Showing posts with label Damned Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Damned Democrats. Show all posts

Open Thread & News Round-Up: The Raw Deal

The Senate will vote on the Raw Deal today at noon eastern. In the meantime, here's the latest...

The GuardianHouse of Representatives passes debt bill: "Enough Democrats and Republicans reluctantly joined forces to see the proposed legislation through, 269 votes to 161."

The HillDems furious, see deal as GOP win:
House Democrats on Monday expressed outrage at the White House for how it handled the debt-ceiling negotiations, claiming the administration caved to the GOP and left them in the dark.

The irate lawmakers took exception to the lack of balance between cuts and revenues; they railed against the White House for excluding them from the process; and they accused President Obama of bowing to the demands of Republicans without putting up much of a fight.

"Our negotiators weren't tough enough," Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) said Monday. "They didn't do the work."

...Not only did the agreement slash domestic spending while excluding new tax revenues, many Democrats ranted, but the White House left rank-and-file members in the dark through most of the talks.

...[Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.)] said most Democrats in the New York delegation had requested a meeting with the White House to discuss potential cuts in graduate medical education.

"We couldn't get a meeting," he said.

When the deal was reached Sunday, Engel continued, the White House "didn't bother" to contact House Democrats.

"We all heard that there was this deal through the media," he said.
CBS—Boehner: I got 98 percent of what I wanted: "When you look at this final agreement that we came to with the white House, I got 98 percent of what I wanted. I'm pretty happy."

LA TimesBiden denies likening Republicans to terrorists in debt talks:
"I did not use the terrorism word," he told "CBS Evening News" anchor Scott Pelley. "What happened was there were some people who said they felt like they were being held hostage by terrorists. I never said that they were terrorists or weren't terrorists, I just let them vent."
Too bad. Because we could really use someone in his position to speak that truth.

The coverage of this debacle abroad has been interesting, to say the least. Two of my favorites today: In Der Spiegel, they're running an interview with "Tea Party Co-Founder Mark Meckler," who is a garbage nightmare, and in The Telegraph, under the awesome headline "The real story of the US debt deal is not the triumph of the Tea Party but the death of the Socialist Left," Toby Young says: "To focus on the Tea Party is to ignore the tectonic political shift that's taken place, not just in America but across Europe. The majority of citizens in nearly all the world's most developed countries simply aren't prepared to tolerate the degree of borrowing required to sustain generous welfare programmes any longer."

Which puts me in mind of that great Edwin Starr classic, "Empathy! Huh! Yeah! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!" Sob.

Elsewhere...

The HillUnion chief warns of job losses from debt-ceiling deal: "Gerry McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), said: 'The deal forced upon the White House and the nation represents a form of economic malpractice,' McEntee said in a statement. 'At the least, it will slow economic recovery and impose more joblessness, wage cuts and hardship on America's working families.'"

David Dayen at FDL—Future Congresses Can Change Austerity Terms, But These Democrats Won't: "I don't see these Democrats, who have been parroting the language of austerity so much they have to believe at least some of it, will ever go beyond this agreement. ... The way out of this box is to find different people than the ones currently in office. I don't see any other way around that."

PoliticoMatt Damon weighs in on the debt ceiling: "I'm so disgusted, man. ... The wealthy are paying less than they've paid in any time else, certainly in my lifetime. ... It's criminal that like, you know, so little is asked of people who are getting so much; I mean, I don't mind paying more. I really don't mind paying more taxes."

And here's a fun picture lulz.

And So the Deal Was Struck

It's bad. Real bad.

The press release from the White House, laying out the specifics of the deal with each detail spun to sound like this it isn't a complete garbage nightmare, is titled: "BIPARTISAN DEBT DEAL: A WIN FOR THE ECONOMY AND BUDGET DISCIPLINE." Well. At least the President didn't have the audacity to claim it's a win for the American people.

(I won't bother reposting it since it's already posted in a million other places; DKos has posted it here.)

The Wall Street Journal calls the deal a Tea Party Triumph, although Tea Party Terrorism Aided and Abetted by Spineless Congressional Democrats and a Ostensibly Democratic President Who Is Really a Moderate Republican would be more accurate.

The New York Times calls it, simply, a Terrible Deal: "There is little to like about the tentative agreement between Congressional leaders and the White House except that it happened at all. The deal would avert a catastrophic government default, immediately and probably through the end of 2012. The rest of it is a nearly complete capitulation to the hostage-taking demands of Republican extremists. It will hurt programs for the middle class and poor, and hinder an economic recovery."

Krugman explains how the deal "will damage an already depressed economy; it will probably make America's long-run deficit problem worse, not better; and most important, by demonstrating that raw extortion works and carries no political cost, it will take America a long way down the road to banana-republic status."

