Reuters Photo
The current debt ceiling debacle is sputtering its last coughs. While Republican leaders are tinkling their victory triangles, a more nuanced view reveals that Obama and Dems are the ones who outplayed the GOP.
Yes, on the surface, Dems didn’t get Republicans to open their tight fists and offer any revenue. But the devil’s in the details – and here they are (from the White House fact sheet):
Republican ‘Wins’:
- GOP achieved a debt limit increase that requires almost dollar-for-dollar spending cuts ($2.4 trillion).
- Revenues aren’t part of the first step in the two-step process.
- Republicans get to keep up the appearance that they are fighting for a balanced budget amendment (but it won’t ultimately pass – the enforcement clause of the deal sees to that).
White House/Democrat Wins:
- Spending cuts ($2.4 trillion over 10 years) are a little more than half of what was originally on the table.
- Nearly 40% ($350 billion) of the initial $900 billion in cuts comes from the defense/security budget. The remaining $550 billion over 10 years results from caps on discretionary spending (not itemized cuts), so expect the President and Dems to fight to spread those losses out to places where they’ll have the least impact.
- Of primary importance to Obama’s base, all entitlement benefits and many programs for the poor are exempt from current cuts and the trigger cuts.
- The “triggers,” or fail-safe plans, heavily favor Democrats. If the bi-partisan commission fails to agree to a balanced plan – or Congress fails to pass a balanced plan – the Defense & Security budget alone will take half the spending cuts ($600-750 billion). This trigger gives Democrats significant leverage.
- The process is gimmicky and allows Congress symbolic votes of disapproval, but essentially the agreement will raise the debt ceiling through 2012, one of Obama’s biggest sticking points – meant to settle financial markets and to avoid repeating this charade before the election.
- Did you notice that repealing the health insurance individual mandate – Boehner’s big last-minute sticking point – is no longer part of the deal? Don’t think that wasn’t a hard-won battle.
The reason this agreement is being touted as similar to Boehner’s plan is because Boehner put together a weak plan that was quite light on cuts (hovering around $1 trillion) that he couldn’t even get his own caucus to sign off on last week – until he added some fluff about a balanced budget amendment.
Again, the difference between this agreement and Boehner’s plan – and it’s significant – is that almost 40% of the initial cut is from Defense and Security budget.
Balancing the budget on the back of defense is like telling Republicans they’ll be dragged by the hair into rehab as a consequence for not breaking their tax-cut addiction.
All this Republican trumpeting about how they won this battle is their way of coddling bruised egos and pretending to conservative and swing voters that the GOP is strong and principled. As was the case in the April budget deal, Obama was willing to let Republicans save some face if it meant that the real meat and gristle of the deal – the long-range view – was the best possible outcome he could have bargained for in this Republican Congress climate.
That means Obama has the smaller ego … and the better intentions – and he’s banking that his base has the smarts to see the hard-fought victories in this whole debt limit debacle.
Of course, Obama and Dems can’t claim a total victory; we don’t have immediate revenue and programs we value will be cut due to caps on discretionary (non-entitlement) spending. That’s because the Left has to face the reality of an off-the-rails, sociopathic House of Representatives and filibuster-happy majority in the Senate.
Still, here are more need-to-know details on the three successful layups the White House executed on the debt and deficit deal:
_
1. Triggers Put Defense on Chopping Block
If Republicans refuse to compromise on revenue, they’ll face an axe that will be too much for them to bear – massive cuts to their “pet” defense budget. Thus, they have great incentive to compromise on a deal capable of passing the two chambers and the Oval Office.
Meanwhile, Social Security, Medicare benefits, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, programs for low-income families, and civilian and military retirement funds are exempt from any trigger on the Democratic side. The only entitlement touched by the enforcement would be (capped) cuts to Medicare providers (hospitals and doctors) – not seniors’ benefits.
Reuters/Jason Reed
An anonymous Republican lawmaker had this to say to Fox News:
Obama’s health care law was protected while “the military got screwed,” [and it] left Medicaid left off the table.
Moreover, the inclusion of a balanced budget amendment in the debt deal is a mirage that would only hazily materialize should Congress fail to cut at least $1.2 trillion in second-round spending. However, we already have a trigger for an automatic $1.2 trillion in cuts (half of which comes from defense), making the BBA virtually moot.
Bottom line: The President agreed to $550 billion in non-defense cuts over 10 years (1.6% of federal operating budget of $3.5 trillion/year). He also agreed to form a bi-partisan commission tasked with coming to a balanced approach on cutting the remaining $1.5 trillion, with a trigger that takes half the cuts from defense if no agreement is reached.
