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

The Hill—Dems 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 Times—Biden 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 Hill—Union 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."

Politico—Matt 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.

That's a Big Tent

(TW for racism)

Dog whistle? Nah, why go for subtle?

Appearing on the Caplis and Silverman radio show last Friday, Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) said, “Now I don’t even want to have to be associated with [Obama], it’s like touching a tar baby and you’re stuck, you’re part of the problem now. You can’t get away.”

Learned nothing from Romney, Davis, and McCain, I see.

I can't wait to hear the "I was unfamiliar with the racist history of this term" non-apology "apology." Which is completely believable.

It's gonna be an interesting election season. Post-racial society, folks!

Audio at the first link, if you're so inclined.

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.

Debtpocalypse Update

The latest version of the Boehner bill, which "reflects changes made after GOP leaders failed to assemble the necessary votes to pass it Thursday."

Spoiler Alert: It's garbage!

Open Thread & News Round-Up: Debt Negotiations

Here's the latest...

Peter Daou sums up where we are: "So, two parties are bickering over opposing plans to sink the country into recession and if they can't pick one, they'll torpedo the economy." Pretty much.

As I mentioned last night, "House Republican leaders have postponed indefinitely a vote on Speaker John Boehner's (R-Ohio) debt limit bill after they could not persuade enough Republicans to support the measure."

You know we're really in trouble when Joe Klein is a voice of reason: "Let us not put too fine a point on it: [Any] House vote on Speaker John Boehner's debt ceiling proposal is a joke. If it passes the House, Harry Reid has said it is dead on arrival in the Senate. If it somehow passes the Senate, which it won't, President Obama will veto it. It is, therefore, a symbolic act that is wasting precious time. It follows last week's Republican theatrics, the passage of the Cut and Demolish Act (or whatever they called it), which also was a waste of time. These are the actions of a party that has completely lost track of reality–and of a leader, John Boehner, who has lost the support of his party."

By the way, that lack of support is owing, in part, to the fact that there are members of the Republican caucus who "are angry that it includes $17 billion in supplemental spending for Pell Grants, which some compare to welfare."

In the sense that Pell Grants are money provided by the government to people who need it, they are like welfare, which I don't consider a dirty word. Of course, that is not an opinion members of the Republican caucus share with me. Which is basically why we're in the situation we're in—a fundamental disagreement about the role of government and "entitlements," which Republicans spit out like a curse. Personally, I don't find anything controversial about the idea that old, ill, injured, disabled, widowed, orphaned, poor, unemployed, or otherwise needful people are entitled to assistance from the rest of their society.

Anyway, speaking of the Republicans being jackasses...

James Fallows in The Atlantic: Five Reasons the House GOP Is to Blame. (And he doesn't let the Democrats off the hook, either.)

Over at the New York Times, Paul Krugman takes a further look at the disaster that is centrism:

The cult of balance has played an important role in bringing us to the edge of disaster. ... Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. As you may know, President Obama initially tried to strike a "Grand Bargain" with Republicans over taxes and spending. To do so, he not only chose not to make an issue of G.O.P. extortion, he offered extraordinary concessions on Democratic priorities: an increase in the age of Medicare eligibility, sharp spending cuts and only small revenue increases. As The Times's Nate Silver pointed out, Mr. Obama effectively staked out a position that was not only far to the right of the average voter's preferences, it was if anything a bit to the right of the average Republican voter's preferences.

But Republicans rejected the deal. So what was the headline on an Associated Press analysis of that breakdown in negotiations? "Obama, Republicans Trapped by Inflexible Rhetoric." A Democratic president who bends over backward to accommodate the other side — or, if you prefer, who leans so far to the right that he's in danger of falling over — is treated as being just the same as his utterly intransigent opponents. Balance!

...Many pundits view taking a position in the middle of the political spectrum as a virtue in itself. I don't. Wisdom doesn't necessarily reside in the middle of the road, and I want leaders who do the right thing, not the centrist thing.

For further general reading, there's a lot of good stuff in the Guardian's Economics section.

Open Thread & News Round-Up: Debt Negotiations

Here's the latest...

TPMDC—Hope for Boehner? Some House Conservatives Closing Ranks on Debt Limit Bill: "On Tuesday, conservative Republican Study Committee chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) predicted defeat for House Speaker John Boehner's (R-OH) plan to raise the debt limit. ... He was counting on the opposition of dozens of House conservatives who have in the past pledged not to raise the debt limit on terms that compromising with Democrats would require. Twenty-four hours later, after taking a beating from the GOP establishment and party leadership, and after watching Democrats grow more and more confident in their ability to split the Republican coalition, those conservatives are reconsidering their rebellion."

But outside Congress...

The Hill—Tea Party leader: Boehner must go: "Tea Party Nation leader Judson Phillips called on House Speaker John Boehner 'to go' and be replaced by a 'Tea Party Speaker of the House' in a blog post Wednesday morning, the same day that Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, said that her group was looking into the same idea. 'Now Boehner is in the process of surrendering again. He is surrendering not to [President] Obama, but to the status quo in Washington,' Phillips wrote."

Back in the Speaker's office...

