home

Will The Debt Ceiling Deal Get Worse? Depends Who Is Voting For It

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 09:45:54 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

While there are conflicting reports about the outlines of the debt ceiling deal being negotiated, I thought the most important factor was not reported on - who is expected to vote for this deal. Is House Speaker John Boehner cutting a deal counting on heavy Dem support and limited GOP support? Or is he applying a "majority of the majority" rule? I assume thew Senate is peeling off enough GOP votes for cloture but it will be an all Dem voting affair for passage.

If this is a "majority of the majority" deal, then expect the worst. If not, expect a little better. But it is all terrible.

< Sen. Harry Reid Delays Budget Vote Until 1pm Sunday | Sunday Open Thread: One Meatball, No Bread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Will The Debt Ceiling Deal Get Worse? Depends Who Is Voting For It | 111 comments (111 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Times (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 09:59:24 AM EST
    The Times today discovered Obama's "rightward tilt" .  

    Gosh, they just found out?
     

    Apparently (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:28:40 AM EST
    the Tribune missed Obama's "books', his State Senate career, his short stint in the US Senate, the primaries, his appointments, his first days in office, creating the catfood commission over the objections of Congressional Democrats, the ARRA with nearly 40% tax cuts, the DEAL, etc., etc., etc.

    To think these people get paid.

    Parent

    Oops! (none / 0) (#35)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:32:07 AM EST
    Times not Tribune.

    Parent
    LOL...I love the comment ! (none / 0) (#73)
    by samsguy18 on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 01:54:11 PM EST
    The Times along with the majority of the media buried Obama's track record and personal history.
    Obama has been a walking and talking disaster for this country. For those familiar with the man and his career...not the one fabricated by the press and his campaign....this was all too predictable!

    Parent
    It creeped (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 02:05:57 PM EST
    me out back in 2008 that they were treating Obama the same way as they treated George W. Bush in 2000--his background was never really examined seriously in the mainstream press. Rolling Stone did a really good story on him but I believe this was after he was elected.

    Parent
    But this article illustrates the problem (none / 0) (#50)
    by Buckeye on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 12:32:27 PM EST
    There is no way liberals are not going to vote for Obama.  It will be easy to make them hate the GOP nominee, so there are no consequences to ignoring his base.  That is why he does not care.  Worst case scenario is a demoralized based and the consequences of that.  But not much.

    Parent
    "Progressives" may vote for Obama (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by shoephone on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 12:47:21 PM EST
    Real liberals will not.

    Parent
    This one will (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 01:24:45 PM EST
    No real liberal I know wants to go from the frying pan into the fire. I won't impugn your motives, but I don't see that your reasoning goes anywhere good.

    Parent
    This real liberal (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by sj on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 01:37:31 PM EST
    submits that we are already IN the fire.  The question for me now is how long we will be cooking.

    Parent
    The (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 01:55:27 PM EST
    Nixon goes to China president we have now is probably more harmful than the Republican might be.

    Democrats would actually FIGHT a Republican if they were doing the same things Obama is doing.

    Thus, it's better to have a Republican as president...in the short term.

    Parent

    And no real liberal I know is going to (5.00 / 6) (#80)
    by shoephone on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 02:43:38 PM EST
    give Obama a second round opportunity to screw us even further. I won't impugn your motives either, andgarden. But the folks in my peer group are mostly 50-somethings and 60-somethings, who are political activists from way back, and know what the label "liberal" actually stands for. We fought for women's rights, racial equality, income equality, and the preservation of the social safety net. We fought against corporate greed and unjustifiable wars. We were on the front lines during the beginnings of the AIDS crisis -- when President Reagan refused to even utter the word "AIDS" in public discourse -- fighting for research dollars to figure out what the hell this disease was, and then more research dollars to start to combat it. In the last 30+ years, I've participated in more protest rallies, attended more town halls, written nore letters and made more phone calls to congressmen and senators that it is possible to count. I've given thousands of dollars to candidates I believed in.

    I've been paying into Social Security for 35 years. And I've run two businesses, which means I've REALLY paid in. And now I'm 51 years old, barely employed, beset by chronic health issues, and I've had it up to here with people telling me "you have nowhere else to go" come election time. I bloody well do have somehere else to go, and it's called the "write-in vote." Because that is the ONLY vote I can make to keep my sanity and my integrity. Anyone who thinks an Obama second term is going to be better than his first, who thinks Obama is going to miraculously locate his Democratic principles and acquire a set of cajones to match is living in a dream world. It's not going to happen.

    Obama is a political double agent. He cannot be trusted, and I do not trust him as far as I can spit. He has proven to be a phucking disaster of the most monumental proportions. He has energentically sold out hard-fought, longtime Democratic ideals in the service of his pathological fetish for bipartisanship, and in the service of his own ambition.

    I feel zero loyalty to this this mole for the Republican party. The country is going into the dumper, and the culpability for that lies with the crazy Republicans, the corrupt, corporate DINOS, and the phony little mole in the White House who does their bidding.

    Parent

    I agree with much of what you (none / 0) (#94)
    by hairspray on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 04:28:08 PM EST
    have said.  I don't trust Obama either.  However, my husband believes that if Obama is elected to a second term he will have more freedom and will show us a different side.  I wish I could believe that.

    Parent
    So much of your political background (none / 0) (#95)
    by christinep on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 05:06:11 PM EST
    in this heartfelt statement--where you experienced the frontlines of must-be-frought political/human struggles, shoephone--sounds similar to my own (even the 60s age bracket.) My struggles primarily found me working in worker & union-related battles, debating against Vietnam & most other wars/military incursions that followed, and advocating for the advancement of women.

    I have been a Democrat all my life and--as indicated probatly too often--will remain active in my party for the remainder of my life, in all likelihood. Saying that, tho, I do have empathy for how you feel (for one thing, your words above are quite persuasive about your position) as I remember still the loathing that engulfed me about LBJ in the late 60s and, to a lesser extent, the disappointment that I felt about Carter near the end of his term. While time has softened those feelings and a retrospective allows me to be open to a fuller picture of those ex-Presidents, that does not diminish your legitimate feelings in the midst of today's situation.