Thus, of the total of $2.4 trillion in cuts agreed to in the near- and long-term, nearly $1 trillion could potentially come straight out of the defense budget. How is that for the “balanced” approach the White House has been rooting for all along?
Essentially, Dems have substituted defense spending for the tax cut revenue Republicans have refused to move on.
Remember that the Constitution (Art. 1, Sec. 7) requires that all tax legislation originate in the House of Representatives – that’s why Republicans are holding the tax cut/tax increase cards. The ONLY way to get Republicans to agree to new tax revenue is if something near and dear to them is held hostage (i.e., defense spending).
_
2. Medicare Benefits, Social Security, Medicaid, Pell Grants Preserved
To the liberal base that has been frenzied by the gossip of proposed entitlement cuts, please do a fact check. This is what Obama fought to protect in this deficit deal:
- In last minute back-and-forths, Obama won exemption for the Medicaid program from automatic spending reductions and worked to make certain that the Medicare cuts hit health care providers, not beneficiaries.
- He protected Social Security from any annual cost-of-living adjustments, effectively taking that program off the chopping block.
- He safeguarded his historic investments in Pell Grants, ensuring that the increase in maximum award to $5,500 (from $819) would remain.
The somewhat harsher reality is that the bi-partisan commission (equally split between Republicans and Democrats) can make cuts to some parts of entitlements. However, look for Dems to hold a hard line to restrict any entitlement cuts to trimming waste and capping payments to physicians. I don’t see the Dems on the commission – and then the Dems in Congress – agreeing to any significant changes to benefits, particularly since the triggers for inaction favor the Democrats.
_
3. Republicans Losing Grip on Bush Tax Cuts
Let’s hold our horses on our hot-button issue (forcing the Bush tax cuts expiration) to think about the Dems’ long-term strategy. Just because the Bush tax cuts aren’t part of this deficit deal doesn’t mean they won’t expire.
But now Dems get to hold Bush tax breaks for wealthiest Americans as a bargaining chip to force the Republicans to agree to tax reform.
The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein effectively rained on the Republican parade in last night’s column:
“Boehner is misleading his members to make them think taxes are impossible under this deal. The Joint Committee could close loopholes and cap tax expenditures. It could impose a value-added tax, or even a tax on carbon. All of this would reduce the deficit under a current-law baseline. [The Bush tax cuts going untouched] … is actually good news for people who want to raise taxes. The Bush tax cuts will still be set to expire in 2012, which means that if Democrats get some revenue as part of this deal, they’ll be able to get more revenue if Congress gridlocks over the Bush tax cuts in 2012.”
Klein is saying the Obama strategy – if it plays out right, of course – is actually quite brilliant. Dems now have a double trigger. Not only will their defense contractor donors go bonkers over at least $600 billion in trigger cuts, but Dems also get to hold the Bush tax cuts as the barrel in the back of Republicans – saying “compromise – or else your precious tax cuts go up in smoke.”
Looking at it from another angle, if Bush tax cut expiration was written into the deal, Republicans would have a great excuse to refuse to offer up any other (corporate tax) revenue. We also must remember that the Bush tax cuts aren’t protected by this deal. Independent of the $1.2-1.5 trillion deficit reduction fast-track vote scheduled for Dec. 2011, Obama and Senate Dems could still refuse to sign off on Bush tax cut renewal, allowing the tax cuts to expire Jan. 1, 2013.
The question is: How much tax reform will Republicans offer to again protect their precious Bush tax cuts? It will be fascinating to watch what happens when Dems turn the hostage-taking tables on Republicans. (Of course, this whole plan depends on keeping Obama in the White House and giving him some slack with Congressional seats. Click here to learn more about the dangerous Republican strategy to tank jobs and economy to rig the next election.)
_
The Bottom, Bottom Line
Pay attention to the facts! Obama protected entitlements and ensured via trigger cuts that favor Democrats that any final plan would have to be balanced – which means it would have to include revenue. IF somehow that goal is not reached, the Bush tax cuts would be set to expire.
Moreover, taking 40% of current cuts from defense – and potentially 50% of second-round cuts from defense – is unprecedented and it shows negotiation-room cajones (for lack of a more descriptive word).
So, what we’ve arrived at is a thinly veiled Grand Bargain (judging by the numbers, the triggers, and the political positioning) – and that adds up to a victory for the President and Democrats.
_
End Note: We Must Increasingly Tune Out Under-Informed Ultra-Left
(Update: There’s been a lot of comments on this section, and I wanted to quickly clarify my intentions here. I believe the fury of the ultra-left is justified, but it is directed at the wrong target. They’re throwing stones at the person who’s fighting in their corner. They should focus their energies on defeating Republicans to give Obama room to work. See comments at end of article for more.)
