Tweet
As I noted in my last post, there aren’t a whole lot of differences between Harry Reid and John Boehner’s deficit reduction plans. As far as I can tell, there are two main differences:
1) The spending cap. John Boehner’s plan includes a spending cap, with mandatory, automatic cuts across the board to all programs if the cap is breached. Spending caps are terrible ideas; just ask Colorado and the failure of their Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) plan. A spending cap is a recipe to ratchet down the size and scope of government permanently. It would inevitably impact virtually every area of American life, and put us on a fast road to decline.
That said, I don’t think it will become a part of any final deal. Boehner needed to include it to claim that his plan had the same principles as the “Cut, Cap and Balance Act,” the extreme right-wing proposal that pased the House and failed in the Senate last week. He already gave up on “balance” by merely adding in this plan a mandatory vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment between October and December, which will surely fail. So he had to add the “cap” part, and I assume that can be traded away as well.
2) The timing. This is really the main point of contention, and while it’s mostly a process issue, it does have some importance. In Boehner’s plan, the debt limit gets increased in two stages; in Reid’s plan, it increases all at once. Boehner’s second tranche of the debt limit increase is tied to the results of his version of the Catfood Commission; Reid’s is not. That actually has some implications for the Catfood Commission itself. It’s obviously easier to vote down the commission’s recommendations if the full faith and credit of the US government is not on the line.
However, if that’s all we’re talking about here, it just doesn’t seem like that is tenable to hold up an increase in the debt limit and the avoidance of default. I get that Boehner wants to hold America hostage again, but I don’t think the public will stand for it.
So that’s it; those are the differences. It’s not exactly a yawning gap between the parties, is it?
79 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
AS long as everyone agrees that the most important part is settled, I think we’re good: get Congress to remove its own right to legislate by committing them to an up-or-down, highly privileged/privileged, unamendable, no-debate sweeping authorization from an unaccountable Super Congress.
Since we’re all good on that in DC, it’s all about the price now. The pesky voters are one step further removed from the equation, which was everyone’s goal all along.
A “yawning gap” between the parties?
No, just a wee bit of kabuki, between fast friends, as they hold hands, sauntering off into the sunset of democracy … as Teddy has clearly pointed out @1.
DW
Exactly.
#fuckyouwashington is now #FYW.
And, also, they are all liars in DC.
So, you are assuming that such timing would not pass the Senate — or Obama would veto?
Is there a petition that can be signed today? That always works.
“I get that Boehner wants to hold America hostage again, but I don’t think the public will stand for it.”
Sigh – true – but Obama wants to be held hostage so he has excuses to make those historic decisions that no GOP president could make.
After which we will re-elect him because he is better than the alternative.
Of course there are differences! Shit sandwich or Turd pie? They both sound as delicious as cat food.
Progressives might make a difference, for a change, if we were to assert a third difference that should matter. Namely, where are the cuts going to be made?
Nix the caps, sure. So which should leaders cut to balance the budget? Core public services or foreign wars?
Is it too late for progressives to make a difference? Seems we are forever arguing for more revenues and spending while those who negotiate over cuts and balance win. Are we doomed to get cornered holding spoons at knife fights, again and again?
Thanks, Dave, for providing more insight and incisive analysis on this budget issue than any mainstream media source.
But I’m a little confused by your apparent belief that there’s little for the republicans to argue about in Reid’s plan. If I understand correctly, Reid’s plan fully incorporates the projected savings from a theoretical wind-down of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, while Boehner’s plan does not. It also seems pretty clear that Boehner’s conception of a “Catfood Commission” is unlikely to rely on reduced war costs in achieving its cost-cutting target. Furthermore, although Ryan’s plan incorporated projected savings from winding down the wars, it always appeared pretty clear to me that (i) the Republicans don’t really want to reduce war spending (fond as they are of our endless commitment of troops to these conflicts) and (ii) Ryan’s inclusion of these savings was merely an accounting gimmick that helped justify the massive tax cuts in the Ryan plan.
