home

Progressive Caucus Chair Rejects Debt Ceiling Capitulation

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 02:49:58 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via daily kos, Rep. Raul Grijalva says:

This deal trades peoples’ livelihoods for the votes of a few unappeasable right-wing radicals, and I will not support it. Progressives have been organizing for months to oppose any scheme that cuts Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security, and it now seems clear that even these bedrock pillars of the American success story are on the chopping block. Even if this deal were not as bad as it is, this would be enough for me to fight against its passage.

< Sunday Open Thread: One Meatball, No Bread | Who Votes For This Deal? >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Progressive Caucus Chair Rejects Debt Ceiling Capitulation | 55 comments (55 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Grijalva for President (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Dadler on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 02:55:37 PM EST
    Ahem.

    My congressman is in the Progressive Caucus (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by shoephone on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 02:58:48 PM EST
    I want to see him come out publicly against this kraptastic sell-out legislation, just as Grijalva has done.

    Yep. McD it is. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by shoephone on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 07:02:58 PM EST
    He's often been the only voice of integrity on a whole host of issues. However, Mr. Single Payer Healthcare enthusiastically supported the Obama health insurance sell-out. We'll see what he does with this one, but based on recent vote-to-support-the-Democratic-president action, I'm not feeling optimistic.

    Parent
    So does he oppose Obama? (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by smott on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 03:54:30 PM EST
    Because Obama's been trading away the livelihood of the bottom 98% for about 2 years now....

    More than 2 1/2 Years (none / 0) (#55)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:38:28 PM EST
    He set up the trade during the transition when he appointed Geithner and other Wall Street people.  He had that silly one day deficit conference that forecast what was to come.

    Parent
    I bet $1.00 (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by COgator95 on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 03:55:06 PM EST
    that most if not all members of the progressive caucus will vote for the right wing debt limit deal. The Democratic Party has sold out the middle class and it's time that people realize this.

    Just like (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 04:06:24 PM EST
    they said they wouldn't support Obama's Health Care plan unless it had a public option. I hope they are holding firm this time but I certainly wouldn't put any money on it.

    to be fair (none / 0) (#16)
    by smott on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 04:14:06 PM EST
    The Demo-controlled House did pass a bill containgin a PO....

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 04:42:13 PM EST
    but then they voted on the final bill without the public option. So all that posturing was pretty meaningless and actually they undercut themselves with it.

    Parent
    sure (none / 0) (#17)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 04:16:51 PM EST
    since there was no chance it would get past the Senate

    Parent
    You may say so (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by sj on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 05:19:40 PM EST
    and if I may say so, I think I've been patient to a fault with him.

    And I think I'd agree with you.

    Thinking his AZ constituents have been (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 03:02:03 PM EST
    hitting the phones and e-mail.  

    Actually, Grijalva is one of the few (none / 0) (#33)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 05:33:09 PM EST
    guys in there who would take a stand like this even if he wasn't hearing from his constituents.  He's a pretty committed lefty.

    Parent
    so let's see (none / 0) (#4)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 03:02:50 PM EST
    the Progressive Caucus comes out guns-ablazin' against "capitulation," thus giving Obama cover to step in & be the Adult In Teh Room (by contrast with the "f^cking r3t@rded" liberal extremists)?

    we'll see, won't we

    Yup (none / 0) (#34)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 05:34:07 PM EST
    Darned if you do and darned if you don't.  The only guy who may win anything out of this on the Dem. side is Obama.

    Parent
    re-election may not be what he wins (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 05:54:00 PM EST


    Parent
    Likely (none / 0) (#56)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:43:25 PM EST
    another "book" deal.

    Parent
    Much better campaign stance than (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 03:04:07 PM EST
    "we lost, but we'll try harder."  

    Good. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Addison on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 03:10:21 PM EST
    This is necessary and good for passage of the deal. If the only Democrats against the plan were centrist or Blue Dog, the deal would fail. The progressive caucus needs to be louder, though, so that a yes vote becomes perceived as a centrist stand against do-nothing radicalism.