I hate to have to make this point, because I support the ultra-left in principle. But I bend to reason and facts, unlike the Tea Party or their left-wing offshoot, the Bath Water Party. I abhor fear-mongering, fact-rejecting, and truth-twisting, even when it comes from liberals.
This is what two Progressive spokespeople had to say about yesterday’s deficit agreement (from TPM):
“Seeing a Democratic president take taxing the rich off the table and instead push a deal that will lead to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefit cuts is like entering a bizarre parallel universe – one with horrific consequences for middle-class families.” ~ Stephanie Talyor, a co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee
“We urge the White House and all in Congress to keep negotiating for a deal that protects Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid and asks millionaires to pay their fair share, not a deal that creates a back-door way to gut these vital programs.” ~ Justin Ruben, executive director of MoveOn
I want to ask these people and the rest of the far left who are so quick to criticize Obama: Are you listening to what he’s saying and his appeals for mass mobilization? Have you examined the nuts and bolts of the agreement – the exacting protections for entitlements in both first round and trigger cuts? Have you considered the feasible alternatives he has open to him given Republican obstructionism?
Or do you just want to pretend that liberals can have their way on everything and that Republicans (who have a 240-193 majority in the House, and that filibuster-happy 51-47 minority in the Senate) don’t have a say in the landscape of final deals?
Which brings me to the ultimate point to make on Republicans: the undeniable importance of VOTING in your next – and every – election.
(Visit www.smartvoter.org for registration, ballot, and polling place info).
I thought I’d let Speaker Boehner have the last word today. After the April budget deal, Boehner had this to say on a conservative talk show:
(1m37s)
I can assure you…I fought for every dime of spending cuts I could get out of Harry Reid and President Obama. If we had Mitch McConnell in charge of the Senate, if we had a Republican President, we’d have a lot more cuts.
(2m15s)
Tomorrow is the next step and that’s Paul Ryan’s budget, where we’re going to be cutting trillions while we save Medicare and Medicaid. (This should read: cutting trillions FROM Medicare and Medicaid and throwing beneficiaries to wolves.)
(4m55s)
Look at how the debate has changed dramatically in Washington, away from more stimulus spending to the fact that we actually have to cut spending and get our fiscal house in order. The debate has moved dramatically and it would not have happened had we had not won the majority last December.
_
Vote. Rinse. And Repeat.
The LiberaL Lamp Post’s New Facebook Page
Follow @LiberaLLamp on Twitter
The only WIN in this is not another debt ceiling vote until 2012 which is a political win for President Obama. Otherwise this is a s**t sandwich for us progessive to eat. Lack of a message, message discipline and leadership.
Did you read the article, Carl, or just a knee-jerk reaction?
I’m with Carl *and* Robert Reich–not an “extremist liberal,” but a voice of reason:
“Anyone who characterizes the deal between the President and Republican leaders as a victory for the American people over partisanship understands neither economics nor politics.
The deal does not raise taxes on America’s wealthy and most fortunate — who are now taking home a larger share of total income and wealth, and whose tax rates are already lower than they have been in eighty years. Yet it puts the nation’s most important safety nets and public investments on the chopping block.
“It also hobbles the capacity of the government to respond to the jobs and growth crisis. Added to the cuts already underway by state and local governments, the deal’s spending cuts increase the odds of a double-dip recession. And the deal strengthens the political hand of the radical right.
“Yes, the deal is preferable to the unfolding economic catastrophe of a default on the debt of the U.S. government. The outrage and the shame is that it has come to this choice.
The President could have conditioned his agreement to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond 2010 on Republicans’ agreement not to link a vote on the debt ceiling to the budget deficit. But he did not.
“Many months ago, when Republicans first demanded spending cuts and no tax increases as a condition for raising the debt ceiling, the President could have blown their cover — showing the American people why this demand had nothing to do with deficit reduction but everything to do with the GOP’s ideological fixation on shrinking the size of the government — thereby imperiling Medicare, Social Security, education, infrastructure, and everything else Americans depend on. But he did not.
And through it all the President could have explained to Americans that the biggest economic challenge we face is restoring jobs and wages and economic growth, that spending cuts in the next few years will slow the economy even further, and therefore that the Republicans’ demands threaten us all. Again, he did not.”
http://www.businessinsider.com/ransom-paid-2011-8
Forgive me if I’ve misjudged, but it appears as though you did not read the post carefully, and instead chose to rely on your confidence in an Robert Reich’s “expert opinion.”
There are good reasons why you should not do that. I saw Reich’s piece “hit the presses” last night, and I noted that it was early in the evening, so there was no way he could have carefully reviewed the details before writing it. The substance of his piece is further evidence that his was a hasty, generalized reaction that was not informed by the actual features of the bill.
Sometimes even the experts in whom we put our trust are full of crap.
