I disagree that the bill would be for nothing. It would shave a trillion off of our spending, plus avert disaster. Doing tax reform in 48 hours cannot be the best way to get it done (nor trying to base a BBA in 48 hours by the way). I’d prefer those issues get worked at seriously. Think about the way Obamacare was (eventually) rushed through - 2k pages that few read, some surprises and loopholes popping up… no way to to pass such a major reform (of anything).
Edit to add: blew away a piece of response because I misread what you meant by filibuster. No way there’s a filibuster if it’s zero hour. The optics are too dangerous.
Meh, avert disaster for now. I was always a fan of the “grand bargain” along the lines of Simpson/Bowles. I regret that Obama didn’t take it up more strongly when it was first released, but I can understand why he didn’t considering the makeup of the House after 2010.
Perhaps after he is reelected progress can be made on those fronts - more than one huge realignment of domestic policy is probably too much to ask per term.
I suspect that Obama will cave. The political reality seems to be that everyone hates congress but everyone likes their own congressman. Obama has only himself for political heat while individual congressmen can say “if those other idiots had listened to me…”
What do you mean by “cave”, tim. That’s what I’m trying to figure out today - what is considered a cave?
For me, at the beginning, a cave would have been anything that touched SS or Medicare without raising taxes - there is nothing like that even on the table right no. Since then, a cave would have included a BBA, which is obviously not going to happen.
Would the Boehner plan be a cave? Perhaps. Reid’s plan? Not really (as pointed out, there’s not a lot of meaty cuts in there that mainstream Dems will oppose).
But there IS a debt limit. It was put in place to force exactly this kind of conversation and bargaining if debt gets out of control. It’s the law of the land. You may think it’s a bad law, and therefore should be ignored, but that’s not reality.
One of the problems the U.S. is getting itself into right now is that the Congress and the President are skirting around and/or ignoring too many laws. That’s how banana republics behave. I think you’d even agree with me when it comes to the President ignoring the War Powers Act, or how President Bush (and now Obama) have invoked Executive Privilege to get around restrictions placed on the power of the executive branch.
Hell, the Congress hasn’t even passed a budget in two years, and that’s a violation of the Budget Act and a shirking of one of the major declared functions of the Congress. Transparency rules are ignored, the Congress (both Republican and Democrat) increasingly resorts to procedural tricks and gray areas to avoid the clear intent of the law.
The fact is, there is an established procedure for dealing with the debt ceiling, and it was put into place precisely to force debate and to force Congress to face hard decisions when the debt grows beyond the limit that a previous Congress thought was the point of irresponsibility. If you don’t like it, advocate for its repeal, or advocate that this congress set the next limit to some outrageously high number that the question won’t come up again. But you can’t just pretend it isn’t there.
Interesting. Did you read the whole post? Here’s the money shot
Note: the President’s senior advisors would recommend…
In my mind, this makes it even more likely that Obama is setting this up as kabuki theater so he can appear above the fray, in an effort to appear more presidential. (“Despite my urgings for a compromise, and going against the better judgement of my senior advisors, I feel that I must reluctantly accept this bill so as to save the country’s economy and preserve our nation’s standing as the greatest nation on earth blah blah blah”). 50-50 that he pulls a Bubba and says it’s for the children.
It’s not the posters on this board I am worried about. There is nothing to prevent congress-critters from attaching anything they feel strongly about to the debt limit. If you are asking me to just have faith that Tea Party true believers in Congress would never pull something like that, I will pass; maybe you trust them, but I don’t.
Sam’s reply in post 307 said pretty much the same thing as I did, and I agree with him.
yes, they can theoretically attach anything they want. In my experience, the Tea Partiers (or 'baggers, if you’re 12) don’t generally get all hung up on those social issues - they are fiscal hawks, again very generally speaking.
If you want a clean extension, one that only deals with the fiscal crisis, that’s pretty much what Boehner is offering. Frankly, I’m surprised that anyone who is intellectually honest about the situation would be against it (averting crisis, and having a more thoughtful debate without the ‘gun to the head’, as it has been colorfully described in this thread).
My guess is because it’s a center-right country, and Obama and the Dems (correctly) feel that the issue would seriously hurt them come election-time, especially considering the Dems will probably get beat (but not crushed) again, seeing as they have to defend so many Senate seats.
The reasons for opposition (from the left) are: only gets us to April, requires a commission to issue a report as legislation that cuts entitlements and is not subject to a filibuster, contains budget limitations that contain automatic cuts (sequestration), and it requires a vote on a BBA.
