I see a lot of progressives bitching about the outlines of a deal that hasn’t even been finalized, yet. But I don’t think they are focused on the right things. There is a real lost opportunity here, and it’s a victim of the plan to jam the House Republicans. Basically, the idea is that the Senate will chew up all the available time before the Thursday deadline and pass something that gives Speaker Boehner a choice between passing a bill with mostly Democratic votes or being responsible for a financial armageddon. That’s a solid plan.
The thing is, if Speaker Boehner needs House Democrats’ votes, then House Democrats should have the right to make demands. But they will be just as jammed up as the Speaker. They will be in same boat, unable to amend the bill for fear of causing a financial calamity through delay. This limits how much the Democrats can gain from the Republicans’ hubris.
I don’t think we should be pissed about this, exactly, but it is worth lamenting. The victory could have been bigger.
The deal itself, as it has been outlined, is not too bad. It doesn’t officially remove the Republicans’ ability to reprise another debt ceiling crisis, nor does it preclude them from causing another government shutdown. But the Democrats will be only too happy to go through this process again next year, closer to the midterm elections. If the Republicans haven’t learned their lesson, the electoral consequences will be quite rewarding for the Democrats.
The concessions under discussion are half imaginary (income verification for ObamaCare subsidies) and half a favor to labor unions (a delay in employer reinsurance requirements). Neither will incentivize the Republicans to make a repeat performance of their auto-da-fé.
The end result of this shutdown will be a victory nearly as decisive as the one the Russians achieved at Stalingrad. I can imagine a bigger win, but I have no real complaints.
I think, with this, the fever that started with 2010 midterm election results will finally be broken. I look forward to the return of some small degree of normalcy.
Is that “favor to labor unions” a repair of the issue with CBA’s which have Taft-Hartley health care plans? If so, that’s a big fucking deal. It was one of the biggest issues at last month’s AFL-CIO convention.
I just read the linked story, and thoroughly enjoyed reading Rep. Huelskamp’s bitching and moaning. Keep on yelling, Tim! Scream out loud when the 218’th Yes vote is registered on the House floor, and start threatening Republicans by name.
Winning!
Honestly, any deal short of one that involves about 280 Congressional Republicans being brought up on charges of treason is a disappointment.
I’m glad the immediate crisis looks like it will be averted, but I’ll celebrate it as a victory only when and if a direct line can be drawn from it to decisively regaining control of the House in 13 months.
A break in the “fever” assumes rational actors, and every time one of these setbacks has occurred to date, the zealots have concluded that their problem was that they weren’t crazy enough.
I see no signs, none, that that fever is going away any time soon. And in the Senate, where even one irrational actor can cause havoc, we’ve got a good dozen folks like Mike Lee and Rand Paul and Ted Cruz to deal with for another 3-5 years. At least. What’s worse, they actually represent their constituents pretty well – a majority of voters in not a few states still like what they’re doing.
Cheer up. Ted Cruz is the greatest gift to the Democratic Party since Joe McCarthy.
Is the damage “Tailgunner” Joe did, or that “Tailgunner Ted” can do worth that? if this “deal” gets done will everyone furloughed still get their back pay? Is this nonsense really a way to run a healthy democracy?
I was (partly) joking. Ted Cruz is not going to be able to do anywhere near as much damage.
If the GOP splits, then the Tea Party will still be a big minority, but no longer a minority with the power to obstruct. Mod Repubs will join with Dems to overpower them. Or the party will simply destroy itself and we’ll live in an era of Dem domination.
That’s still a big if as far as I’m concerned. But if it happens it won’t require the fever to break. It’ll just be quarantined, and eventually burn out.
Exactly. It’s not every bunch of lunatics that gets the opportunity to take over one of the national parties in the world’s wealthiest and most powerful nation.
Get them out of there and they are just another bunch of lunatics — although a well-funded one.
All true, but the “mainstream” GOP is looking at a generation out of power, in the wilderness, if the TeaTards are ejected or “self-deport”.
Right now, the GOP would instantly latch onto an alliance with NAMBLA and Goat Molesters Anonymous if they thought it would stave off their implosion.