    Where I strongly differ, and consider a wrong approach is when those who feel as you do lash out against those in the Democratic Party who do not share those feelings now. Under any scenario, I do not support purity or loyalty tests that would determine who are the "real" liberals or real Democrats (or "real Progressives," if people could agree on what that meant.) That approach would put Liberals & Democrats on a par with the further right in many ways...as you must know.  Whether its a litmus test, a blood test for "real" liberalism, or other testing mechanism for admission into Liberalism.  The end result: Clubbiness & separation...from each other. And, who will be left standing?

    My positions over the years have liberal, moderate, moderately liberal...a melange. A kind of EJ Dionne approach overall. I don't expect to sway you or for your feelings to lessen...my purpose in commenting here is only to urge re-thinking about exclusionary language <that something like "I'm real X, you are not X"> and the effects of such language...which can have a broader, negative effect on the very things you may be trying to build.

    Parent

    Diametrically opposing beliefs, Christine (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by shoephone on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 06:41:28 PM EST
    You believe the current Democratic party has only minor flaws, and that incrementalism is the best policy for long-term success.

    I believe the Democratic party is dead, and that Obama helped kill it.

    You believe that Obama is a savvy operator who knows how to play the game to maximum Democratic advantage.

    I believe he has shown varying degrees of duplicity, incompetence, and betrayal -- and that he squandered every ounce of political capital he had in the first two years of his presidency.

    I don't vote for those I consider to be traitors to the values that I, my parents, and my grandparents have fought for and supported for the past 80 years. Cuts to important social programs and cuts to Social Security and Medicare will directly affect my ability to stay afloat in the near future. I'm not voting for Obama in 2012, and no amount of rationalizing can convince me otherwise. I'm looking for a new party.

    Furthermore, while I expect both of my senators to vote for the dastardly, trigger-laden bill of spending cuts, I will lose all respect for my congressman should he vote for it.

    Parent

    Holy cow, christine (none / 0) (#97)
    by sj on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 05:32:12 PM EST
    It isn't a "litmus test" to expect this guy to advocate for one, one Democratic principle.

    Pick one: union support (nope, prevented the admin from assisting Wisconsin), reproductive rights (bargained away access), civil liberties (too many to count), safety net (some people are still in "wait and see" mode aka "too blind to see"), regulatory enforcement (BP), investment in our people and infrastructure (HAMP instead of HOLC).  The list goes on and on and has been documented here many times.

    YOU have a litmus test: if we don't blindly support Obama then we're supporting Republicans.

    Parent

    For now, sj, a little...more later (none / 0) (#98)
    by christinep on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 06:05:49 PM EST
    No, I have no litmus test. What you suggest in that paragraph surely must be an inadvertent misconstruction. Lets leave it at that.

    A few of the others: On Wisconsin...given the tenor of last November there (expulsion of Feingold & much more) certain strategies might produce different results a mere two or three or four months later...e.g., for the WH to be seen directly inserting itself into the state or local politics of Wisconsin to overcome the state reps and/or governmor undoubtedly would have resulted in a backlash against what would have been billed as bully DC interfering in the affairs of the state that had just elected these people...far better to assist in the background & allow the protest to be truly homegrown & to be seen as such...as it turns out, that was the smartest calculation (because more often than not, overreaching defeats itself) & the state Repubs appear to have had a remarkable loss in voter confidence since last November.

    There are two sides to stories...not just in a courtroom, sj.

    As to the claim about bargaining away reproductive rights for ACA: All I can say is that one of the strongest proponents for women's rights, Diana Degette (my Congresswoman) was a lead negotiator on this issue. I asked her about that at a Democratic function shortly afterward, and she straightforwardly acknowledged that she wished that nothing limiting reproductive rights would be in any agreement...but that practically we would be dealing with a Hyde Amendment type situation (i.e., that status quo.) She & others stressed the give & take of negotiations if you want to move ahead. I agree.  Again, sj. my take is different from yours...and, a number of women feminists in this state agree (and, of course, others don't.) Political life does have shades of gray.  One thing we do know is that the result is a far cry from what the Repubs would deliver/promise to deliver.

    On BP: As a 27 year alumna of EPA, I have long (read long long) positions & discussions in this area. In fact, I've written about the substantial differences between Repub Administration approaches to permitting & Democrats (noting that Salazar & his group should have moved faster in earlier program management, but that now Interior is leaps ahead of previous Admins.)

    Etc. etc.  I'm sure we'll have opportunity for more specifics later. (But, it would help to have one discussion at a time rather than firing 6 or 7 "charges" across the blog in one paragraph...pithiness would be cute, but not really responsive.)

    Parent

    Fine, then (none / 0) (#99)
    by sj on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 06:18:40 PM EST
    stop accusing others of having a litmus test. Or of supporting Republicans.

    Parent
    Well...who defines "real?" (none / 0) (#101)
    by christinep on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 09:39:52 PM EST
    No accusations on that score, sj. But, anytime we try to say this person is a "real" X whereas that person is "not real," we are setting up a test in a litmus way. That's the point about tests...they have all kinds of unintended consequences (not the least of which would be making the Big Tent of the Party much, much smaller.)

    What constitutes "supporting Republicans" in terms of Presidential electoral dynamics & vote counting is a subject for another thread.

    Parent

    I don't intend to get in a pie fight (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 03:26:26 PM EST
    on who is or who is not a "real liberal." While you will more than likely remain in the frying pan, many of us are being thrown into the fire that Obama has been building since 2007 when he put the safety net programs on the table.

    I am going to lose my financial security regardless of whether or not Obama or an unnamed Republican becomes president in 2012. There is no way in h&ll that I will vote for any person who takes away benefits that I paid for for over 40 and 50 years.

    Parent

    I may be speaking prematurely, but (none / 0) (#102)
    by christinep on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 09:55:55 PM EST
    as of 8:30 pm Sunday (MDT), the agreement signed off on to be presented to the caucuses in the Senate & House tomorrow protects Social Security & Medicaid and also exempts certain benefit programs for helping the poor & veterans. Said exempted areas specifically apply to the first round of cuts (the $1trillion long agreed upon fairly cosmetic and already reduced catagories) and the second round wherein the bilateral committee makes recommendations to cover the additional $2.4(?)Trillion--this second step is the one that contains the automatic trigger if the committee fails to agree on a mix of defense & domestic equalling the called for $2plus Trillion.  Again, because this is still unclearly reported, I did read that Sen. Ben Cardin stated clearly that "priority areas" for Democrats were protected.