Think Progress—Boehner: 'A Lot' of Republicans Want to Force Default, Create 'Enough Chaos' to Pass Balanced Budget Amendment: "House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said today that some members of his own caucus who are refusing to agree to a compromise debt ceiling deal are hoping to unleash 'chaos' and thus force the White House and Senate Democrats to make bigger concessions than they're already offering."

Oh, look who's talking...

The Note—McCain Blasts Tea Party for 'Foolish' Demands in Debt Debate:

"To hold out and say we won't agree to raising the debt limit until we pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the constitution. It's unfair, it's bizarre," McCain railed on the Senate floor, "And maybe some people have only been in this body for six or seven months or so really believe that. Others know better."

Many of the most conservative members of the House have said they will not vote for any debt ceiling increase that does not include a Balanced Budget Amendment and deeper spending cuts. Similarly, some conservatives Republicans in the Senate have said the same.

McCain called this "amazing," "foolish" and "deceiving" that some members believe that this can happen, now with only 6 days left until the nation defaults on its debts with the August 2 deadline for action looming.

"To somehow think or tell our citizens that if we have enough debate and amendment here in the Senate in the short term in the next six days that we will pass a balanced budget amendment to the constitution is unfair to our constituents," McCain said.

McCain is a supporter of a Balanced Budget Amendment but does not believe that the station now, just six days away from the August 2 deadline for action, is the correct time to be pushing for this when it does not stand a chance when connected to the debt ceiling increase.

When John McCain is your voice of reason, Republicans, you have DERAILED.

The Caucus—Senate Democrats Promise to Reject Boehner Plan: "Fifty-three Democratic senators have signed a letter to House Speaker John A. Boehner saying they intend to vote against his plan for an increase in the debt ceiling, virtually assuring its defeat in the Senate even as the speaker lines up Republican votes to pass it in the House on Thursday. Votes are not final until they are cast. But if the Democrats hold to their promise in the letter, Mr. Boehner's plan for a six-month increase in borrowing authority will not make it to President Obama's desk."

D-Day at FireDogLake: "Both parties have insistently harped on the desirability of cutting the deficit for the past six months [at the expense of progressive economic options]. The public may not be tuned in, but they pick up on these broad themes, and since there has been no debate on public investment in job creation, they naturally gravitated toward the fantasy of expansionary contraction. To those who want to say that the President is making the best of a bad situation, THIS is the problem. It changes the entire dynamic of the realm of possible economic solutions for the next decade or more. And when the economy suffers from austerity, since a Democrat basically called for it, that's who will be blamed."

David at Hullabaloo: "As if the White House couldn't get any more dense, members of President Obama's text message feed received the following today: 'Join President Obama in calling on Congress for a balanced approach to reducing the deficit. Contact your House representative at [number].' You've got to be kidding. Since the Grand Bargain is pretty much dead, there are only two plans on the table, and they're pretty similar: Harry Reid's right-wing austerity approach that counts savings from reductions in spending on the wars overseas while shifting the need to take up this argument again until after the 2012 election, and John Boehner's even farther right-wing austerity measure that doesn't count those savings, while forcing everyone to go through this fight again early next year."

Quote of the Day

[Trigger warning for violence.]

"Yesterday, in an apparent attempt to rally their caucus, the Republicans played a clip from a cops-and-robbers movie called The Town. In the scene they chose to inspire their House freshmen, one of the crooks gives a pep talk to the other, right before they both put on hockey masks, bludgeon two men with sticks, and shoot a man in the leg. Literally, in the movie, the protagonists say people are going to get hurt, but they go ahead and do it anyway. Ladies and gentlemen, this is your House Republican majority."—Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), criticizing House Republican leadership for using violent rhetoric (AGAIN) to inspire Republican representatives to legislative action.

That would be the same House of Representatives from which Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is still on medical leave after being shot by a violent asshole who did not grow up in a void.

Open Thread & News Round-Up: Debt Negotiations

Here's the latest...

Politico—CBO: John Boehner's debt bill comes up short: "New cost estimates from the Congressional Budget Office could pose a problem for Speaker John Boehner as he tries to rally conservative support for his two-step plan to raise the federal debt ceiling and avert default next week. ... The first installment of $900 billion is contingent on enacting 10 year caps on annual appropriations which the leadership had hoped would save well over $1 trillion. But CBO late Tuesday came back with a report showing the legislation would reduce deficits by $850 billion when measured against the agency’s most current projections for spending."

AP—House GOP to rework budget plan after new estimate: "A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner says House Republican leaders are working to rewrite their deficit-reduction plan after receiving an estimate that it won't cut spending as much as advertised."

CNN—Conservative groups come out against Boehner proposal: "As House Speaker John Boehner and the House Republican leadership continues to build support for its proposal to raise the debt ceiling, several influential tea party and conservative groups Tuesday voiced opposition to it. ... Many of these conservative groups and members only would support increasing the ceiling if it is accompanied by larger spending cuts as well as enactment of a balanced budget amendment while some others flatly oppose any hike."

The Hill—Cantor tells House to 'stop whining' about Boehner debt-ceiling plan: "Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) on Tuesday bluntly told House Republicans to stop 'grumbling and whining' about Speaker John Boehner's (R-Ohio) new proposal for a limited debt-limit increase."