    "do nothing" (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 03:39:45 PM EST
    as in fail to make cuts to "entitlements"?

    as in fail to simply invoke the 14th Amendment & dispense with all this kabuki & nonsense?

    as i said upthread: sound & fury, giving cover to Obama's lips on GOP butt in service of "centrist" (i.e., Wall Street) policies

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Addison on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 03:47:48 PM EST
    I'm talking about positioning for the deal-makers. Not my personal views.

    I think most people agree that there needs to be some sort of deal to avoid default, and that taken alone the current deal sounds bad for Democrats. That will require a centrist coalition of some shape or form -- and these "yes" vote centrists will be required to come up with some positioning for the media to protect themselves from their activist base. The opposition of "do-nothing radicals" helps that positioning for both sides, somewhat.

    Furthermore, left-wing vocal opposition helps the final deal, too. It's good.

    Parent

    There needs be no "deal" to... (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Romberry on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 03:53:48 PM EST
    ...avoid default. The president has options. Legal ones. A "deal" is the worst thing possible.

    My position is that anyone with sense should absolutely be against the "deal" that is apparently shaping up. Obama should be required to use the options available to him to prevent this "deal" from going through. Obama should be required to lead.

    Parent

    Which options? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Addison on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 04:02:33 PM EST
    The 14th amendment? The trillion dollar platinum coins? Selling off Yosemite National Park?  President Obama is equally likely to do all of these things. I don't think it's any more reasonable to hope for those things than to hope that a time machine is invented and we can GOTV a little more in Florida on November 7, 2000. The deal is what actually exists in the real world that can prevent default. We need as good as deal as possible. So the Progressive Caucus needs to pretend they don't understand that and play brinksmanship on par with the Tea Party during the negotiations and through to the vote.

    Parent
    actually (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 04:07:07 PM EST
    i think President Obama (or some other corporatist DINO or Republican) is quite likely to sell of Yosemite National Park

    though perhaps not in the middle of this trumped-up "debt crisis"

    try some cat foot with that Kool-Aid

    Parent

    Oh Lord... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Addison on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 04:17:30 PM EST
    ...this is not a good deal. Given what I was expecting, it's definitely an okay deal (albeit worse than what I thought this morning, if recent reports are correct). It at least gives everyone time to agitate about "entitlement" cuts, if they're available to the commission. And it doesn't do some half-assed tax reform that ends up preserving the Bush tax cuts in exchange for closing some loopholes. I was afraid the "entitlements" and "tax" issues would be resolved specifically in this bill without a chance for public airing or comment. So that it's a bit more limited and delayed is better than I hoped.

    But because Obama was outmaneuvered early on, objectively it's not a good deal. The lack of revenues is ridiculous considering the purported issue (debt reduction). In the other thread I noted that Obama's governing strategy has failed. And on many other issues I've been consistently critical of Obama and Geithner's fiscal policy and general ineptitude.

    So don't you go and play the fool and throw out these infantile "Kool-Aid" bromides just because I disagree with you on the tactics actually available to certain groups in this one specific circumstance. What's the point of that?

    Parent

    what's the point? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 04:27:44 PM EST
    why, perhaps to match the tone of this:

    I don't think it's any more reasonable to hope for those things than to hope that a time machine is invented and we can GOTV a little more in Florida on November 7, 2000.*

    because it's just so, you know, impossible that Obama could have done and still could do anything other than this cr@appy deal, & that the Dems in Congress could "make him do it"

    what do i have to say to get that point across?

    maybe "he's the president, he's not your boyfriend"?

    * we did GOTV - Gore won

    Parent

    Ugh... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Addison on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 04:41:22 PM EST
    Well first, if you can't tell the difference between a creative joke about how unlikely something is and the same old "kool aid" nonsense presented as a serious attempt to insult someone, you're being willfully ridiculous. And then you add in another lame bromide, "he's the president, he's not your boyfriend"? Is that a joke? Are you just including that because you think it's hilarious to include another one when I complained about the first one? It's hard to tell.

