Meanwhile the Republican bill passes the House and they shout the tax savings from the rooftops while the alternative bills are quietly killed. Republican candidates then urge the American public to call the Democratic Senate to bring the bill to a vote to “help avoid the crushing tax burden that is about to be beset upon the American people!” Same with the military funding. The Republican congress is going to vote to restore it then bludgeon Democrats with it during the election if they vote “against the troops.”
THAT’S my problem with this bill. It’s not the cuts. It’s the complete political idiocy! President Obama and other Democrats have achieved the dubious distinction of having given Republicans both a significant come from behind legislative victory AND the advantage in future encounters.
Well, the Democrats are going to have to improve their messaging, sure. But taxes are set to go up unless Congress passes and the President signs a bill to extend them. If Obama loses, the Republicans probably control Congress, and they can just pass the extension themselves (when Republicans are in office, “deficits don’t matter”). Before then, Obama has an entire election season to discuss his tax plan and implore Congress to pass a bill that preserves the tax cuts for income below $250,000.
Meanwhile, the budget commission has to come up with a plan that will either raise revenue, or make large cuts to popular entitlement programs, or just let the trigger go into effect, meaning massive defense cuts. The trigger will leave Medicare and Social Security beneficiaries (and, I think, Medicaid) alone, meaning that the Democrats have a good bit of protection from their key interests. They won’t agree to cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security beneficiaries because letting the trigger go into effect is better for them. The Republicans have to choose between between the anti-tax zealots and the defense hawks. Up until now, the Republicans have kept both sides happy without actually touching Medicare and Social Security by ignoring the mathematical implications of their plans. And I think they only took this deal because they still are, and it looks like a total capitulation by the Democrats.
I’m definitely (optimistically) leaning toward the Democrats having the advantage in the coming fights through the election. Congress has to act to keep the Bush tax cuts in effect. The budget commission (whatever it’s called) has to act to keep massive defense cuts and Medicare provider cuts from becoming a reality. But nobody has to act to keep Medicare and Social Security beneficiaries safe from cuts. Inaction, stalemate, gridlock, whatever, all favor the Democrats. Of course, it all goes to shit if Obama loses.
I’m not pissed because of the deal. Cut Medicare, save Medicaid? I agree with that, actually!
No, I’m pissed because Dems are pretending that Obama is giving “signals” in the tea leaves that he’ll do what he has already proven he will not do: end the Bush tax cuts, period.
I refuse to vote GOP largely because of its refusal to have sustainable tax rates, & its full-throated support for secret prisons and for torture. Guess what? Obama does the same.
Nice to see this was less than total disaster. Obama’s still the enemy.
But why would he cave, once the election’s decided? There’s nothing in it for him, as either way he won’t face another election. And that time period is exactly when things got serious before.
And, honestly, I’m really getting tired of this attitude in Democrats. You are why the Republicans keep winning. Our party wants to cut off its nose in spite of its face, and thus cannot get anywhere near energized enough to counter the frenzy.
When you declare the head of your party to be the enemy, you might as well vote Republican.
Obama hasn’t covered himself in glory, but by 11/2012, this will be a dim memory in the minds of most voters. The only harm done is if he loses money/energy from the base as he generally looks ineffective, but I suspect just as many think he did great and are fired up (cf. this thread)
The pubs have not looked swell, either, but the hardest-line GOPers were acting in line with their stated positions, so few will suffer any consequences. As always, the fact that “congress” in the aggregate polls poorly nationwide is irrelevant; congresspeople only have to worry about their constituents
I agree with some of the above posters, that those independent and nominally democratic voters are the bane of the democratic party. The “take my ball and go home” thing because “it doesn’t matter who gets elected.”
One would have thought that for this demographic that Bush-Gore would have settled the “it doesn’t matter/there’s no difference” meme.
If you think Obama sucks as a negotiator, well, get enough seats in both houses of congress so he doesn’t have to negotiate. Don’t do the throw away protest vote. My wag is the amount of nominally democrat protest votes will be significant next year.