Meanwhile, the Congressional Progressive Caucus is very unhappy. Rep. Raul Grijalva, co-chair of the CPC, released a statement as the details of the deal were emerging yesterday:
This deal trades peoples' livelihoods for the votes of a few unappeasable right-wing radicals, and I will not support it. Progressives have been organizing for months to oppose any scheme that cuts Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security, and it now seems clear that even these bedrock pillars of the American success story are on the chopping block. Even if this deal were not as bad as it is, this would be enough for me to fight against its passage.

This deal does not even attempt to strike a balance between more cuts for the working people of America and a fairer contribution from millionaires and corporations. The very wealthy will continue to receive taxpayer handouts, and corporations will keep their expensive federal giveaways. Meanwhile, millions of families unfairly lose more in this deal than they have already lost. I will not be a part of it.

Republicans have succeeded in imposing their vision of a country without real economic hope. Their message has no public appeal, and Democrats have had every opportunity to stand firm in the face of their irrational demands. Progressives have been rallying support for the successful government programs that have meant health and economic security to generations of our people.

Today we, and everyone we have worked to speak for and fight for, were thrown under the bus. We have made our bottom line clear for months: a final deal must strike a balance between cuts and revenue, and must not put all the burden on the working people of this country. This deal fails those tests and many more. The Democratic Party, no less than the Republican Party, is at a very serious crossroads at this moment.

For decades Democrats have stood for a capable, meaningful government – a government that works for the people, not just the powerful, and that represents everyone fairly and equally. This deal weakens the Democratic Party as badly as it weakens the country. We have given much and received nothing in return. The lesson today is that Republicans can hold their breath long enough to get what they want. While I believe the country will not reward them for this in the long run, the damage has already been done.

A clean debt ceiling vote was the obvious way out of this, and many House Democrats have been saying so. Had that vote failed, the president should have exercised his Fourteenth Amendment responsibilities and ended this manufactured crisis. This deal is a cure as bad as the disease. I reject it, and the American people reject it. The only thing left to do now is repair the damage as soon as possible.
Other progressive groups are responding with resounding contempt as well.

It's probably too much for which to hope that progressive Democrats in the House will be able to tank this thing, but, last night, Pelosi would not commit her support to the bill: "We all may not be able to support it, or none us may be able to support it."

So there is still a glimmer of hope, but, realistically, it's probably the glimmer of fool's gold, since we've got a Democratic president up for reelection who is INEXPLICABLY FUCKING DETERMINED to capitulate to Republicans and ruin the country in order that he might appear reasonable.

Below the fold (on most browsers), the President's remarks last night on the deal.

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
July 31, 2011

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
8:40 P.M. EDT


THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. There are still some very important votes to be taken by members of Congress, but I want to announce that the leaders of both parties, in both chambers, have reached an agreement that will reduce the deficit and avoid default -- a default that would have had a devastating effect on our economy.

The first part of this agreement will cut about $1 trillion in spending over the next 10 years -- cuts that both parties had agreed to early on in this process. The result would be the lowest level of annual domestic spending since Dwight Eisenhower was President -- but at a level that still allows us to make job-creating investments in things like education and research. We also made sure that these cuts wouldn’t happen so abruptly that they’d be a drag on a fragile economy.

Now, I've said from the beginning that the ultimate solution to our deficit problem must be balanced. Despite what some Republicans have argued, I believe that we have to ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share by giving up tax breaks and special deductions. Despite what some in my own party have argued, I believe that we need to make some modest adjustments to programs like Medicare to ensure that they’re still around for future generations.

That's why the second part of this agreement is so important. It establishes a bipartisan committee of Congress to report back by November with a proposal to further reduce the deficit, which will then be put before the entire Congress for an up or down vote. In this stage, everything will be on the table. To hold us all accountable for making these reforms, tough cuts that both parties would find objectionable would automatically go into effect if we don’t act. And over the next few months, I’ll continue to make a detailed case to these lawmakers about why I believe a balanced approach is necessary to finish the job.

Now, is this the deal I would have preferred? No. I believe that we could have made the tough choices required -- on entitlement reform and tax reform -- right now, rather than through a special congressional committee process. But this compromise does make a serious down payment on the deficit reduction we need, and gives each party a strong incentive to get a balanced plan done before the end of the year.

Most importantly, it will allow us to avoid default and end the crisis that Washington imposed on the rest of America. It ensures also that we will not face this same kind of crisis again in six months, or eight months, or 12 months. And it will begin to lift the cloud of debt and the cloud of uncertainty that hangs over our economy.

Now, this process has been messy; it’s taken far too long. I've been concerned about the impact that it has had on business confidence and consumer confidence and the economy as a whole over the last month. Nevertheless, ultimately, the leaders of both parties have found their way toward compromise. And I want to thank them for that.

Most of all, I want to thank the American people. It’s been your voices -- your letters, your emails, your tweets, your phone calls -- that have compelled Washington to act in the final days. And the American people's voice is a very, very powerful thing.