    MO Blue: Even knowing that you & I tend to disagree on about everything involving the President, please also know that I wish the best for you in both financial security & peace of mind. Your concern about what may come is genuine; my hope is that the news that comes to you from all this conflict will be welcome, good news at last.

    Parent

    Almost forgot (none / 0) (#103)
    by christinep on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 09:59:04 PM EST
    As for Medicare: The same descriptor of the high-level agreement specifically states that any cuts that may be made in the second round involving Medicare shall not be to beneficiaries...but, rather, to providers.

    Parent
    Oh I guess Obama is lying when (none / 0) (#104)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:37:13 PM EST
    he said that the entitlement programs were not protected during the second round of cuts to be made based on the recommendations of his Cat Food CommissionII. He still wants those cuts made and per the text of his statement tonight he plans to work towards those cuts. It would have been nice if you had read the text of Obama's message before claiming the safety net programs were safe.

    Despite what some in my own party have argued, I believe that we have to make some modest adjustments to programs like Medicare, to make sure they are still around for future generations."

    Obama, in his remarks on the debt deal Sunday night, said there will be no initial cuts to entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare. But he said both could be on the table along with changes in tax law as part of future cuts.

    That is what he is proposing that the Super Congress accomplish during the second round of cuts. His exact words on the subject in his statement tonight.

    "That's why the second part of this agreement is so important. It establishes a bipartisan committee of Congress to report back by November with a proposal to further reduce the deficit, which will then be put before the entire Congress for an up or down vote. In this stage, everything will be on the table.

    "Now, is this the deal I would have preferred? No. I believe that we could have made the tough choices required -- on entitlement reform and tax reform -- right now, rather than through a special congressional committee process. But this compromise does make a serious down payment on the deficit reduction we need, and gives each party a strong incentive to get a balanced plan done before the end of the year.

    He negotiated the deal and in his public statement he specifically says that the entitlement programs are up for grabs in the second round of cuts to be recommended by the Super Congress.

    We tend to disagree because you are very careless in what you say which is completely contrary to what Obama has said from 2007 forward. This carelessness IMO causes a great deal of harm since it gives false reassurance to people instead of encouraging them to hound everyone in D.C. until they permanently take cuts to the safety net programs off the table and stick them where the sun don't shine.  

    Parent

    I wonder if anyone else finds it (none / 0) (#105)
    by Anne on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:53:18 PM EST
    instructive that Obama's disappointment is not that he "had no choice" but that he is being forced to wait for the special commission to give him the kinds of changes he wants instead of getting them right now.

    And unless I'm missing something, cuts to Medicare providers DO affect beneficiaries, as these cuts lead providers to exit the program, further reducing access to care.

    Parent

    There is that. (none / 0) (#106)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:39:47 PM EST
    Also, I don't see how anyone can say that this or that safety net is protected when Obama is flat out saying that everything is on the table and he is anticipating cuts to them as the result of the recommendations of the Cat Food CommissionII in the second round.

    Parent
    They are not covered by the automatic cuts (none / 0) (#107)
    by christinep on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:48:13 PM EST
    The enforcement mechanism exempts Social Security, Medicaid, food stamps, & certain other benefit programs for veterans and economic-needs.

    The Committee--equal Dems & Repubs--would have to agree on any cuts; and, there would also be tradeoffs with revenue-enhancement.  So, in the very likely event that there is an impasse, the automatic cuts cannot reach the exempted areas. (There are some interesting catches here, that more naturally than not leads one to the automated cuts & their exemptions.)

    No, dear, I was emphasizing the automatic cuts aspect...and, if you think about it, that will be the field of reality. So...think it through. Think about how Dems & Repubs on that committee of 12 are going to agree to the specifics...not the generalities...of cuts to the most prized entitlements as we head toward an election year ( that is the kind of bs that happens in off-years.) And, since there is a time limit because of the need to have the second phase debt ceiling increase, it is much more likely than not that contentious matters such as these will not find agreement.  Think it through.

    Parent

    Revenue enhancement means (none / 0) (#108)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 08:24:27 AM EST
    cutting corporate taxes down to 28%, exempting corporate offshore money from taxation and lowering the tax brackets especially for the top 1-2% (23-29%). to be offset by reducing tax deductions like charitable deductions, the employer health care deduction and the mortgage interest deduction.

    And if you think about it you will see that those "Revenue Enhancements" actually cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy which is a goal Obama and the Republicans share big time.

    So Dear, you might want to consider the fact that the Gang of Six which includes Durbin, Warner and Conrad have already agreed with their Republican colleagues to draconian cuts to the safety net programs and the Republicans have already agreed to the tax cuts, I mean the "Revenue Enhancements" mentioned above. A straight up or down vote means that no Tea Party members are needed to pass committee recommendations. Obama and Boehner have already agreed to what will most likely be contained in the Cat Food CommissionII and both can twist enough arms to get a simple majority.

       

    Parent

    Y'know, MO Blue (none / 0) (#111)
    by christinep on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 05:27:08 PM EST
    Early on, the motif that you & some others developed was: Its all over...we won't have Social Security, etc and the entitlements will be destroyed...here it comes.... <I'm paraphrasing and taking some poetic license, of fourse.> Well, we all survived the Simpson-Bowles Commission, a concoction like so many others by so many other Presidents when they want to kick the can away...and we "survived" because, from the git go, the committee could not get anywhere near agreement.

    Then, the move was toward something like "They'll get us in the end...just you wait." So--we have phase 2 and a Cong'l Committee who will undoubtedly be named by the leadership in each House (guessing majority & minority.) Well...that is a gamble I willingly take in the circumstances. If anything in the way of hurting the substantive aspects of Social Security, Medicaid, food stamps, and--even the Medicare giant program (tho, I'm shakier about the age target that has been mentioned)--would make it through any such committee, I'll kiss your feet or throw rose petals or somesuch.  

    What I would ask is that you consider reconsidering your remarks if we arrive at the beginning of the year and the world as we know it is still here.  

    Parent

    IIRC correctly your "field of reality" (none / 0) (#109)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 08:26:59 AM EST
    had Obama unfurling his Superman cape and choosing the 14th Amendment option to save the people and the known world from the Republicans.