Indeed, for anyone interested in knowing why this may be just a sideshow to the main event? Watch this “Frontline” dcumentary on the reasons our economy hit the skids, who was at the wheel, calling the shots when it happened, and where some of those major players are today. Listen to the woman who predicted the events which damn brought a global recession, and hear her say that we are in for another one, possibly even worse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXUQZP4mmwU
“Frontline, The Warning”.
Robert Reich is one of those kinds of experts, yes.
Is that the Robert Reich who has been unhappy with Obama from the day that he didn’t appoint Reich to a high position?
Matt Taibbi is licking the same wounds, spreading false info about how Obama dumped him and A. Goolsbee (who is currently chief economic advisor) after the campaign. Did Taibbi think Obama would keep a bitter opinion columnist on in the White House?
Thank you LiberalLamp! I think you call it correctly! The thing to keep in mind is because the triggers don’t take effect till 2013 we have nothing to worry about-provided the Democrats do well in 2012 elections.
I enjoy your website. I’m gonna bookmark it. Check mine you might feel the same http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/
If you are interested we could list each other’s links to double the impact!
Thanks!
Nothing to worry about?
Do well in the 2012 elections?
Running on what platform?
The we did deficit reduction and now we’re back in a recession because we didn’t fight to create jobs or invest in our country so vote for me platform?
And btw, don’t be so eager to celebrate those defense cuts. Lots of defense dollars get spent in communities and factories, so cuts will hurt job creation too. Those cuts aren’t all coming from Iraq and Afghanistan you know.
The only thing I don’t understand about the POTUS is why he doesn’t get his surrogates out to support his actions. We hear our own echos and the yammering of the right, but we rarely hear the finesse of the President’s decision making. I, for one, find him a fascinating leader and one particularly well-suited for this pickle we find ourselves in. It has been coming on for 30 years and now the bell has rung to deal with it. Thank you, Mr. President, for being rational.
How can anyone ‘see’ so-called victories if the President won’t talk about them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Stop the nuanced mind games and communicate directly !!!!!!!!!!!!!
I so agree about the White House needing to be more public about their accomplishments. Too many people think President Obama isn’t doing anything because they don’t hear enough of the good points from the White House spokesmen. Sometimes tooting your own horn is not such a bad thing!
I bel;ieve it makes Obama look like the better person by not tooting his own horn so to speak. There had to be a compromise, but I expect Dems to be a majority once again and can then implement tax cuts on the wealthy. For now the poor and the elderly are safe.
I would hazard a guess that Obama doesn’t want to show all his cards or tip his hand too early, or sometimes not at all. These political “games” have grave and far reaching ramifications, and there are times that one must keep one’s secrets so that the other side doesn’t see the blindside until it’s too late.
I predict he’ll give a speech once he’s had a chance to sign the Deal.
Love the article. I wish we could get these points more in the media. The liberal point of view always seems to be undercover while the tea party view is front and center in the media.
see “End Note: he’s talking to you
Obama should have dumped the Clinton “wise” guy money team long ago. Dem Party has looooong way to go to recover from years of the slow sink into corporate “think” tank. America sell out by “American” corporations started 40 years ago. No change from their sell out of the Northeast, Midwest and other manufacturing centers for the “Right to Work” states. America started with ownership “democracy” and buying into slavery and now the corporations still seek it and protect it. I lived and worked in America’s best industrial years of 1948 to 1980. Now our pensions, investments and Social Security are far from secure. The Repubs and Dems have allowed a “free trade” policy created by the corporations to benefit their CEOs and top investors. Nobody “went to the wall” to stop that. There was no public debate. So much for political theatre. Now Communist China owns America. Soon, Chinese workers will be sent to America to build products here on property and in companies owned by them. Then American workers can compete with them right here. What a plan!!! So much for the Red Scare of Joe McCarthy and John Birchers.
The criminal investment banks should have been allowed to fail, their books seized and their fraud prosecuted. (Had to be fraud) How else to sell that $$$ trash. Those bankers are no better than purse snachers on 42nd street. Soon the Government of the United States will join those purse snatchers.
Obama now seems to be hostage to the right wing zealots as he was to Wall Street. I voted for and lived in HOPE. If he does not soon turn to FDR for guidance and “spine” (great for a cripple) WE will be lost to the well financed Tea Party. (Out of nothing in no time. Are you kidding me?) As a child of the thirties I recall Hitler was not a wealthy man) Front men are cheap for “dukes” and “lords”. Careful! They gather their own power and wealth.
I pray for Obama and our leaders but the last 20 years are a real test.
PaPa Tom for Betty and Tom of Vermont
Heres reality. Liberals have been getting 3 scoops of icecream so often that when they only get 2 scoops of icecream they throw a temper-tantrum . To the point where you have reps saying the republicans got everything they wanted (which is no where close to true — had that been the case they would have gotten 0 scoops instead of 2) but these brats are so used to getting everything that are not happy with half, its either everything or nothing.
This is so deluded as to be hilarious. Liberals have been getting everything they want? Name one time. Forget proving the trend you state — just name one time liberals have gotten everything they want.
In the instant case, liberals have gotten nothing they want. None of this 2 scoops to 3 nonsense. They have simply lost less than you wish.
Thank you for a wonderful explanation. I will be pointing it out to my many friends who rely on social security and medicare/medicaid. One woman in particular has two autistic kids on SSI and was gravely concerned for their future well-being. But now, let’s talk quietly among ourselves ’til the conventions; Obama nomination is almost certain. The more radical the GOP candidates have to appear to appease the Tea Party, the less likely the GOP platform will be attractive to the majority of voters. Obama can afford to wait before actually joining the fray in earnest. Democratic campaign funds are better spent at the proper time to retake the House and strengthen Democratic control of the Senate.
Alan,
Your friends and their children should be safe for the time being. Medicare IS part of the trigger mechanism for cuts, so Medicare is vulnerable; however, even if it should come to pass, cuts may NOT take the form of reductions to beneficiary payments (meaning only *providers* are exposed), and cuts are capped at 2%.
So for the immediate future, your friends’ coverage is safe. But God help us all if the Republican Party makes gains in the upcoming elections or becomes even MORE radical. We should use this episode to motivate us to GOTV in 2012 and vote out as many Republicans, Tea Partiers, and Conservative Libertarians as possible.
I wish people on the left would quit pointing out the positive parts of all of this until it’s signed and sealed. republicans can read yaknow. the proper stance right now is “damn they got us good!”
I couldn’t agree more on your analysis of the debt agreement! The GOP is the eventual loser!!! No matter how they try to spin it, President Obama and the Democrats are the winners by far!!! No one or no group who hold my government hostage deserves any respect and should be called out as terrorist!!!
Found this item on Kos. Author has to be delusional making all types of conjectural and contingency cases for just how smart Obama is, and how this is all a trap for the Republicans. Or perhaps just mildly psychotic. The corporate/Repubican agenda has been well thought out, aggressively pursued for 40 years and they intend to continue another 40 years. And, they have the money, we have the feet and a bunch of unhappy campers. I knew when I voted for Obama that he was a Trojan Horse, but also hoped we could move the dialog to the left, just some. However, all the left got for its heavy lifting was a total cold shoulder in all of the issues of the past two and a half years.
Obama has no use for the Democratic Party now, and as of election 2012, win or lose, will have even less. Perhaps he can actually change parties and join his favorite Uncle Toms, Cain, Steele, etc.
But, nothing he does has been or will be for the common people. He is a whore for corporate pimps. And, no his election is not the greatest thing that happened. He seems to be a narcissist who is aware only of his own druthers, and to hell with all others.
This is a grave crisis for the US, one from which I think it will not recover into something we would recognize. But, the author of this item is living in a parallel dimension and I would think cannot get back.
The conjecture is limited to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. The other points are based on facts of the agreement – the unprecedented defense cuts, the protection of all entitlement programs, etc.
Whenever I get vague comments about “delusion” in response to arguments that are clearly fact-based, I think “Bath Water Party.” (defined here: http://liberalgal.blog.com/2011/04/30/lefty-%E2%80%98bath-water%E2%80%99-party-wrong-on-obama-9-facts-on-fdr-truman-lbj-show-why/)
I read your article, and I do feel Obama got something out of this. However, the following points need to be made.
I just heard Barney frank make the first three.
1. The 50/50 split only affects defense for the first two years. After that, it’s open season on what they’re going to cut.
2. The defense cutting excludes Iraq and Afghanistan which I think he said is $100 billion a year.
3. Yes, the Medicare cuts affect only providers. But if hospitals have to lay off people, those are good middle class jobs. This leads me to my two insights.
4. There is a reason that even Democrats support the military industrial complex. Those weapons programs do provide good middle class jobs as well. It would have been better to cut the wars first where most of that money stays in Iraq and Afghanistan.
5. You laud the bipartisan commission thinking that will protect entitlements. You ignore the Bowles Simpson Deficit Commission (the Catfood Comission) which last year called for major cuts in entitlements.
6. Finally, everybody including the media and you failed to report on the Progressive Caucus’s People’s Budget which would have balanced the budget without any entitlement cuts.
I’m just concerned about how any of us poor people will find a doctor that will accept medicaid at all. Most of them are closing shop because they aren’t getting enough out of it. So we qualify, we have it, but it’s as worthless as confederate money.