Greg Sargent in the WaPo—Dems plot the endgame in debt limit fight: "Here's the game plan, as seen by Senate Dem aides: The next move is to sit tight and wait for the House to vote on Boehner's proposal. The idea is that with mounting conservative opposition, it could very well be defeated. If the Boehner plan goes down in the House, that would represent a serious blow to Boehner's leadership, weakening his hand in negotiations."

So that's where the debt negotiations, such as they are, stand. Meanwhile, Paul Krugman observes that this entire debacle exposes the "true moral failure" of "the cult of balance, of centrism."

We have a crisis in which the right is making [unreasonable] demands, while the president and Democrats in Congress are bending over backward to be accommodating — offering plans that are all spending cuts and no taxes, plans that are far to the right of public opinion.

So what do most news reports say? They portray it as a situation in which both sides are equally partisan, equally intransigent — because news reports always do that. And we have influential pundits calling out for a new centrist party, a new centrist president, to get us away from the evils of partisanship.

The reality, of course, is that we already have a centrist president — actually a moderate conservative president. Once again, health reform — his only major change to government — was modeled on Republican plans, indeed plans coming from the Heritage Foundation. And everything else — including the wrongheaded emphasis on austerity in the face of high unemployment — is according to the conservative playbook.

...You have to ask, what would it take for these news organizations and pundits to actually break with the convention that both sides are equally at fault? ... And yes, I think this is a moral issue. The "both sides are at fault" people have to know better; if they refuse to say it, it's out of some combination of fear and ego, of being unwilling to sacrifice their treasured pose of being above the fray.

It's a terrible thing to watch, and our nation will pay the price.

At TPM, Josh Marshall makes a similar observation: "It's been said many times. But it's never enough: the conventions of journalistic 'objectivity', as currently defined, frequently make journalists violate their biggest duty, which is honesty with readers. The top headline running now on CNN reads: 'They're all talking, but no one is compromising, at least publicly. Democratic and GOP leaders appear unwilling to bend on proposals to raise the debt ceiling.' By any reasonable measure, this is simply false, even painfully so."

The Return of Fred Thompson

You know you totally missed him. (Especially if your name is Deeky W. Gashlycrumb.) So you are obviously very happy to hear that our dear Fred Thompson, star of screen and senate, has returned (by which I mean I just happened to notice something that he wrote today).

Behold: An Open Letter to the House GOP, a missive about the ongoing debt negotiations which has the actual subhead "Accept the victory and move on," starts out with, "You won, and so did the country," and is signed:

Sincerely,

Your friend,

Fred Thompson

Niiiiiiice.

Double closing, single signature. The hallmark of a fancy man who really knows what he's talking about.

So the President Gave a Speech Last Night

The transcript of Obama's speech is here. I liked this part:

Most Americans, regardless of political party, don't understand how we can ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare before we ask a corporate jet owner or the oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don't get. How can we ask a student to pay more for college before we ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries? How can we slash funding for education and clean energy before we ask people like me to give up tax breaks we don't need and didn't ask for?

That's not right. It's not fair.

And I liked that he made the point it's Republicans who are refusing to compromise. But that's about it. Because the point I believe he ought to be making is that AUSTERITY IS GARBAGE. But instead it's all about how we've got to wear grown-up pants and tighten our belts and eat our peas and get real about our spending, oh noes deficits, compromise and bipartisanship, because no one remembers Americans "who held fast to rigid ideologies and refused to listen to those who disagreed. ... We remember the Americans who put country above self, and set personal grievances aside for the greater good. We remember the Americans who held this country together during its most difficult hours; who put aside pride and party to form a more perfect union. That's who we remember."

Yeah, I'm not actually sure that's true. I don't remember Rosa Parks or Harvey Milk for their ability to compromise with the people who disagreed with their "rigid ideology" about their right to exist as equal human beings in a country that promises that equality. I get that Obama wants his legacy to be as The Grand Compromiser, but that is not the only sort of person this nation remembers.

Or needs.

Anyway, Boehner gave a rebuttal (sure), the transcript of which is here, and, spoiler alert, it's garbage. I can't imagine his attempt to make Obama look like the unreasonable one is going to get any traction with anyone who doesn't already reflexively hate Obama and presume bad faith at all times.

This isn't going to end well for any of us, because we are not a nation in need of austerity; we are a nation in need of spending to promote job growth and infrastructure renewal and energy independence.

But I think, and hope, that it's really not going to end well for the Republicans, and deservedly so. It doesn't bode well for them that this morning the Times editors have penned a piece titled "The Republican Wreckage" which begins with the stark line: "House Republicans have lost sight of the country's welfare."

Indeed.

Open Thread & News Round-Up: Debt Negotiations

Here's the latest...

Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Isible) told House Republicans on a call yesterday that, despite the resounding hostility among Democrats and the public to their shitty "Cut, Cap, and Balance" plan, and Obama's promise to veto it, the Republican majority in the House should pass "a package that reflects the principles of Cut, Cap & Balance," and then send it to the Senate, essentially letting the Democratic majority there take the fall for default if they don't pass it.

On the same call, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor criticized Obama for not supporting their short-term proposal to lift the debt ceiling, even though last month he was criticizing the same proposal himself.

Yes, this is about INTEGRITY!

