Predictable. As long as they keep getting rewarded for using the economy as a hostage, they’ll keep doing it and it’ll keep getting worse. And if they wreck the country in the process they don’t care in the slightest.
Today Obama said he won’t offer spending cuts in return for another debt ceiling increase, so it seems to me he’s pretty much daring them to go ahead with this.
As Barney Fife would say, nip it in the bud. Since Congress authorized the spending and the tax structure, Congress needs to either pass a balanced budget or agree to any debt ceiling that is required. If Obama negotiates now, it will obligate every future president to have to bargain with Congress over a problem it created.
House Republicans just went out of their way to avoid token cuts. Either they’ve all changed their mind in two weeks or they’re bullshitting.
Boehner says Republicans will vote to raise the debt ceiling and won’t force a shutdown, but they’ll need a compromise on spending.
But they haven’t been getting rewarded. Didn’t we just have an election? Wasn’t the president reelected?
Good grief the Republicans are stupid.
The Democrats have backed down again and again. That’s being rewarded.
And they seem pretty heavily deluded as to why.
Yes, but so did congress, and while the president may be the president of the whole nation, each congressman is just the congressman of his own heavily gerrymandered district. If bringing down the country is what it takes to make the pea-brains that elected these jokers feel that they are sticking it to the man, then the Congressman is going to go ahead and do it.
A compromise with what?!?
We know what Obama’s position is (clean debt limit increase).
What’s the GOP’s ask? And how can the Dems compromise with it if it doesn’t exist?
Presumably “Give us everything we want in return for nothing”; that’s been their idea of “compromise” for many years and they’ve only gotten more rabid over time.
Yeah pretty much. And then of course when you go along with that and do what they want, they accuse you of being the most partisan, liberal, divisive president of all time.
The real problem here is that, if a “clean” debt ceiling increase were put to a vote in the House, there is no doubt it would get a clear majority. But Boehner won’t do that because of the “Hastert Rule”, the precedent which requires a “majority of the majority” to agree before bringing legislation to the floor.
So, along with partisan gerrymandering and the Senate filibuster, this is yet another arcane, extra-constitutional “rule” the GOP uses to force their minority will on the rest of government. Boehner could–quite legally–end the supposed impasse by allowing for a vote in the House (the Hastert rule is completely voluntary), but that would likely threaten his job as speaker.
Once again, the GOP has put personal politics ahead of the good of the country. The need for serious federal legislative reforms has never been clearer.
Something I’ve lost track of in all this and maybe someone can help me.
Most likely the extraordinary measures Treasury is using to pay the bills will run out of their ability to finance the government’s ongoing operations sometimes in March, right? But do we actually have a budget in force for FY 2013? Or are we operating on some form of continuing resolution until March when the sequester and etc kick in and then we either have to approve another continuing resolution or pass a real budget?
It’s been so long since we’ve had an actual proper budgeting process I find it hard to keep track of everything.
The way I see it, over 70% of Americans believe we need to cut in government spending. The Republicans have given the President a tax increase, not as much as I think was necessary, but still, it’s been given. The GOP has a responsibility to fight to get spending under control.
However, the way I see it we should still be able to increase the debt ceiling so we don’t default, but still say “we aren’t going past the end of the current continuing resolution without a proper budget that includes spending cuts.” Is that true or false?
I don’t see how anyone can oppose us actually having a real budget instead of just operating with endless half measures where nothing gets to see the light of day and all the spending and revenue is negotiated behind the scenes.
The Hastert Rule is just a “code of conduct” for GOP Speakers. It’s not enforceable on the rest of Congress. If a number of Republicans wish to join with all the Democrats in passing a discharge resolution they can bring legislation to the floor without the Speaker. The Speaker has no procedural powers to stop legislation if a majority actually want to bring it to the floor.
Of course, the number that would vote for something is different than the number willing to vote against the Speaker in a discharge petition.
I believe you are correct, Martin, and that is the approach the President would like to take. Clean debt ceiling bill + negotiations on the sequester that leads to a new budget deal.
The GOP wants to roll it up in one package because they believe the debt ceiling is a point of leverage for them.
If history is any guide, when Newt shut down the Gov’t on Clinton it was the Republicans who lost out. Newt was eventually out of a job.
If they do shut down the Gov’t, just make sure nobody hires any interns with blue dresses and loose morals. 
I’m a Republican by the way, but if that’s Obama’s position I agree with him. I don’t agree with him that we “don’t have a spending problem.” But the debt ceiling is really no extra leverage and just hurts the standing of the United States. If our continuing resolution expires in March then Obama can’t fund jack shit without a new budget or another CR, I don’t see how the traditional “power of the purse” isn’t leverage enough. I see no reason to also threaten to default on debt.
I should perhaps add that the political problem (well, one of them) is that the GOP’s preferred budget is wildly unpopular, as is the President’s budget. Any compromise budget will likely be just as unpopular (because it will cut popular programs AND STILL have huge deficits due to the slow recovery).
So you have a situation where even if both sides could agree on a plan that cut spending and put us on the path towards a more workable deficit, it’s probably not in either side’s short-term interest to propose it or vote for it. Better to make the other side have to propose it and vote for it, and potentially take the heat. That’s why even on the debt ceiling the GOP is only calling for unspecified “spending cuts” and saying it’s the President that has to propose specific cuts.
This is where some leadership by the President and Mr. Boehner would help, but unfortunately the Speaker has shown that his caucus will not vote for any sort of compromise budget. And the Democrats in the Senate have very little reason to support a budget with changes to entitlement that doesn’t include anything they like (perhaps changes to how the debt ceiling works, or some new revenue - both of which likely can’t pass the GOP House). Especially when they can, somewhat correctly, say that this is not the ideal time for significant spending cuts (long-term restructuring, perhaps, with cuts that phase in over time).
It’s a right mess.
I know you are, but also know that you’re one of the few that support a more balanced approach to fixing the budget debacle. If your policies were the policies of the GOP I’d probably still vote for them too. 
Me neither, although his entire statement is more justifiable. Because if health-care costs were under control the future budget outlook would be much, much better.
From your lips to Boehner’s ears
As I understand it this is true. The current Continuing Resolution ends on March 27, 2013.
ETA: The last three Continuing Resolutions contained spending cuts of $4B, $6B, and $2B from 2010 baselines.
He was elected as president. They were elected as congressmen. What’s your point?