(Hmm….assuming that they haven’t already)
You are right, but that is the irony of their situation. What to them seemed a path to survival turned out to be a path to destruction. (No surprise to me.) Those who still believe in it will go with the Teabaggers, but the contradiction has now become inescapable, so all others must find a different route.
The road to this point has been very long. It began with the lead-up to the civil war, but even its revival goes back to Goldwater, William Buckley, and the Southern strategy, which led through Nixon, Reagan, and the Bush family, to the present mess. The present split opens up the possibility of a new political landscape that would have repercussions for the Democratic Party as well.
I think Obama has understood this all along, and is perfectly positioned for it. I am unhappy with a lot of the perception of Obama on the left. They just do not get it. He is NOT a DINO, but a highly pragmatic (and effective!) New Dealer forced to operate in what has so far been a very right-wing environment. If the GOP becomes more sane, this Democratic pragmatism will build a New Deal for our era and the future. Elizabeth Warren will be the model type of this new Democrat.
Even a rump GOP would have great advantages over the well-oiled machine of the Tea Party if the later went its own way. A more moderate GOP could certainly win elections in many parts of the country, and it would be a national not a regional party. But it would remain for a long time in a position analogous to the GOP during the time of FDR — a minority party.
Must-See TV when this stuff passes the House on Tuesday or Weds. As exciting as the House’s post-Scott Brown healthcare vote a few years ago. I bet good money that some of the Tea Party members will really flip out and make fools of themselves.
Sorry, but I’m really looking forward to the right wing’s total meltdown when this goes down. Been waiting for it for so long – a supernova of derp.
“…a supernova of derp.”
Made me laugh, you did. Yes, C-Span should have some fun floor sessions this week. Huelskamp’s gonna punch King in the face, I heard.
Well we need to know details but it certainly looks like the whole “clean CR, raise debt ceiling” thing turned out to be talk.
I am seeing revisions to Obamacare and an unspecified “tax and spending plan” which will require careful watching.
Dkos is reporting the the Republicans are also demanding limits on Birth Control i.e. their “no conscience” amendment.
Derisive laughter.
Wow, that’s a real movement-building attitude you got there.
No more, or no less, than a bunch of die-hard supporters of the President calling those to the left of them emo-progs or firebaggers.
Agreed, in the sense that the factions of the left are strongest when united and supporting one another, not sniping.
In the first place, the idea that this is a fever that started in 2010 is wrong. These are THE SAME crazy bullshit ideas that were around for Kennedy and before. The only difference is they’re now getting vast amounts of money and more white people are threatened enough to go along with it.
One defeat, no matter how bad will not end it. Not unless the money men of the GOP actually launch a full scale civil war to marginalize these elements. Many of these people aren’t behold to the elites, they run on the pure cray of their followers. Will the elites be willing to suffer several years of inter-party bloodletting that will almost surely give Democrats a huge boost? Even if they do, these elements are their most enthusiastic supporters. And what if a few rogue millionaires side with them? If they side fully with the Dems I don’t doubt they could co-opt them fairly easily in the main but it will be an uphill battle.
The Tea Baggers will be told that they were on the verge of victory when leadership caved, and they’ll believe it. With the help of a few choice Dems like my former Rep. Colin Peterson, they’ve overthrown Boehner in favor of Cantor with HR 368. They will continue agitating for a course that can only end one way.
Return of some normalcy? I believe it when I see it.
First of all, where is the credit for telling you what was going to happen? I’ve had a wheelbarrow full of comments telling me they’ll believe it when they see it.
Secondly, “small degree of normalcy” doesn’t mean that Tea Baggers enter graduate school. It means negotiating the budget under regular order without a gun pointed to our heads.
Has the House responded to the Senate deal? Have the GOP saviors stepped forward advocating passage?
You are likely right about Senate and House action, but it can in no way be called anything more than kicking the can down the road.
It either another round of rope-a-dope or it is the Democrats who are being played and Barack Obama is the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan all the way down to the policies.
Haven’t seen it yet. What I see is the first stage of a Democratic cave-in. As usual, the Republicans are demanding more. I’m really sick of being associated with the Charlie Brown Party.
You’ll get it when you earn it.