Washington Post—Debt-limit compromise elusive as separate strategies take shape in House, Senate:

Over the weekend, congressional negotiators focused their attention on Boehner's proposal to raise the debt limit in two stages. Their goal was to make it more palatable to Democrats — particularly President Obama. On Sunday afternoon, they thought they were close.

But after a 6 p.m. powwow at the White House, Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) rejected the emerging compromise, saying it would leave the door open to another wrenching debt-limit battle in just a few months.

"Tonight, talks broke down over Republicans' continued insistence on a short-term raise of the debt ceiling, which is something that President Obama, Leader Pelosi and I have been clear we would not support," Reid said in a written statement. "Speaker Boehner's plan, no matter how he tries to dress it up, is simply a short-term plan, and is therefore a non-starter in the Senate and with the President."

The Hill—Durbin to GOP: 'You break it, you own it': "The second most powerful Democrat in the Senate warned Republicans Sunday that they are toying with a fragile economy and would take the blame for any fallout from a debt default. On Sunday, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said he had six words of warning for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio): 'If you break it, you own it.'"

Bloomberg—U.S. Stock Futures Decline After Lawmakers Fail to Reach Debt-Ceiling Deal: "U.S. stock futures fell, indicating the Standard & Poor's 500 Index will drop after rallying within 1.4 percent of a three-year high, as President Barack Obama and Congress failed to reach an agreement on raising the federal debt limit, intensifying concern the nation will default."

If you read only one thing today, read this: Elizabeth Drew in the New York Review of Books—What Were They Thinking?

Someday people will look back and wonder, What were they thinking? Why, in the midst of a stalled recovery, with the economy fragile and job creation slowing to a trickle, did the nation's leaders decide that the thing to do—in order to raise the debt limit, normally a routine matter—was to spend less money, making job creation all the more difficult? Many experts on the economy believe that the President has it backward: that focusing on growth and jobs is more urgent in the near term than cutting the deficit, even if such expenditures require borrowing. But that would go against Obama's new self-portrait as a fiscally responsible centrist.

...The question arises, aside from Obama's chronically allowing the Republicans to define the agenda and even the terminology (the pejorative word "Obamacare" is now even used by news broadcasters), why did he so definitively place himself on the side of the deficit reducers at a time when growth and job creation were by far the country's most urgent needs?

It all goes back to the "shellacking" Obama took in the 2010 elections. The President's political advisers studied the numbers and concluded that the voters wanted the government to spend less. This was an arguable interpretation. Nevertheless, the political advisers believed that elections are decided by middle-of-the-road independent voters, and this group became the target for determining the policies of the next two years.

That explains a lot about the course the President has been taking this year. The political team's reading of these voters was that to them, a dollar spent by government to create a job is a dollar wasted. The only thing that carries weight with such swing voters, they decided—in another arguable proposition—is cutting spending.

...The Republicans displayed a recklessness that should have disqualified them from being taken seriously. Any deal that was reached would contain substantial cuts in the coming fiscal year—too soon, as Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and the head of the Congressional Budget Office Doug Elmendorf have recently warned.

The antitax dogma of the Republican Party is strongly rooted in mythology. The theory that tax cuts create jobs has been discredited by the results of George Bush's tax policies. The Republicans cling to the myth that "small business" owners are the "job creators," and so they oppose proposals to eliminate the Bush rate cuts for even those earning over $250,000. But relatively few small business owners earn $250,000—in fact, fewer than 3 percent of the 20 million people who file business income on their personal tax forms (the 1040s) earn that much.

Finally, the antitax position of many conservatives would seem to be illogical, since they also hate deficits: but their real aim is to reduce or eliminate federal programs. They call efforts to redistribute wealth "socialism," but have no problem redistributing from the poor and middle class to the wealthy through taxes.

Seriously, go read the whole thing.

Open Thread & News Round-Up: Debt Negotiations

I suspect we're going to get news of a "deal" sometime today, but in the meantime, here's the latest...

New York Times—Boehner and Obama Nearing Deal on Cuts and Taxes (isn't is strange that the president's name would come second in that headline?):

Congressional and administration officials said that the two men, who had abandoned earlier talks toward a deal when leaks provoked Republicans' protests, were closing in on a package calling for as much as $3 trillion in savings from substantial spending cuts and future revenue produced by a tax code overhaul. If it could be sold to Congress, the plan could clear the way for a vote to increase the federal debt ceiling before an Aug. 2 deadline.

But the initial reaction to the still-unfinished proposal hardly suggested a quick resolution. This time, the flak came mostly from senior Congressional Democrats, who are angry at some of Mr. Obama's concessions and at being excluded from the talks.

The president worked to ease concerns from members of his party, inviting Democratic leaders to a White House meeting on Thursday evening that lasted nearly two hours. The participants would not comment afterward.

Politico—Debt talks have senators angry about being left out: "Furious Democrats directed their ire squarely at Obama’s budget director, Jack Lew, at a closed-door lunch meeting, while Republicans peppered their leaders with questions about the possibility of being jammed into a multitrillion-dollar bill with virtually no time for review. The frustration was evident in virtually all corners of the Senate on Thursday as it became increasingly possible that the body where landmark deals are usually made could effectively be left out of this one."