Actually, www.Bloomberg.com has a couple of really good front page stories and analysis of the deal, and the market reaction. I like bloomberg news a lot because it’s generally wire service news without a lot of spin.
Here’s one: The markets’ response underscores an unfortunate reality: While the government may have averted a self-inflicted disaster, it hasn’t solved fundamental problems and appears to have created new ones. What the U.S. needs is a deficit-reduction plan to address its long-term fiscal gap without weighing too heavily on a weak recovery.
Instead, it’s getting the opposite: immediate spending cuts that threaten the recovery in the short term but aren’t substantial enough to fix the long-term budget problems.
[/quote]
Here’s an op-ed from Bloomberg on the Tea Party clout: The Tea Party faction that has been in the news over the past week – the group that sank Boehner’s plan – demonstrated that it could deny Republicans a majority when its members make a tactical alliance with the Democrats, who unanimously opposed the plan. Similarly, the Tea Partiers can punish Republicans and help Democrats by sitting out general elections.
[/quote]
The overly-negative is a bit much. You’re right about that. On the other hand, I personally am getting tired of retreat and capitulation being framed as another victory.
Joe (Merijeek), I ask with honest humility how this could’ve ended any better for Democratic policy preferences and/or Democratic prospects in 2012? Because I really seriously don’t know.
So I’m interested in what you (or anyone else who feels Obama is “weak” and naive or ineffectual in his politics) think real victory would’ve been in these current negotiations, and in what way(s) it was even vaguely possible.
I think that once Obama was willing to negotiate at all, he got about as good a plan as could be salvaged. I think he really, really wants to get Republicans on board with some revenue increases, and thought that he could do so by letting them tie raising the debt ceiling to a deficit reduction package. I think he miscalculated in not realizing that the Republican leaders can’t sell their own caucus on any compromise plan. But, I think if on July 29th, he had been holding out for nothing less than a clean bill, he’d have had more luck.
Now, he’s found a way to rig it so that the next negotiations have a better chance to get some compromise on revenues. Why he’s so invested in solving the deficit problem, rather than the much more urgent jobs problem, I have no idea. But, really, any shot at additional stimulus went out the window once the current Congress was sworn in. And without stimulative spending in the short term, ending the Bush tax cuts by now (and probably still in Dec. 2012) would have made the economy worse, not better.
Because it WON’T be decided by then. No way are Republicans dumb enough to not pass an extension (probably permanent) through the House during the campaign. Support the measure, and give Republicans exactly what they want…AGAIN. Don’t support the measure, and get buried in ads about how you “voted for higher taxes on all Americans!” Or ignore the measure, and then Republicans run on, “Democrats are refusing to make sure your taxes don’t skyrocket come January. Vote for us and we’ll make sure your taxes stay low PERMANENTLY!”
Democrats lose politically, legislatively, and electorally all three ways.
Obama is far from stupid. He also has many top flight cabinet members and advisers.
When they come up with capitulating to the tea baggers in order to get the debt ceiling raised, they must have known the Dems would be pissed. They must also have been scared of the ramifications of the default. When Obama took revenue off the table, he knew the people would be pissed.
I suspect there are things we do not know involved in his giving in.
Well, he’s gotten guys like Cyberhawk up above looking like he’s about to take to the streets to fight for higher taxes. This sentiment seems strong among those of us a bit more to the left of center than the average Democrat. He needs a base screaming for these things. The more we demand, the more he can deliver. If he wins.
Yeah, it’s dispiriting to get sold out all the time. But I’ve come to view Democratic majorities as a necessary, not a sufficient, condition for advancing causes I care about. Even if most get shot down without a fight, at least there are some fights we can win. Eventually.
He’s going to have to be careful though. I was willing to donate a couple hundred bucks to his campaign in 2008. I’m still going to vote for the guy, but at this point I’m not confident my money may be better spent elsewhere this time around.
I believe someone on this board once said, “The thing about being a Liberal is, you lose about 99% of the battles, but win about 99% of the wars.”