Mirror, mirror on the wall, who was the most "childish" of them all?

[anvi]

So, let me get this straight.  Democrats now are focusing attention on the timing of debt-ceiling raising measures over the next two years, and tearing into discretionary spending with a bunch of wishful thinking, so they can forestall entitlement cuts until the next election?  Or, per what Barney Frank said, they're ok with taking revenue enhancements off the table so long as they can trade a slightly higher eligibility age for Medicare and Social Security Cost of Living Adjustments for means testing and higher co-pays?  

In other words, they're bargaining away revenue enhancements over the long term so they can wall off entitlements for one and a half years?  They think that's a win?  Wow, I really can't watch anymore.  

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So, let me get this straight.  Democrats now are focusing attention on the timing of debt-ceiling raising measures over the next two years, and tearing into discretionary spending with a bunch of wishful thinking, so they can forestall entitlement cuts until the next election?  Or, per what Barney Frank said, they're ok with taking revenue enhancements off the table so long as they can trade a slightly higher eligibility age for Medicare and Cost of Living Adjustments for Social Security for means testing and higher co-pays?   

In other words, they're bargaining away revenue enhancements over the long term so they can wall off entitlements for one and a half years?  They think that's a win?  Wow, I really can't watch anymore. 

As I said, all sides of the politics have degraded and thus self-preservation is priority number one. Atleast the tea party cares somewhat about ideology and has a real motivation to force something to be done on this, though admittedly that motivation makes deal making more impossible. Ironic that we are in a situation where the only thing that is making it possible to deal with this issue, also has a side effect, making compromise impossible.

When you consider the character and priorities of these people, were it not for hitching it to debt ceiling, nothing would get done for sure till it's too late. Considering the crap they are now arguing over, nothing may be the result anyway. Either way, why stop watching now? It's not like this revelation should be anything new. Putting the best policy at the back of the bus has been standard procedure in Washington for a long time, the front seats are occupied by selfist political interest.

[Torie]

Here is the revenue-free plan Pelosi outlined last week that TPM speculates this resembles.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/pelosi-outlines-revenue-free-path-forward-on-debt-limit-fight.php

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Cuts" from ending wars that hopefully will end, but maybe not. Whatever.  We have a long ways to go yet methinks.

[anvi]

Of course, you're right, NC Yankee, it's nothing new.  But, for me, that doesn't make it any less depressing. 

[Bull Moose Base]

Don't worry, Anvi, Reid's plan won't pass the House.  Even if it did, revenue will be enhanced in 18 months when Bush cuts expire.

By the way, all, I don't think rejecting short-term is because it helps Obama's re-election as much as it is an effort to say that's enough playing with the ing ceiling for the 112th.  Look at how all-consuming this thing is.  The worst, least-productive congress in history.  I can't recall a party winning back a chamber and becoming so deeply unpopular so quickly.

[anvi]

Ok, dear Democrats, rant alert:

My worry, Joementum, is about what can possibly pass both chambers anymore.  I mean, it's a perfectly good thing to argue about what is the best method for reforming entitlements.  But, the thing is, they do have to undergo some reform, that bullet has to be eaten.  Over the long term, there is no viable way to protect those programs without revenue enhancements; you can't bargain those away and justifiably claim that those programs are being protected.  After rejecting $800 billion over the next ten years from Boehner, after trying for the $1.2 trillion from the Gang of Six and coming up short, is it even possible to go back for revenue enhancements after you've said; "no, you can have them all so long as we can wall off entitlements till the next election"?  Since the GOP didn't want any revenue enhancements in the first bloody place, I doubt it.  I mean, come on, the leveraging of the debt ceiling, for all the hue and cry, was a huge bluff by the GOP; they can't let the deadline pass without raising the ceiling; their leaders have said it multiple times, and even the most unrealistic of budgets, Cut, Cap and Balance, had a debt ceiling lift too, since even that plan requires more borrowing.  Without more money in the very, very near future, the Democrats, for all their bluster about defending entitlements, are putting them in grave danger in the easily foreseeable future.  This Reid-Polosi move was a terribly, terribly bad one.  A stronger president would never have let them go there.   

Rant ended.  Going to bed.  Can't watch anymore.  Good grief. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Don't worry, Anvi, Reid's plan won't pass the House.  Even if it did, revenue will be enhanced in 18 months when Bush cuts expire.

