...may I suggest that you continue to call your Representative and your Senators, as well as Minority Leader Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid?
I'll explain why over the fold.
Update: CNN has posted the transcript. It's below.
Whether you believe that the "deal" being swirled around the news services is a Shit Sandwich served with a side of Capitulation Sauce or that it's the best Democrats could get in today's economic and political climate is really irrelevant to what I'm about to say.
I watched CNN's State of the Union at 9am ET. Gloria Borger was sitting in for Candy Crowley, and her two big guests were Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer.
The transcript isn't available yet, but here's what I took away from both of those interviews:
1. There is no deal yet.
2. The sticking point is the triggers.
3. Specifically, Schumer was clear that one of the triggers needs to include tax hikes if the so-called Super Commission failed to make recommendations and Congress failed to pass it - it was rather clear that he felt that was the only way to make the Super Commission remotely fair and effective.
I'd rather we hit the debt ceiling without a deal than have a deal that doesn't include tax revenues as part of the triggers. I understand that everyone's upset that there are no new taxes in the rumored deal - that's not what I'm talking about here. For whatever misbegotten reason, tax increases have been off the table for more than a week so I've just let that go.
But given that there's no current deal AND that both Pelosi and Reid have been completely mum on the "deal", I think it's fair to assume that nothing is done yet.
So - it doesn't hurt you or cost you anything to call or send a note to your Representative, Senators, Pelosi and Reid. Say whatever you want - but make your voice heard.
Call your Representative
Call your Senators
Write/call Minority Leader Pelosi
Write/call Majority Leader Reid
I think this will take about five minutes, and then we can all go back to gnashing and rending, no harm, no foul.
UPDATE: Transcript posted:
BORGER: ...So joining me now Senator Mitch McConnell, thanks so much for being with us.
Let me get right to it, can you announce this morning that a plan has been reached and there's a deal?
MCCONNELL: Well, we are very close. We had a very good day yesterday, both the president and the vice president called me and the president talked to the speaker as well, and they understand that with a Republican majority in the House and a very robust Republican minority in the Senate we have to come together. And I think we've made dramatic progress in that direction since April, for example, when the administration, Gloria, was asking us to raise the debt ceiling with no spending reductions at all, nothing, just a clean debt ceiling. Now I think I can pretty confidently say that this debt ceiling increase will avoid default, which is important for everybody in America to know, we are not going to have a default for the first time in our 235 year history. We're not going to have job-killing tax increases in it. We are going to deal with the problem the American people sent us here to deal with, which is that the government has been spending too much.
We don't think we have this problem because we've been taxing too little, we've been spending too much.
So I think we're very close to being in a position where hopefully I can recommend to my members they take a serious look at it and support it.
BORGER: And get it done when?
MCCONNELL: Soon.
BORGER: Today?
MCCONNELL: Soon.
BORGER: OK.
MCCONNELL: We're aware that August 2nd is a date of some significance.
BORGER: Right. Well, let me walk you through an outline of this potential deal. There has been an awful lot of reporting from CNN and elsewhere about what it contains. First the size of the package, over $2 trillion, yes?
MCCONNELL: The entire package?
BORGER: The entire package, $2.4 trillion...
MCCONNELL: What we're looking at is a $3 trillion package, a combination of discretionary cuts, both cuts now, caps over the next ten years to hold spending in line, and then we're also going to be voting on a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Now that is important for the future, because it will put some constraints on our spending habits here in Washington.
Also, let me emphasize the joint committee. In the early stages of this discussion, the press was talking about another commission. This is not a commission, this is a powerful joint committee with a equal number of Republicans and senate -- equal number of Republicans and Democrats, to not only look at entitlement changes, but to make a recommendation back to the Senate and House by Thanksgiving this year for an up or down vote.
So think of the base closing legislation that we passed a few years ago for an up or down vote in the House and Senate.
BORGER: OK. Well, let me walk you through this in stages. And I want to get to that deficit commission, because there are discussions about committee. There are discussions about what would happen if it doesn't do its work. Let's -- first things first, though.
MCCONNELL: Yeah.
BORGER: One sticking point has been that the president wanted an absolute guarantee that we wouldn't go through this kind of a showdown six months from now on the debt ceiling, has he gotten his wish on that? Is there a way for the debt ceiling to come up in six months and he gets guaranteed approval of it?
MCCONNELL: Well, you know, the president has been pretty candid that he was concerned about not having to do this again before his election. Frankly, my members were a little more concerned about getting the job done properly for the American people...
BORGER: OK, but what is the deal? What is the fix?
MCCONNELL: Well, you will see that this is a process that could get him past the election. We're working on the combinations that will get us there.
BORGER: Would it be a vote of disapproval. In other words, he could just propose it and it would need a super majority to disapprove?
MCCONNELL: Well, the mechanism for getting a debt ceiling to be increased obviously would be the resolution disapproval. But look, we're still working on the parameters of it. We're very, very close to being able to recommend, I am to my members, that this is something they ought be able to support.