    Gore lost. He wasn't the president. He lost by around 500 votes. If he had gotten 500 more votes in certain areas, he would have won. Or at least had a better chance of winning. And I know we GOTV, I said "GOTV a little more", didn't I?

    In any case, I see today's events have sunk TalkLeft down to Daily Kos level, where certain POVs and frameworks are verboten even for analysis (not advocacy) of what certain groups will judge as in their own self-interest, so I guess I'm done for now.

    Parent

    You can make fun... (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Romberry on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 04:12:05 PM EST
    ...all you want, but coin seigniorage and the 14th amendment are options in that exist in the real world. The only reason that this "deal" exists is because it's what Obama has been angling for all along. Don't be an arse and pretend that this "deal" is the only way out. It isn't.

    Parent
    They exist... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Addison on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 04:18:14 PM EST
    ...they aren't the reality that anyone should be basing their tactical positioning on.

    Parent
    You keep saying things like that... (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Romberry on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 04:32:16 PM EST
    ...as though saying it makes it true. It doesn't. Sometimes leaders have to lead. Too bad Obama isn't a leader.

    Parent
    THAT'S MY POINT. (none / 0) (#24)
    by Addison on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 04:43:34 PM EST
    President Obama isn't going to do those things.

    You're agreeing with me in substance and being oppositional in tone. It's bizarre. I'm done.

    Parent

    I'm not. (none / 0) (#52)
    by Romberry on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 06:34:28 PM EST
    Done, that is. Obama can be forced into a position where he has to lead, where the 14th amendment or coin seiniorage are his only options for avoiding default. Put him hard up against it. And if he still doesn't lead, impeach him. He'll deserve it.

    Parent
    What all of a sudden Obama is (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:25:34 PM EST
    concerned about breaking the law or stomping on the Constitution? IIRC he has been known to decide he can disregard both if it suits his purpose.

    Parent
    But with Obama (none / 0) (#57)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:45:51 PM EST
    it could never happen.

    Parent
    The only reason most people agree (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by Anne on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 04:58:25 PM EST
    that there needs to be some kind of deal is because that was the set-up, and where we are now is, having been presented with choices that range from a sharp stick in the eye, to a 2 x 4 to the back of the head, to a dull, throbbing toothache, we have been programmed to think that it's good if we end up with the least painful of these choices.

    Think about that: the only sane option that should ever have been considered - a clean bill free of agenda and politics - was never "on the table" to any significant degree (it got a perfunctory vote and when it didn't pass, was never reconsidered), and here we are, actually saying things like, "gee, if they can do this deal, instead of that deal, that won't be so bad."

    Are people even listening to themselves now?  Do they have any idea how insane their justifications for this sound?

    I guess not.

    Rather than trying to make the best of a bad situation - which is nothing more than acceptance of this garbage - we should be calling BS as loud  as possible to as many people as possible, because things don't ever get better by accepting the fate others are foisting on you - it just gives them permission to keep going.

    Parent

    I'm not against calling BS... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Addison on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 05:11:38 PM EST
    ...I am for it. But there will likely be a deal. That's the reality. And happily, calling BS is good for the deal too.

    Parent
    "I think most people agree" (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by sj on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 05:17:28 PM EST
    Can we dispense with that platitude?  It's just effort to be perceived as a Very Serious Person.

    imo

    Parent

    Numbers. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Addison on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 05:32:04 PM EST
    68% say that lawmakers who share their views on this issue should compromise, even it means striking a deal they disagree with. Just 23% say lawmakers who share their views should stand by their principles, even if that leads to default.

    http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2071/debt-limit-ceiling-tea-party-compromise-deficit-reduction

    That 68% number is for all respondents. Support for compromise over principle is even higher among Democrats. 81% of Democrats think that lawmakers who share their views on this issue should compromise, and only 12% think that, "lawmakers who share their views should stand by their principles, even if that leads to default".

