Well, the deadline is coming up around Thanksgiving, I believe. Back when everyone said Dems got steamrolled in the last debt deal, I said that I actually thought Dems won on the policy grounds. In terms of the actual cuts, the majority were on Dem terms: Medicare cuts to providers as opposed to beneficiaries, and lots of defense cuts. But the key was the Supercommittee - I felt that the Dems got the trigger they wanted that would be unacceptable more to GOPers than Dems, and that this was the way for the Dems to get their revenue hikes. Now is the time to test that theory. So far, GOPers have been unwilling to budge on revenues, while Dems have offered substantial entitlement cuts in exchange for revenues. No idea who will blink first, but we should know soon. Two interesting things happened today: 1. Alan Simpson blasted the GOP for their stance: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...ul-over-fealty-to-grover-norquist.php?ref=fpb Yesterday, at a public hearing, those six Republicans got an earful from one of their former colleagues — retired Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY). “Just a quick note about Grover Norquist,” Simpson testified. “If Grover Norquist is now the most powerful man in America, he should run for president. There’s no question about his power. And let me tell you, he has people in thrall. That’s a terrible phrase. Lincoln used it. It means your mind has been captured. You’re in bondage with a soul. “ Simpson went on: “So here he is. I asked him. He said, ‘My hero is Ronald Reagan.’ I said, ‘Well, he raised taxes 11 times in his eight years.’ And he said, ‘I know. I didn’t like that at all.’ I said, ‘Well, he did it. Why do you suppose?’ He said, ‘I don’t know. Very disappointing.’ I said, ‘He probably did it to make the country run, another sick idea.’” 2. The biggest problem has been the House GOP being unwilling to budge. But today, a mix of 40 House GOPers and 60 Dems sent a letter to the committee saying they were open to revenues: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/11/02/359877/40-republicans-letter-taxes/ We write to you as a bipartisan group of representatives from across the political spectrum in the belief that the success of your committee is vital to our country’s future. We know that many in Washington and around the country do not believe we in the Congress and those within your committee can successfully meet this challenge. We believe that we can and we must. To succeed, all options for mandatory and discretionary spending and revenues must be on the table. In addition, we know from other bipartisan frameworks that a target of some $4 trillion in deficit reduction is necessary to stabilize our debt as a share of the economy and assure America’s fiscal well-being. It will be interesting to see if either of these get movement from the GOP on this issue. I do think the Dems will have failed if they don't get revenues as part of this particular deal - the last deal was set up to put them exactly in this position. All they need is 1 GOPer on the Supercommittee to agree to get a majority of 7, and then a bill would go to an un-filibusterable vote with the unacceptable trigger as the alternative.
I would just like to repeat (starts post 195, goes into the next page) what I've been saying since this super-committee idea was first touted: It will not work. Partisan baloney and moneyed special interests will hose this thing - the burden will fall on the citizens, primarily the poor.
Major, it's all theater at this point and we're watching the stage as the pickpockets are roving through the audience. Congress will not be bound by the agreement whether the committee reaches some kind of accord or not. Meanwhile, we have this phony debt crisis ginned up because Repubs aren't in the WH and they have catastrophic results from when they were in to make their twisted political points. Again, as a reminder... Yet we have folks of both parties ready to sell out the 99% even though everyone (except the serious people in DC and NY) hates the idea. If Dems go along with this, it is not only horrible policy but atrocious politics. (Repubs will run ads saying Dems cut SS and Medicare.) In terms of shared sacrifice, that is the biggest crock of BS going around. The uber-rich will not sacrifice. They will still be able to buy whatever they want even if paying a pittance more in taxes. Corporations will not have to "sacrifice" under the Dem proposals. The only people who will are middle and lower class Americans who will have had the rug pulled out from under them unnecessarily. We got here not by accident but by choice and there are more than enough options to get us out while not screwing 99% of the populace. We see austerity crumbling Europe by the hour and yet we can't wait to get on that train. It's almost enough to make you want to go protest or something.
“If there’s a failure on the part of the super committee, we will be amongst the first on the floor to nullify that provision. Congress is not bound by this — it’s something we passed; we can reverse it.” “I didn’t create the trigger to begin with, so I have no ownership in that.” --John McCain http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...upercommittee-to-protect-defense-spending.php
John McCain doesn't speak for Congress. But regardless, if they do nullify that provision, then the Dems win - they got their debt increase without any accompanying cuts. That chart points out the causes, and that's great. But that doesn't make it phony. We DID have the Bush tax cuts. We DID have Iraq and Afghanistan. We DID have an economic collapse. So we are where we are, and we do have a very real debt and deficit problem. So government can sit and just say "well, it's their fault" or they can actually do something about it.
The issue is not whether to do something about it. The issue is why people think the only "solution" is one put forth by the same people who created the mess in the first place.
And who happen to still be tied wholly to the corporate machine that doesn't give two ****s about what happens to "we the people".
The issue is whether there is any approach that addresses deficits and recession, even without any political polarization (to the point where catastrophic failure could be acceptable if blame can be avoided). “For the record, it's my call. Dump everything you’ve got left on my position. I say again, expend all remaining in my perimeter. It's a lovely fu#$*ing war. Bravo Six out.”
Sure, we can repeal the tax cuts, pull out of our foreign wars, and when the economy finally recovers, this deficit boogieman will mostly be gone. Right now we have a short-term recession problem and a long-term deficit problem; the GOP is trying to address recession with a long-term solution and the deficit in the short-term. It's a complete mismatch. I think this is actually a good time to talk about the deficit. I just don't think they should be cutting the 2012 budget. They should be cutting the 2020 budget.
That's not true. Even when the economy recovers, it will be much smaller than the original projections of revenues vs expenses that didn't include a massive recession. You can't just undo that unless there's a magical growth spurt that I don't think anyone believes is likely or even possible. And eliminatin the full tax cuts means raising taxes on the middle and lower class as well, which would also slow economic growth, so you affect the projections further there. Few, if any, of the cuts in the original debt deal or the ones proposed in this one have anything to do with the 2012 budget - I'm not sure where you got that? Virtually all the cuts are pushed back - it's actually one of the criticisms from the hardcore deficit hawks that feel like it's the easy way out. No one is trying to address the deficit with a short-term solution. The GOP's primary focus is entitlement reform which is primarily about slowing the rate of increase over the long term. The Dem solution is permanent tax hikes, which likely wouldn't go into effect until 2013 and defense cuts which mostly don't take effect for several years.
No - the theory holds. The GOP can't do what they suggest unless Dems jump on board. If they do, that's their choice - but that means Dems failed by their own choice. They have control of the situation. As I said earlier, whether they choose it use it or not will determine if they win or lose in the end.
Here's the flipside to your article, rimrocker. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/04/john-boehner-tax-revenues_n_1075957.html John Boehner: Debt Deal Will Include New Tax Revenues Now, to be clear, he didn't indicate how much of new revenues, so this is not a win for the Dems. But he does say he's at least potential open to revenues, which is far different than where we were a week ago. He also mentions that he doesn't intend for the committtee to fail (and thus the trigger to execute).
Here's what happens under that scenario. At the last minute the Repubs grab all the stuff Dems are talking about and accede to a meaningless tax adjustment for the wealthy. The rich and corporations will have a little sidestep on their path to utter domination and the rest of us will get steamrolled. But hey, everyone sacrifices right? I'd much rather the whole thing go down the tubes. Anything that comes out of this is bad for the country.
If Dems agree to that, then they failed. Again, I never said Dems will win this - I said they put themselves in an ideal position to do so. For the first time in all these gun-to-the-head negotiations (December tax deal, original debt ceiling), the Dems are the ones holding the better hand. It's up to them to actually use that power now.
Major, you're missing my point. None of the outcomes here, even if Dems "win," is anything but bad for the country. Dems "lost" when they agreed to play the game by these rules.
I'd disagree. If they get $800B-$1T in new revenues in exchange for $2-3T in cuts and a few hundred billion in stimulus, I believe that's a huge win. Both parties are in agreement that there need to be cuts in entitlements - any honest accounting of Medicare is a disaster right now. So if Dems can get revenues and stimulus out of something they are going to have to do sooner or later anyway, that's a huge win for them. Obama is the one that originally pushed the $4T number, as did a number of Democrats. They fully understand the realities of our current deficit math - and it's very, very ugly.
Shocked!! SHOCKED I TELL YOU!!! This whole exercise is a joke Top GOPer On Super Committee Says No New Revenue, Games Out Strategy If Panel Fails
