Skip to main content

In April, the President made the following demands:

Fresh off last week's down-to-the-wire spending showdown, President Obama and Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) are locking horns again on fiscal matters -- and this time the stakes for the U.S. economy are even more monumental.

The White House is demanding a "clean" bill to raise the nation's debt ceiling rather than using it to cut additional spending or for policy additions like last week's attempt to attach legislation defunding Planned Parenthood, but Boehner has already said that idea is dead on arrival. There's no way a debt-ceiling bill would pass the House (i.e. the muster of his unruly GOP conference) without some spending cuts for balance.

Unlike in the beginning of the battle over this year's spending plan, the rhetoric over the debt ceiling is already white hot. White House spokesman Jay Carney on Monday said the consequences of failing to raise the debt ceiling would be "Armageddon-like" for the country.

As usual, it was simply another check written that the White House could not cash.

Shortly after this "demand", the WH backed off, which is standard operating procedure at this point.

Softening the administration's earlier insistence that Congress raise the so-called debt ceiling without conditions, officials now say they won't rule out linking an increase of the borrowing cap with cuts aimed at reducing the deficit—even though they'd prefer to keep the issues separate.

This was followed by multiple diaries discussing who was right, why we shouldn't believe unsourced leaks, and why we should simply trust/distrust the Administration.  

Well, in case you haven't noticed, the leakers floating the trial balloon were proven correct once again.

http://online.wsj.com/...

The shape of a final budget deal could depend on which side wins the public relations battle on taxes, and whether voters see any changes as fair or burdensome. Democrats plan to highlight tax breaks they believe help their case, beginning with the favorable treatment of private jets.

"Do we perpetuate a system that allows for subsidies in revenues for oil and gas, for example, or owners of corporate private jets, and then call for cuts in things like food safety or weather services?" Mr. Carney said.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers led by Vice President Joseph Biden had agreed on cuts that total about $1 trillion over 10 years, participants say. They were shooting for about $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction, but when Democrats insisted about $400 billion in tax increases be considered, the Republicans walked out.

Yes, because taxing corporate jets is a fair deal for cutting social services, education and health services, and possibly beginning to cut entitlements.  In the Obama WH, that is called "Our First Offer" in the caving process.

So what else is the WH "asking" Republicans to agree to?

White House spokesman Jay Carney provided the most specific list so far of the tax changes Democrats want. These include a repeal of oil and gas subsidies, an acceleration of the depreciation on private jets, a limit on deductions for the wealthy, and a change in how businesses value their inventory.

...

Another Democratic proposal would limit the itemized deductions that wealthier Americans can claim on their tax returns to a certain percent of their income. Depending on how strict the limit is, that could generate $300 billion more revenue over 10 years.

So revenue increases, as proposed by the WH are 17% of the package.  If I recall correctly, the horrible Simpson Bowles plan had 25% reveune target.  In the midst of negotiations the WH has proposed a little more that half of what the deficit commission proposed in revenue increases AND has proposed a payroll tax CUT, that Republicans are acting like they don't want, doing their best brer rabbit imitation.

And this is during a negotiation about the debt ceiling!!!  LMAO.  Republicans must not believe how lucky they are to be sitting across the table from this negotiation team.

The only thing that resulted from progressives by "holding off on an assessment" and "waiting until you see the deal" was a loss of precious time to firm up and make the progressive position clear by drawing a line in the sand.  In the interim, the WH has continued to build support for their deficit hawking from the likes of Sen. Coons and Rep. Blumenauer.

Anyone that believes the White House will stand up for any position at this point has to have their political acumen questioned.  The real question is when will progressives learn to push back BEFORE it is too late instead of the kicking and screaming after the deal is done.  From what I can tell, this round of austerity has been accepted by everyone in DC outside of Sen. Bernie Sanders.  The only question is how hard will the middle class and poor be hit and how loudly the Republicans and their donors will be laughing on the way to the bank.

Poll

How much of the final negotiated packages be revenue increases?

51%29 votes
14%8 votes
3%2 votes
1%1 votes
28%16 votes

| 56 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (7+ / 0-)

    "Senator McCain offered up the oldest Washington stunt in the book - you pass the buck to a commission to study the problem." - Senator Obama, 9-16-2008

    by justmy2 on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 06:40:24 AM PDT

  •  Did I mention I'm staying out of the market (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eddie C, importer, Xapulin, Lujane

    Until they get the debt ceiling raised?  Seems prudent.  If they default, and the US credit rating is downgraded even a little bit, it triggers a lot of automatic sell-offs that could tank the market.

    If we don't stop them here, then where? If not now, then when?

    by nightsweat on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 06:42:30 AM PDT

  •  So questions (10+ / 0-)

    Do you think there is a difference between what the President wants and what is realistically possible?

    Do you believe had the President said I will not sign a debt limit increase that is tied to any spending cuts it would have forced the Republicans to send him a clean bill?

    And the bigger question do you believe the Republicans would seriously not put the economy at risk just to get Obama out of the White House.

    In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.

    by jsfox on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 06:50:55 AM PDT

    •  Newt tried that trick during Clinton's (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Russgirl

      administration, it backfired on the Republicans.  I don't think they will risk that possiblity again, but they will play chicken right up to the end.

      This is an opportunity for Obama to go out and explain to the public how we got here and that it is up to the House to raise the ceiling and to start acting like adults instead of terrorists.

      I'm tired of the hostage taking and the "if you don't do what we say, the dog gets it" form of politics being executed by the Republicans.  

    •  Uh...the President's spokesperson made (0+ / 0-)

      that exact statement.