TPMDC—Reid Presses Obama Not to Agree to Debt Plan With No Revenue:

The White House is denying reports, including this one, that President Obama is close to a deal with House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) on a debt limit/deficit reduction package comprised of concrete spending cuts, and aspirational revenue increases.

White House spokesman Dan Pfeiffer tweeted that reports of a $3 trillion deal without revenues were incorrect. "POTUS believes we need a balanced approach that includes revenues," he wrote. However, what the President believes and what he may ultimately feel compelled to sign off on are not necessarily the same. Equally, Pfeiffer's tweet would not seem to rule out the idea of "aspirational" revenues that would come at some unspecified time in the future, while coupled with cuts that could begin immediately.

With that in mind, Senate Democrats are worried. One top Dem aide explained the problem: In early negotiations that ultimately collapsed, Obama and Boehner considered passing a package of spending cuts with a promise to tackle tax reform in the coming months. But -- this is key -- a failsafe written in to the grand bargain would have decoupled most of the Bush tax cuts from those cuts benefiting only top earners. If comprehensive tax reform failed to pass this Congress, those top bracket cuts would expire.

Now, the aide says, Democrats are concerned that the White House might abandon that failsafe.

Related Reading from Glenn Greenwald in the Guardian—Barack Obama is gutting the core principles of the Democratic party: "The same Democratic president who supported the transfer of $700bn to bail out Wall Street banks, who earlier this year signed an extension of Bush's massive tax cuts for the wealthy, and who has escalated America's bankruptcy-inducing posture of Endless War, is now trying to reduce the debt by cutting benefits for America's most vulnerable – at the exact time that economic insecurity and income inequality are at all-time highs."

Discuss.

Quote of the Day

"There are certain ways that we speak in the military, and I guess I have not learned the DC-insider talk that maybe some of these people are used to."—Republican Congressman Allen West (Florida), refusing to apologize for his wildly inappropriate email in which he called Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz "the most vile, unprofessional, and despicable member of the US House of Representatives" and "not a lady," among other things, and blaming his disrespectful and unprofessional behavior on having a military background.

Support the troops!

Open Thread & News Round-Up: Debt Negotiations

Here's the latest...

LA Times—White House may be open to short-term debt deal:

The White House signaled Wednesday that President Obama could accept a short-term deal to raise the debt ceiling, but only if it appeared lawmakers were close to an agreement on a significant deficit reduction plan.

The hope of such a "grand bargain" was revived Tuesday by the so-called Gang of Six senators, who outlined a deal that would achieve nearly $4 trillion in deficit reduction in the next decade through spending cuts, entitlement reform and an overhaul of the tax code.

But Congress must act to raise the debt ceiling by Aug. 2, and the plan discussed in the Senate Tuesday was just a framework, not specific legislation that could take weeks to move through Congress.

Meanwhile, House Republicans are insistent that Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid push a vote on the abysmal "Cut, Cap and Balance" bill that the House passed. Which is just a time-wasting bit of pointless brinkspersonship that pushes the country (and the global economy) closer to the fucking edge.

Former Republican Senator Judd Gregg, who is now an analyst with Goldman Sacks (lulz), says: "My gut tells me that we'll need a weekend of drama—maybe a weekend of the government not paying its bills—politicians need drama to make something happen. As soon as social security checks don't go out, the politics will change. I suspect it'll take artificial drama to get closure past the House."

The "artificial drama" of people not getting money they need to live. Christ. These people's heads are so far up their asses I don't know they get any oxygen.

If you want to know how truly devoid of integrity, ethics, decency, maturity, and any sense of responsibility the GOP caucus has actually become, this is all you need to read: TPMDC—It Begins: Top Republicans Push Away from Gang of Six Plan.

As time goes on, and conservative interest groups and members of Congress rip into it, support among Republicans for the Gang of Six plan to reduce deficits will begin to wane. In fact, that's already happening.

In a publicly released memo meant to undermine support for the Gang of Six plan in its current form, House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) laments, "it increases revenues while failing to seriously address exploding federal spending on health care, which is the primary driver of our debt. There are also serious concerns that the proposal's substance on spending falls far short of what is needed to achieve the savings it claims."

Read the full memo here.

Not all of Ryan's complaints ring hollow. The plan legitimately does punt a lot of the spending cut questions to Congressional committees -- though under the threat of across the board cuts if those committees fail to report out more targeted reductions. And, whether you want plenty of new revenue, or no new revenue, the plan leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Members claim it would count, in budgeting terms, as a tax cut, because the Congressional Budget Office's baseline assumes that all of the Bush tax cuts will expire at the end of 2012.

Relative to current policy, though, it's supposed to draw in $1 trillion in new revenue -- surely a sticking point for House Republicans. But where do those revenues come from if the plan lowers top tax rates (or at least the top rates), eliminates the Alternative Minimum Tax (at a cost to the deficit of $1.7 trillion), and doesn't eliminate the most expensive loopholes and benefits in the tax code? That's left to Congress to decide

It's not just Ryan, though. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) says he opposes the Gang of Six plan because it cuts too deeply into military spending.

And, perhaps most telling of all, a Senate GOP Leadership Aide told Politico, "Background guidance: The President killed any chance of its success by 1) Embracing it. 2) Hailing the fact that it increases taxes. 3) Saying it mirrors his own plan."

