Skip to main content

We all know that he gave up the leverage of the Bush Tax Cuts, well the 16% of them, making permanent the rest (can we now call them the Obama tax cuts now?) while punting on the sequester trigger cuts for two months, the ol' kick the can down the road maneuver that congress loves.  And no deal was made on the debt ceiling either which should be up in early March as well - so Pres has sailed us into the perfect storm of GOP hostage taking.  

Or did he?  

American attention spans and memories are fruit fly short, so what deal was passed today will be meaningless come March.  That is important because just like the GOP isn't talking about these tax cuts being part of the deal where the trillion plus was already cut during the original debt ceiling hostage deal - today's deal will not really factor into the debt ceiling/sequester deal - that deal will be for better or worse be treated as a stand alone.  

Now the GOP thinks they have all the leverage now because the Pres is known to cave, and did so spectacularly last debt ceiling hostage taking.  And they're being emboldened by promises from McConnell and other GOP leadership that they'll get theirs come the next manufactured crisis if they hold their nose and pass this now.  

But another issue to consider is that the GOP talks about needing deep cuts always in the abstract - never specifics.  However with the fiscal cliff deal passed today, it takes away a lot of the cover they would have had "passing the balanced deal" or grand bargain.  Now the GOP will have to lay bare their demands on the hostage taking - they'll have to come out and say "We want to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid by x amount or we crash the economy".  They need to lay it plain - no obfuscation, no hiding or camouflaging their desires, muddying the waters on the issues of the moment.  

The issue will be  - Raise the debt ceiling or America defaults and economy crashes.  GOP will say "We will not raise debt ceiling unless there is corresponding cuts".  

Here is where the issue will be won or lost for us - Who has to name the cuts.  The GOP will try the "we say we need cuts to appease us, you find the $1.3T we demand" but if the WH says "You are holding the debt ceiling hostage - you name the cuts you want specifically" - who will blink first.  Can the GOP, with no tax or revenue issue to hide under, no grand bargain offered to demand cuts as part of the larger package - are they willing to say "We demand you cut SS, Medicare and Medicaid by $1T or the economy as a whole gets it"?

Now Pres Obama will likely offer his "grand bargain" again where he'll agree to entitlement changes - but will make demands of his own, either for more revenues and/or stimulus spending now.  

Also with the sequester punted to the same time as the debt ceiling, that's near $1T in spending cuts packaged right there - can the GOP demand cuts while at the same time voting to not have the sequester happen.  Ie the sequester walls off entitlement and veteran cuts but still cuts near a trillion dollars - so the GOP will have to say - at the same time - $1T in walled off sequester cuts are bad, but we need to make $1T cuts elsewhere.

Does the GOP think they have more leverage because they don't think Obama and Dems can go back and ask more from the rich folks?  Will the GOP try and whine about "the rich say their rate go up, we need to cut SS now instead of closing loopholes in the tax code that allow the rich to not really pay their 39% they're supposed to".  This deal was about setting the rate to Clinton levels, the next deal will be about closing loopholes to see that folks in the 39% bracket have to pay the full 39% - that will not seem like too much to ask in the court of public opinion.  Rich folk loopholes are not popular amongst the vast majority of the population - The Buffet Rule could come back to the forefront.  GOP will still be trapped fighting to cut entitlements rather than closing tax avoidance loopholes.  

It will all depend on who is forced to name the cuts.  IF WH and Dems force the GOP to name their desired cuts - will the GOP have the gumption to say out loud how they want to make major cuts to the entitlements?

No leverage was lost or gained by the deal today.  Whoever has the leverage will depend on who is forced to name the cuts demanded by the GOP.  Pres Obama could cave there, or he could not - but the deal passed today will not have any bearing on what he does in two months time.  The WH and Dems still have huge leverage if they choose to take it.  

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

  •  That's the plan... (14+ / 0-)

    I do have to agree with one thing that politico reported:

    The president did not believe the dynamic would suddenly shift in his favor after Jan. 1, rejecting the conventional wisdom in Washington that all sides would have more flexibility after higher tax rates took effect. Republicans were no more likely to compromise after the deadline than before it, the White House concluded. And there was a very real fear that a resolution wouldn’t come for weeks, perhaps not before the country hit the debt limit in late February — a nightmare scenario that the president believed would destroy not only his leverage but also the still-fragile economy.
    Read more: http://www.politico.com/...