    Parent
    You misread that comment about Superman (none / 0) (#110)
    by christinep on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 05:17:29 PM EST
    Geez...I thought my words stated that a president would not want to act in such manner until the last possible moment when the Superman rescue was being cried for....  Norwhere did I state or even think that Obama would do that (invoke the Amendment.)  My intention was to say that there were different sides to the argument about the 14th amendment that could be quite tricky.

    Parent
    You said... (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Romberry on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 12:51:01 PM EST
    There is no way liberals are not going to vote for Obama.

    I disagree. Democrats? Sure, Democratic tribalists will vote for Obama regardless. Liberals? Not so much.

    As a liberal, my position now is that the only way things are ever going to get better is to stand up, say "Enough!" and take this president and any of his Democratic enablers down.

    If we are to have Republican policies, we need to make sure that the Republicans are the ones that enact them and own the end result. As of now, Obama is making Republican policies into Democratic consensus. I'd no more vote for Obama than I'd vote for Bush. Frankly, Obama is turning out to be worse than Bush. As far as I'm concerned, he can go to hell.

    Parent

    My prediction (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:16:43 AM EST
    It will be drafted based on all of the elements that Obama and the Republicans want to insure that the cuts to the safety net and domestic programs will be guaranteed to happen. Further cuts to corporate taxes and lowering the upper brackets of the tax code will be also guaranteed to be included in the Super Congress legislation under the guise of tax reform. The debt ceiling legislation will be passed with a majority of Democratic votes with just enough Republican votes to make sure it happens. The Republicans will by presidential degree be allowed to cover their a$$es with their base. The Dems congresscritters will be hung out to dry but maybe they deserve their fate for their compliance.  

    Ordinary people will get fleeced big time. The majority of Republican voters will blame it on the "socialist" Democratic Party. The majority of Democratic voters will blame it on the Tea Party. The powers that be will swing behind Obama in time to make sure that he can continue his "good" work after 2012 but support Republicans for the Senate to help Obama pass more of their legislation.

    With Obama pushing for it enough Dems (none / 0) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:38:11 AM EST
    IMO will vote for it.

    Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told ABC News Sunday morning that negotiators hammering out a final deal to raise the debt ceiling shouldn't count of conservative Republican support.

    "I don't see many conservatives getting behind this quite frankly," he said. "I think half the conference in the Republican House must vote for this. I think that's the minimum."

    That would mean a big chunk of Democratic votes in the House would be required to carry a deal progressives aren't likely to champion either. link



    Parent
    Social Security seems to (none / 0) (#25)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:59:16 AM EST
    be a given in the cuts department (chained cost of living).  The Democrats are "trying to protect Medicare"; Medicaid is probably in for a  haircut.  Wonder what will become of the Bush/Obama tax cuts upon the current expiration or the increased estate tax thresholds and tax rates of the Deal.   The Republican Tea Party may well extract a commitment for another extension before all is said and done.  

    Parent
    Much of the Obama tax cuts could (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:33:22 AM EST
    be taken off the table for discussion when the Super Congress includes "tax reform" in their Cat Food CommissionII deficit package. IMO they would accomplish the same or more generous end result as the Bush/Obama tax cuts but would be sold under the guise of tax reform. Some of the things included would be:

    Lowering corporate tax rate from 35% to 28%, eliminating taxes on corporate off shore money (territorial income vs worldwide income) and lower the brackets for marginal tax rates. Lower marginal tax rates fall in 3 brackets: one at 8-12%, one at 14-22%, and (top bracket) one at 23-29%;

    Parent

    I believe that there is a good possibility (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:43:47 AM EST
    that all the changes to the safety net programs that Obama negotiated with Boehner (including Medicare) will be included in the Super Congress deficit package that receives an up or down vote.

    I hope that you are right and I am wrong about this since the changes to Medicare outlined by Cohn would have the most severe negative impact on my financial survival. It would jeopardize me retaining a standard of living at even my current modest level. It would have even a more drastic and immediate impact on people who don't even have my small savings on hand.

    The reported changes to Medicaid would make the POS health insurance legislation even more worthless and harmful, forcing more people to be without any avenue for medical care.    

    Parent

    Everything is in jeopardy when (none / 0) (#55)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 12:53:16 PM EST
    the inmates are running the asylum--and the Warden is leading from exile.  The Democrats are "trying" to protect Medicare, but try as they may, it just may be futile.  Even the sincere Democratic senators and representatives, if there really are such, will  have a tough time trying without anyone in their corner.  

    Parent
    We keep hearing about how (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by kenosharick on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:27:13 AM EST
    the republican party is self-destructing. Really? This "deal" gives the Right almost 100% what they want. Lord knows what they will demand in September (and get, of course).  What we now have is a moderate republican party (still officially called Democrats) and a far right radical John Birch/tea party.

    Well... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Addison on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:34:23 AM EST
    Progressives in the Democratically-controlled House failed to make sufficient nuisances of themselves when it mattered (2009-2011), and Boehner is less willing than Democrats to lose his job crafting centrist legislation. That's really all there is to it. This whole Tea Party Debt Ceiling Debacle (still ongoing) has made it very clear that Obama didn't fail progressives 2009-2011, Obama was Obama and he Obama'd what he Obama'd. Progressives in Congress failed progressives in the grassroots, and centrist Democratic Senators assisted. Look at what the Tea Party has done with 40-50 members covering the margin of the GOP's House majority. Although it should be noted that there wasn't a drop-dead date for health care reform as there is for the debt ceiling, so the Tea Party had it easier -- but there WAS a drop-dead date for the Bush tax cuts and Pelosi and the House progressives squished out in a way Boehner and the Tea Party did not.

    Parent
    Well, (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by lilburro on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:45:36 AM EST
    if we are all now in agreement that Obama cannot be trusted to forward the most progressive position, then we have gotten somewhere.

    Parent
    asdf (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Addison on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:52:10 AM EST
    Well, I don't know that anyone every thought Obama would ever compete with Kucinich for forwarding the most progressive* position. I don't think anyone was under that delusion. I think the issue was that people (including myself) initially thought Obama would push the most progressive position possible given political realities. But that isn't true either.

    *This word, "progressive", is slippery and I don't even really know what it means. Often it seems to mean two clicks to the left of Obama on the issue being discussed, and so we get into truisms about Obama not being progressive.

    Parent

    Excellent comment. (none / 0) (#88)
    by shoephone on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 03:01:06 PM EST


    Parent
    Pelosi and Reid (none / 0) (#15)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:39:47 AM EST
    should bargain hard if it will require an all Dem voting affair for passage.
    Obama was elected championing bipartisanship, Reid and Pelosi were not.

    Parent
    right (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:43:03 AM EST
    i remember that Shepard Fairley poster

    the one that had Obama's picture and the word BIPARTISANSHIP

    Parent

    Well, on that... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Addison on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:48:05 AM EST
    ...Obama campaigned on bipartisanship as much as on hope or change. That Washington needed to work together and find common solutions and all that. Armando noted that many times. The post-partisan unity shtick was indeed the main principle underlying both his campaign and his administration. I thought it would work better than it has -- oops. "Change" was the thing which he campaigned on which has arguably been missing (DADT and health insurance reform notwithstanding).

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by lilburro on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:58:55 AM EST
    it's called a shtick for a reason - everyone says that crap.

    Obviously in Obama's first two years he managed to operate by passing things on party lines.

    So if bipartisanship was the mandate, he's been a huge failure until now.  Two years later.

    Parent

    I agree. (none / 0) (#27)
    by Addison on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:00:41 AM EST
    He was obviously trying to be bipartisan for those two years. It failed.

    Parent
    And yet (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by lilburro on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:23:24 AM EST
    he was able to adapt to that failure (at bipartisanship).  And leave the GOP behind.

    I know he needs GOP cooperation now to get things done, but the whole way this debt ceiling debate has happened is ridiculous, and much of it was preventable.  Way too much time was spent trying to be bipartisany for the sake of it.  Way too much time.  

    Parent

    He made it clear what change meant (none / 0) (#79)
    by Madeline on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 02:40:09 PM EST
    'change the tone in Washington'; move beyond the tumultuous 60's, be inclusive. he stated many times that he doesn't like the loud liberals who insist on ideology....what ever the heck that means.

    Any one who really saw that as progressive or liberal was obamaboted.

    He's failed.

    I am so sick about talking about this man and what he said what he meant...he's not a democrat.

    Parent

    In addition (none / 0) (#91)
    by Madeline on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 03:09:52 PM EST
    it was clear that progressive politics would be different than liberal.  Example: The entire liberal internet decided to change their name....liberal became the word ye shall not speak.

    The party wanted younger, more elite, more educated, more urban and wealthier people to 'be' Democrats. The power Washingtonians also were sick of losing the presidency slot and they themselves wanted to represent more than blue collar, AA and other minorities and disadvantaged.

    This is not the Democratic Party of Bill Clinton.
    After this grand experiment in spending cuts and the grand commission, completely separated from citizens, to cut mostly social service and any safety nets, what is left?


    Parent

    "Obama was elected" ... (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:50:43 AM EST
    ... championing a lot of things, depending on his audience at the time.  Every candidate for POTUS "champions" bipartisanship, including GW Bush.  Not sure what the point is ...

    ... except for trying to place the responsibility to lead the party on someone (anyone) other than Obama.

    Parent

    This real liberal (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by the capstan on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 02:11:32 PM EST
    will do the same as I did last time.  I did not vote for Obama--and when questioned by chagrined family, I had 2 sentences which ended the conversation:  "I am a liberal.  He is not."

    True, I am in a red corner of a red state--but at least I know I did not contribute to the wreck I saw coming.

    The Deal (1.50 / 2) (#26)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:59:28 AM EST
    as currently contemplated really isn't that bad at all:

    Cuts happen in the future and the recovery isn't impacted

    Medicare recipients safe

    SS safe

    Gets us past next election

    Trigger includes large defense cuts

    Bush tax cut expiration is still the trump card
    $2.4 trillion over 10 years really isn't all that much in the big scheme of things.  The number, relatively speaking,just isn't all that big.

    Bottom line: all of the hullabaloo about people eating catfood and such is likely garbage.

    The people are safe, now it is about politics and 2012.

    it's all about the O (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:03:00 AM EST
    Bush tax cut expiration is still the trump card

    only because O blew it in December

    now it is about politics and 2012

    for you & the other O apologists

    Parent

    What's "likely garbage" (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:05:10 AM EST
    is your spin on the situation.

    Parent
    If that's what happens, it's the least bad option (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:08:15 AM EST
    But "all of the hullabaloo" you refer to was real. The President as much as said so on national television.

    This deal is another really bad idea. That it could have been worse is not much salve.

    And it's still not finalized.

    Parent

    One thing omitted from your (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:53:18 AM EST
    little spin room list is the Super Congress recommendations that must receive an up or down vote
    by the end of November, 2010.  No one disputes that the Super Congress will be included in final deal.

    The other thing that you failed to mention in your list is that Medicaid is safe. No biggie right "those" people don't vote in large numbers anyway.

    Parent

    That comment is almost sadistic, (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by observed on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 12:16:12 PM EST
    with your promise that O holds the trump card with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.

    Parent
    "The people are safe?" (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Anne on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 12:42:21 PM EST
    Still with the eyes wide shut, eh, ABG?

    Parent
    Who to trust (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 12:50:30 PM EST
    ABG or Krugman?

    There is no light at the end of this tunnel. We're having a debate in Washington, all about, 'Gee, we'll make the economy worse, but will we make it worse on 90 percent of the Republicans' terms or 100 percent of Republicans' terms?' The answer is 100 percent."


    Parent
    Forget Krugman. ABG has operatives on Wall St.! (none / 0) (#56)
    by shoephone on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 12:56:20 PM EST


    Parent
    I understand where ABG gets (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 01:16:11 PM EST
    his propaganda.

    Propaganda needs to be called by name and needs to be refuted by as many sources as possible, as often as possible.

    Let's go with another source of information. Obama's spokesperson, David Plouffe on the proposed legislation:

    It would require an initial round of $1 trillion in deficit reduction, mostly or entirely coming from spending cuts, followed by work by a special congressional committee to recommend even deeper deficit reduction which would be achieved, said Plouffe, through "entitlement reform and tax reform."