So, on the one hand, we have President Obama who values bipartisanship and the appearance of compromise above all else, and, on the other hand, we've got the Congressional Republicans, who will deliberately tank solutions just because Obama likes them. The more you want to play with me, the less I want to play with you. Our government is being run (or not run) by an infuriating collection of playground brats.

And even the Republicans' own base is getting irritated with this garbage: "Congressional Republicans are being so dogmatic and recalcitrant in their refusal to raise the debt ceiling...that wealthy donors are telling Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) to knock off the demagoguery and support tax increases."

While Cantor fiddles, the Federal Reserve "is actively preparing for the possibility that the United States could default," and Wall Street is "devising doomsday plans in case the clock runs out."

Discuss.

Open Thread & News Round-Up: Debt Negotiations

Here's the latest...

The Hill—House GOP passes ill-fated 'cut, cap, and balance' legislation:

House Republicans on Tuesday approved an ambitious but legislatively ill-fated plan to enact deep spending restraints that could clear the decks for a compromise over the debt limit.

The so-called "cut, cap and balance" measure passed on a party-line vote, 234-190, as nine Republicans — including presidential candidates Michele Bachmann (Minn.) and Ron Paul (Texas) — and five Democrats defected.

Democrats excoriated the GOP for advancing the bill, which the White House has threatened to veto.

WaPo—Obama hails deficit-reduction plan gaining momentum in Senate: "President Obama on Tuesday hailed an ambitious new deficit-reduction plan that is gaining momentum in the Senate, calling it a 'very significant step' and saying it could provide the vehicle to break an impasse over raising the federal borrowing limit while cutting the nation's debt. Appearing at the regular White House news briefing, Obama said the bipartisan proposal is 'broadly consistent' with the approach he has advocated, in that it reduces discretionary spending and tackles health-care spending and entitlements while also raising additional revenue."

Ezra Klein in the WaPo—The Gang of Six's plan: Better than we're likely to do otherwise: "All in all, it looks a lot like the Simpson-Bowles plan, which was pretty much the point of the exercise. ... So though there's lots to argue with in this bill, and lots that I, personally, would like to change, I don't think there's much doubt that it's far better than what Congress is likely to do — or not do — if it fails."

The Hill—Key Dems: Gang of Six plan won't be ready for debt-limit deal by Aug. 2: "Senate Democratic whip Dick Durbin (Ill.), a member of the Gang of Six, said Tuesday the group's plan is not ready to be attached to legislation to increase the debt limit. ... Durbin said it could take weeks or months for the Congressional Budget Office to estimate the deficit-reduction effect of the massive package. He said flatly there is no time to do it before national borrowing authority runs out Aug. 2."

This is just such a clusterfuck. I don't even know what to say anymore.

Relatedly...

Think Progress—Nearly 10 Years Ago Today, the U.S. Began Borrowing Billions to Pay for the Bush Tax Cuts:

As debates about deficit reduction continued to be heavily tilted toward cutting spending, which threatens to undermine a fragile recovery, rather than raising revenue from those who can afford it, it's important to remember the budgetary impact of the Bush tax cuts.

Nearly 10 years ago today, on August 1, 2001, the Associated Press reported that the Treasury Department was tapping $51 billion of credit in order to pay for the budgetary cost of the first round of Bush tax cuts' rebate checks. The AP reported at the time that Democratic Party opponents of the tax cuts worried that they'd return government budgets to "red ink."

...The opponents of the tax cut turned out to be right. The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts combined have blown a $2.5 trillion hole in America's budget and created deficits stretching on for years.

Discuss.

Open Thread & News Round-Up: Debt Negotiations

Here's the latest...

The Hill—Obama officially threatens to veto Republicans' 'cut, cap and balance' bill:

The White House on Monday warned President Obama will veto GOP legislation to "cut, cap and balance" spending and the budget.

In a statement of administration policy, the White House Office of Management and Budget labeled the GOP bill as an "empty political statement."

The House Rules Committee is expected to take up the measure Monday, and it is likely to receive a floor vote on Tuesday. The measure would cut spending in fiscal 2012 by $111 billion, cap future spending at 19.9 percent of gross domestic product and allow for the debt ceiling to be increased if a balanced-budget amendment is approved by Congress and sent to the states.

The administration said the measure, which is not expected to move through the Senate, is unnecessary and unrealistic.

...The president's veto threat was followed by a full-on assault from administration officials who blasted the GOP proposal as "extreme, radical [and] unprecedented."

Joe Conason in the National Memo—Exclusive Bill Clinton Interview: I Would Use Constitutional Option to Raise Debt Ceiling: "Former President Bill Clinton says that he would invoke the so-called constitutional option to raise the nation's debt ceiling 'without hesitation, and force the courts to stop me' in order to prevent a default, should Congress and the President fail to achieve agreement before the August 2 deadline."

CNN—Coburn offers his own budget plan: "Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, released his version of a budget plan Monday, saying his ideas would save the country $9 trillion over 10 years. ... The plan, titled 'Back in Black,' includes cuts to the Department of Defense, entitlement reforms, and shutting down the Department of Education."

