Personally, I think if you asked the millions of Americans who see this pending debt ceiling plan as a giant steaming mound of animal feces what they dislike most, it would be that after weeks of bargaining and negotiating and arguing, the Democrats essentially gave away almost everything they claimed they wanted, not least of them offsetting revenue increases, and got essentially nothing for them except a raise in the debt ceiling.
But defenders of the President and the party's leadership are saying, "Don't rush to judgement. We're setting up a special Bi-Partisan 12-member Committee to come up with a plan to cut $1.5 trillion from the budget over the next 10 years and they have to do their job or risk setting off triggers which would mandate very painful spending cuts on both the Defense and domestic discretionary side of the budget."
Well, I just listed to a couple of items on National Public Radio this afternoon, and ladies and gentlemen, let me show you why I think that Committee battle is already lost.
As my first piece of evidence, here is the transcript of an interview on Marketplace as host Kai Ryssdal chats with Jacob Lew, head of the White House Office of Management and Budget, about the scope of the pending debt ceiling agreement:
RYSSDAL: Well, let me follow up then with this question, which I ask only a little bit with my tongue in my cheek: Did I miss the part of this agreement that focuses on job creation and economic growth and getting the economy and recovery back on track from where it is now, which is not in a good place?
LEW: Well Kai, when we were in substantive negotiations, one of the things that we had hoped to have in this agreement would have been an extension of a payroll tax cut, an extension of unemployment insurance; things that would have -- in a very significant way -- extended our efforts to promote an economic recovery. We still have those battles ahead of us; they're not in this package, and they still need to happen.
RYSSDAL: I realize, Mr. Lew, that you are a professional Washington staffer -- and I say that in the most positive sense of the word, by which I mean you're not a politician -- but is there anything you can say that will let the American people know that we're not going to be having this same conversation come the end of the year and come next year?
LEW: I think one of the very important things about this agreement is that it takes the issue of the debt limit off the table for the next 18 months. And I think what we have ahead of us is a very serious debate in this country about what kind of government we want to have and we want our future to look like. This is not just a debate about budgets; if you look at the alternatives that the Republicans put forward in the House, it was a fundamentally different view of the role of government, whether it was voucherizing Medicare or dramatically and drastically assistance to poor people. I think that we have to have that debate. And we can't have a debate that leaves taxes off the table.
RYSSDAL: A last question and then I'll let you go: How do you have that debate? That legitimate debate about the role of government in society in this country if the Republican Party finds its line, sticks to it and then makes the Democrats come to them? Which is what happened in this debate.
LEW: We were not able to deal with the bigger issues because there is no way without balance that one can deal with the structural questions of how we should make changes in programs like Medicare. We can't do that in a world where taxes are a forbidden topic. It's just not fair to talk about having the tax burden for people who make millions of dollars not be something that can be discussed when the Medicare costs for people who retire with $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 and $50,000 are very much being discussed.
RYSSDAL: And yet here we are not discussing it. You know?
LEW: Well, I think we set up a process where hopefully by the end of this year, that joint committee will get the work done.
I have to give Ryssdal credit here....he clearly isn't buying a chunk of what Lew is trying to spin on behalf of the White House and with good reason. What Lew is offering is apologies, spin and hopes. Just look at the transcript:
LEW: ... one of the things that we had hoped to have in this agreement would have been an extension of a payroll tax cut, an extension of unemployment insurance;
Hope is a wonderful thing Mr. Lew, but why did you so easily discard it?
LEW:...We were not able to deal with the bigger issues because there is no way without balance that one can deal with the structural questions of how we should make changes in programs like Medicare. We can't do that in a world where taxes are a forbidden topic.
Why ARE taxes a forbidden topic Mr. Lew? Who made them so? Oh the Republicans did. And you agreed to their forbidding their discussion why?
And finally the classic:
LEW: Well, I think we set up a process where hopefully by the end of this year, that joint committee will get the work done.
Boy doesn't THAT fill us all with hope and optimism?
Next we shift to an NPR report about the debt limit agreement...transcript mine as NPR had not yet posted one):
NPR White House Correspondent Scott Horsley: President Obama’s hopes for a grand bargain, in which Democrats would rein in spending and the GOP would agree to increase tax revenues, fell apart when House Majority Leader John Boehner was unable to sell the idea to his fellow Republicans. As a result the deal now on the table makes only incremental cuts to the deficit, all of them on the spending side.