It is also opposed from the right, perhaps even more vehemently, as not cutting enough.
The Democrats correctly feel that cutting Medicare or Social Security will hurt them come election-time, yes. Why wouldn’t they feel that way? Protecting these two programs has been the hallmark of the Democratic party for decades.
Do you honestly believe that the “center-right” public cares more about the debt limit than not cutting Social Security and Medicare? Do you have any evidence to back this claim up?
ETA: Forgot the other objection - Boehner’s plan probably won’t prevent a downgrade of US debt while Reid’s probably will.
That’s a hell of a disingenuous statement. The purpose that is most often bandied about is to force Congress to think about these issues before spending the money.
I can’t directly speak for the people who came up with this system, but I’d be willing to bet they weren’t thinking of post facto debates on lifting the ceiling for spending that’s already been approved.
The proper time to have this debate is before a budget is passed. And that’s exactly when the last such debate occurred and when the debt limit considerations should have been made. Well, that ship has sailed.
I think the right wing thinks that the kick-the-can option has a lot more possibilities for cost control down the road.
You can talk about ‘protecting’ Medicare or SS all you want; Obama pulled the same scare tactic/bullshit last night, old women not getting their medicine, etc. The truth is, as anyone who isn’t a blind lefty understands, that those programs, as currently structured, will bankrupt the country come boomer-time. The only way to ‘protect’ the programs is to restructure them. I’d like to have more than 48 hrs to come up with a solution for that; Boehner’s commission (different from previous ones, this one is all elected congressmen, very similar to BRAC which has been an unabashed success story) does that.
Most young people who follow this understand that neither program will be around when it’s their turn, should nothing be done.
If the Dems feel that cutting Medicare or SS will hurt them, they can propose a rescue plan and sell it to the public. Paul Ryan did exactly that, when the President was too much of a wimp to put forth his own plan. You may not like his plan, fine, but propose something else then (tax increases? during an election year?) and sell it to the public. The Dem response so far is to rant against the adults who are trying to fix the problem, and keep charging the credit card.
So Democrats should sell their plan to the public, but Republicans get to short circuit that process and get what they want by holding the debt ceiling gun to the nation’s head.
This is only tangentially on-topic, so I don’t want to get bogged down in it. But while you are correct re: Medicare, you are completely wrong regarding Social Security - it only takes minor fixes (one of which was in the Gang of Six compromise) to make SS viable forever.
The Democratic solution to the Medicare problem is Obamacare, IBAP, and cost-control. That and Death Panels, of course.
I am 100% confident that SS will be there when I retire (not without changes, but it will be there). Medicare… well I am still hopeful that by then we’ll be on a “Medicare for all” single-payer system.
That’s a reasonably fair cop. Obama has not put his name on a concrete plan, and that’s to his detriment I think. Politics is obviously the primary reason for that, and it’s unfortunate. To some extent it’s the same way he played the health-care debate - put out frameworks and let the legislators deal with specifics. It’s not my preferred style, but I can see why he does it.
It’s actually sort of the opposite of Paul Ryan and the House GOP’s approach. They put out concrete plans, and vote for them, even knowing they’ll go nowhere. We will see relatively soon which approach is a political winner.
Jas, I agree with you on all points. (although I’m not in favor of a single payer, I understand why those who are, are - it does have some good points).
This is what elections are all about. Obama was fond of dismissing the GOP when he first got in, saying elections have consequences and such. He was (and is) right about that. After the whupping in 2010 he started out triangulating. That’s why I was a little surprised to come to the left of Reid last night on this. I thought (still think) it’s the kickoff for 2012 (jet owners? please…), but without a primary opponent of note (anyone see Ralph recently?) I don’t know why he would go that route.
I’m sure he has a plan though. One more note - I see his approval is at an all time low, 43%, lower even than Bubba McChubbyChaser’s was when he was doing his dance with Newt in 1995. I’m sure Congress is also at/near all time lows, and cynicism is probably near all time highs. Maybe that’s why he’s getting all populist-y on us, who knows.
If by ‘your guys’ you are suggesting I’m a GOPer, you are sorely mistaken. And I’m reasonably sure we’ve had this conversation before.
If you are suggesting that this poll has anything to do with the current issue at hand, I’d like to see some numbers with a gap a little less than 10 months. Which is not to suggest that their approval is high; my post from 6:27p is where I said