By the way, all, I don't think rejecting short-term is because it helps Obama's re-election as much as it is an effort to say that's enough playing with the ing ceiling for the 112th.  Look at how all-consuming this thing is.  The worst, least-productive congress in history.  I can't recall a party winning back a chamber and becoming so deeply unpopular so quickly.

Whats different? In the 111th all they did was pass three deeply flawed bills that cause more problems then they solve, and a bunch of useless jobs bills that tossed a little money around in the hope that it would trick enough voters in actually thinking they were doing something about jobs, in way that was cheap, easy and had no political price to pay. Actually doing something on jobs, whether it's spending on infrastructure (requires ponying up larger sums), education reform (pisses off the teachers union), tax code reform (someone is going to have to run counter to their rhetoric, most likely both parties), energy independence (see infrastructure),  or fiscal solvency (entitlement reform and tax hikes, you want to bite that bazooka) all bare a price. The 111th ran around doing things in certain ways to ensure that some of their bills got passed, even if content was thrown under and to ensure that they did everything possible to avoid loosing their majority. And in the end, they ended up loosing it, anyway.  I hardly call that being productive.

It didn't help that Obama was absolutely incompetent in working with even his own party members in congress. The lesson: next time a guy promises a change in the political discourse, and he has only been in the Senate for 4 years, RUN AWAY!!! He is either hopelessly naive and foolish, or outright lying to get elected. Either is disqualifying in my opinion.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Ok, dear Democrats, rant alert:

My worry, Joementum, is about what can possibly pass both chambers anymore.  I mean, it's a perfectly good thing to argue about what is the best method for reforming entitlements.  But, the thing is, they do have to undergo some reform, that bullet has to be eaten.  Over the long term, there is no viable way to protect those programs without revenue enhancements; you can't bargain those away and justifiably claim that those programs are being protected.  After rejecting $800 billion over the next ten years from Boehner, after trying for the $1.2 trillion from the Gang of Six and coming up short, is it even possible to go back for revenue enhancements after you've said; "no, you can have them all so long as we can wall off entitlements till the next election"?  Since the GOP didn't want any revenue enhancements in the first bloody place, I doubt it.  I mean, come on, the leveraging of the debt ceiling, for all the hue and cry, was a huge bluff by the GOP; they can't let the deadline pass without raising the ceiling; their leaders have said it multiple times, and even the most unrealistic of budgets, Cut, Cap and Balance, had a debt ceiling lift too, since even that plan requires more borrowing.  Without more money in the very, very near future, the Democrats, for all their bluster about defending entitlements, are putting them in grave danger in the easily foreseeable future.  This Reid-Polosi move was a terribly, terribly bad one.  A stronger president would never have let them go there.   

Rant ended.  Going to bed.  Can't watch anymore.  Good grief. 

This a point I was hoping someone else could make, since it would undoubtedly be more eloquent then what I could manage. Reid and Pelosi must have made a political decision in a backroom early this year that they were going to try and take away the GOP advantage among seniors by exposing the tea party and GOP as whole and their plans to change those programs. So they put on their armor and got on their horses to become great knights in shining armor, coming to the rescue of the seniors and their Social Security and Medicare. A damned great strategy for winning Florida for Obama in 2012, but a horrible one for actually reforming those programs to save both them and their recipients from even more drastic sacrifices down the road. Politics first, policy second. In so doing doing our two knights became shockingly hilarious proponents of shining counter-productive policy with more concern for the politics then actually trying to protect the seniors.

Atleast Obama was smart enough not to do that as well, that is to say unless it was a pre-planned strategy of him not doing so, to be the new Clinton triangulating his way to a second term and only this time with a revived Dem House.

[The Mikado]

The GOP confuses the hell out of me.  Reid, Pelosi, and Obama have found themselves way to the right of goddamn Ronald Reagan and are offering the GOP stuff it could never have dreamed of even during the Bush years.  And the GOP is turning it down?

[Beet]

Even Niall Ferguson is not on board with the GOP's anti-tax dogmatism:

"In the words of CBO Director Doug Elmendorf: “If Social Security and the major health programs faced no cuts, then defense and other noninterest spending would need to be cut by about 60 percent. Alternatively…outlays for Social Security and the major health programs would need to be cut by about 40 percent.

Reduce national security by three fifths or Social Security (and Medicare) by two fifths. That is the choice implied by the “No New Revenue” dogmatists, who oppose even the elimination of tax loopholes. It does not sound to me like an election-winning platform—more like a domestic row gone nuts."

Heck, even Grover Norquist said that it would be ok to let the Bush tax cuts expire. I'm leaning towards anvikshiki's position though... of the plans out there right now, Boehner's original plan with 800 billion in revenues is marginally better.

[CultureKing]

Wasn't the gang of 6 plan even better yet?
Honestly I feel like if they had somehow passed it through the senate then the house would have followed suit due to mounting pressure.

[BigSkyBob]

Even Niall Ferguson is not on board with the GOP's anti-tax dogmatism:

"In the words of CBO Director Doug Elmendorf: “If Social Security and the major health programs faced no cuts,

I'm not going to allow lumping Medicaid with Medicare without comment. Social Security and Medicare could be left untouched, but cuts to Medicaid could amelorate the alleged necessary cuts below.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Marston]

I wonder if Obama-Pelosi-Reid are really just really banking on the House being beholden to the Republican's who don't want any debt ceiling increase whatsoever to kill any plan they offer. Perhaps they know that even Reid's all-cuts plan will not sit well with the Tea Party elements and they just want to be able to say "hey, we tried to compromise and cut spending without any tax hikes and the GOP wouldn't even accept that". It's an interesting, but risky, theory.

In any case, entitlements will need to be tackled relatively soon. There's no doubt about that. There are ways to sustain the programs without gutting them, however. Linking Medicare premiums to income is one way that comes to mind.

 

[anvi]

I wonder if Obama-Pelosi-Reid are really just really banking on the House being beholden to the Republican's who don't want any debt ceiling increase whatsoever to kill any plan they offer. Perhaps they know that even Reid's all-cuts plan will not sit well with the Tea Party elements and they just want to be able to say "hey, we tried to compromise and cut spending without any tax hikes and the GOP wouldn't even accept that". It's an interesting, but risky, theory.

It's way too risky of a theory, in my view.  And entirely unnecessary.  Unnecessary because something like Reid's present plan was already offered and rejected by the House, and upping the costs to just discretionary spending is not going to get any of the House GOP on board.  Risky because, even if Reid and Pelosi did this to just create a narrative on purpose, having suddenly said "no" to revenue enhancements after Obama and his team spent, what, three months to get them, you can't go back to the well for them with any real confidence they'll be put back on the table.  I mean, yesterday, in my view, Reid and Pelosi positively undermined the president's negotiations just so they can spin a narrative about the next election...and if Reid is to be believed, Obama went along with it.  To borrow a chess analogy, the Democrats just moved their king right into a mating net, and at a point in the game where they actually had a very decent position that was in line with what they've been saying all along they wanted.  One of the worst moves I've seen in all my years of observing politics.

[Marston]

I agree with you. It's something I would never offer at the negotiating table.

Even so, an Administration official said this morning that the chances are 50/50 that we won't have a deal by August 2nd. Boehner is also still trying to force his balanced-budget amendment into any sort of deal that takes place.

[Bull Moose Base]

I wonder if Obama-Pelosi-Reid are really just really banking on the House being beholden to the Republican's who don't want any debt ceiling increase whatsoever to kill any plan they offer. Perhaps they know that even Reid's all-cuts plan will not sit well with the Tea Party elements and they just want to be able to say "hey, we tried to compromise and cut spending without any tax hikes and the GOP wouldn't even accept that". It's an interesting, but risky, theory.

In any case, entitlements will need to be tackled relatively soon. There's no doubt about that. There are ways to sustain the programs without gutting them, however. Linking Medicare premiums to income is one way that comes to mind.

Yes, of course rejection is the Democrats' expectation.  This is essentially McConnell-Reid.   Entitlements don't need to be tackled in this congress and I prefer they be used to reverse GOP 2010 gains (largely powered by Mediscare tactics).  The GOP exploited Mediscare to win a House majority and then threatens deliberately crashing the economy for leverage to demand deep cuts to Medicare.  Guess what?  I have no problem with Democrats now using Medicare as a tool to undo that majority and approach entitlement reform in a more precise way and from a dominant position.  The prposals don't even dig at the root of the problem of medical inflation.  We should be starting with trying to cut out waste and using cheaper drugs before we play with eligibility age if necessary.

We didn't even need to deal with the debt in the 112th until the GOP created potential Depression as a consequence for not doing so.  Trying to cut spending with unemployment over 9% is a counterproductive way to tackle the debt, like the GOP describes raising taxes.  It's almost as foolish as cutting taxes when you go to war.