BORGER: So essentially then the president gets the ability not to have another showdown?
MCCONNELL: I'm very close to being able to recommend to my members that we have an agreement here that I'll be able to consider supporting.
BORGER: OK. And then the next big area is this debt committee, as you call it, and the question is how do they guarantee absolutely that you get the kind of deficit reduction you are looking for. Because we have had, with all due respect, committees in the past and they haven't done so well, one very recently. So how do you hold their feet to the fire? There is talk of triggers to make sure if they do not do their work congress will be forced to cut.
MCCONNELL: First of all, we haven't had anything like this before. This is a joint committee of congress. It is not a commission that consists of outsiders. A joint committee of congress with an equal number of Republicans and Democrats, under enormous pressure from the American people, from the markets, foreign countries looking at us to see if we're going to get our house in order, to come up with significant additional savings over and above the initial ones that we will approve before the end of this year, and entitlement reform is absolutely critical.
For example, the -- the trustees of the Medicare and Social Security system appointed by the president has said repeatedly, both of these very important and essential programs are in serious trouble.
BORGER: Well, so -- well, my reporting is, and I would like you to talk about what's going on inside the room you are in...
MCCONNELL: No, I know you'd like for me to do that.
BORGER: I would. I would ask the question of how do you absolutely guarantee that these cuts come? And as I was saying, there are these triggers people are talking about so that if, for example, they can't agree, let's just say that, then there is talk of across the board spending cuts, of as much as 4 percent in areas like Medicare and defense spending. Can you talk about these sort of fail- safe mechanisms that would enforce cuts?
MCCONNELL: Well, let me say my view is that there is a mathematical possibility, obviously, that the committee could deadlock, a mathematical possibility. And there has been a lot of discussion with the White House, you are having one of their folks on -- Gene Sperling I think later to talk about. A lot of discussions over the last week about what do you do if the committee deadlocks. I think it's highly unlikely that will happen. And that has been something we've been discussing for over a week. And I hope we're on a path to resolving the what if?
BORGER: What if?
MCCONNELL: We'll let you know.
BORGER: Well, I'm going to try again.
Because the big concern of the Democrats like Gene Sperling, have been that if the committee dead locks, and you have to come up with these deficit reduction, they want to see a balance. They want to see revenues and spending cuts. Is there a way you can guarantee that revenues would be part of any kind of overall big second phase of this?
MCCONNELL: At the risk of frustrating you, let me say again, that the trigger issue has been the one that has locked us in the extensive discussions. I thought we were very close to an agreement a week ago today, and then went off to our separate corners and in my view kind of wasted a week firing volleys back and forth across the Capitol, but now I think we are back in the right place and the trigger issue is one that we'll let you know we've agreed to when we agree to it.
BORGER: What's something you want, though?
MCCONNELL: We will let you know what we've done on the trigger issue when we make the announcement.
BORGER: OK. So clearly, this is the sticking point, because the Democrats -- I mean, can you say the triggers are the sticking points?
MCCONNELL: Well, that has been an item of outstanding discussion for over a week.
My emphasis added. There was more said - I just focused on the triggers issue as it appears that's the sticking point and cut the transcript when that discussion was concluded.
Now to Schumer's interview:
BORGER: And joining me now, the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York.
Thanks so much for being with us.
SCHUMER: Good morning.
BORGER: Well, you just heard Senator McConnell, he said a $3 trillion deal, and absolutely no taxes. Is that something you can live with?
SCHUMER: Well, let me say first of all, this -- there is no final agreement. Nobody has signed off on a final agreement. So it's premature to talk about any specifics. The most important thing this morning is if there's a word right here that would sum up the mood, it would be relief, relief that we won't default.
That's not a certainty, but default is far less of a possibility now than it was even a day ago, because the leaders are talking and talking in a constructive way to come up with a solution that would avoid default.
But there are lots of things that are not filled in and many more discussions to go. So it's hard to say anything specifically about this, that, or the other thing.
BORGER: Well, it sounds like they've moved past the question of whether you can get another increase in the debt ceiling six months down the line, making it virtually automatic, essentially.
SCHUMER: Yes, this is very important to President Obama and to us, not so much for the reasons Senator McConnell mentioned, but because we would risk default if we just kicked the can down the road for a few months, did this again, risked the same gridlock, down to the wire, and then a few months later.
It's really vital for the credit markets to have as long a term approach as possible, and it seems quite clear that there will be -- the debt ceiling will be raised enough so that we won't have to come back to this until 2013.
And that's important for another reason as well, not only the credit markets, but we have to focus on the jobs, we have to focus on the economy and getting the economy growing, and if we are just consumed with this debt ceiling for the next year-and-a-half, it would be a dereliction of duty to our constituents.
BORGER: But it's the second part of the deal, I think, that could give Democrats some heartburn here. And that is the question of this enforcement mechanism for cuts in the second part of this, and Senator McConnell was essentially saying that this could affect across-the-board cuts in things like entitlement programs and no revenue.