Think Progress—Rep. Louie Gohmert Wonders If Obama Chose Debt Ceiling Deadline To Coincide With His Birthday Party: "While a startling number of House Republicans refuse to accept experts' dire warnings about the possibility of default come Aug. 2 if Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) thinks he has stumbled across the Obama administration's real motivation behind choosing that date. Many Republicans think the August date is a phony deadline Democrats invented to scare Congress into raising the ceiling, but Gohmert sees a more personal significance for President Obama—his 50th birthday on Aug. 4 and his birthday party on the 3rd. The fact that the party is the day after the debt deadline is something Gohmert finds awfully suspicious, he told Newsmax TV yesterday, suggesting that Obama chose the date so he could be a hero at his 'birthday bash' for the 'celebrities flying in from all over.'"

The Hill—Reid: Saturday workdays for Senate: "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Monday said the Senate would work weekends until Congress and the White House reach a deal to raise the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling.
House leaders offered no new announcements on Monday about their own schedules, but sources said congressional leaders were prepared to keep lawmakers in session through the beginning of the August recess if negotiators fail to reach a deal."

WaPo—Poll: Little confidence in leaders to deal with debt issue; Obama has edge:

[According to a new poll from the Washington Post and the Pew Research Center, a] third or fewer Americans express a "great deal" or even a "fair amount" of confidence in any of the five top congressional leaders at the center of negotiations aimed at avoiding an historic default – Republicans Mitch McConnell, John Boehner and Eric Cantor and Democrats Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

President Obama fares better, although not particularly well: 48 percent of those polled have at least a fair amount of confidence in the president, but about as many, 49 percent, have "not too much" or "none at all." More say they have none than say they have a lot (32 to 24 percent).

George Packer in The New Yorker—Empty Wallets: "What does either side have to offer the tens of millions of Americans who have settled into a semi-permanent state of economic depression? Virtually nothing."

Politico—Debt ceiling debate turns 'scary':

Washington's frayed nerves showed through Monday amid tough talk on the right, a White House veto threat, canceled weekend passes and the top Senate Democrat likening default to a "very, very scary" outcome even for those "who believe government should be small enough to drown in a bathtub."

"What will it take," asked an agitated Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), "for my Republican colleagues to wake up to the fact that they're playing a game of political chicken with the entire global economy?"

House Speaker John Boehner confirmed a POLITICO report that he had met again privately with President Barack Obama at the White House on Sunday to try to get debt talks back on track. But ignoring Obama's veto warning, Boehner will press ahead Tuesday with House votes on a revised debt ceiling bill that shows no sign of compromise on the spending and tax policy differences behind the crisis.

Of course. Because Boehner and his entire party are a bunch of fucking jackasses.

Discuss.

Open Thread & News Round-Up: Debt Negotiations

The Hill—Saturday winds down with little progress to report in debt-limit negotiations: "House GOP leaders announced there was no progress to report in debt-limit negotiations with the President Obama and congressional Democrats as Saturday evening approached."

WaPo—Congress tees up crucial votes on debt limit: "A bipartisan effort in the Senate to allow President Obama to raise the federal debt ceiling in exchange for about $1.5 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years gained momentum Sunday, as leaders agreed they would have to act in the next two weeks to avert a potential default by the U.S. government."

Politico—GOP's hard right shift in debt talks may put deal at risk: "Turning right with a vengeance, Republicans will bring to the House floor Tuesday a newly revised debt-ceiling bill that is remarkable for its total absence of compromise at this late date, two weeks before the threat of default."

Well. That about says it all. But here's a little more from the same piece, just to underline the point:

Final revisions made Friday submerge conservative demands to reduce all federal spending to 18 percent of gross domestic product — a target that threatened to split the GOP by requiring far deeper cuts than even the party’s April budget. But Republican congressional leaders still want a 10-year, $1.8 trillion cut from nondefense appropriations and have added a balanced-budget constitutional amendment that so restricts future tax legislation that even President Ronald Reagan might have opposed it in the 1980s.

Indeed, much of the deficit-reduction legislation signed by Reagan would not qualify under the new tea-party-driven standards. And even the famed Reagan-Tip O'Neill Social Security compromise — which raised payroll taxes — passed the House in 1983 well short of the 290 votes that would be required under the constitutional amendments being promoted by the GOP.

Dubbed Cut, Cap and Balance, the House bill allows for a $2.4 trillion increase in the Treasury’s borrowing authority but effectively uses the Aug. 2 deadline as a Republican anvil on which to hammer out cuts President Barack Obama would otherwise veto.

Grim stuff. But hardly surprising, given everything we know about the modern Republican Party. Steve Benen addresses the absurdity that is "Cut, Cap, and Balance" here.

We've got a party of No Compromise Even When You're Wrong negotiating with a president who values compromise over Standing Your Ground Even When You're Right:

[Obama] doesn't just acknowledge the need for compromise. He glories in it. He sees it as "part of the process of growing up." It's juvenile to act on your own beliefs, to draw bright lines that cannot be crossed, to express core convictions. "Don't set up a situation where you're guaranteed to be disappointed," Obama says. That's the worst thing that could ever happen. He makes an enemy out of disappointment, when it can just as easily be a rallying point, an opportunity to show a better path next time.