    Parent
    As bad as this deal is likely to be, (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 01:40:02 PM EST
    the spin/propaganda that will follow will match it.  

    Parent
    Except spin/proproganda doesn't (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 01:41:49 PM EST
    hurt those most in need of the federal government's intervention.  

    Parent
    True, but my thinking is not that (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 02:13:31 PM EST
    the spin/propaganda will exceed the damage to so many,  but that it will be equal in its way in odiousness.   Obama will have to try hard to make the electorate think this is a good deal or, if not, it is really not so bad after all.  Shared sacrifice, and balance will be key  components of the spin although the deal will contain neither..  This tactic  along with re-inforcing  the scare that liberals and progressives have no place to go other than into the arms of Michelle and Marcus.

    Parent
    Also "saving" (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 03:02:38 PM EST
    SS and Medicare is going to be big.  Any time you cut stuff, it gets called "saving" it.


    Parent
    We still have the budget (none / 0) (#33)
    by lilburro on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:26:35 AM EST
    to "look forward to."

    Parent
    Where do you get the details? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:33:09 AM EST
    I'm looking for them.

    Parent
    his Ophone. (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by observed on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:41:34 AM EST


    Parent
    No one actually knows anything (none / 0) (#42)
    by Addison on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:44:56 AM EST
    Chuck Todd:

    The way this deal is shaped, Congress can avoid BOTH the tax and entitlement fights until 2013

    Chuck Schumer:

    Schumer told CNN that future deficit reductions should not cut Medicare or Medicaid benefits but provide defense cuts of "equal sharpness and magnitude" to cuts in nonmilitary discretionary spending.

    David Plouffe:

    It would require an initial round of $1 trillion in deficit reduction, mostly or entirely coming from spending cuts, followed by work by a special congressional committee to recommend even deeper deficit reduction which would be achieved, said Plouffe, through "entitlement reform and tax reform."

    Jay Newton-Small (Time:

    Though the package would avoid a second debt-ceiling vote early next year as Obama wanted, it calls for substantial spending cuts with almost no way of forcing accompanying revenue increases in return. The plan would include $2.4 trillion in spending cuts upfront,  including $1 trillion in war savings over the next decade and $400 billion in saved debt interest payments -- two budget maneuvers conservatives have labeled little more than accounting gimmicks. In addition, the plan would call for a Senate vote on a constitutional balanced budget amendment, which is unlikely to pass, and the formation of a special deficit commission to find an additional $1.8 trillion in savings by Thanksgiving.

    McConnell:

    "The committee has a broad mandate to look at the entire spectrum of concerns," McConnell said. "And certainly tax reform is something both Democrats and Republicans think is long overdue."

    Speaking after McConnell on the same show, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) confirmed a broad mandate for the committee, which will be equally divided between Republicans and Democrats.

    Schumer again:

    "The committee has no restraints on it," Schumer said. "We will fight very hard for revenues on that committee, if it should come to exist."

    Many mutually contradictory things in there. Sometimes from the same person. That said, I would say that take the worst of the above and the deal will be 85% of that.

    Parent

    David Plouffe works for Obama, right (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:57:11 AM EST
    special congressional committee to recommend even deeper deficit reduction which would be achieved, said Plouffe, through "entitlement reform and tax reform."

    Parent
    I have to think Plouffe's is the most accurate (none / 0) (#47)
    by Addison on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 12:06:02 PM EST
    And so the earlier reports were wrong. I don't know why the earlier reports (Chuck Todd, notably) were so wrong on the one major substantive detail they included, though. Don't report that the deal avoids tax and entitlement issues until 2013 if those items are the main subject of the entire 2011 commission. How do you get that wrong?

    We'll see. I am treating this as a speculation thread. Who knows what the deal is or will be in 30 minutes. I want to hear some more DC-speak for what they think "tax reform" means, though, so I can parse what on Earth they mean by that. Bush tax partial repeal? VAT? Just closing "corporate jet" loopholes? Corporate tax cuts. "Tax reform" doesn't actually mean anything.

    Parent

    Where (none / 0) (#49)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 12:23:56 PM EST
    is all this great stuff happening? In your dreams?  

    Got a link?

    Parent

    $2.4 trillion (none / 0) (#84)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 02:53:59 PM EST
    in cuts over the next 10 years will guarantee 10 years of recession.

    The good news is nothing that happens now can bind congress 10 years from now. I predict that whatever happens, 10 years of straight cuts won't be happening. So who exactly is Obama trying to fool with this kind of talk?

    Parent

    The deal seems ok to me. (none / 0) (#2)
    by Addison on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:06:50 AM EST
    I recognize I'm a salmon swimming the wrong way on this particular creek, but truth be told the deal (as reported) is not nearly as bad as I expected. I'm sure I'm wrong somehow.

    The main problem is that it has no new revenues attached, and so that can has been kicked down the road. Hopefully there will be at least 40 Democrats in the Senate willing to vote against their further extension. Otherwise I think that can will be kicked into space. At least there's an automatical "default" mechanism still in place for revenue gains.

    That said, the "trigger" cuts on Medicare reportedly aren't benefit cuts, which is good. Defense is on the "other side" of that trigger, which is good. Social Security is untouched, which is good. As for the cuts themselves, the majority of the $1 trillion "now" cuts and $1.8 trillion "commission" cuts will likely not be cuts to this years or next years budgets, so for the most part it's mostly not an issue of cutting spending during a recession, it's a plan to cut the budget 3-4 years after a recession. And that's good. And the commission is bipartisan, and itself only has $1.8 trillion to play with -- so that won't be too awful. AND even if they fail no "entitlement" benefits will be cut (reportedly). And that's good.

    So I think all told it's a pretty harmless deal. It's not really a positive step forward, but it all seems essentially neutral to me (as long as it's not somehow $2.8 trillion in cuts over the next two budgets or something). And given all the outrage of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security benefits (and accusations that Obama was out to gut and "destroy" those programs) no matter what, I'm happy to see them largely left off the table. Again, that's contingent on the reports vis-a-vis Medicare benefits being off the table for the trigger. And given the $4+ trillion number previously on the table, these cuts are at least analogous to the debt ceiling limit.

    I'm sure I'm wrong somehow. And this is all based on reports, so I don't have much more energy to defend reports and hypotheticals than I've already given to this comment.