So how do you negotiate that?
SCHUMER: Well, certainly the enforcement mechanism is one of the key issues that is still being debated, and it's one of the issues that has made this process go on for so long.
And here is what you had to say about it. An enforcement mechanism gets -- doesn't require, but importunes, makes it very likely that the people in this bipartisan, bicameral committee come to an agreement, because if they don't, the pain inflicted is so great that they have an incentive to come to an agreement. Now that means there should be a sword of equal sharpness and strength hanging over each party's head, obviously the sword over the head of Democrats are the cuts. We don't like them. We want to help middle class people pay for their kids to get to college help with prescription drugs, things like that.
What is the sword over the Republican? Well, it has to be equal -- the one thing we are certain of, it has to be of equal sharpness and strength. The preference would be some kind of revenues on wealthy people, on tax loopholes that would be in that.
But another alternative possible, being discussed, no agreements have been reached, would defense cuts of equal sharpness and magnitude to domestic cuts. And in the past, when the trigger has had significant defense cuts, it has brought the parties to the table, and they've come up with a balanced agreement that had both revenues and cuts.
BORGER: So, what you would like, essentially, is if this committee gets deadlocked, which is a possibility to say, here are all the things everyone hates sitting out there, and they will all be triggered and they will occur?
SCHUMER: Yes. That's right. And that, hopefully, brings the parties to an agreement that each side...
BORGER: What if it doesn't?
SCHUMER: Well, if it doesn't the -- we hope it does, because if the sword is tough enough and sharp enough the likelihood of agreement increases. And in the past that has worked.
BORGER: And that would make it more likely, then, that congress would approve this...
SCHUMER: That this joint committee, that this joint committee, and Senator McConnell, I was very glad to say that he thinks a result will come out of the joint committee, so do we. And we're going to fight very hard that it be balanced, that it have both on that joint committee, that it have both revenues and spending cuts, because otherwise it's not fair. You know, middle class people...
BORGER: How are you guarantee that?
SCHUMER: Well, there's no guarantee, but what makes it a likely possibility, as I said as the strength and sharpness and equality of the two swords, we cannot go for a sword that is tough on Democrats, but not tough on Republicans.
BORGER: So how do you have these swords out there? You say one, two, three they're all at the same time?
SCHUMER: No, what happens is if the bipartisan committee cannot come to an agreement, then these things take affect and Democrats go ouch. And Republicans go ouch, we better avoid it.
BORGER: So you are essentially saying you have to have some system that shocks you into doing your job because you might not...
SCHUMER: Well, you know because there is a difference, we have a divided House and Senate, divided government, every side has to compromise. If one party controlled all three, this wouldn't be that hard. Our preference to have a balanced approach, to make sure that tax loopholes for oil companies, for corporate jets, for yachts, for the wealthiest among us who have done the best be part of it.
Their view is that shouldn't be the one to take all the cuts. We, for instance, don't believe that benefits should be cut for Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, so these are very real differences that have to be bridged and the only way to bridge them is with an enforcement mechanism that is tough and equal.
BORGER: OK. Well, are Democrats ready -- if this were the case, are Democrats ready to provide the bulk of the votes to get this through the congress?
SCHUMER: Well, it's much too early to tell. Leader Reid is being consulted on an hourly basis by the administration. He's made clear what the preferences of our caucus are. And it's too early to tell.
But make no mistake about it, obviously they can't pass this without Democratic votes in the Senate, and so we have real input.
BORGER: Would -- in hearing you say that revenues have to be part of it and then hearing Mitch McConnell says the revenues can't be part of it, is the answer tax reform and loophole closing?
SCHUMER: Well, tax reform is one way to do it. And, you know, it's our believe that revenues should be part. It's their belief that revenues shouldn't. But this committee if again has a good enforcement mechanism, we believe past history shows we will be able to get revenues as part of the committee agreement.
BORGER: So you have a committee and you're going to force it to work. And if it doesn't work, then you're going to have something out there that will force you to get those cuts.
SCHUMER: Both sides. Both sides equally. It shouldn't favor one side or the other.
BORGER: And let me ask you, as a leader of the Democratic Party how do you convince the base of your party who really doesn't want any potential cuts of entitlement to go along with this kind of a deal?
SCHUMER: Well, again, you know, the Ryan budget proposed a decimation of Medicare and Medicaid, and we successfully fought that back. And we are going to continue our fight, and I think the base of our party knows this, that there should be no benefit cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, these are programs -- certainly there can be savings brought from Medicare and Medicaid, because there's waste and duplication and inefficiency and all of that, but the benefits to people who really need it should not be cut. And that's been a fight we have been making quite successfully over the last mile, and we are going to continue to make it in these negotiations and further forward.
BORGER: All right. Senator Chuck Schumer, thanks you so much for being with us.
Hm... Now I'm thinking as well I should add Chuck Schumer to the call list.