    So saying that "most people agree" there needs to be a deal to avoid default is absolutely not a platitude or a version of "some people say". It is wording based on actual numbers from an actual poll. I simply should not have put "I think" as a preface to my comment, since the poll numbers back it up and it's not a matter of me thinking it or not.

    Now, there are additional politics in terms of how the deal will play out. But when it comes to the question of whether "most people want a deal to avoid default", I don't see much room for discussion there.

    Parent

    you've provided poll data (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 05:46:22 PM EST
    to support your contention that most people NOW agree that a deal is necessary to prevent default

    but a poll is only as good as the question it asks, which in turn begs a number of other questions

    here are two questions that some of us here are raising:

    why was this "deal" (whatever it may turn out to be) EVER preferable to passage of a clean bill?

    & if it is now impossible for a clean bill to be passed, why is this "deal" preferable to unilateral action from Obama that would simply raise the debt ceiling, as he could do if he had the will, the desire, the cojones or all three?

    it's one thing to point to how unlikely Obama is to act like a leader in this instance

    it's another to just accept this "deal" (whatever it turns out to be) and chide others for pointing out that this "deal" is in fact not the only way out of this artificial impasse


    Parent

    I said I was done... (none / 0) (#43)
    by Addison on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 06:00:40 PM EST
    ...I guess I lied.

    most people NOW agree that a deal is necessary to prevent default

    Well, I had been accused of being a "VSP" because of my statement, and I was using the poll data to show that in fact I was a VCP, a very correct person. As far as your new question: we're living in the "now". It's "now" right now. It's not months or years ago when a better course could've been charted or people could have been better informed.

    why was this "deal" (whatever it may turn out to be) EVER preferable to passage of a clean bill?

    Of course I agree a clean bill would've been better. I didn't ever argue against that. Obama screwed up by going "big" with the debt ceiling crisis as Geithner wanted.

    & if it is now impossible for a clean bill to be passed, why is this "deal" preferable to unilateral action from Obama that would simply raise the debt ceiling, as he could do if he had the will, the desire, the cojones or all three?

    Of course I agree that it would be preferably for Obama to simply raise the debt ceiling. It would be preferable for him to have the desire to do so. He does not. It's clear he does not. So what, do we hypnotize him?

    If Obama is not willing to do it, if he's not willing to lead in that way, the deal is the only way out because of the reality of Obama's stance. Now, it's true those other options are legal. Like I said, they exist. But I view them as theoretical, if legal, until Obama shows the slightest tendency toward them. I think it's like saying this whole crisis could be averted if the Tea Party would simply agree with Rep. Grijalva. It's true that this is a legal possibility, but dwelling on it is not a good use of time.

    This is what Daily Kos mode does. You've written out a long attack comment but I agree with 90% of what you wrote, and disagree only in wisdom of discussing highly unlikely technical possibilities. I feel that you wasted your time and mine.

    Parent

    Ah yes, the Krugman approach (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 06:08:07 PM EST
    to arguing for what needs to be done...and all that that has purchased us in the longrun :)  Sorry, but this approach to dealing with our current situation and the suffering of the little people we will now face is a LOSER one.

    Parent
    with all due respect (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 06:21:40 PM EST
    you are the one who sounds like a Kossack

    Parent
    But . . . . (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 06:01:32 PM EST
    if Obama hadn't played this the way he did, we would not be sitting here looking at cutting our own throats or default.

    Parent
    I AGREE. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Addison on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 06:07:37 PM EST
    if Obama hadn't played this the way he did, we would not be sitting here looking at cutting our own throats or default.

    YES.

    I AGREE.

    HE HAS NEGOTIATED POORLY ON ECONOMIC MATTERS.

    PROBABLY ON PURPOSE.

    This isn't binary, guys. Just because I disagree on one minor tactic, or am viewing the situation outside the advocacy viewpoint, does not mean I'm starting quarterback for Team Obama and trying to score a game-winning touchdown against your team. Okay?

    Parent

    Those number are all fine and dandy (none / 0) (#35)
    by sj on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 05:40:31 PM EST
    but it depends on the question being asked.  And the premise is bogus to begin with.  You're talking about the results of successful propaganda here.  It doesn't make you any more serious.