We’re not done yet. I want to urge members of both parties to do the right thing and support this deal with your votes over the next few days. It will allow us to avoid default. It will allow us to pay our bills. It will allow us to start reducing our deficit in a responsible way. And it will allow us to turn to the very important business of doing everything we can to create jobs, boost wages, and grow this economy faster than it's currently growing.

That’s what the American people sent us here to do, and that’s what we should be devoting all of our time to accomplishing in the months ahead.

Thank you very much, everybody.

END
8:44 P.M. EDT

Open Thread & News Round-Up: Debt Negotiations

Reportedly, a deal is being struck and may be announced as soon as this afternoon...

ABC—Congressional Sources: Republicans and Democrats Reach Tentative Debt Deal:
Democratic and Republican Congressional sources involved in the negotiations tell ABC News that a tentative agreement has been reached on the framework of a deal that would give the President a debt ceiling increase of up to $2.4 trillion and guarantee an equal amount of deficit reduction over the next 10 years.

...Here, according to Democratic and Republican sources, are the key elements:

* A debt ceiling increase of up to $2.1 to $2.4 trillion (depending on the size of the spending cuts agreed to in the final deal).
* They have now agreed to spending cuts of roughly $1.2 trillion over 10 years.
* The formation of a special Congressional committee to recommend further deficit reduction of up to $1.6 trillion (whatever it takes to add up to the total of the debt ceiling increase). This deficit reduction could take the form of spending cuts, tax increases or both.
* The special committee must make recommendations by late November (before Congress' Thanksgiving recess).
* If Congress does not approve those cuts by December 23, automatic across-the-board cuts go into effect, including cuts to Defense and Medicare. This "trigger" is designed to force action on the deficit reduction committee's recommendations by making the alternative painful to both Democrats and Republicans.
* A vote, in both the House and Senate, on a balanced budget amendment.
So, no new revenue (OMFG).

And never mind, of course, that cuts to Medicare, which is underfunded, and cuts to Defense, which has the most wildly bloated budget of any government program in the nation, are not remotely equal. This is an absolutely fucking absurd "compromise." But we're supposed to feel okay about potential cuts to Medicare because they "are designed to be taken from Medicare providers, not beneficiaries." Oh, that's fine then, because not paying providers will definitely have no effect on beneficiaries when they can't find any providers willing to accept them as patients!

Again, I feel obliged to point out that this entire framework, tying budget cuts to raising the debt ceiling, is bullshit, because we raise the debt ceiling to accommodate spending we've already done. Future spending should be based on what we need, not on what we've already spent.

President Obama and Congressional Democrats never should have conceded that the debt ceiling talks be contingent on anything else. They never, ever, should have budged from the position of a clean raise. Twelve-dimensional chess my big fat ass.

And let me stress again: No new revenue. This is unfathomably stupid.

McClatchy—Economists: Now is wrong time for Congress to cut spending:
Some House Republicans backed by tea party groups demand even deeper front-end cuts, perhaps as much as $100 billion, arguing that politicians can't be trusted to keep their promises further out.

That'd be dangerous, warned Mark Zandi, chief economist for forecaster Moody's Analytics.

"I think the idea is a very serious policy error," he said. "This would be the fodder for another recession. The economy may be able to digest $25-30 billion more (in federal spending cuts) ... but $100 billion, I don't think it could digest that."

Zandi, who's frequently cited by Republicans and Democrats alike, favors spending cuts "when the economy is off and running," but he cautions that "to add more fiscal restraint in the latter part of 2011 and 2012 would be a mistake."
Additionally, Suzy Khimm rightly points out that the deal will squeeze state governments, which will ultimately lead to decreased spending and layoffs in the public sector, deepening the economic crisis.

There isn't enough UGH in the world for this mess.

ThereIsNoSpoon [TW for violent imagery]:
It's hard to imagine how it gets much worse than this. If this deal goes through, it would represent nothing less than a capitulation on the part of the President and the Democratic Senate to economic terrorism on the part of the Republican caucus, and would set a major precedent for more accountability-free hostage taking in the future. Grover Norquist seems pretty happy about it, and why not? The gameplan for drowning the government in the bathtub is obvious from here. It's clear that the Democrats won't do a thing to get in the way, because there's no hostage the Democrats will be willing to shoot--or even threaten to shoot--when the GOP takes one, nor will the media abandon its postmodern "both sides are just as bad" shtick no matter how asinine the GOP becomes.

None of which even touches the fact that the discretionary spending cuts and bipartisan commission to recommend entitlement cuts are right in line with what President Obama has repeatedly said he wanted, anyway. We're certainly not going to get any help to stand up to this atrocious "compromise" from the President: he actively wants most of what is in it.
I just don't know what to say anymore. We are simply not being governed by responsible and decent people who are keen to represent the interests of and be accountable to the US citizenry. Our democracy is lost.

UPDATE: Additional recommended reading...

Digby: The New Deal vs. The Bad Deal

Reuters: Britain, Japan warn of disaster if no U.S. debt deal.