This fetish of bipartisanship and compromise would have been the elements of a very good President circa 1954, or maybe 1975. In 2011, with one party that has swore to never compromise on any principle ever again, it's just a recipe for failure to hear this from the head of the other party. It guarantees bad outcomes. And with an economy in tatters and urgency (the fierce urgency of now, I would say) the order of the day, it has enormous consequences.

In related news, President Obama has "selected former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to lead the embattled Consumer Financial Protection Bureau."

So much for Elizabeth Warren.

Number of the Day

47%: The percentage of the vote a generic "Republican Candidate" is currently getting among registered voters in Gallup's latest 2012 presidential poll. President Obama is currently getting 39%.

That's people not voting on the economy and the unemployment rate, I guess.

This far out, those numbers don't mean a lot, but it is concerning for anyone who does not want a Republican to be president (by which I don't mean Barack Obama, Moderate Republican, but one of the Social Darwinist Dominionist Oligarchs currently masquerading as Republicans) that registered voters' confidence in Obama is sliding as the economy has taken center stage in the news.

Open Thread & News Round-Up: Debt Negotiations

Here's the latest...

Tom Junod in Esquire—The Debt Debate's Real Doomsday Scenario:

On Tuesday, in the late morning, I asked a banker to explain what will happen if the debt ceiling is not raised on August 2. ... He is a good source, and what he told me should have calmed me down about this whole government-created government crisis, because what he told me was that even if Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling, the Treasury Department will not stop paying the interest on its debts. The Treasury does not talk about it, he said, because the Treasury doesn't want to get to this point. But if the United States comes to the outer limit of its indebtedness, it will not run out of money; it will simply run out of the money that comes to it through debt, and it will have to start paying the interest on its bonds — along with everything else — out of its tax revenues, which account for about two-thirds of its spending. The Treasury will "prioritize," and make sure that this country's creditors are paid before, say, anybody and anything else. We will not turn into deadbeats.

Whew! And here I'd been led to think that what was at stake in this self-inflicted crisis was "the full faith and credit" of the United States of America (and hence our access to other people's money, on the cheap) when really what's at stake is everything else. The only problem, according to the banker, was that everything else really matters, and not just in human terms — in economic ones. The world's largest economy can't just stop spending the trillion-plus dollars it acquires through debt each year without putting itself and the rest of the world in peril. What worried the banker about missing the August 2 deadline was not that it would initiate a credit crisis but rather deepen the recession. ... Congress won't be risking the country's all-important credit rating if it doesn't raise the debt ceiling; no, it will just be risking economic turmoil.

New York Times—Tensions Escalate as Stakes Grow in Fiscal Clash: "The Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, warned on Wednesday of a 'huge financial calamity' if President Obama and the Republicans cannot agree on a budget deal that allows the federal debt ceiling to be increased. Moody's, the ratings agency, threatened a credit downgrade, citing a 'rising possibility' that no deal would be reached before the government's borrowing authority hits its limit on Aug. 2."

More on that at Bloomberg and at Reuters.

So, that's what at stake. And as for how the actual negotiations are going...? Well, let's just say they could be going better. Ahem.

The Politico—President Obama abruptly walks out of debt ceiling talks:

President Barack Obama abruptly walked out of a stormy debt-limit meeting with congressional leaders Wednesday, a dramatic setback to the already shaky negotiations.

"He shoved back and said 'I'll see you tomorrow' and walked out," House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told reporters in the Capitol after the meeting.

The Hill—Obama warns Cantor: 'Don't call my bluff' in debt-ceiling talks:

Republicans said tense negotiations over raising the $14.3 trillion debt limit at the White House ended when President Obama stormed out of the meeting with a stern warning to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.): "Don't call my bluff."

...A Democratic source familiar with the negotiations said the reports of a dramatic or abrupt walk-out by Obama were overblown, but the source acknowledged that the president "said what he was going to say, he got up and walked out."

"The climax of the meeting was the president basically saying 'what's happening in this room confirms what everybody across the country thinks about Washington, D.C.,'" the official said. "Which is that people are more interested in protecting their base and political positioning than solving problems."

Meanwhile, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) calls the Republican caucus a "hot, sloppy mess," and Boehner complains that Obama and the Democrats are like Jell-o:

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, criticized President Obama and White House officials for their lack of resolve in negotiations.

"Dealing with them the last couple months has been like dealing with Jell-o," Boehner said. "Some days it's firmer than others. Sometimes it's like they've left it out over night."

Boehner explained that talks broke down over the weekend because, he said, the president backed off entitlement reforms so much from Friday to Saturday, "It was Jell-o; it was damn near liquid."

All the infantile dramatics aside, there is news to report from the negotiations: As Digby notes here, "we know that any 'deal' will be a minimum of 1.5 to 1.7 trillion dollars in cuts," without the addition of any revenue. Which is obviously quite worrisome, given that those cuts will undoubtedly come disproportionally at the expense of people hardest hit by the economy. Starve the beast, etc. D-Day sums up where we are at this point thus: "The next 48 hours will be crucial as to whether we get a distasteful and harmful deal, or something that would at least avert catastrophe."

Yikes.

And, just in case you thought the national conversation on the debt negotiations couldn't get any stupider or more irresponsible, cue Sarah Palin to interject her thoughts using a gun metaphor. What a cool lady.

Discuss.