From right here all I see is the Republicans preparing to drown us all.
Which has been happening on this blog…where exactly?
Don’t cheer yet. If Sebelius has to certify income verification before enrollment then the Republicans have won their one-year delay. Even seemingly mild requirements might knock millions of self-employed or casual workers out of the exchange, as anybody with irregular income who’s tried to buy a house can testify.
The income verification thing is puzzling to me. My understanding of the ACA is that the subsidies for the private health care exchanges are given as a tax break. Your tax filing should act as your income verification, shouldn’t it?
Is it that they don’t want people to gain access to the exchange in the first place without pre-verification of income?
Is it that they don’t want people to gain access to the exchange in the first place without pre-verification of income?
Probably!!
The purported problem is that people with income can claim no income and get subsidies they don’t deserve. Under the current system, I believe this results in the IRS coming after them for the money. This is not going to be a problem. I agree this is an excuse to make enrollment harder, especially for the self-employed they’re very afraid will switch to the Democrats, and the marginalized people who they just love to beat up on out of the sociopathy in their hearts.
That doesn’t quite make sense to me. “The money”, aka the subsidy people receive to help them buy private health care insurance through the exchanges, is provided through a tax break you get when you file your income tax returns. So the IRS couldn’t “come after them for the money,” because they hadn’t received the money yet. Someone correct me if I’m misunderstanding this, or missing something.
The most marginalized people with the lowest incomes aren’t eligible for the exchanges anyway; they were supposed to gain access to insurance through the expansion of Medicaid eligibility. Of course, the sociopaths in control of governance in half the states have scuttled that by refusing to accept the free Fed money which would have fully financed the expansion.
You can get the tax credit at the time of insurance purchase. The only people who will probably refuse it are near the 400% PPL because then they would owe at tax time.
Thanks, that’s useful information for friends of mine (currently without insurance).
-Jay-
they can find out how much when they actually apply online, it will tell them on the site
All the more reason to remove the means-testing element. Same subsidy for everyone, no matter your income, increase taxes to make up the shortfall. Or you know, single payer.
A Stalingrad-sized victory would be nice for starters, but like the Soviets did to the Nazis, we really need to grind these bastards into powder by going on the offensive and taking Berlin.
The rage I feel at what the Republicans have tried to do is boundless. Their utter hatred of the Federal Government really drove them to try and destroy it as a functioning democracy. The machinery of our government and really can’t handle a group pouring sand in the gears to bring it to a halt. The Founders worried about the “tyranny of the majority.” What we have here is a true “tyranny of the minority.”
Any party that obstructs a duly elected majority through tactics like this really doesn’t deserve to exist any longer. As Democrats and Progressives I think we must implacable in keeping the message alive that the Republicans do not respect the two party system and in their present form really don’t deserve to be a part of it. The Whigs faded away. It’s time for the Republicans to do likewise, to be replaced by a party that is capable of functioning as a “loyal opposition.”
I’m going to wait until something passes the House before I cheer anything. Everything to this point has been so batshit insane, that relying on Boehner to “do the right thing” seems overly optimistic.
He will complain that the Senate left him inadequate time to properly consider the bill. We will enter default on Thursday, the markets will bug out, the House will pass something on Friday.
America’s credit rating will get pummeled and we will tip into a brief recession from the shutdown/default combo.
And it won’t make a damned bit of difference in 2014, because some Kardashian or Miley Cyrus will do something stupid and everyone will forget what happened.
Sorry, that’s just my read based on recent experience.
Anyone who wants his opinion to count, had better “bitch” about the deal before it’s been finalized.
Stalingrad, winter 1943! The Booman knows his history. The footnotes to that campaign are worth dredging up. Over a hundred thousand German Wehrmacht soldiers surrendered January, 1943. Twelve years later, as Elvis was warming up his hips in 1955, the Soviets allowed the surviving prisoners to return to Germany. There were nine thousand surviving Germans left of the one hundred thousand taken. Could we handle the Tea Party in a similar fashion? Returning ten percent of them from exile in the year 2025 would be zesty.