Appreciate the work you did here, Stacie B.
Thank you for reading and commenting.
I think personally the Republicans only covered there asses not to put out any taxes why should the low and middle class cover them they have enough money to cover themselves let them scatch a little to put back in this country what they have been taken out for years! I say let them pay big time were tired f paying big time for them and working our asses off for them. I think the president is doing a great job since the REPUBLICANS left him with so many thigs to wind up and get out….as far back a Clinton so let the man do his job hes going in the right direction and let the republicans pay a littel while!
I think you have said everything I am thinking. Obama should have raised the debt ceiling last year with the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts. He gave the GOP a poison pill regarding the Bush Tax Cuts and defense spending, which could force faster withdrawals of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The spending cuts sequestration would start when the Bush Tax Cuts are scheduled to expire. This will force the GOP to give up on protecting the most outrageous tax breaks, such as those for oil companies, hedge fund managers, and corporate jets, among others if they really want to keep the Bush Tax Cuts. Everything, though, depends on the 2012 elections by protecting the Senate and taking back control of the House from the Tea Party.
I just don’t see it. I’m not an ultra left wing wacko, I’m a middle class Democrat and I see nothing but more capitulation when the group of 12 gets involved. I don’t see anything here for the middle class and that’s who gets you elected. I’m sure all of you wonderful liberal altruists will go to heaven on the wings of an angel, but that doesn’t dick for the rest of us. What I really see here is a new way for the Democrats to be weak and it just disgusts me.
I appreciate this analysis which sets forth actual facts and information. I fall into the progressive liberal camp, and many of my friends are very down on the President right now. This article provides some hope that he hasn’t given into the pressure of the Radical, Irrational Right. The debate has become clouded with emotional reaction- but we need to stand strong on THE ACTUAL CONTENT of the deal reached. Do you have a link to the draft of the bill that passed today in the House? I’ve been trying to find a copy of the Boehner/R party plan and the Reid-Dem plan to read for myself. I too am very concerned about the impact of budget cuts on working people, the poor, college students, seniors, wounded warriors returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. Thank you for breaking down the actual highlights of the deficit agreement. The truth from economists should be declared at every turn: you cannot keep a strong economy by protecting the top 1% of Americans from taxes. We need to bust the myth that our nation’s best interest is contained in the simplistic mantra: “Small Government, No Taxes.” How do we care for the common good and remain the special, compassionate democracy that the world used to envy? How do we fund education, medical care for the vulnerable, training programs for the unemployed, etc? The Repubs answer: Give the money to companies and the rich with federal subsidies and tax breaks, and trust them to ‘trickle down’ their savings and profits to improving the economy..Problem is the evidence doesn’t bear that out from years of seeing how the Bush Tax Cuts have been used (oh yeah, they haven’t.. companies are holding onto their profits). THANK YOU AGAIN.. Glad I discovered your site.
Oh spare me the “ultra-left” lecture. First of all, what you call the ultra-left is actually the middle — of the American people, not politicians. Second, I am fed up with all the stories about future victories that never come. If Obama stays prone to caving, then there will always be another terrorist strategy that the R’s can pull to get him to cave.
And that all sounds good about defense cuts, but what makes you think that Dems are not in bed with defense contractors, just like Repubnants? When the time comes, Dems will cave on this, and make it look like R’s “made them” do it.
The Bush tax cuts? Have you forgotten December of 2010. The R’s held the rest of the country’s Bush tax cuts hostage to keep the tax cuts on the wealthy. What has changed?
I could go on, but just give me one thing. Anything worth believing. Because I’d like to, I really would. Just stop making a fool out of me — and everyone else.
I didn’t see where the Defense Trigger included cuts only in the first two years (Lawrence O’Donnell on Monday night – last Word). Additionally, the Defense Cuts exclude Iraq and Afghanistan. As I recall, the three highest contributors to the “current debt problem” are Two wars (not paid for), the Bush Tax Cuts (cannot be split into Rich and the rest of us), and Medicare part D (also not paid for). This bill does nothing for any one of the three – but pushes the cuts to “other programs” including Medicare “providers” – Will this become the new “Kansas”, where abortions are legal, but the clinics to perform them are not?
Thank you so much for posting this!!! I got the link from HP comment and I am so happy that some ppl got it! It was obvious to me the moment they put this out that they were winking at us. I was really afraid that too many would not get it, so I posting this link EVERYWHERE! after the vote today ofcourse
it’s not done until it’s done!
My two fav of this deal– that I actually can’t beleive the right went for are:
The triggers and leaving the bush tax cuts out of the deal.
AND—> it forces the GOP to call for Medicare and ss cuts IN AN ELECTION YEAR!!