      Do you believe had the President said I will not sign a debt limit increase that is tied to any spending cuts it would have forced the Republicans to send him a clean bill?

      Ask Jay Carney why he is making statements on behalf of the President from the briefing room that they assume they won't keep?

      "Senator McCain offered up the oldest Washington stunt in the book - you pass the buck to a commission to study the problem." - Senator Obama, 9-16-2008

      by justmy2 on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 09:08:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Don't just whine. Do something. Sign Bernie (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lawrence, SoCalSal

    Sanders' letter to the President.  Get everyone you know (with a heart) to sign the letter.  Pass along this link.
    http://sanders.senate.gov/...8

    Some people fight fire with fire. Professionals use water.

    by Happy Days on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 06:54:05 AM PDT

  •  If Obama (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    importer, penguins4peace

    turned to Wall Street and told them that, in the event of a forced default, he would have to invoke the take down provisions from Dodd/Frank, they would get him enough R votes for a clean bill. If he ever starts to play professional poker, get a seat at the table, he's a chump.

    "If I pay a man enough money to buy my car, he'll buy my car." Henry Ford

    by johnmorris on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 07:37:10 AM PDT

    •  All spending bills originate in the House, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FiredUpInCA, penguins4peace, psyched

      they are responsible for the existing debt and the raising of the ceiling (or not).  

      Obama should tell them he will only sign a clean bill.  He will veto ANYTHING that includes spending cuts.  Once the ceiling has been raised, they can discuss raising revenues.  

      The Republicans are trying to shift the blame for the deficit and the debt ceiling onto Obama when it is their baby.  Wall Street is not going to allow their toadies in the House to not raise the ceiling.

      A good poker player would know he is holding a pat hand and just STFU and let the bastards squirm.  

  •  So you think that clean bill can pass the (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SoCalSal, FiredUpInCA, importer

    House? Based on what?

    •  Because Wall Street wants the ceiling (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rick

      raised and they own the House.  

      IF Obama would call their bluff, a clean bill could be achieved, instead he allows the Republicans to posture and pose and control the messaging.

      •  Republican freshmen are not necessarily (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        importer

        dedicated to Wall street. I think you overstate its influence. Also, Wall Street wouldn't mind some of the measures that Republicans propose. Wall Street is probably influential enough to make sure some sort of extension passes at some point but they won't push for clean bill.

        •  I never said they would push for a clean (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          justmy2, ShadowRunning

          bill, but if that is all that was available, they would certainly gather their votes for it.

          Obama's problem is that he doesn't push for more, he just takes what the Republicans hand out and then gives them more than they asked for.  I would say this was a character flaw in a president, but I think he is in on the game and the only people being fooled are the voters.  Obama is just as beholden to Wall Street as any other politician.

          •  I'm not sure this particular bill (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            importer

            is about Obama. It becomes a negotiation and Dems (both Obama and Dems in Congress) don't have enough votes to make no compromises at all. And clean bill would be basically a Dem position with nothing given to Republicans. When Boehner says clean bill can't pass the House, he's probably telling the truth.

            •  The deficit is the problem of the House, they (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FG

              are the money guys.  Boehner needs to pass something that can pass the Senate and not get vetoed.

              This idea that somehow the Republicans hold all the cards all the time is just wrong.  IF Obama and IF Harry Reid wanted a clean bill, they could demand it.  Demand is all the Republicans do - and guess what, they get it.   If Boehner can't control the Tea Party reps, then he won't be speaker for long.

    •  So you think Wall Street will allow (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rick

      Republicans to tank the economy?

      Regardless, why make a demand in public that you know you can't keep?  I guess you are calling Jay Carney and the President untrustworthy.  I agree.

      "Senator McCain offered up the oldest Washington stunt in the book - you pass the buck to a commission to study the problem." - Senator Obama, 9-16-2008

      by justmy2 on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 09:10:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe at the time they thought they could keep (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Grumpy Young Man

        it. Or it was a negotiation tactic. I'm not concerned about the words they use in press releases and interview. The shape of the final deal will be much more important.

        •  that is always a good excuse (0+ / 0-)

          #notintendedtobeafactualstatement

          believe me...I get it.  Unfortunately, most actually still believe the rubbish that comes out of this WH in most instances...

          "Senator McCain offered up the oldest Washington stunt in the book - you pass the buck to a commission to study the problem." - Senator Obama, 9-16-2008

          by justmy2 on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 09:28:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  sorry about the poll...wish I could edit the typo (0+ / 0-)

    "Senator McCain offered up the oldest Washington stunt in the book - you pass the buck to a commission to study the problem." - Senator Obama, 9-16-2008

    by justmy2 on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 09:06:49 AM PDT

  •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)
    Yes, because taxing corporate jets is a fair deal for cutting social services, education and health services, and possibly beginning to cut entitlements.

    Beginning?  Entitlements have already been cut.  They have fooled you because technically the federal government has not decreased entitlement spending.  The federal government has reduced spending to the states that in turn has cut entitlement benefit levels.

    In other words, the cuts are technically not at the federal level and are instead technically at the state level.

    Again, in other words, states have already cut entitlement beneits that directly affect poor people and there will be further cuts at the federal level.

    So, on top of the 7-10% cuts already done at the state level the federal government will add percentage points on top of that.  How much will the total percentage come to?  Another 7-10% thus making the aggreate cut 12-15% or so and only $50-100 or so total, that's not much money, right??   In reality, that is a freaking fortune for someone who is poor.

    Whatever the percentage comes to, it’s screw the poor once again.  This country only gives lip service to the poor, both Democrats and Republicans and each political party is bent on proving it is the one that has the moral highground.  But somehow I don’t think that screwing the poor is moral.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site