More Stalingrad meta: The Field Marshall Von Paulis arrived at the Soviet surrender talks in his flowing officer’s coat, and the Soviets asked, “Who is this dandy?” They were informed by the Germans that this was their Field Marshall Von Paulis. The Soviets were incredulous. They had bagged a field marshall, but they wanted proof. They asked the guy for some I.D. Oh, what humiliation! Could we ask Eric Cantor, Johnny Boner, and the Texas sized disaster Senator Gambino Bambino for some identification papers too? Seems only fitting after the birther nonsense they put Obama through.
The Soviets had some reason to be incredulous. No German field marshal had ever personally surrendered before Paulus.
While we’re pushing historical analogies, I’d like to note that the Soviets didn’t win in Stalingrad; they merely held in Stalingrad. They committed only enough troops to keep the city in play and draw in the Germans’ best troops. Everyone else was committed to an offensive on the flanks that blew out the Germans’ weaker minor allies there. Thus the battle of Stalingrad was won far from the city itself.
Could the last remaining “moderate” Republicans be those weaker allies? We’ll see.
If there is any restoration to “normalcy”, it will be when President Obama leaves office and probably Clinton becomes Prez and the Teahadists can continue to cocoon themselves in their “white culture” (whatever the hell that is) and feel a bit less threatened.
But there is no fever.
This is the GOP.
Nah, when Clinton gets elected it will all be about gender.
And Paula Jones.
If you think having a white woman in the WH is as threatening as a black man to the Teahadists, I think you’ve severely misunderstood them.
What rout? Explain how this is anything more than a stalemate.
There is no structural mechanism that prevents a recurrence, but the structural mechanism of the sequester remains in place — but promises, promises.
The House is already preparing its argument about how it will not be jammed. For over two years we’ve been hearing how the leadership was going to stiff the Tea Party and it rarely has happened.
The Democrats threw the Republicans a lifeline once again.
And WTF is Dick Durbin doing talking about chained CPI and Simpson-Bowles this weekend. That zombie keeps coming back to living dead. Aren’t there any really Democratic talking points any more?
Statistic. After shifting around the FY 2009 stimulus plan to attribute it to the Obama administration, government spending over the Obama presidential budgets have increase 1.4% a year. No wonder the economy is still in the pits and unemployment is still outrageous. Yet we continue with this deficit-debt talking point as if that is the major crisis. It is absolutely crazy from a policy perspective.
So we’re back to waiting for 30 Republicans to break with party unity while we know at least 7 Democrats are going to vote with the Republicans.
And the word to the faithful Democratic troops is “Don’t complain.”
And it looks like a sufficient number of GOP governors succeeded in sabotaging Obamacare to make folks in their states hate it. Thanks Max. You and Holy Joe have fixed the Democratic Party really well.
I don’t see any rout because I don’t see any Democratic challengers to take back the House and I don’t see Steve Israel doing anything but trying to preserve DLC Democrats.
And continued unemployment means that the President will be blamed in November 2014.
Some rout.
I keep hearing how Obama doesn’t believe in Bowles-Simpson ideas like Chained CPI on the merits (when he clearly does), yet BM in another thread argued that Obama does believe in the long-term debt problems (as if they need to be solved now if they’re even a problem then). So which is it? If he’s someone who believes that “debt” is a problem then he’s been snookered just as much as Bill Clinton and the rest of the guillable debt moralists. And if he believes that, then he so believes in Chained CPI on the merits.
I’m getting a little tired of the effort trying to figure out what President Obama actually believes and what his policy actually is. Because in this case he has negotiated with extortionists (through Harry Reid) and not taken away their ability to extort.
It’s really gotten to the point that the Democratic Party has complete left the positions of the Democratic Party on preserving the institutions of the New Deal. Democratic politicians have become worthless corporate shills. I understand fully why Tom Harkin decided to hang it up, given his current colleagues.
And I am getting tired of these kinds of comments.
Yours, and seabe’s.
There is one argument about our long-term deficits that says that there is a time and place to cut entitlements, but a recession isn’t the time or place.
There is another argument that says that nothing can be cut and the rich should pay more so that levels can be kept at their present level. That’s fine, but it is the mirror-image of the Norquist Pledge. If our side adheres to it, then our long-term deficits won’t be addressed until later, when the problem will be more acute and there is no guarantee that the political climate will be more favorable.