Still White House Spokesman Jay Carney says a scaled down version of the Grand Bargain could still emerge from this process. The deal sets up a bi-paratisan to find other ways to curbe the deficit. Its goal is to identify one and a half trillion dollars of savings by Thanksgiving
Carney: And everything is on the table.for that Committee…entitlement reform and tax reform. And lets be clear, the President thinks the biggest overall accomplishment in terms of deficit reduction is a desirable goal….as long as it is balanced.
Horsley: Much of the negotiation over the past several days has been over what kind of “stick” to use to make sure the committee actually comes up with a plan, and that Congress actually passes it. The White House was adamant that the Republicans cannot use the threat of default again. Instead Carney says that failure by either the committee or Congress to act would trigger automatic spending cuts, including cuts to Medicare that Democrats don’t want, and cuts in the Pentagon budget that Republicans don’t want.
Carney: The whole purpose if a trigger is that nobody wants to pull it.
Horsley: In fact this plan relies on a 12-person committee, half Democrats and half Republicans, to make the tough decisions on the deficit that Congress as a whole has been unable to.
Congressional scholar Sarah Binder of George Washington University says one instance where that has worked, was the commission on closing unneeded military bases. To overcome parochial interests, the base closing list was presented as a complete package and Congress could only vote yes or no. A similar process is planned for the Deficit Committee. Binder says that would avoid the threat of a Senate Filibuster or sabotage by the house rules committee, but only if the majority of committee members can actually come to an agreement.
Binder: Much is riding on who the minority leader and the speaker appoint as their Republican members to the joint committee. You need seven votes to approve. Let’s say six Democrats line up behind the package that includes revenues. Would that one revenue prefer that package of revenues or would they in fact prefer the pain of defense cuts….and we could certainly see it going either way.
Horsley: Senate Minority Leader Republican Mitch McConnell has promised to appoint strong anti-tax members to the committee. His counterpart Harry Reid said today he wants deficit committee members whose ideas are not set in stone.
Reid: I just think we have to go into this with people with eyes wide open. People willing to make difficult choices but yet understand the political reality that we are in.
Horsley: That reality is evolving. Binder says if the choice comes down to increased tax revenue or decreased defense spending, you could see some new cracks in the traditional Republican coalition.
Binder: Older traditional long-term Republican members may be more committed to defense spending that newer members who come in clearly committed not to raise taxes, that again is one of those issues that is going to raise its ugly head come winter.
Horsely: Carney says the White House wants committee members who are serious about deficit reduction, and about finding concensus, something that has eluded Congress thus far.
Again, go back through this and compare and contrast what is being said.
Horsley: Senate Minority Leader Republican Mitch McConnell has promised to appoint strong anti-tax members to the committee.
as opposed to:
Reid: I just think we have to go into this with people with eyes wide open. People willing to make difficult choices but yet understand the political reality that we are in.
and of course this final proof that the White House is NEVER EVER going to learn:
Horsely: Carney says the White House wants committee members who are serious about deficit reduction, and about finding concensus, something that has eluded Congress thus far.
Holy sweet Jesus H. Hockeypucks....Concensus? Concensus? Just how much concensus did you wind up getting to create the deal now pending? And what in the name of Grover Norquist, do you think is going to change when the "Bi-Partisan" committee gathers to do its work?
McConnell.....I am going to appoint strong anti-tax members.
White House...We want members who are serious about finding concensus.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, pretty much sums up just what you can expect the upcoming battle to produce.....nothing but cuts, and I'd be highly surprised if it isn't also matched by a Citizens United funded battle by the military industrial complex to halt or minimize any efforts to trim the defense budget.
UPDATE: I drafted this last night and set it to publish this morning to catch East Coast morning readership and I am glad I delayed, because more evidence of just how lopsided this is likely to be is found in a CBS News interview with House Majority Leader Boehner (h/t to Digby) who told Scott Pelley he got 98% of what he wanted out of the current debt deal. And here's a key part of the Pelley interview:
Pelley: If this super committee that you talk about recommends raising revenue, can you support that?
Boehner: We'll see what it does. But I'm confident their focus will be on reducing expenditures coming out of Washington.
Pelley: Can you image Republicans backing increased taxes?
Boehner: I think that would be a stretch. It doesn't seem likely to me that that would be recommended, much less supported, but I've been surprised before.
Yeah....more concensus.....that oughta do it.
I rest my case!!!!