    I think that's probably correct.  Any leverage he might have gained from holding out probably would have been lost when everything went on the line.  He does have more leverage now than we thought previously.

    GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

    by LordMike on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 10:04:58 PM PST

  •  There's also 500 billion in Defense cuts. (9+ / 0-)

    Nobody wants them to go through, but the President can play like he won't mind if they do.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 10:05:02 PM PST

    •  The dems wanted that delayed... (0+ / 0-)

      I'm not really sure why they wanted to remove that bit of leverage we had.  

      GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

      by LordMike on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 10:06:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Or have a new SecDef with an [R] after their name (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, jay1c, HappyinNM, Creosote

      saying that there is room for some DoD cuts.  Panetta undercuts the very idea of any more DoD cuts like he's reading from McCain's talking points.  

      President Obama would have been a Republican in the 1980's.

      by Jacoby Jonze on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 10:11:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Two issues here related to DOD (4+ / 0-)

        First,, DOD has a problem not formally considered here, namely several hundred billion bucks in off the books war costs which still have to be dealt with because off the books does not mean not borrowed for and paid as they went without the publicity. One of the thinks DOD will have to be made to deal with is this off the books stuff, which adds IIRC a third or more without disclosure to the DOD budget. Depending on the security classification, this is the toughest DOD cut to deal with.

        The other is that Obama has already made clear that any budget fixers have to be balanced between revenue and cuts, and that cuts have to be balanced between domestic discreationary and defense. And that as to SS at least there is already a known option, raising the contribution cap which now stops at about 110K, which would given the years involved resolve the SS issue, and has taken steps to deal with the COSTS of Medicare which have already begun to kick in. The trick with those may be keeping hospitals and docs from bailing, but one method for that is to provide that those in the medical professions who get Federal money have to do Medicare. It wouldn't kick in immediately, because there are a lot of oldies who did not have this as conditions to their financing, but on a rolling basis it might well work. Or refiguring the doc fix so it starts to kick in in 2015 and does not carry over from year to year and grow like fungus.

    •  Nobody wants defense cuts? I do! (7+ / 0-)

      As mentioned elsewhere, that $700 billion a year we spend on "defense" is 41% of the entire world's military budget, about 5 times the amount of the next country, which is China.

      The cuts you're talking about are over 10 years. I believe the figure you give, $500 billion is for both domestic and defense combined, with defense being half the amount. If that's correct then we're talking about cutting the defense budget by $25 billion a year.

      Looking back at that comparison to China, we could still spend three times as much as the Chinese and save $280 billion a year so the cuts you're concerned about are pretty insubstantial, relatively speaking.

      •  What I worry about is that they will make the cuts (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shahryar

        on the backs of those serving, by taking it out of their pay, or their medical benefits, or other benefits they have worked for.
                            Just my two cents,
                                 Heather

        Torture is ALWAYS wrong, no matter who is inflicting it on whom.

        by Chacounne on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 12:26:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  IIRC The defense cuts don't come from Military (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          big mouth

          benefits.

          Right man, right job and right time

          by Ianb007 on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 12:32:54 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Current sequester cuts have military benefits (0+ / 0-)

            walled off.  But that doesn't mean they couldn't be discussed as cuts to reach the cuts threshold and not trigger the sequester cuts.  However given the emphasis the President has put on the troops since he's been in office, and how Michelle has made it one of her FLOTUS priorities I can't see the President signing off on anything that would negatively impact soldiers and their families.  Cuts would be made from weapons programs, troop levels, and the MIC.  

            President Obama would have been a Republican in the 1980's.

            by Jacoby Jonze on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 06:29:57 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  that would be typical (0+ / 0-)

          it would, of course, be the absolute worst way to cut the budget but yes, I see your point.