But there is no argument that we have enough revenue to fund our obligations.
So, find me the revenue.
Go ahead.
Go out and find it for me.
And when you enter the real world, you will discover that you can’t get it unless you make a deal that involves, at the very least, giving a small haircut to earned benefits.
And if you yell at the people who are trying to make that deal that you don’t like the timing, that’s fine. But to say it isn’t a problem? To argue that you can get the revenue without making any painful concessions?
That’s wanking.
There isn’t a problem because you cannot predict what events will happen then. Predictions going that far which have been known to be revised (and almost ALWAYS more favorably) is what I call wanking.
But let’s just say for the sake of argument that it is a problem that should be addressed. Why now? Isn’t there a mythical place in the future where Republicans find themselves in even more of a wilderness than now? Why don’t we wait until then?
And keeping in mind that even when they’re “fixed” the conservatives and Republicans will be right back at the chomping block. Just as thy are with the deficit when it is falling faster than at any period in the modern era. And STILL they want to cut.
Educate yourself:

seabe, you are correct when you say that “Predictions going that far which have been known to be revised (and almost ALWAYS more favorably)” in regards to SS and Medi. Unfortunately, if the Medicare program washes over the banks, it’s so huge it’ll hit the nation like five Katrinas. You’re also forgetting to look at the rest of the budget, which has a number of New Deal/Great Society elements we care about.
With expenditures from current programs, the budget IN TOTAL is unsustainable with current revenue streams. And if you can’t come to terms with that, you are indeed wanking.
Finally, the “mythical place in the future where Republicans find themselves in even more of a wilderness than now” won’t happen until 2022 at the earliest. We will not get our ideal budget until then. Running large deficits until then will endanger governance that you and I want.
We’re currently running a budget deficit of 3%. That is unsustainable over the long term, but it’s perfectly acceptable over the short-short medium term. That’s with current growth levels. If you think we’re plagued with this anemic growth for the long term then “unsustainable budget deficits” are the least of our problems.
No, we should not get to balanced budgets this decade, but you concede we need to do something about future deficit projections. The Republicans want to get us fixed into anemic growth patterns; all the better to blame on Democratic Presidents, and to use the associated budget deficits to drive their never-ending Starving Grannies plan.
Our Nation needs money for discretionary programs which allow us to invest in infrastructure, research and social programs which help the lower and middle classes; those investments can provide good jobs, break us out of our current low-growth austerity policies, and begin to repair the safety net; SS/Medi/Medi are not enough. I share the desire to get some of that money from the bloated defense/homeland security monster, but that isn’t enough. We need revenue, and we need to destroy the GOP’s religious fervor for NO REVENUES EVEREVEREVER. That will break us; we can’t get around that.
What strategies and policies do you propose to get the money for what we both want, and to break the Republicans on revenue?
You don’t get the revenue if you’ve not been making arguments that support getting the revenue.
And on the expense side, the monster in the room is the bloated national security institutions.
The Democrats have not tried to frame the argument locally or nationally.
The issue is Democrats arguing the Republican position on policy after policy after policy and never laying the groundwork for arguing a Democratic position.
And through weakness and giving way backing into these inescapable Hobson choice deals that realists must accept or be accused of being wankers.
Is it any wonder that after watching for almost seven years of this since the Democrats retook Congress in 2007 the squandering of one opportunity after another, the mortgaging of the present for a future than never comes, that I and other people are just a little unreasonable.
The inside game is noticeably corrupt and intractable. We have effectively lost Constitutional government to the military-industrial state and to a minority of extortionists who would send the world economy over the cliff for their posturing on a health care law.
And I’m supposed to like it?
Policy affects people’s lives. A lot of the folks who report the game aspect of politics forget that fact. Having another shutdown in the future will affect people’s lives. The failure to get an adequate stimulus affected lots of people’s lives and likely the 2010 election. Allowing the Republicans to control the House after 2015 will affect people’s live adversely. But then, the Democrats who are likely to be put forward by Steve Israel will be no better.
And pointing out that failure makes folks wankers. I guess you have to absorb bubble values if you want to work in the bubble. But outside the bubble is hurting. Badly.