Why wouldn’t Boehner come out and simply reject Reid’s plan as relying too much on projected war savings? As you (and others) have pointed out, the republicans’ true targets in these budget negotations are discretionary, non-defense spending and entitlements. Not exactly a yawning gap? It looks from here like a trillion dollar gap that republicans virtually have to seize on as a basis for rejecting Reid’s plan.
you know how the Super Congress will work. It will be composed of retiring members or ones that have no chance of winning their next election. So its tailor made for Kyl and Lieberman. And Wu is probably a shoe in to be appointed at this point.
I think this is immensely important to both sides.
MSNBC announcing “Obama to address nation, 9pm, et”
I’ll make sure not to watch.
He has to define what is going to happen as “winning.”
Just. Great. CNN announcing now too.
#FYW
#winning as defined between 9:00:00 and 9:00:30 pm tonight.
Should progressives be willing to side with Republicans on timing? Would a short-term deal afford us more of a chance to build leverage in hopes of strengthening the spines of Dem leaders?
Yes.
If O comes on tonight grinning ,by no means he is winning.
He’s also going to make the argument that a two-step process will earn a downgrade of U.S debt and raise interest rates on everyone. I believe he thinks that getting an agreement until 2013 — i.e., no two-step process — is crucial to him winning a second term.
A victory lap, a big smile, and he’s away. Nothing to see here except people hurting.
Oh goody.
This is where he’ll announce to the nation that he’s tried to work with the Republicans in Congress, but they won’t work with him. Therefore he has no choice but to invoke the 14th amendment and pay all obligations of the USG, as the 14 amendment dictates.
Can’t wait to see that!!!
Timing at 9pm suggests he’s got an argument to make for sure. And, also, the battling press conferences have not been #working.
My left nut could govern more effectively than these greedy corporate clowns.
Fuck us all.
Anybody know how to make torches?
He’s going to use the rating agency bullshit — that everyone’s interest rates will go up — to argue against the two-step process. To give the Senate Ds the backbone not to pass the House bill.
Just a guess.
That *would* be interesting ~ get ready to rumble. Robert Kuttner (on Randi Rhodes with Nicole Sandler filling in this afternoon) says Obama should do this. I’m paraphrasing him: “let the GOP try to impeach him for protecting the US’s credit rating.”
My question: will he say anything about revenues, reform, or fair taxation?
Next question: will he mention SSMM or “entitlements?”
Anything left would be an improvement over all of these right wing assholes.
Small consolation…
I will get the schadenfreude of knowing Obama is destroying his chance at re-election.
Your guesses are much better than mine! :-))
And, also, that would make me go ballistic. Again.
Whereupon I could personally provide the fuel for the torches.
What you don’t think the Republicans know this? It’s their wet dream!
There was a huge, scary, lightning hitting the Parthenon picture on the front page of HuffPoo this afternoon for awhile claiming that armageddon was coming in that Greece would surely be defaulting anyway …. then the NFL settled and they changed the splash.
*barf*
hey.. they are all BFF
http://images.christianpost.com/full/45861/obama-boehner.jpg
If O and his neoliberal idealogues make deep cuts to public services now, in a way that takes the budget issue off the table, he can campaign for president claiming he: 1) made tough cuts because he cares about fiscal discipline; and 2) he had to cut more of the social safety net than he would have wanted because he was forced to by Republicans.
If progressives refuse to give him this big-package gift, he will be forced to continue showing us all who he really is. The possibility of a trans-partisan deal between progressives and conservatives now, over timing, could offer a bit of leverage we haven’t experienced in a while.
And now CNN has a Fucking Clock up with a countdown to DEFAULT!!!!!
They must be scrambling in the background to prepare a theme and graphics …
Wait wait wait. We’ve gotta figure out how to make them first.
And does anybody know where you can get a good pitchfork nowadays?
A large entitlement program is not being considered for cuts- the health insurance benefits held by congressmen and their families for life at the taxpayers expense. Unfortunately contacting my congressmen for support will not ever come up for discussion.
Does anyone have a forum to bring this to public attention and possible outcry?????
Ideally each member of congress should immediately relinquish their current insurance, apply for coverage available to the rest of society and pay for it out of pocket.
How many medicare benefits will be cut if this debate ever comes up ???????
Terrorists.
im no economist…but dont the banksters make more money if interest rates rise?????? its a win/win!
is scumsukker Jessica YELLINGGGG ontop of it?
Unfuckingbelievable.
Don’t need any more proof than that, that this is all one big THEATER.
Unfuckingbelievable.
That will be interesting. Section 4 is getting all the attention, but, see Section 5. It’s the express obligation of the Congress to see to it that the debt is “not questioned.”
They all took an Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.
Interest rates will rise anyway. The Fed borrowing rate is near zero. Once that starts to climb, which it must, our interests rates will climb exponentially.
Kind of like gas prices. Barrel of oil goes up $3.00, price of gas goes up $.20 per gallon the next day.
She seems to have disappeared after the weekend. Vacation???
I’m waiting for cbl to put together a DEFAULT CLOCK OF DOOM graphic, now. Or a Boner/Obama “The Rumble and The Bumble” poster.
LOLz and I *really* needed a good laugh. Thanks!
yep…all the worlds a stooges stage
and we are the rubes
CNN: “Debt Ceiling Showdown.”
please dont make me laugh…their oath is to a digital bank acct
cant stand her,she is a younger Mrs.Greenspin,with more sound and fury,yea
meaning nothing
CNN is as big a joke as this administration. They will find a way to blame the Dems no matter what happens. Especially the liberals.
Exactly.
Yeah, and a barrel of oil goes down $20.00, price of gas goes down $.05 three months later.
Funny that.
“Desperate HouseReps”
“The Real Aides of Obama”
“Survivor: Debt Ceiling 2012″
“Shot at Love w/Obama and McConnell”
just off the top of the head. My mind’s already starting to swirl around bad porno titles for all of this :-s
They’re somewhat conflicted. When interest rates rise, bond prices fall. They don’t much care for that.
I’ve always marveled at how 3 month futures purchases effect the price at the pump immediately, but drops in the futures price do not have an immediate effect.
It’s a built in 3 month price gouge. Disgusting and despicable.
So both sides agree spending cuts and no revenue increase. repubs want a two step approach to make sure Obama has to deal with this while running his election campaign.
I think what it shows is it all a farce. They are just fucking laughing at us, and that is the sad fact. We have wasted a lot of time allowing them to control the debate by covering what they are saying, rather than actually writing about what the issues and real solutions are. So either way you look at they have won and will continue to win, so long as we keep reacting to their BS, instead of writing about what the real issues are
Isn’t this actually a pretty major difference (from the last thread)?
I don’t like the fact that this includes a round two of Obama’s gut-social-security commission. Period. But the terms under which it is approached seems pretty important to the long game of protecting the programs.
Up until this point, the ostensible purpose for Social Security changes is to secure it’s long-term fiscal solvency, not deficit reduction. Cementing a definition of Social Security reform as reducing the nation’s general deficit is a HUGE loss for defenders of the programs.
Bohner’s plan demands a $1.8 trillion dollar check from the Social Security trust given directly to the general fund. That decimates the entire premise of Social Security – and is a front-loaded rip off.
If Reid can establish long-term program viability as the mandate for a future review commission, that seems like a significant victory.
Watt! Hola.
You are a tonic! LMAO!
But it’s outside of the constitution.
And they are all liars.
CNN says Boehner will speak AFTER Obama tonight … *barf*
And they seem to have put the countdown clock away for *now* …
Obamabang 2011 – Watch Obama get fucked by 535 people in 1 day!
Boner has to wait until Obama’s done before he can speak, because Boner will be under Obama’s podium with his mouth full during the Prez Speech.
So where does that put Obama when Boner speaks???
Not sure why I have this funny feeling I’m going to be sorry I asked that…
CNN: “Debt Debacle Tarnishes U.S. Image”
No no no, you’ve got it all wrong. This is bipartisan compromise. It goes like this.
Boner – “Barry, here’s the deal. We want $2.7 trillion in cuts, no revenue increases, and we want it to be temporary.”
Barry – “Alright Boner, but you’ve gotta blow me on national TV.”
Boner – “That’s more than we did for Clinton…”
On edit – Barry – “It’s called inflation John. Do we have a deal or not?”
You are a very, very bad boy. :-)
Howdy pardner.
How do you figure? The constitution gives the House and Senate the ultimate authority to craft their own rules without limit. There are definitely other procedures that fast-track legislation under these exact same rules that are used as a matter of course.
As I said, I DON’T support this at all. But being effective in challenging something is keeping your wits about you and knowing how to play the parliamentary system. Terrible abuse of authority is not necessarily unconstitutional.
So, yeah. The system sucks. But I think the distinction between the Bohner version of the commission and the Reid version is pretty damn significant. Like to the point where it is certainly worthwhile to promote and ensure gets into any reconciliation package. Sour grapes and criticism are all well and good, but you can’t win with that alone. Passion ain’t shit without a good strategy.
Reid is working in an environment where both the White House and a GOP controlled congress are trying to kill social services. Just, for one moment, imagine he’s trying to save them …. even though we all know he’s a sold out tool of the oligarchy who wants nothing more than to hand our lives to the bankers.
Piled under a shit-storm like that, assuming honorable intent, this seems like one of the only moves he’s got. I guess you’d have to have worked with him through the Yucca fight to understand. We lost that a thousand times … but there was always one more committee that needed to approve the water, and ooops, tabled … so you need an appropriation for 10,000 water trucks a month now? He earned my trust there and he really has always been a solid defender of these programs representing a state that has a ton of retirees.
Of anyone we have out there, I’m more inclined to put my faith in Reid than most of the others. He’s not a perfect liberal by any means … but neither am I. You guys aren’t the only ones who want to protect this stuff. My biggest fear is that he’s too loyal to the party … and Obama’s pretty much got it rigged with a suicide vest right now.
Some good public service minded rich guy with a PAC should put out an ad showing Boehner, McConnell, Ryan, et al, and then have someone asking the question “What do you call a group who holds you hostage with a gun to your head?” Followed by the word “Terrorists”.
Unfortunately, our commercial telecommunications companies would refuse to run it as too contraversial. The “Daisies” ad from 1964 would never run today, either.
No response necessary.
Yeah I was just thinking that — one of Boehner’s advantages all along has been that he sits at an earlier stage of the process than Obama. Legislation would pass through the House to the President. So it isn’t a matter of the President sending Boehner something he won’t pass, it’s a matter of Boehner sending something that Obama won’t sign.
Of course there’s the Senate to consider. Whether the Senate will act as a blockade to stop responsibility from falling on the President is I guess an open question. But Reid can’t get cloture without some help from McConnell, so the chances of the Senate passing something and sending to the House that the House won’t pass are as far as I can tell pretty slim.
The Default is at level Orange today.
BBC radio news update reported that there was a chasm — IIRC that’s the word used — between R’s and D’s on raising the debt limit. Sorry, but this is all kabuki. All they want it the appearance of fighting over the deal, but everyone agrees on what will happen. Fuckers.
Oh good time for another drinking game. Listen for “shared sacrifice,” “bend over backwards,” “entitlements,” drink and pass out after five minutes.
If progressives can find some leverage in this debate (perhaps with the issue of timing), is it possible to use that leverage to scrap the “Super Congress” idea altogether?
I appreciate your on-the-ground experience with Reid. Maybe he is trying to defend details that make one commission far better than the other. Some brands of catfood are superior to others, without doubt.
But I’d like to see progressives give Reid and Pelosi the chance to respond to a cut-and-balance plan that reforms bloated spending on war and doesn’t yoke us to more sacrifices for the least among us. It would be good to demonstrate that progressives can be both pro-active and pragmatic by offering an alternative to the regressive options that are currently being shaped by leaders in both parties.
lol
Boehner’s assertion in his TV response that he has the Dem votes in the Senate to pass his new plan was upsetting because it was so believable, given our proud Blue Dog loyalty record.