      •  cut 30% on defense and don't look back (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shahryar

        $210 billion per year, $2.1 trillion over 10. republicans either believe deficits are an issue or they are not.......cheney, fo example, famously said deficits do not matter after all.

        call their bluff. this is their not so back door approach to gut  earned benefits and they can't get away with it.

        eliminate oil subsidies
        eliminate farm subsidies
        close corporate tax loopholes
        implement corporate capital gain tax increases on money held not reinvested in business.
        shut down off-shore tax havens

        end all corporate welfare and cut defense and then come back and talk about what's left.

        mccain and graham will scream about defense cuts they can save some of the defense by offsets in corporate welfare reductions,,,,,they cannot have both.

        it is beyond outrageous to even consider cutting earned benefits when corporations and the 2% would not be hurt proportionately.

        Bill Gates said defense cuts needed to be made. I trust him.

        mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

        by wewantthetruth on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 07:15:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I guess that makes me a nobody. (nt) (0+ / 0-)
  •  Makes a lot of sense to me... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, Chas 981, notrouble

    and I sure hope you're right!

  •  Question: with the Bush tax rates being made (0+ / 0-)

    'permanent' besides the above 450K, does that mean upper income tax rates can not be part of an 'avoiding sequester' bargain?

    As in, is closing tax loopholes Obama's only hope now to raise revenue to balance out cuts that will be part of a deal?  

    Or can the 250K+ rate still be part of a grand bargain?

    I like Michelle more than Barack.

    by duha on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 10:17:24 PM PST

    •  I'd say the rate is pretty much off the table... (12+ / 0-)

      but making sure all the folks who should be paying that rate are paying that rate - ie closing loopholes, havens etc - is definitely on the table.  

      I think it would be politically tough to say "We raised their rates 3%, and now we want to raise them some more now".  But it's an easier argument to say "if you are in the top bracket, you shouldn't be able to exploit specially created loopholes, dodges and deductions in order to pay less than your secretary".  

      First move was to increase the rate.  Second act will be to close the loopholes to see that everybody pays their bracketed rate.  

      President Obama would have been a Republican in the 1980's.

      by Jacoby Jonze on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 10:23:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  OK, so do we know how much (0+ / 0-)

        revenue can be raised from that?  if this smaller deal got us half way there to the deficit reduction of 1.3 trillion needed to avoid sequester, how much of the closing loopholes revenue is out there?

        I like Michelle more than Barack.

        by duha on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 10:46:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  In his speech (12+ / 0-)

      tonight when he said all cuts had to be balanced with revenue, President Obama mentioned corporations as well as the wealthy.  My guess is he is planning to go after things like oil subsidies and other tax breaks for those big businesses who are raking in the cash, but not contributing to the country.

      I had not noticed him mentioning corporations before, but it is possible I just missed it.  I think it is a pretty smart move.  How can they justify tax breaks for companies who make millions of dollars per hour, but we can't afford to fund medicare or medicaid?

      •  BINGO! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SilverWillow

        put the pressure on this and that is exactly what will happen.

        hey mccain/graham....want to save some defense cuts, have to give up corporate welfare. you cannot have both.

        mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

        by wewantthetruth on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 07:18:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Deductions (0+ / 0-)

      The whole game for revenues now is "reforming the tax code". Basically Boehener's initial proposal he said you could rise 800 billion WITHOUT raising taxes. Let's see some of that.

  •  obama already (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lakehillsliberal, bluebottles

    put ss on the table, so they can just refer to that. i just don't see how he could be in a better position than after having won a mandate election and with the polls showing strong support for the agenda he ran on.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 10:32:49 PM PST

    •  He did put it on the table. (8+ / 0-)

      Because the GOP has asked for it in the past.  And once it became public the GOP hit twitter to really run away from any ownership of it - McCain and Rubio tweets I remember specifically.  Which leads me to believe that the GOP is unwilling to make their demands publicly because they know it's a political killer.  

      Pres made it until the final week this negotiation go-around before negotiating with himself.  If he stands firm and refuses to talk in spending cut abstracts I wonder how the GOP would handle that.

      President has his inauguration address on January 21st, and then will give the prime time SOTU on January 29th which will I suspect largely frame and set the table for the sequester/debt ceiling negotiations - with Boehner sitting right behind him.  

      I'm not arguing so much as what the Pres will or won't do, I'm just saying he has the same or better leverage he would have had regardless of the deal today IF he decides to use it.      