With Debbie at the DNC, this was actually genius!
You put way too much faith in the “bi-partisan commission.” Look for the dems on such a commission to be DLC corporate dems that reflect Obama’s obvious Wall Street views.
Also the defense contractors in the “cuts” from defense are pretty protected. Most of those cuts will come from DHS and other bloated post 9-11 bureaucracies, not that that is necessarily a bad thing in itself. But if you think cuts that will effect spending for multiple wars is “on the table” you’re in dreamland.
There are many cuts coming that are going to have adverse effects on the middle class in this deal. Even without cutting Medicare or Social Security benefits. These cuts will put further downward pressure on an already struggling middle class that will lead to a weaker economy and increased unemployment, and is exactly the wrong thing to do to an economy in crisis.
All this and not so much as one red cent asked for from the wealth class or the multi-national corporations who get trillions in our tax dollars in the form of “subsidies.” Corporate largesse has been artfully protected while they have convinced some “liberals” that this is a good deal!
Go ahead, “tune out the under-informed ultra left.” Throughout history, the liberal left has prevented the democrats from moving too far to the right. This is what you get when you purge that voice from the ranks of the Democratic Party.
I really am just curious … from my perspective, it was due to the efforts of groups such as Progressive Change and MoveOn, and others that you might associate as being with the Ultra Left, that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid enjoy (for I hope is not the briefest of time) a stay in cutting. Would anyone enlighten me as to the names of groups that rolled up their shirtsleeves and worked as hard as these Ultra Lefters to get Obama to consider cuts to these programs as being taboo? And would you consider the groups (the names of which I hope you provide) to be the non-”Ultra Left”, and if so, why?
Entitlements should be protected; people should fight for them. My point is that, if you listened to Obama’s conferences, he makes it clear that protecting entitlements are his priority. In April, after the budget deal, he said gutting Medicare “won’t happen as long as I am President.” The fury of the ultra-left is justified, but it is directed at the wrong target. They’re throwing stones at the person who’s fighting in their corner. They should focus their energies on defeating Republicans to give Obama room to work.
wow, who would have thought, so Chamberlain really did ‘win’ at Munich. After all he was dealing with a crazy man with bad intentions, and really, what could England have done for Czechoslovakia? Obama has bought time for the fight that really matters, which is actually just the next fight to buy more time for the fight really matters. In the meantime, St. Barack and his merry band of conciliators can truthfully declare it might have been worse. And next fight we lose, will be a great victory for the zen genius of St Barack the Capitulator, an oh so reasonable man of no conviction.
Stacie – I applaud your attempt at a liberal website – But, unlike your little bi-line states, this is not a place for progressive thinkers to pause, reflect and take action. This is just another place for Progressives, such as myself to be “tuned out” as you put it. End Note: We Must Increasingly Tune Out Under-Informed Ultra Left. Is it your notion that people who think differently are under-informed? That’s a pretty rigid, conservative point of view. I submit you are the one in this case who is under-informed – but I do think it’s adorable that you support our President with no push back. You are the kind of Democrat we don’t need.
The people to be tuned out are *not those who disagree in principle, but those who deny facts – such as how Obama protected entitlements and programs from the poor from cuts in this deal, while saddling defense.
The “kind of Democrats” we need are the kind who comprehend the severity of our predicament and who are willing to stand up to heckling like yours in order to fulfill the end goal of mobilizing the vote.
Also, you must not have looked at my site very carefully if you think I haven’t pushed back against Obama. Go sign the “change we can believe in” petition.
One thing I can say Lorelei is that those liberals opposed to Obama definitely feel that way about those who aren’t just check out FDL and it’s endless “Obamabots” razzing.
If you support Obama they think you’re a “dumb motherfucker”
Maybe it can be mutual. But when I listen to Obama-haters they have no meaningful solutions just lots of problems. Endless kvetching accurate or not is debilitating for action.
Basically if you have solutions great but if it’s just to carp I don’t see that as helping anything.
You are beginning from a false premise. You seem to be fixated on the fact that Social Security or Medicare benefits are protected for now. What about programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance program, or the Women Infants and Children program which helps low income pregnant women and children, or Head Start for children, or cuts to community health centers taking primary health care from low income uninsured, or government backed student loans, or job training for the unemployed. There’s a long list of programs that a couple of trillion in cuts is going to all but destroy.
Cuts in middle class programs should never have been part of a routine debt increase in the first place. The country was blackmailed by a group of extremists and the President was out-manuvered. These cuts will be devastating to already struggling Americans and won’t be fully realized until we are headed to the polls!
You said we have to “comprehend the severity of our predicament.” This was a routine debt increase that became a manufactured “crisis.” Our debt is only around 80% of our GDP, not even close to the highest it has been in the past. Japan’s debt is over 200% of their GDP and they have a strong economy because they protect their workers and industries from the batshit crazy Tea-Party types.
