2015 without some kind of spending bill that must be passed by both the House and Senate (which, as BooMan says, can only be negotiated after the House releases the hostages, i.e., you and me.) Given the reality of the insane House, there is no possibility that it will look like anything any Democrat would or should like. There just isn’t any magical way around that.
It is quite possible the budget negotiation will not only be about what the GOP wants. The leverage (shut down/default) is gone and what do you think the Dems want if we give them chained CPI…..raise the minimum wage? After we default, 10.18.13, the teabaggers will not be at the table to demand anything. The teabaggers may get so mad they run away from the GOP and start their party.
Of course the concessions will go both ways. But there will be concessions from our side and they will be quite painful and objectionable. That much is an unavoidable reality. Also I’m afraid I don’t share your optimism about the demise of the Republican Party, though of course I’d be beyond thrilled if you turn out to be right.
Mark my words, if this happens there will be NO concessions from Republicans. It will once again be “give us what we want or no budget.” Threatening a truck bomb instead of a nuke. That’s all.
Full Faith and Credit Act = Structured Federal Bankruptcy Act
Restructuring debt in bankruptcy is when you start having considerations about which creditors go first.
But local Democrats better start thinking and organizing what to do at the local level to deal with the suffering that the Republicans are about to create with default.
It’s looking more and more like the House GOP can’t take their hands off the bare wire. And I mean the “moderates” too.
Pardon. Republicans breaking faith by creating a shutdown means that Democrats should concede something?
Is this telling the troops that they should be pivoting to a Grand Bargain? Is there a deal in the works?
“Progressives should be fine with that.”
Real nice when you don’t have skin in the game to be so cheerful.
Well, this progressive is not fine with capitulating to terrorists when they promise to play nice for three more months.
I guess this tells me that Harry Reid can’t get enough Democratic votes to shove the debt ceiling bill through the Senate by busting the filibuster. And that the Democratic establishment is throwing in the towel again.
Just a day or two ago a guy on Freerepublic was astonished to find out that because he already has insurance (that he likes) he doesn’t have to sign up for Obamacare.
It’s amazing how uninformed these people are.
he probably is ineligible for ObamaCare.
Uninformed ?? They are down right loons
Remember that our credit rating was downgraded in 2011 and our borrowing costs were increased even though we never failed to pay a single bill.
I wish progressives would stop bringing this up like it has some bearing on the argument at hand.
The degrading in 2011 was done by some Fox News-watching wingnuts at S&P who were overwrought by what they saw as the massive increase in government debt. After the White House showed them that their figures of future debt were wrong by an order of magnitude they still issued the downgrade.
No other rating agencies followed course. The interest rates on T-Bills did not go up. Basically, except for the conservative leaning national news media no one paid any attention. This was a grandstanding ploy, made worse because it was done by the exact same agency that continued to give the highest credit ratings to the junk that caused the 2008 crash long after the warnings were well known.
Ultimately, the problem was that like so many other wingnuts the S&P fools knew … just KNEW … that the Chicago Negro was spending gov’t money like a … (you know – THOSE people) … on welfare check day and were going to ignore any BLS data that showed otherwise.
It still serves Dems as a cautionary tale.
Well, the BLS is shut down this time, isn’t it. GOP covered that one off.
Ed Kilgore:
…”but that might be secured via negotiations”
The only thing that will break this habit is if the GOP gets less from this tactic than it would have from honest negotiation in regular order. They are depending on the President’s control of his Congressional caucus to deliver them their goals. In short, they are depending on the President to act as a Republican.
That is not really “negotiating”.
Force a replay of Clinton’s second term. That set us up for some interesting times, didn’t it? I’m sure all those Welfare to Work mums are so grateful to see how well that worked for them in 2009.
Wonder if this time will have something to make Pelosi cry as she has to vote for it.
I’m so looking forward to reading Erickson’s rant after the Republicans pass a clean debt ceiling hike and reopen the government. Boo may be right that we’ll see the teaboys fracture off and form a party of their own.
Only a matter of time until the shutdown is over. You’ll have lobbyists clamoring to end the shutdown.
Shutdown means no new beer from craft brewers
Talk about hostages.
Another Tea Party chess piece moves into place.
Ryan Lenz, Salon: SPLC: Oath Keepers go operational, form “Civilization Preservation” units
I hope someone with a stronger resilience than mine is keeping up with what the RWNJs are saying on the radio.
This just in.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/08/12/farenthold-says-house-could-impeach-
obama/
Please, please impeach Obama. Especially for that phony birth certificate. Segue us right into 2014.
The Republicans just blew off a full-conference invitation to the White House, sending 18 people instead.
How long until these jokers get rewarded?
Because it doesn’t look to me like anybody has a handle on how to punish them. And they have to start losing in order to back down.
I agree with this. There needs to be punishment meted out to the hostage takers. The ballot box is the most important, but that’s a while yet. We need something now.
I cannot believe that all of you are apologizing for Obama campaigning on not cutting social security on medicare, us electing him in a landslide, and now you want to give in to Ryan.
Go
To
Hell
You realize you’re legitimizing Erick Erickson, right?
Sure. I also like to legitimize Michele Bachmann whenever I get the chance.
>I also like to legitimize Michele Bachmann whenever I get the chance.
Don’t hold your breath – you’ll realize that Obama has gutted your social security check before Miley Bachmann ever gives you a chance to legitimize her
What you young geniuses can’t wrap your heads around is that someday you’re going to depend on social security and medicare – and it won’t be there – and Obama is only going to be stopped from destroying these programs – if at all – by the same kind of public outrage that finally stopped him from nominating larry summers
He campaigned on “not this time” – explicitly meaning “not the clinton betrayal this time”
As soon as he won, he hired all the clinton thugs and then, in a moment of rare candor, he said, in essence, “if you REALLY want ‘not this time’, and much worse, it’s up to YOU to stop me – you have to force me to do the right thing or I’m going to screw you as hard as I can” – that was the last time he said anything true to the people who elected him. The Summers debacle proved that it’s true. We did it on summers (although you, boo, were very little help) – now we have to do it on chained CPI. If you can’t get on board for that, why are you even wasting your life on this?
I opposed Summers because he’s an unreconstructed dickhead, not because Yellin is any different on policy.
” … they actually have the right to expect some concessions. “
They have the right to expect some, but they don’t have the right to get any.
Actually, they do.
Hey John Podhoretz, my man, tell it like it is, right on, right on.