      President Obama would have been a Republican in the 1980's.

      by Jacoby Jonze on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 10:44:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  not the way it works (0+ / 0-)

      if you've ever taken a college course or do any reading on negotiating.

      deal is offered and if not accepted, it is automatically off the table. any talk otherwise is just that, talk.

      mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

      by wewantthetruth on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 07:20:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Republicans Just Signed On To Raise Taxes.... (6+ / 0-)

    from 35% to 39.6% for those above $400 Grand if single & $450 Grand for couples.  The rich are not going to like that.  Even if they have lawyers to find loopholes & dodges....the rich are not going to like that.  And Republicans helped make it happen.

    Those new taxes are permanent.  

    For the first time, the President is using his bully pulpit.
    I couldn't be more pleased.  There is nothing I like more than this man on the road & out of DC.

    They hate it.  But I love it when President Obama brings it to the people.  I expect him to hit the pavement soon & talk about the repercussion if the US doesn't raise the debt ceiling.  

  •  "It will all depend on who is forced to name the (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HappyinNM, Shahryar, semiot

    cuts.  If WH and Dems force the GOP to name their desired cuts - will the GOP have the gumption to say out loud how they want to make major cuts to the entitlements?"

    Of course they will.

    President Obama has already presented numerous cuts (in writing) in both his 2012-2013 Budget, and in the document which was his proposal to the Super Committee.

    Here's the link.

    I apologize that this looks so bad.  But it's readable.

    This excerpt outlines numerous Medicare cuts that President Obama is recommending.  

    Please read this carefully.  It is very broad in scope, and includes "means testing," instituting a new Medicare premium surcharge for high-dollar Medigap policyholders, etc., etc.

    Increase income-related premiums
    under Medicare Parts B and D.  Under
    Medicare Parts B and D, certain beneficiaries
    pay higher premiums as a result of their higher levels of income�

    Beginning in 2017, the Administration proposes to increase income-related premiums under Medicare
    Parts B and D by 15 percent and maintain
    the income thresholds associated with
    income-related premiums until 25 percent of
    beneficiaries under Parts B and D are subject
    to these premiums� This will help improve
    the financial stability of the Medicare
    program by reducing the Federal subsidy of
    Medicare costs for those beneficiaries who
    can most afford them� This proposal will save
    approximately $20 billion over 10 years�
    Modify Part B deductible for new
    beneficiaries.  

    Beneficiaries who are enrolled in Medicare Part B are required to pay an annual deductible�  This deductible
    helps to share responsibility for payment of Medicare services between Medicare and beneficiaries� To strengthen program financing and encourage beneficiaries to seek high-value health care services, the Administration proposes to apply a $25
    increase in the Part B deductible in 2017,
    2019, and 2021 for new beneficiaries�

    Current beneficiaries or near retirees would not be subject to the revised deductible�.  This proposal will save approximately $1 billion over 10 years�

    Introduce home health co-payments for new beneficiaries.  Medicare beneficiaries currently do not make co-payments for Medicare home health services�

    This proposal would create a home health copayment of
    $100 per home health episode, applicable for episodes with five or more visits not preceded by a hospital or other inpatient post-acute care stay�  This would apply to new beneficiaries beginning in 2017� This proposal is consistent with a MedPAC recommendation to establish a per episode copayment� MedPAC noted that “beneficiaries without a prior hospitalization account for a rising share of episodes” and that “adding
    beneficiary cost sharing for home health care could be an additional measure to encourage appropriate use of home health services�”

    This proposal will save approximately $400
    million over 10 years�

    Introduce a Part B premium surcharge for new beneficiaries that purchase near first-dollar Medigap coverage.  Medigap policies sold by private insurance companies provide beneficiaries additional support for
    covering healthcare costs by covering most or
    all of the cost sharing Medicare requires� 

    This protection, however, gives individuals less
    incentive to consider the costs of health care
    services and thus raises Medicare costs and
    Part B premiums� 

    Of particular concern are Medigap plans that  cover substntially all Medicare copayments, including even the
    modest co-payments for routine care that most beneficiaries can afford to pay out of pocket�  

    To encourage more efficient health care choices, the Administration proposes a Part B premium surcharge equivalent to about 15 percent of the average Medigap premium (or about 30 percent of the Part B premium)
    for new beneficiaries that  purchase Medigap policies with particularly low cost-sharing requirements, starting in 2017� 

    Current beneficiaries and near-retirees would not
    be subject to the surcharge�

    Other Medigap plans would be exempt from this requirement while still providing beneficiaries options for
    protection against high out-of-pocket costs�

    This proposal will save approximately $2�5
    billion over 10 years�

    Strengthen the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) to reduce longterm drivers of Medicare cost growth.