    Oh... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Addison on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:09:46 AM EST
    ...and this is not an argument for the deal or against it (making the other side mad is not a recipe for good policy), but one think I know I'm NOT wrong about is that if I was a Tea Party person I would be apoplectic with rage about this deal.

    Parent
    RE: That bipartisan commissiom (none / 0) (#5)
    by jmacWA on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:21:00 AM EST
    I will believe that when I see it.  6 nominal Ds and 6 nominal Rs just about guarantees an R tilt these days.

    Parent
    12 nominal Ds (none / 0) (#6)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:22:19 AM EST
    just about guarantees an R tilt these days.

    Parent
    Sadly true (none / 0) (#8)
    by jmacWA on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:24:12 AM EST
    YEP... you got me there :)

    Parent
    We'll see... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Addison on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:25:18 AM EST
    We'll see (a) if there are things they can't touch, (b) who's on it, (c) if it's a simple majority vote or 2/3rd or 3/4ths or what. It will be a center-right commission, I am sure. But it remains to see if they can target Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid, how much agreement signifies their "agreement", and if they will be comprised of center-right technocrats (bad) or ideologues (worse).

    Parent
    According to both Schumer and McConnell (none / 0) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:34:47 AM EST
    Speaking after McConnell on the same show, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) confirmed a broad mandate for the committee, which will be equally divided between Republicans and Democrats.

    "The committee has no restraints on it," Schumer said. "We will fight very hard for revenues on that committee, if it should come to exist." link



    Parent
    Well, that's stupid. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Addison on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:43:23 AM EST
    We'll see what the actual deal is. Schumer has also said he hasn't seen it yet. But I've heard he's involved so I guess he knows.

    I mean, it's good that revenues are theoretically on the table (which flies in the face of what some others have said), sort of, but I'd rather revenues and "MMS" were both off. I'm still guessing they won't go after benefits with this (I don't think it's necessary to get to $1.8 trillion) but who knows.

    But this seems like a pointless dual handicap for each side -- the Dems are less likely to vote for it AND the Reps are less likely to vote for it with "no restraints".

    Parent

    What is also on the table (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:52:23 AM EST
    with the Super Congress committee that has no restrictions is all the cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid that Obama and Boehner have sanctioned. Durbin, Warner, and Conrad support the Cat Food Commission Recommendations and have agreed to similar cuts to safety net programs in the Gang of Six negotiations.

    Parent
    Oh, they will absolutely (none / 0) (#31)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:22:24 AM EST
    go after "entitlements."  Bernie Sanders and Nancy Pelosi are nearly the only people on Capital Hill who aren't actively insisting that "entitlement reform" must be a critical part of dealing with the debt.

    The whole purpose of this commission, I would say, is to make 12 people take the blame for doing that plus some defense spending cuts.

    FWIW, the reporting I've heard says that the New Catfood Commission will not be allowed to discuss revenues.

    Parent

    I'm doubtful that is the deal (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:37:47 AM EST
    It really depends on who is voting for it.

    That's the point of my post.

    Parent

    I think the point of the theatrics (none / 0) (#40)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:43:09 AM EST
    is to allow Boehner to pretend that he doesn't like the deal. All he has to do is let it come to a vote.

    But I agree with you that adherence to the Hastert rule is at issue here.

    Parent

    Flux (none / 0) (#44)
    by Addison on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:57:02 AM EST
    According to Plouffe -- who may be the best placed of those who are speaking? -- the deal is $1 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade. Then a commission that will cut a further $1.8 trillion in "entitlement reform" and "tax reform". Then the "trigger" if that commission fails that would go after defense and Medicare.

    The targets of the commission are at odds with what others are saying (notably Chuck Todd), but presumably they just don't know. The commission's main targets seem odd to me, since it seems specially designed to 100% alienate the bases of both sides from the deal. Potential revenue gains AND "entitlement" reform? A poison pill for each caucus. We'll see what happens.

    I'm unconvinced it matters who's voting for it at this point. I think they'll come up with a deal and figure everything else out later (with potentially disastrous results). If it was a matter of who was voting for what I would think there'd be more House and Senate Dem representation in the dealmaking. Right now they appear to be taken for granted somewhat.

    Parent

    Although... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Addison on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:59:52 AM EST
    ...I guess that answers your question. In terms of the dealmakers and the deal they're crafting, it looks like it's a given that GOP Congressional votes that are being sought, not Democratic ones.

    Parent
    Not now (none / 0) (#62)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 01:08:43 PM EST
    Dems are apparently balking, according to the latest on MSNBC (around 14:55 or so EDT).

    Also, Rep. Henry Cuellar was just interviewed and he refused, on repeated pressing, to say he "supports the president."  He kept repeating, "I support my leadership."  Cuellar is no Bernie Sanders.

    Sounds to me like House Dems are balking and Pelosi/Hoyer are trying to get something changed in this deal to make it less unacceptable.

    Parent

    Cuellar is an interesting character (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 01:23:35 PM EST
    He won his first primary with the strong support of the Club for Growth (no, I'm not kidding). Recently, he has been very close to Nancy Pelosi. Go figure.

    Parent
    Rep. Kathy Hochul (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 02:58:50 PM EST
    Dem. rep. on MSNBC now (recently won special eleciton in Republican NY district)\

    Says she did a telephone town hall with her district on Sat. afternoon and 6,000 people participated.  That's a stunning number.

    She said the number one thing people were upset about was SS and Medicare cuts.  Third was no tax hikes on the wealthy.

    I repeat, this is an essentially GOP district.

    Parent

    re: Representative Cueller (none / 0) (#65)
    by Addison on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 01:17:29 PM EST
    Well, as far as Cueller's Peter-esque denial of Obama (was there a rooster?!), I wouldn't really expect any Texas Democrat to cop to supporting Obama on tape. TX-28 is relatively safe I guess, but Cueller got 56% of the vote last time. If he's targeted by national Republicans an advertisement with tape from MSNBC of him supporting the president by name on this debt issue would be problematic.

    Parent
    I very much did not get (none / 0) (#82)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 02:49:19 PM EST
    the sense that his reluctance was because Obama was too far to the left.

    No, no rooster (heh), but I got the wording not quite right.  The question was whether he "trusted" Obama or not, and he kept repeating "I trust my leadership."

