Boehner is a fool to walk away from debt limit talks

This progressive says, "Thank you, House Republican leader John Boehner. You just served up a juicy political victory to President Obama by throwing a hissy fit and walking away from the debt limit negotiations yesterday."

If Boehner had accepted Obama's deal, which was tilted toward Republican positions, lots of Democrats (including me) would have freaked out.

As Jonathan Cohn's cogent analysis in The New Republic points out, Obama was poised to cut Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security in ways that would have hurt seniors and poor people. This also would have taken away a powerful argument that Dems are eager to use in the 2012 elections: "Republicans are trying to destroy Medicare; we're committed to saving it."

Nobody disputes that, except for the revenue part, the administration and Boehner had agreement over virtually everything else. And it was a deal that, like Obama’s previous offers, was strikingly tilted towards Republican priorities. Among the provisions Obama to which Obama had said yes, according to a senior administration official, were the following:

Medicare: Raising the eligibility age, imposing higher premiums for upper income beneficiaries, changing the cost-sharing structure, and shifting Medigap insurance in ways that would likely reduce first-dollar coverage. This was to generate about $250 billion in ten-year savings. This was virtually identical to what Boehner offered.

Medicaid: Significant reductions in the federal contribution along with changes in taxes on providers, resulting in lower spending that would likely curb eligibility or benefits. This was to yield about $110 billion in savings. Boehner had sought more: About $140 billion. But that’s the kind of gap ongoing negotiation could close.

Social Security: Changing the formula for calculating cost-of-living increases in order to reduce future payouts. The idea was to close the long-term solvency gap by one-third, although it likely would have taken more than just this one reform to produce enough savings for that.

There's still a possibility that this "grand deal" can be resurrected. But such seems unlikely. Boehner reportedly wants a debt ceiling plan by tomorrow, Sunday. I don't see Obama caving in to Boehner's ridiculous resistance to reasonable revenue increases.

After all, PolitiFact supports Obama's contention that a clear majority of Americans, 70% or more, favor a balanced approach to reducing the deficit that includes both spending cuts and revenue increases.

So Obama is fortunate that Boehner walked away from a political victory, since the deal Obama offered to him included a lower percentage of revenue increases than the Bowles-Simpson report or Gang of Six recommendation called for.

The main difference, as both sides acknowledge, was over the size of the new revenue. They’d basically settled the basic principles of how to get the money: By closing loopholes, broadening the base, and lowering rates overall. Boehner had offered $800 billion, or roughly the equivalent of letting the upper income tax cuts expire. Obama had counter-offered $1.2 trillion.

But even the $1.2 trillion Obama was seeking – and remember, this was a proposal over which the White House says it expected to keep negotiating – was still far less than the revenue either the Bowles-Simpson chairmen or the Senate’s Gang of Six, two bipartisan groups, had recommended.

Or, to put it more simply, both proposals were far more tilted towards the Republican position, of seeking to balance the budget primarily if not wholly through spending cuts.

Yet Boehner chose to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Why? Seemingly because Tea Party Republicans look upon Thou shalt never raise taxes as a fundamentalist politico-religious commandment.

Which can't be broken. Ever. Even if the economic health of the United States economy depends upon doing so. Because fundamentalists aren't rational or reasonable. They're driven by blind faith.

This puts Boehner in a terrible position. The American public wants a balanced approach to reducing the deficit. Tea Party crazies are dead set against any revenue increases. So Boehner either is going to irritate voters or the most fervent members of his House caucus.

Over on NPR, Frank James has one of the best analyses of the debt limit negotiations that I've read (and I've read a lot). He does a great job of asking pertinent questions about what Boehner and Obama are up to.

Such as:

This leads to another question which Boehner was asked at his Capitol Hill news conference.

A reporter asked how Boehner could walk away from the prospect of a deal that was meant to avert default over what amounted to $40 billion a year or $400 billion over ten years?

Boehner said the extra $400 billion would've been a tax increase plain and simple and he couldn't abide that.

More questions. So Boehner couldn't reach a deal with Obama but he's going to try to reach one with Sen. Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader at the table? How, pray tell, is that going to work?

(Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader will also be at the table. McConnell is the creator of a proposal that would essentially yield Obama the power to raise the debt ceiling even as Republicans voted against it.)

Reid is the same man who on Friday killed the "Cut, Cap and Balance" legislation proudly passed by Boehner's House Republicans. Reid actually killed the bill earlier than he had initially said he would, calling extended debate on a bill going nowhere a waste of time.

Reid is also the leader of a group of Senate Democrats who acted like they were fed saltpeter after they heard rumors Thursday that Obama was close to striking a deal with Boehner that would have frontloaded all the GOP-sought spending cuts and backloaded the revenue increases Democrats wanted.

In otherwords, they thought Obama had gone wobbly on them and were very upset.

Then there's Pelosi. She's only considered one of Capitol Hill's toughest negotiators. Pelosi is said to be so unyielding on her issues that Obama didn't let her take part in last year's negotiations on extending the Bush tax cuts and jobless benefits for fear that she would have made any deal impossible.

Again, the question would be why does Boehner think he'll have more success with these congressional Democrats than with Obama?

Maybe he will. Maybe Boehner will turn out to be a genius negotiator who knew what he was doing when he walked away from Obama's offer of a deal.

But my bet is that Boehner's political current on this issue hit its high water mark a few days ago and now is sinking.

Comments

[tucson]

Brian do you really think it is possible for anything positive to come from this gang of mostly lamentable scum? And do you really think any further taxation is going to help?

This is about as clear and easy to understand as it can be. The article below is completely neutral, neither anti-republican or democrat. Charlie Reese, a retired reporter for the Orlando Sentinel, has hit the nail directly on the head, defining clearly who it is that in the final analysis must assume responsibility for the judgments made that impact each one of us every day. It's a short but good read. Worth the time. Worth remembering! Be sure to read the tax list at the end.
--------------
545 vs. 300,000,000 People
-By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? John Boehner. He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it's because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan ...

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees...

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

What you do with this article now that you have read it... is up to you.

This might be funny if it weren't so true.
Be sure to read all the way to the end:

Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table,
At which he's fed.

Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.

Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for
peanuts anyway!

Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.

Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.

Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries
Tax his tears.

Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ass.

Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers;
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.

Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid...

Put these words
Upon his tomb,
'Taxes drove me
to my doom...'

When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Sales Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What in the heck happened? Can you spell 'politicians?'

[DJ]

Good stuff, tucson.

And let's not forget the latest liberal invention:
Carbon Tax

[Willie R]

100 years ago, there were not 300,000,000 people in the USA competing for resources.

[DJ]

Granted this game went into extra innings long ago and could still go either way. But you have to admit, Brian, the fact that today’s latest proposals by both Boehner and Reid are WITHOUT a tax increase indicates that Obama, not Boehner, was the bigger fool on Friday when he let Boehner walk away from the table. Obama recently challenged the Republicans to call his bluff. Boehner did just that and now Obama doesn’t even have a seat at the poker table.

By the way, Willie R, I couldn’t tell you without looking what the population of the US was 100 years ago and I’m not sure how you define “resources.” But I can sure as hell tell you that based upon the US Census Bureau definition of poverty, those who live in poverty in the US today live like kings compared to the middle class of yesteryear. To yesteryear’s poor 100 years ago, “resources” meant their own two hands – not other people’s money. Again, I don’t know how you define “compete for resources” but here’s how too many today in America define it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tjc2YCoUD_8

[Blogger Brian]

tucson, I too am irritated by a Congress and government that seems to be unable, or incompetent, to solve our country's problems. But we elected these guys and gals, so I can't go so far as the person you quoted in putting responsibility for our messes on their shoulders.

We get the government that we asked for. If we want different results, we have to elect different people. Apathy is our biggest problem. Too many people don't vote. And too many people don't tell their elected representatives what they want to have happen.