    Created by the ACA, IPAB has been highlighted by economists and health policy experts as a key contributor to Medicare’s long term solvency� Under current law, if the projected Medicare per capita growth rate exceeds a predetermined target growth rate,
    IPAB recommends to the Congress policies to
    reduce the rate of Medicare growth to meet the
    target� 

    IPAB recommendations are prohibited
    from increasing beneficiary premiums or costsharing, or restricting benefits� To further moderate the rate of Medicare growth, this proposal would lower the target rate from the GDP per capita growth rate plus 1 percent to plus 0�5 percent�

     

    “If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

    by musiccitymollie on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 10:59:38 PM PST

    •  a leader would figure out how to do this (0+ / 0-)

      I mean, I'm not a leader but if I were in the President's position I'd get the Republicans to name Social Security and Medicare, or at least have them describe those so it's clear what they're talking about. Then I'd make sure everyone knew I was having a real tough time deciding whether or not to gut those programs the way the Republicans want.

      I'd go on TV and say I was going to take my time on the issue because I really was reluctant to carve up SS and Medicare to the extent that the Repubs were demanding.

      and if the Republicans complained about the language I'd make sure everyone heard me say "doesn't matter what you call it, that's what you want."

      That's what I'd do. But then, I'm not a leader and the President is so I expect he'll do something different, like offer to cut those programs before the Republicans can sit down.

    •  All bullshit (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wewantthetruth, big mouth

      if you REALLY want to save money in Medicare allow for negotiating price of drugs.  The money supposedly saved by means testing (and undermining Medicare) can be saved by simply allowing the gov't to negotiate prices and it won't undermine the system.

      This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

      by DisNoir36 on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 04:36:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Drugs are about 1/6th of the total costs (0+ / 0-)

        so, even if you magically could negotiate them down to zero, with the normal rates of health care inflation we're back to square one in 3 or 4 years.

        The only thing that will make a substantial difference is to go from a procedure based to outcome based reimbursement system.

        and of course, NO ONE wants that - too many powerful interests are invested in the current gravy train.

        •  right (0+ / 0-)

          so don't even bother.......geez.

          mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

          by wewantthetruth on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 07:26:38 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Roadbed Guy, what you're suggesting is part (0+ / 0-)

          of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  But the Administration has committed to paper (in budget and proposals) many more Medicare cuts than just the implementation of an "outcome based" reimbursement system.

          The document I quoted is directly off the White House website.  It is "for real."

          If you disagree with the drastic premium hikes, etc., please call the White House.

          “If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

          by musiccitymollie on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 10:27:54 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  and GOP screams (0+ / 0-)

      "where are his cuts' and no one in the media calls them on that.

      mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

      by wewantthetruth on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 07:24:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Focus On Taxation Over The Last Few Weeks (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Creosote, bluebottles, wewantthetruth

    Deconstructed the GOP image as a party for tax cuts. It was made pretty clear that they care mostly about tax cuts for the rich. Now it is time to deconstruct the GOP image as careful defenders of excess government spending.  The draconian nature of their spending cuts will now be seen.

  •  Big Time Diary (4+ / 0-)

      Here the diarist nailed it.

    Here is where the issue will be won or lost for us - Who has to name the cuts.  The GOP will try the "we say we need cuts to appease us, you find the $1.3T we demand" but if the WH says "You are holding the debt ceiling hostage - you name the cuts you want specifically" - who will blink first.  Can the GOP, with no tax or revenue issue to hide under, no grand bargain offered to demand cuts as part of the larger package - are they willing to say "We demand you cut SS, Medicare and Medicaid by $1T or the economy as a whole gets it"?
     

         This vote has revealed a lot about taking back the Congress in '14;  Needs to be carefully analyzed to know where Ds and Pros have a shot at running, winning. The diarist is correct. By naming cuts the R Cons will be exposed and far more vulnerable to challenge. The 'ugly' will be revealed

         How many 'actual votes' are needed where R's won or close where the district went for Pres. Obama  If OFA can do it so can others adapting their methodologies.

    •  Meh--we apparently don't do any of that stuff well (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      big mouth

      What I've learned from fiscal cliff and debt ceiling negotiations is that we're more than happy to name cuts ourselves, that we don't look to pick off vulnerable republicans when we should,  we do a terrible job of exposing the republicans as "hostage takers", and that we always blink first.  

      You and the diarist are basing this assertion of the democrats' "strength" in coming negotiations on the premise that Obama and Senate democrats will suddenly start behaving differently than they have leading up to now.  I'm no longer convinced they can.  

      We swallowed a much worse deal than we had to, considering that going off the "cliff" put us in a stronger position.  I'm so damn frustrated.  I guess we can look forward to 2 years of both parties telling us that the only way to save America is to hold the rich harmless and defund Planned Parenthood, National Forests and Parks, NPR & PBS, education, infrastructure, food and drug safety, and pretty much everything else that makes us a civilized society for now.  

      Political compass: -8.75 / -4.72

      by Mark Mywurtz on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 04:03:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not saying the Dems will smarten up... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wewantthetruth

        But just pushing back against the idea that they gave up their best leverage.   The President and Dems have all the leverage IF they choose to use it.  

        The way the President is claiming no negotiations over the debt ceiling, I have a sneaking feeling that he will get a clean vote over it to send a message to the markets and the world that "America pays it's debts" and that the GOP will be "allowed" a negotiated "win" by getting something over the sequester cuts deadline that was pushed back two months.  

        President Obama would have been a Republican in the 1980's.

        by Jacoby Jonze on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 06:21:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  by the time this comes to happen (0+ / 0-)

          public support for not cutting earned benefits will be over 70% with a little over 18 months until the midterms.

          the president, the white house and dems need to go all out  to push the end to corporate welfare and trim defense to come up with spending cuts.....it can be done if they get public on board, IMHO.

          in the interim, we can keep the pressure on by contacting them often with our concerns and work to make sure others do the same thing.

          mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

          by wewantthetruth on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 07:31:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Whistling past the graveyard (0+ / 0-)

    I expect a repeat of the summer of 2011, with Obama's approval and mojo going down with every passing month.  I believe the Republicans are emboldened enough to take down Obamacare.

    •  There is pesimism (3+ / 0-)

      and then there is reductio ad absurdum on steroids

    •  There is nothing they can do to do it. (0+ / 0-)

      Their chance was SCOTUS and then the 2012 election.  They can try to use the debt ceiling, but I've read where the President knows he blew it last time on that - IIRC then chief of staff Daley was in charge of that debacle.  It will be interesting to see who Pres Obama's new COS is if/when Lew is moved to Treasury.  

      President Obama would have been a Republican in the 1980's.

      by Jacoby Jonze on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 06:37:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  there is an old expression (0+ / 0-)

      you get what you expect.......change your expectations. you can do that if you want to and you can actually do something to help make those changes.

      mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

      by wewantthetruth on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 07:33:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Simplified: (0+ / 0-)

        I like your old saying post :)
        I'm 61. I have some simple rules I live by. In the top three is I avoid crazy people because if you listen to crazy people they'll try & make you crazy too.
        The 1% plan WORLDWIDE was to run up the debt with unpaid for wars, bankster faulty mortgages, then rake it in. Starting with destroying middle America.
        We've miraculously stopped them, but the world is a mess.
        Europe will eventually recover. The "bargaining chips will change." Like environmental chemical issues 20 years ago with new world bank regulations, America will have to change to function in the world economy. The bargaining chips, ever heard of "VETO?"
        { bit by bit, piece by piece, block by block } We (new gens, TY, TY, TY) Will Rebuild the World.
        P.S. I haven't posted in a while. Best Health Wishes to Madame Secretary Hillary.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site