There’s a joke going around. The Washington Redskins changed their name because its too embarrassing. They dropped the word “Washington”.
When Medicare or Social Security run down their trust funds, the seniors will scream and taxes will raised enough to fund the shortfall. The increases are small – considerably less than the Greenspan commission got through under Reagan. There’s no need whatsoever for a deal unless you want to cut benefits.
So, you think we can raise taxes by 44% by 2040 or cut non-interest spending by 32% and we don’t have to touch Medicare or Social Security?
We’ll have all the support we need to raise taxes by that much. And it won’t hurt the economy at all?
I mean, I grow weary of this debate.
Where are you getting those numbers from?
They likely depend on the assumption that current high unemployment rates and low wage and salary growth are the “new normal” and they overestimate life expectancy of boomers, which if austerity continues might be less than their parents’ generation.
You grow weary of a debate because you have bought into the sales pitches of two generations of 401(k) salespeople.
Yes, it would be possible to raise tax revenues by 44%, cut non-interest spending by 32% (I’m looking at a bloated national security establishment here) and not touch Medicare or Social Security.
The economy is not a zero-sum game, except when policy makes it so. Democrats used to understand that. What happened?
The numbers come from the GAO latest estimate:
Contrary to your assumptions, the numbers are not based on long-term high unemployment rates. They are based on reasonable assumptions about long-term economic growth, and fairly optimistic assumptions about the future growth of health-care costs.
I understand your frustration with the left’s failure to make an argument in favor of more left-wing policy goals, but that’s about as far as I can sympathize with your position.
No, we cannot raise taxes 44%. We certainly do not want to cut discretionary spending by 32%, and no we can’t get all that money from the Pentagon. Your argument requires either a miracle or a pony, and it has no more relationship to reality than Michele Bachmann’s heat-fever fantasies.
But the most important point is that the sooner we act the less painful it will be.
From a tax policy standpoint with regard to the fiscal health of the government and the soundness of the economy, we very well can raise tax revenues by 44%. Federal tax levels have been that high before and during very prosperous periods.
That GAO report is just stating Obama policy. But the policy fact is that the politics is pointed in exactly the most disastrous direction. And pleading political realism doesn’t change that policy fact.
And that is what Democrats need to be saying but are too cowardly to. But then, Democrats have allowed themselves to be completely shut out of the Village conversation when they talk sense.
The more you talk realism, the less optimistic I am for this country. Because those bad policies will have disastrous self-reinforcing (indeed progressives have been arguing for a decade that they already have) repercussions.
But what do DFH’s know? Vietnam was a disaster. Afghanistan and Iraq have been disasters. The stimulus was substantially underfunded. Playing nice with Republicans in 2011 was a disaster (even Plouffe now realizes that). The right-wing gets ever more outrageous. States have been heavily damaged by the 2010 and 2012 elections. People used to understand policy implications.
When are we going to be able increase revenues by 44% without cutting any non-defense or entitlement spending?
This is the miracle I am talking about.
You just walk around it, over and over.
You won’t acknowledge that it is simply preferable to deal with this now rather than later.
And you won’t acknowledge that spending over 50% of the budget on interest payments by 2040 is going to doom the New Deal and most other progressive priorities. There is nothing to be gained by denial or procrastination here except the warm feeling that comes with avoiding hard choices.
When the alternative is all living seniors losing an essential service they’ve worked all their lives to earn.
It’s not going to come as one event, either. It will be at least three separate events (one for Medicare, one for SS, and something to deal with what’s left). Probably more than one for each, actually.
We know, 100% absolutely know with no question whatsoever, that even under conservative government we can get the necessary sized increases, because the Greenspan Commission got them. It will happen, if we get that far, and all the fervor of “rein in entitlements before it’s too late” is the fervor of people who don’t want the tax increases and are trying to get something done before the people they want to hurt will scream too loudly.
I’ll just be happy if Miami and NYC aren’t underwater by 2040.