    Parent
    Oh... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Addison on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 05:47:49 PM EST
    ...more "very serious people" talk. So you're going to go into this inane Daily Kos mode, too, huh?

    I'm talking about the realities that are guiding today and tomorrow's actions. Those realities involve public opinion that's been informed by propaganda. Those realities are unfortunate and frustrating. Those realities could've been prevented (easily) by President Obama months ago, had he not balked at leadership. Those realities are skewed against Democrats and working people. But they are the realities of the situation. When I'm looking at what is going on right now I'm not going to pretend like that poll doesn't exist simply because it's the result of propaganda. It does exist and it was propaganda, both things are true. I'm not going to pretend that the deadline is different or that public opinion is different because the premise of the debate is bogus. The bogus premise has been widely accepted, and it's on that bogus premise that people are working within. To their real detriment.

    Please either understand that, or have the courtesy to simply cut to the chase and tell me to drink my boyfriend Barack's kool-aid or whatever.

    Parent

    Well Kathy Hochul (D) rep. NY (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Madeline on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 05:59:33 PM EST
    was on CNN a while ago and said she had a Town Hall phone call with 6,000 people from her district (formerly Chris Lee's (Craigslist) the majority told her three things:  No cuts to Medicare, No cuts to SS.  Also are furious about tax loopholes for corporations. And she is in a Republican district.

    I guess they were not in on the poll. Or the poll did not take that into consideration.  

    Parent

    Yeah, that's interesting, too. Who knows? (none / 0) (#45)
    by Addison on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 06:04:21 PM EST
    Argue with the methodology if you want, that's fair. The poll is right there for everyone to see, and Rep. Hochul's characterization of her phone hall meeting is a good piece of additional information. The poll was an appropriate rejoinder to the accusation that I was employing "platitudes", but I know it's not the final word on the issue. It just has a great deal of bearing on the overall appetite for a deal among Democrats.

    Parent
    "I think most people agree" (none / 0) (#49)
    by sj on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 06:22:05 PM EST
    is a platitude. a platitude.  Whatever else you are saying, it's a platitude.  If you want to talk polls, stick to your percentages.

    Parent
    Eh... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Addison on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 06:29:07 PM EST
    I had data to back it up. It wasn't just a placeholder, or a meaningless or biased phrase used to make it seem like polls were on my side. It was factual, accurate and substantive phrase that made perfect sense to use in that context. When you wanted more substance, I offered it. Not every statement has to have data attached, generalizations are okay if they have real numbers behind them. But I'm very sorry it happened to remind you of David Brooks, or seemed to you to be trite.

    Parent
    *I* am talking about a phrase (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by sj on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 06:29:47 PM EST
    One that desperately needs to be retired.  You can continue to write paragraphs and paragraphs and paragraphs.  But I am heartily tired of hearing talk about "most people" which effectively marginalizes everyone else.

    Parent
    When asked do you want to cut (none / 0) (#59)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:33:24 PM EST
    the safety net programs to "compromise" to make a deal the answer is a resounding "NO."

    From everything I've read people want to tax the rich, end wars etc. to close the deficit. The average person does not support the choices that the President and Congress are making. They overwhelmingly would prefer that their government create jobs rather than focus on the deficit.

    Parent

    Can any of you answer this question (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 05:09:56 PM EST
    Gebhardt Amendment and 2010 FY budget

    Of course, we are "looking forward," but please.  

    blame game (none / 0) (#37)
    by diogenes on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 05:45:31 PM EST
    If the blame for the country defaulting on August 2 falls on left-wing Democrats instead of on Tea Party Republicans, I guess that's the way it goes.

    Well then (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 06:56:46 PM EST
    why don't Tea Party Republicans just come out in favor of a clean bill? If left wing Democrats vote against that I'll join you in condemning them.

    Parent
    Progressive Caucus Chair Rejects Debt Ceiling Capitulation | 55 comments (55 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment