Here is your overnight debt bomb defusing news:
- Sam Stein at HuffPo says Boehner’s going to call Obama’s bluff on a short term extension: “The Ohio Republican, in a briefing with his conference on Saturday, announced that he would press for a short-term deal, with major spending cuts paired with longer-term deficit-reduction strategies, as a way around the current impasse. That strategy puts the speaker directly at odds with the White House and allied Democrats, who have insisted for weeks that they would not support a short-term extension of the debt ceiling.” Makes sense to me. Will Harry Reid really kill a short term deal, and will Obama really veto it? Obama has negotiated himself into a corner with his categorical refusal to consider a short term deal while also warning of catastrophe if the debt ceiling is not raise. Obama he needs a way out, and Reid will not block the doorway when push comes to shove.
- Could Nancy Pelosi come to the rescue, as I suggestedthe other day? The Hill reports Pelosi “said Saturday night that congressional leaders are considering a two-tiered approach to raising the debt ceiling and reducing the nation’s long-term budget deficit…. Pelosi said the leaders are looking at a two-tiered approach, which would likely combine immediate spending cuts while creating a process for Congress to enact entitlement and tax reforms over the next several months. She hinted, however, that the revenue would come in the second “tier” of the process.”
- Andrew Stiles at NRO thinks Reid is just Chuck Schumer’s sock puppet: “But Reid’s statement [that he would not support a two-tiered option] has Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) written all over it. Back in April, Schumer was doing everything he could to force a government shutdown, believing it would play to Democrats’ political advantage.”
- The L.A. Times confirms that negotiations broke down this week when Obama upped his “revenue” demands by $400 billion to $1.2 trillion, contrary to the prior agreement between Boehner and Obama. Obama used the “Gang of Six” proposal which came out in the interim as the excuse. So yes, Obama was Jello and was the cause of the breakdown.
If I didn’t know any better, I’d say that the Chief Executive of this company country never actually ran anything before in his life, and didn’t take a negotiation course in law school.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Pelosi wants to not limit SS, Medicare and Medicaid to the debt ceiling. This sounds like these entities would be paid regardless of the debt ceiling. Sounds good, right? What it really means is that the dims can spend the funds that represent these items and still be technically still under the ceiling. Beware Greeks…
1. I think it is entirely possible, maybe even likely, that the Democrats want a crisis (e.g., government shutdown), real or manufactured, thinking it will give them a big political advantage leading to Obama’s reelection. I think their political calculations are probably correct.
2. The Republicans should pass something simple in the House like a smallish increase in the debt ceiling and an equal amount of spending cuts. It should be as big as they can make it based on agreed-to spending cuts, but that probably won’t be more than about $1 trillion.
The Democrats would be hard pressed to refuse this package. The advantage is that it would be all out in the open. Everyone could see what’s involved; no back-room deals, no lies about the plan’s provisions. The fact that it’s public would create the pressure on the Democrats and make it harder for them to spin. In this scenario, Republicans would have a much better chance of surviving a crisis/shutdown.
Obama shot his wad when he said SS and military checks might not go out. Notice he did not say that welfare and any other entitlements that no one has paid into would be cut. He wouldn’t dare antagonize his base who are the deadbeats of this country. Notice when dims want something they use blackmail andthe first to go are police and firemen, SS and Medicare and the military.
True entitlement reform is recognizing as the Heritage Foundation pointed out the problem, those on the dole make more by living off the government than working. There is no incentive to find work much less be a productive member of society. It is estimated a person claiming all the benefits they can qualify for is making in excess of $15/hr. Minimum wage is $7.25/hr. That’s a major problem.
Yes, there are not enough jobs even IF someone wanted to work, however, there is a difference between a helping hand for someone who has fallen upon hard times versus professional moochers living off the taxpayer. The real solution obviously is a job and for the government to stop its nonsense of discouraging job creation with excessive regulation and unsustainable labor costs like benefits that do not mesh with entry level jobs or part time jobs.
As a realistic first step, the sum total of entitlement benefits can not be greater than minimum wage. That means a person who wishes a government helping hand must prioritize what they need, NOT WHAT THEY WANT. IF you need some form of assistance you shouldn’t get them all just like anyone living within the means of a paycheck is forced to choose. The point of choosing is the incentive to improve your lifestyle by working a better paying job. You want that iphone or ipad, get a job.
BTW- A real reform would be relocation assistance to low unemployment States like North Dakota. There are 17 metro areas of unemployment under 5%. http://www.bls.gov/web/metro/laummtrk.htm Of course the local pols won’t like that, they loose votes to keep them in power.
A big part of the problem is that both parties don’t have the courage to face the voters with the truth. It’s nothing but rhetoric. How about spelling out the specific details about what constitutes “tax increases” versus “tax code simplification” and for instance?
We refuse to admit it but most of us, conservatives included, are on the receiving end of government goodies that we refuse to surrender. Most of us are afflicted with the same sense of entitlement that we criticize liberals for. Michelle Malkin demonstrates that point from time to time with teaser posts asking readers how they feel about phasing out the mortgage interest deduction, raising the misnamed social security “retirement age”, or eliminating some other subsidy that most of us don’t think of as subsidies. The response is always the same, NO! NO! NO!
That is the tricky part to these negotiations. Much of the “revenue increases” are reasonable if the principle is applied across the board (rather than cynically targeting oil companies or private jet manufacturers e.g.) and should not be a deal breaker. They will happen whether or not we want them to.
I expect that there will be no deal but the GOP better be prepared to launch an intense campaign to be the ones telling the grown-up version of the story correctly to voters. Won’t happen. The dirty money is already introducing Jeb Bush into the picture and we already know what happens to the size of government when a Bush is in charge.
Based on what I am seeing in the Boehner interview on Fox this morning with Chris Wallace, I may have to change my conclusion about Republicans not telling the grown-up version of the story. This could work.
And now William Kristol and Bret Hume making their defeatist arguments deconstructing Boehner’s position and turning it into a futile Quixotic folly that will get the Republicans blamed for whatever happens.
That is why we always lose. “Our” media is also in league with the one-party system. Assistant LSMs.
Phil, please take a moment to enumerate the “government goodies” you receive or thing most others receive.
“We refuse to admit it but most of us, conservatives included, are on the receiving end of government goodies that we refuse to surrender.”/
How about first we stop the silly funding, like teaching shrimp to run on a tread mill, Chinese prostitutes from drinking too much, giving drugs to menstruating monkeys? How about getting rid, or just downsizing the departments of ED, HHS, Energy. How about a budget? We don’t have one of those either.
Show of hands, how many here are still making the same amount of money they made 2 years ago? Did you get a raise? Still getting you insurance paid for? Stop Spending Money!. Cut jobs or cut their pay! Tighten your belt.
They blew away the base line with the simulate package, you remember, shove ready jobs? Bill Clinton gave us a balanced budget (HA HA) in 2000. How about going back to that. I’ll settle for the first “Pelosi” Budget. How about stop spending money?
Once we go through this list, then we’ll talk about cutting grannie’s check.
No deal unless the can is kicked down the road until after the elections. That is my guess.
Hell, I know of a national political figure who will tell you the truth and face the voters. The question is, is anybody listening with an open mind?
The Super Congress Plan
This “Super Congress,” composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn’t mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers. Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers — six from each chamber and six from each party.
Legislation approved by the Super Congress — which some on Capitol Hill are calling the “super committee” — would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn’t be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who’d have the ability only to cast an up or down vote. With the weight of both leaderships behind it, a product originated by the Super Congress would have a strong chance of moving through the little Congress and quickly becoming law. A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits.”
Huffington Post
Those 535 members congresses are so messy.
If it happens I’ll bet Chuck Schumer is a member.
That’s not what we elect congress to do. All members of congress need the opportuntiy for input and the burden of being held accountable for their votes. What you describe is a cop-out and should be rejected by the new members of congress.
How do you make a deal with a party that plans to say “no” at every turn?
I presume you’re talking about the Democrats?
At this point, it looks like the House Republicans are going to have to pass something on their own and see what the Democrats do with it. If what the Republicans pass is at all reasonable, Democrats will be hard pressed to turn it down. However, getting 218 House votes, mostly Republicans, on a plan that looks reasonable might not be easy.
“Geithner tells ABC’s “This Week” that congressional leaders in both the Republican and Democratic parties insist that the debt limit will be raised before the default deadline of Aug. 2. He says President Barack Obama still demands that any agreement extend beyond the 2012 elections.”
“WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama’s chief of staff says the president will veto any last-minute debt package from Congress unless it extends the nation’s borrowing limit into 2013.
Daley was asked on NBC’s “Meet the Press” if Obama would veto a plan that doesn’t extend the limit into 2013, and Daley said: “Yes.”
Anything that interferes with Obama’s 2012 election campaign is toast.
If John Boehner had a set, he would come back with a plan that cuts 5% more that Cut & Cap. When they reject that, come back with a plan that cuts 10% more.
Extend to cover the committed budget till the end of the fiscal year and present a budget for next year. This X amount over 10 years is BS.