The thing about Boehner's offer is that the repeal of the individual mandate makes it impossible to cover people with pre-existing.  And that's obviously a trap Obama can't take because the GOP is probably more interested in repealing that then tackling entitlements (since they don't really care about the debt but are obsessed with stripping away any victories for him) so what's their incentive not to block Medicare changes in order to fatally wound Obamacare.  The end of which would take away from millions potential to access healthcare. And grow the debt.  In any case, trying to use the debt ceiling to fight Obamacare is like trying to use a continuing to fight Planned Parenthood.

Nor do I see why the voodoo revenue offered by Boehner via top tax rates dropping by 5-10% is so much more desirable than just doing nothing and letting the Bush tax cuts expire in 18 months.  Is the 800 billion in revenue in comparison to permanent Bush tax cut rates? Expiring top 2%?
In any case, not the Democrats' fault conservative Republicans went public with another plan and undercut Boehner (and McConnell and Reid and everyone else).

If it comes down to the GOP saying, take our bad offer or we'll blow up the economy in an unprecedented step, which it seems we're at, Obama at least has to draw the country's attention to the fact that the Republicans are acting like terrorists.  I know that gets called out as hyperbole but I don't see how it's not an apt way to describe people introducing a threat to deliberately expose the economy to collapse unless their demands are met.

[Torie]

If the two sides cannot agree on spending levels, then either 1) the side who wants to spend the most gets its way, or 2) there is a partial government shutdown. For those who don't want "1)" to always  be the ineluctable default option, "2)" has to be in play - always. And yes, to call that "terrorism" is indeed hyperbole.

Nice political analysis though Joementum. I quite admire it actually.

[anvi]

Joementum,

Oh, I certainly don't think the Democrats should accept the version of Boehner's offer that repeals the mandate.  They also shouldn't accept a balanced-budget amendment proposal.  Both proposals are jokes.  I think Boehner only put that garbage on his offer after Obama decided he would prefer the $1.2 trillion in revenue enhancements to the $800 billion in Boehner's original offer.  It should be easy, in a negotiation process, to walk some of the joke stuff back.  Get Beohner to shelve the mandate and balanced budget amendment nonsense, exchange chained-CPI Cost of Living Adjustments in Social Security for means testing and a slightly upwardly revised, phased-in retirement age, and split the difference on revenues to $1 trillion over ten years, however you work the formula.  If the established lines of negotiation are stuck to, it really shouldn't be that hard to still make a deal.

The problem I have with Reid's move is that, first of all, the intended narrative he wants to create: "we offered them only spending cuts in exchange for a more stable debt-ceiling" and "we've walled off entitlements till the next election" doesn't even itself sound like an electoral winner to me.  The GOP can just respond by saying: "we offered the Democrats some trillion dollars in new revenues over the next ten years so they can do what they say they want to do, protect Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid for the future, and they said no."  Secondly, just in terms of policy, the longer we kick the can down the road on revenue raisers and spending cuts, the harder this will be after 2012.  Even in Reid's dream scenario, if Obama is reelected next year and even if the Democrats narrowly hold the Senate, they won't take back the House, and we're still stuck, except in an even bigger hole.  And, once again, the Bush tax cuts (not just for the top 2%, but for everyone) are not just going to expire at the end of next year; another budget has to be worked out before the next election, and everyone can bet their bottom dollar that preserving them will be item number one on the Republican agenda in those talks.  Then, you go into them trying to get more revenue from their expiration after you've already turned more revenue down this time round.

I can't speak with great authority on this, because I sure haven't done the math myself.  But, from what I've read, if the Bush tax cuts on the top 2% expire at the end of 2012, and if Democrats got the estate tax deal they've wanted, the revenues that would be brought in from that don't quite reach $800 billion.  On the other hand, Conrad and the Democrats on the Gang of Six claim that adjusting the rates will bring in $1.2 trillion over the next ten years, even though that assumes a certain rate of economic growth, of course.  Now, as far as I'm concerned, as someone who does want to preserve a robust but better crafted set of entitlement programs, if I'm negotiating, I'm going to try to get whatever makes more revenue, so we have more money to fund them, especially as baby boomers retire and costs of health care continue to rise.  Cutting costs is necessary, certainly, but anyone who wants to preserve entitlements in any form better be looking for ways to bring them more money.  Shelving that in order to craft a political narrative that is by no means guaranteed to even work, and which on top of that will only make fixes harder later, strikes me as a bad bargain.      

[Torie]

In other news, Rush Limbaugh claimed 45 minutes ago on his show that Boehner called him up a couple of hours ago and told him he had a deal that the debt limit would be raised 1.1 trillion carrying cash flow to next April, and that an evenly split by party panel of 6 members from each house would specify the spending cuts, and then there would be a round two. Although what Rush said Boehner said was not as conclusive on the matter has Rush interpreted it, Rush's interpretation was that Reid had folded and agreed to this deal, and that it would be put on Obama's desk to sign or veto.  This version of events has not yet been confirmed elsewhere in the media to my knowledge.

I just thought I would toss this one on the pile to add to the confusion and chaos of it all. Why not!

[Landslide Lyndon]

In other news, Rush Limbaugh claimed 45 minutes ago on his show that Boehner called him up a couple of hours ago and told him he had a deal that the debt limit would be raised 1.1 trillion carrying cash flow to next April, and that an evenly split by party panel of 6 members from each house would specify the spending cuts, and then there would be a round two. Although what Rush said Boehner said was not as conclusive on the matter has Rush interpreted it, Rush's interpretation was that Reid had folded and agreed to this deal, and that it would be put on Obama's desk to sign or veto.  This version of events has not yet been confirmed elsewhere in the media to my knowledge.

I just thought I would toss this one on the pile to add to the confusion and chaos of it all. Why not!

Nothing says Good Government like asking Rush Limbaugh to give his seal of approval before you take any action.

[BigSkyBob]

I wonder if Obama-Pelosi-Reid are really just really banking on the House being beholden to the Republican's who don't want any debt ceiling increase whatsoever to kill any plan they offer. Perhaps they know that even Reid's all-cuts plan will not sit well with the Tea Party elements

Well, that is because there aren't any cuts proposed in the Reid Bill. We now see the specter of accounting gimmicks being tortured one step further. Everyone knows that the "baseline" assumption is that we will withdraw from Afghanistan, and Iraq eventually. Somehow, that eventuality is being deemed a trillion dollar "cut."

The Tea Party folks aren't stupid.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Marston]

More details are emerging about Reid's proposal.  Supposedly, it's going to include detailed discretionary cuts taken right out of Paul Ryan's budget. It's going to include cuts that Republican's previously went on record as voting for so as to back Republican's into a corner and define them as hypocrites if they vote against the Reid proposal.  

It's a sad day to be a Democrat when your leaders consider $2.7 trillion in cuts and no revenue a "win".

[BigSkyBob]

In other news, Rush Limbaugh claimed 45 minutes ago on his show that Boehner called him up a couple of hours ago and told him he had a deal that the debt limit would be raised 1.1 trillion carrying cash flow to next April, and that an evenly split by party panel of 6 members from each house would specify the spending cuts, and then there would be a round two. Although what Rush said Boehner said was not as conclusive on the matter has Rush interpreted it, Rush's interpretation was that Reid had folded and agreed to this deal, and that it would be put on Obama's desk to sign or veto.  This version of events has not yet been confirmed elsewhere in the media to my knowledge.

I just thought I would toss this one on the pile to add to the confusion and chaos of it all. Why not!

Nothing says Good Government like asking Rush Limbaugh to give his seal of approval before you take any action.

What exactly has our current political class got us? A 14 trillion dollar national debt? 100 trillion dollars of real actuarial debt? Porous borders? 16% unemployment? Need I go one?

Why follow the same narrative of failure?

[Bull Moose Base]

More details are emerging about Reid's proposal.  Supposedly, it's going to include detailed discretionary cuts taken right out of Paul Ryan's budget. It's going to include cuts that Republican's previously went on record as voting for so as to back Republican's into a corner and define them as hypocrites if they vote against the Reid proposal. 

It's a sad day to be a Democrat when your leaders consider $2.7 trillion in cuts and no revenue a "win".

Not to mention the GOP already came out against a short-term deal recently.  How long until the GOP insists any deal MUST include revenue?  This is like a Bugs Bunny argument.

[Marston]

BigSkyBob,

I really don't see how the 'peace dividend' and interest savings could account for the entire $2.7 Trillion in Reid's proposal.  Even the most optimistic estimates regarding the 'peace dividend' only gets us to $1.3 trillion in deficit reduction. Where does the difference come from?