Short answer: yes, we can easily raise taxes by 44%. Federal taxes are currently about 16% of GDP. Raising them by 44% would put it to 23%, which would still be one of the lowest in the developed world. It won’t all happen at once, anyway; 1-2% for Medicare in 202x, 2-3% for Social Security in 203x. The rest might never happen – the remaining deficit is small enough that it can be managed with the 2% inflation target of the Fed.
We’re in this pickle not because spending is too high, but because taxes are too low. It’s only to be expected that reasonable and manageable tax increases can fix the problem. The political issues are currently intractable but they will be resolved if the seniors are facing penury. And we’ll be just fine.
Agreed with commenters who say this isn’t a fever that needs to be broken. I think you’re deluding yourself just as Andrew Sullivan did all four years, and just as Obama thought the election would be enough. They’ve never had enough. They cannot be broken, only thrashed, bloodied, and then finally, beaten.
Robert Costa reports a full-on revolt among the Kompletely Krazy Kaucus in the House.
Sorry, Booman, we’re going over the edge. You’re presuming a rationality among the House GOP that is completely absent.
Costa is reporting that the House republicans are in revolt. So, does Boehner do the right thing?
Orange Julius better man the fuck up.
………..
Ted Cruz, House Republicans Meet in Secret at Tortilla Coast
By Matt Fuller Posted at 12:06 a.m. Oct. 15
Sen. Ted Cruz met with roughly 15 to 20 House Republicans for around two hours late Monday night at the Capitol Hill watering hole Tortilla Coast.
The group appeared to be talking strategy about how they should respond to a tentative Senate deal to reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling without addressing Obamacare in a substantive way, according to sources who witnessed the gathering. The Texas Republican senator and many of the House Republicans in attendance had insisted on including amendments aimed at dismantling Obamacare in the continuing resolution that was intended to avert the current shutdown.
Sources said the House Republicans meeting in the basement of Tortilla Coast with Cruz were some of the most conservative in the House: Reps. Louie Gohmert of Texas, Steve King of Iowa, Jim Jordan of Ohio, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Raúl R. Labrador of Idaho, Steve Southerland II of Florida, Mark Meadows of North Carolina and Justin Amash of Michigan.
The group is a collection of members who have often given leadership headaches in recent years by opposing both compromise measures as well as packages crafted by fellow Republicans. And, it seems, leadership unwittingly became aware of the meetup.
http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/ted-cruz-house-republicans-meet-in-secret-at-tortilla-coast/
Tortilla Coast? Sounds Messican. Hopefully one of the staff had their iPhone camera on.
Brett LoGiurato @BrettLoGiurato44m
Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.): Anyone in the “surrender caucus” who votes for the Senate deal is going to be primaried. http://nyti.ms/16dhREo
———————-
But while both Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, praised the progress that was made in the Senate, it was already clear that the most conservative members of the House were not going to go along quietly with a plan that does not accomplish their goal from the outset of this two-week-old crisis: dismantling the president’s health care law.
“We’ve got a name for it in the House: it’s called the Senate surrender caucus,” said Representative Tim Huelskamp, Republican of Kansas. “Anybody who would vote for that in the House as Republican would virtually guarantee a primary challenger.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/15/us/politics/seeking-deal-to-avert-default-lawmakers-to-meet-obama.
html?_r=2&
Jon Favreau @jonfavs
Why can’t we just skip to the part where Boehner realizes he can’t pass anything and gives the floor to Pelosi?
7:44 AM – 15 Oct 2013
And the House has a counteroffer:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/gop-rep-outlines-boehner-s-counter-offer
And basically it constitutes more hostage taking. The Medical Device Tax is gone, the reinsurance tax is gone,and the Screw the Hill Staff Amendment/Vitter Amendment is attached.
Still feeling sanguine? Because this was advanced by Charlie Dent, one of those “sane Republicans” we’re all depending on.
I am not feeling at all sanguine. Costa repoorted that repubs are unified behind their plan, and even sang Amazing Grace together.
I’m hoping the extremist Republicans in the House will vote against this, because it doesn’t defund the Affordable Care Act. Then perhaps that will give Boehner cover to tearfully declare he tried, but he has to pass some sort of debt ceiling bill raise, and then he can offer up whatever comes out of the Senate.
I’m not sanguine, and certainly nowhere near ready to celebrate victory; just hoping.