I have read this post and have looked at your site. I just think you’re wrong on this one. This deal is not good for this country, there are no winners in this except the billionaire financiers of the Tea-Party.
Good points, Jay. To clarify, when I said “severity of our predicament” what I was referring to was control of the House in the hands of the crazy Tea-Party types – not the deficit.
I also think I didn’t make it clear enough in the article that I don’t think this is a good deal overall – it would not have been the deal with the Dems in control in the House. I am just pointing out that Obama played all/any advantages he had, and hopefully we’ll see the strategy play out well.
A good outcome depends on 2012 election – not just for the WH, but also in Congress.
I question the accuracy of the claim here on entitlements. While recipients of Medicare (seniors and the disabled) for example may be unaffected, I believe providers (the MDs and health care providers – yes, actualy providers such as nurse practitioners, et al) may be cut (i.e., amount paid to such providers by Medicare) and this is almost always passed on to seniors and the disabled in either the provider just refusing to accept Medicare patients or tacking on additional claims (as we already see being done) for payment in order to gain compensation. These providers are not the big wealthy specialists – I’m talking about the lowly primary care physician who is seeing 200 patients a day and does not have an office in some well heeled building and does not drive a Mercedes, etc. Now listen, before you rant on me, I’ve been working 100% of my time without pay for the last FIVE years on single payer legisltation and mobilization so I’m not just trying to gain pity for some overpaid plastic surgeon. I work in health care. I’m telling you that the cuts to providers (basic providers) have already compromised medical care in these clinics terribly. If you don’t think those cuts to providers don’t affect patients, you likely just are not close enough to Medicare and what really goes on in the health care world (I’m not talking private insurance; I’m talking health CARE) to really get how seniors and the disabled will end up suffering from this part of the deal. I understand it’s as good as HE could get. Unfortunately, it just may not end up being as good as I think folks under 60 would like to think it is ..at least for our seniors and disabled.
Good points and glad you are active on this issue. I, like you, think what Obama did was the best way to handle the current situation – that will hopefully lead to more gains in the future. I don’t think this agreement is actually good for America. I just blame the Republicans holding the debt ceiling hostage for any cuts that didn’t take from wealthy corporations.
All of this amounts to lipstick on a pig. The main issue is not which party comes out ahead, it’s that the deal itself is a job-killer. The problem is that the Democrats have agreed to cut federal spending AT ALL in the middle of a very weak recovery. The private sector is not creating jobs–the so-called “job creators” are sitting on their money waiting for demand to pick up (or maybe for another right-winger to ascend to the presidency). And now the government, the only shop that’s currently hiring at all, is going to have to start closing doors and laying off workers. These cuts will cost jobs directly, which will lower demand, which will indirectly cost more jobs. Don’t believe me? Google “Herbert Hoover” or “Roosevelt 1937.” At best, this deal will further slow the recovery. At worst, we’ll be back in a deep recession by 2012. Which, perhaps not coincidentally, will be terrific news for Republicans and their electoral hopes.
I cannot understand why Stacie, or anyone else for that matter is against a balanced budget. The more we borrow, the more we the people have to pay in interest, which leaves less money for other programs. I have to balance my budget, why shouldn’t our leaders in Washington?
I hope you are right.
I have created a website (www.antidrudgereport.com) for progressives and the people who love them. Please check it out and let me know what you think. Please share with your friends!
Where do you get that there can be no cuts to entitlement programs such as Medicare? Medicaid is not on the list of discretionary items to be cut in the first stage. But , Medicare may be cut up to 2 percent per year. see page 51 of the bill.And there are no restrictions on cuts to Medicaid that I see, Please point them out if I’ve missed them.
The biggest defeat is that there are absolutely no revenue increases. How likely is it that the other party will agree to give up the Bush tax cuts or close loopholes? Notice that folks making over about $100K per year still pay no FICA/payroll tax on their earnings over the amount (remember that from the 2008 debates?).
By giving the president discretion to increase the debt ceiling (within limits) the R’s have placed all the blame for future debt on him.
When willthe President and Senator Durbin (just to start) get it through their heads that the R’s are never going to compromise because they don’t have to. They know Obama will concede.
If the government can’t pay all its bills, isn’t there any room for choosing which bills to defer? Perhaps Congress could forego their
salaries? Could we stall on our payments to our defense and “war on terror” contractors?
Why are we not claiming the moral high ground here?
When did “I don’t want to pay taxes to support police, schools, firefighters, roads, bridges, or the military” become a moral argument?
The downgrading of the United states credit status should certainly be the wake up call for us all.