    And also, btw, the latest is that Grijalva has announced he's not going to vote for this "compromise" bill.

    Be nice if we, the people who have to pay for it (in one way or another) knew what was in it, eh?

    Parent

    And saying he trusts Pelosi would (none / 0) (#83)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 02:51:07 PM EST
    be less problematic?

    I think you're overinterpreting.  The House leadership is well to the left of Obama on this whole deal and has been from the beginning.

    Parent

    If he said "Pelosi" then nevermind... (none / 0) (#90)
    by Addison on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 03:03:17 PM EST
    ...if he stuck with the more generic "leadership" phrase though -- "leadership" can mean anything and it doesn't play in ads as well.

    Parent
    No, I think he said "leadership" (none / 0) (#96)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 05:30:34 PM EST
    Still think you're trying to slice it way too thin here.  Easy enough to show ugly pix of Pelosi while quoting Cuellar in an ad.


    Parent
    That's why you have a (none / 0) (#60)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 01:06:06 PM EST
    commission decide these things.  No need for a commission for stuff that's not difficult.

    Parent
    For the uninformed, i.e., me: (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:23:53 AM EST
    "majority of the majority"

    Does it pass today? (none / 0) (#11)
    by lilburro on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:33:10 AM EST
    Or do we have to wait for tomorrow...or worse, August 2nd, 3rd, etc.?

    IMO, this kabuki was (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by observed on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:47:46 AM EST
    all about getting Dems to fall on their swords, the actual deal being made weeks ago. Boehner's vote was to give the Tea partiers a vote of  conscience


    Parent
    As of this afternoon (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 03:00:54 PM EST
    enough Dems. are refusing to fall on their swords that the whole thing is being held up.  I bet they cave in the end, but at least they're not going totally quietly.


    Parent
    House Democrats should not fall (none / 0) (#93)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 03:40:09 PM EST
    on their swords. They will get slaughtered in the polls in 2012 if they pass this. There is nothing in it for them.
    Even the President (who is not expected to be too partisan) will get weakenend.

    Parent
    Budget Cutting Commission Appears to be Unconstitu (none / 0) (#57)
    by Dan the Man on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 12:57:20 PM EST
    tional.

    TNR reports the commission works like this

    "The formation of a special Congressional committee to recommend further deficit reduction of up to $1.6 trillion (whatever it takes to add up to the total of the debt ceiling increase)."
    "If Congress does not approve those cuts by December 23, automatic  across-the-board cuts go into effect, including cuts to Defense and Medicare."

    LA Times also reports this as a "A special joint committee would be formed to consider further cuts and entitlement reforms that could be put to a vote in Congress this fall."

    If this "special Congressional committee" is appointed in the way all other "Congressional committees" are appointed (ie by members of Congress), then this is clearly unconstitutional under Bowsher v. Synar which denied Congress the power to delegate law-making powers (in particular budget changing powers) to agents of Congress or to a part of itself.  Under Bowsher v. Synar, the only way Congress can make laws is through the normal process of passing both houses of Congresses with a potential veto by the President ie Congress cannot delegate budget powers to a Congressional Commission.

    Who has standing to (none / 0) (#59)
    by observed on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 01:06:00 PM EST
    challenge ?


    Parent
    I'm not sure if that's correct. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Addison on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 01:06:38 PM EST
    I'm not sure if that's correct. The reported current deal will essentially "approve" the triggers, making them the law of the land -- and so the full Congress will have voted on that. Congress (the full Congress) then has to approve the commission's cuts to avoid those default triggers. Both circumstances involve a vote by the full Congress. The powers being delegated to the commission are policy-making and bill-writing, not law-making (defined as making something a law through a vote).

    Parent
    You know what's bad? (none / 0) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 01:01:51 PM EST
    It's when Gene Sperling gets on the tube, and talks frankly and openly about how there will be no "revenue increases" in the works and that has been Obama's stance for well over a year now.  You write about often how the December deal was a horrible miscalculation but what if it wasn't a calculation at all?  What if Obama has made our debt much much worse because he truly looks upon the rich as job creators and refuses to make them pay their fair share while waiting forever for them to trickle some jobs down, while he continues to put the poor and what is left of the middle class on the chopping block over and over again because our debt is becoming larger than our 5 GDP?

    Sperling said that? (none / 0) (#63)
    by lilburro on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 01:11:01 PM EST
    Hrm...

    Parent
    On CNN this morning (none / 0) (#71)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 01:49:18 PM EST
    We have had a less than great morning around here and CNN was on and he gave a little revealing horrifying interview.  I got so flaming PO'd about life in general at that point that my husband walked across the room and changed the channel because what can we do about any of it other than try to get rid of Obama somehow?

    Parent
    I think this is a link to (none / 0) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 01:52:45 PM EST
    what I saw this morning.

    link

    Parent

    They love that job creators language. (none / 0) (#77)
    by lilburro on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 02:12:27 PM EST
    This is my new response to that:  since rich people do not apparently deserve to have their taxes raised because they are 'job creators,' guess what, we have 10% of the US population who needs a job. Do your job or pay the bill.  Where are the freaking jobs they're supposed to be creating??

    You are right about Sperling - at about 4:45.  But I think he is just double talking.  Ahaha!  I can't believe Gloria actually calls him on it.  

    "No revenues for the next year and a half."  "That has always been the President's position."

    I dunno, I wasn't aware that all the revenues they had asked for (closing loopholes, etc.) didn't kick in til 2013.

    Parent

    I know (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 02:55:05 PM EST
    Sperling said job creators, and my brain fell out while my mouth opened and started raging.  I couldn't believe I was going to have to tolerate that language from my Democrat White House, but uhhh...looks like I will be.  Where are the Democrats, the people in the White House don't talk like any Democrats I've ever known.

    Parent
    Just read up on debt ceiling limit and (none / 0) (#81)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 02:47:31 PM EST
    how it was raised (and sometimes lowered!) in the past.  Query:  given the "Gebhardt amendment," couldn't the debt ceiling have been raised in conjunction with federal budget getting through the Senate sometime b/4 the 2010 Congressional election?  If not, why not?

    Will The Debt Ceiling Deal Get Worse? Depends Who Is Voting For It | 111 comments (111 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment