Getty Images
Obama to Republicans; Your move.
President Obama had to endure some deeply unpleasant experiences with Congress over the last couple of years, but the result of the incidents taught him valuable lessons. It's clear, especially after last year's debt-ceiling crisis, that the president now knows exactly how to negotiate with reckless, radicalized Republicans.
Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner presented the House speaker, John A. Boehner, a detailed proposal on Thursday to avert the year-end fiscal crisis with $1.6 trillion in tax increases over 10 years, $50 billion in immediate stimulus spending, home mortgage refinancing and a permanent end to Congressional control over statutory borrowing limits.
The proposal, loaded with Democratic priorities and short on detailed spending cuts, met strong Republican resistance. In exchange for locking in the $1.6 trillion in added revenues, President Obama embraced the goal of finding $400 billion in savings from Medicare and other social programs to be worked out next year, with no guarantees.
For years, Obama hoped to strike deals by being conciliatory, starting with opening offers designed to satisfy Republican demands. These efforts repeatedly failed miserably, and only emboldened GOP leaders to demand agreements tilted heavily in their favor.
Fine, the president is now saying. Let's start with an ambitious plan designed to make Democrats happy, and see how that works out. The days of preemptive concessions and negotiating from a defensive crouch are over.
Republicans seemed stunned late yesterday while condemning Obama's offer, as if the president shouldn't have the audacity to present a plan he knows they won't like. But I'd remind GOP lawmakers that everything in Obama's proposal is consistent with his previous budget plans and the policies he presented to the public during the recent national campaign (which he won fairly easily).
Indeed, Obama is acting like a confident, re-elected president who expects congressional Republicans to start moving in his direction, not the other way around. GOP leaders aren't accustomed to this dynamic, but it's probably time they adapt to their new surroundings.
For the left, if there must be a focus on debt reduction, the White House proposal is the right way to do it. The plan roughly meets the broad outline House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) says he wants, but does so in the most progressive way possible. Indeed, Obama's offer -- which was leaked by Republicans, not formally presented to the public by the administration -- even includes additional economic stimulus in the form of infrastructure spending, extended jobless aid, and an extension of the payroll tax break.
And did I mention it calls for the elimination of the debt-ceiling law altogether? It does that, too.
Republicans, not surprisingly, absolutely hate everything about the president's proposal, and that was the expected reaction. But the point of an offer like this is to set the parameters of the debate -- Obama will no longer make GOP satisfaction his primary goal -- and press Republicans to put on their big-boy pants for a change.
Throughout the recent negotiations, Republicans have said they want entitlement cuts, but they won't say which ones. Republicans have said they'll accept new revenue, but they won't say how or where the revenue would come from. Republicans have said they'll make concessions on deductions, but they won't say which ones. Republicans have said they expect deep spending cuts, but they've offered no specifics.
As of this morning, there's one plan on the table, and it's Obama's. Boehner & Co. don't like it? Fine. Where's their competing plan?
Republicans desperately want the president to negotiate with himself -- keep presenting increasingly conservative ideas until GOP leaders say they're satisfied. Obama clearly isn't willing to play that game anymore.
Leave a Comment:
Finally!
My biggest issue with the POTUS in his negotiations was how he would give up so much at the start. Negotiations 101 is ask for the world and negotiate down! All the while knowing you probably wind up getting the deal you really want because you asked for the impossible from the start.
Listening this morning to republicans on Morning Joe on my drive into work brought a smile to my face. Using the same tactics they did against the President doesn't sit too well and I applaud the move.
My question now is, why all the yelling and screaming by the republicans? This proposal isn't new. It's the same thing the President outlined almost two weeks ago. It's just that Geithner made it a formal proposal and they thought, incorrectly, the President would revert to his former way of negotiating.
STAND STRONG MR. PRESIDENT!
WHA WHA WHA....Nothing but a bunch of freaking cry babies cuz they ain't getting their own way! Grow up and do the work you were hired to do ....work together....or get the bloody hell outa office!!! We don't need destructive uncooperative women haters in office anyway...so do us all a favor and bugger off!
The American people do not need the filthy lying hateful criminal organization of democrats to survive. The panic stricken dope fiend moves and hate speech from the American/Constitution hating democrat criminal frauds proves it is they that need us for their continued existence.The party of democrats no not exist to serve the American people, they exist off the American people.
Stupid filthy lying democrat. "Woman haters"? What a gutless democrat DOPE FIEND MOVE.
Wow, who is the hater? The foul vitriol that spews from most of the conservatives on this vine never ceases to amaze me. We won, get over it.
Firstly, excellent copy & paste from the NY Times. Secondly, how is a detailed proposal short on detail? I await ad hominem.
You don't have to "await" ad hominem when you lead with it, Tim - the snark directed at Blog author Steve Benen for "copy & paste" is uncalled for - he wrote an article, and quoted two paragraphs from a widely respected news source to illuminate a point he was making. That said...
I'll try to avoid an ad hominem argument here, but I do think you've managed to misread the text to which you refer. The Times article stated:
Please note that it doesn't say the proposal was short on details. It says it's short on detailed spending cuts. While the President's proposal does offer to seek $400 billion in savings from Medicare, etc., it's fair to say that cuts in Federal spending (particularly under these economic conditions) are not a big priority for the Democrats. Indeed, many of us consider such cuts at this time to be a spectacularly bad idea.
If the Reps don't like that proposal, they now have the opportunity to offer one of their own. Do you have any ideas to contribute?
The trouble with ignorance is that it picks up confidence as it goes along.
- Arnold H. Glasow
;-)
I am hoping that Benen's interpretation is correct! If it is, I will give up my previous description of Obama as The Capitulator In Chief earned for his penchant to start negotiations with the repukes by giving them 90% of what they said they wanted.
Really? That's not what I read.
So, in exchange for LOCKING IN (the operative words being locking in) revenues, President Obama says that next year, but NO GUARANTEES, they'll look at some spending reforms.
How is kicking the can down the road once again good for America?
How is putting off meaningful fiscal reform good for America when we are on an unsustainable trajectory?
You act like it is a Republican problem if fiscal reform doesn't come about... and it is something that they will just have to "deal with"... isn't our unsustainable spending a problem for every man, woman, and child in America who ultimately owes this debt?
Seriously, look at Greece... how is it working out for them??
Many of us do not agree with your assumption that safety net spending is THE problem.
Social contract spending was not the problem when Clinton was in office, because there was no problem. We had surpluses! The only major changes since then are that DEFENSE spending has doubled and the top marginal tax rates were lowered.
Which makes the solution obvious... cut Defense spending and raise tax rates and when the economy finishes recovering we'll be back in surplus.
Any other approach is simply greed, disregard for the needy, and anti-government prejudice.
Austerity policy is working out really badly for Greece. This may be one reason why the President's proposal is trying to avoid that.
The trouble with ignorance is that it picks up confidence as it goes along.
- Arnold H. Glasow
;-)
From what information do you derive this conclusion?
Well we've made a huge leap in logic here. First off national debt isn't carried by every man, woman, and child- that's not how national debt works. Secondly on what are you basing the assertion that we have a spending problem or that this "problem" is unsustainable? You cannot just blanket state these terms. I personally believe that our year-to-year deficit is beyond what it should be, but we have to end the wars, get out of this recession, and repeal the tax cuts in order to see that deficit go away. Doing so, however, won't necessarily equate to adjustments in the national debt. That's because debt works fundamentally different than a deficit.
If you hire an employee and you tell him you will pay him $100,000 for every year you keep him employed then you start out at the beginning of every fiscal year with a deficit of $100,000. That's not a problem as long as your revenues are kept up (which we haven't done as a nation). If you intend to keep that person on your payroll for 20 years (assuming no raises) that means you will be in debt to this person $2,000,000. That debt would get projected onto the national debt.
Does this harm the economy? No- in fact it has the opposite effect because you're providing a stable income base and are thus creating a consumer over those next 20 years. Does this debt effect the value of the dollar? No. Does this debt have to be paid by every man, woman, and child? Well no, not really. Everyone who pays into the tax base will help pay this debt off as part of their agreement in hiring the person- similarly WalMart is in debt to their employees for the year. By shopping at WalMart you pay off that employees salary. Does this mean you are in debt to WalMart? No. Creditors don't come knocking at your door for you to pay off debt that you owe yourself. Is this debt unsustainable? Well no, as long as you keep revenues so you can pay for the employee.
So where are you making these giant leaps? You haven't proven your premise or how you've came to your conclusion.
I explained to you on another page that Greece's problem is unique and is something that the US cannot replicate at this time. Greece got into the situation it got into by outsourcing it's public service payroll to 3rd party companies who then traded those bonds on the international market. Companies purchased the bonds and then bundled those bonds with completely unrelated assets- notably housing- and when the international market crashed due to the collapse of the financial and housing markets here in the US this artificially crashed Greece's economy. I say artificially because the day before the crash the Euro was trading just fine- it's not as though their nation suddenly stopped producing goods or destroyed all of it's bridges. Greece's government then panicked and proceeded to cut their social service programs like crazy thinking that if they did so it would prevent them from having to pay off the money they owed for the services they had just outsourced and lost. This then spiraled Greece into a recession even greater than what it would have otherwise been going through thanks to the housing/financial collapse. The only other option that Greece had available to it would be to print money, but because Greece no longer has it's own dollar and instead participates in the Euro Greece could not print it's own money. So it had to go to Germany and ask Germany to artificially deflate their dollar so that they could print enough money to bail Greece out. Since the US has not outsourced it's debt to any 3rd party and since the US does not participate in a regional currency we could never have this happen to us.
For years, Obama hoped to strike deals by being conciliatory, starting with opening offers designed to satisfy Republican demands
Oh, PLEASE give me some of those drugs you are taking!!! What world are you living in????
Democrats are not in fault, they are holy and true. Everything they say, every motion, action and attempt is done with American citizens best interest first. You guys vilified Bush as president... You seem to forget obama is Bush on steroids. so keep protecting the one that will soon take away your liberty, freedoms and all you hold dear...
SMH! If he is the villian your type makes him out to be, please explain just how he would accomplish this all by himself. You honestly think he individually has that much power?
Come back to reality dude or go somewhere where you think you'll be safer.
Finally! There's no such thing as bipartisanship with these goons, and I'm glad the president has now realized that. Time to run them over with the biggest steamroller he can find.
This is the right (correct, that is) plan. Cop to the crazy rw talking points: no more negotiations (whining: "he refuses to even listen to us"), and continue showing the passion we all want/need (unsaid, but clear: "he's an angry black man"). When you've asked their opinion and conceded much, and when you've reacted to their insane comments with grace, the hate continued to flow. Go, do, President Obama!
Some savings: Eliminated mortage second homes, boats and RVs. Kill congressional earmarks, make prescription drug prices negotiable, reduce farm subsidies for big ag
Revenue: legalize and tax pot (reduces interdiction expenses AND generates revenue) comsider taxing ANY non profit that engages in political activities. Too many churches PACs and unions hiding behind non profit status. We need to redefnie non profit for the IRS.
I do not think that means testing medicare is a good idea, but raising taxes on unearned income absolutly. Age for SS could be pinned to life expectancy? COLAs shoulod be pinned to something other than rising prices. Nobody has seen a raise since 2008 unless he's a CEO!
Ummm "Obama's proposal is consistent with his previous budget plans and the policies he presented to the public during the recent national campaign (which he won fairly easily)." Since when is getting 53% of th vote whose own party didn't really enthusiastically support winning "fairly easily". The whole point of debating this issue is that the GOP, and I believe correctly, feel that there ought to be spending cuts along with any revenue increases. You can not continue with spending that outpaces growth and revenue and expect the situation to get anything but worse.
Totally agree Sean. The president says he wants a balanced approach. Balanced heavily on his ideals. He wants all of his agenda passed first under the guise that after that he will then consider cuts. Nobody in their right mind would do any kind of deal like that and expect to be treated fairly. He has shown repeatedly that he doesn't operate that way. If he can get things passed under the darkness of night, he prefers to do it that way. Transparency is not his strong suit. Compromise doesn't happen by giving one side everything they want first and hoping you'll get something in return. Try to trade cars that way.
Yeah, it's about time!! STAND STRONG MR. PRESIDENT!
A couple of years ago, didn't Boehner say he got 95% of what he wanted and that he was happy? Well, this time, I want Democrats to get 95% of what we want and be happy!! Merry Christmas, John-Boy!
Is there anyone on this thread that believes that government over spends and that the entitlement programs are quickly going broke? Is there anyone that believes that when government takes in new monies that they actually pay down on the debt? Is there anyone on this thread that believes programs that are inefficient should be streamlined if not totally closed down? Is there anyone who believes that welfare and other entitlement programs should be closely scrutinized for fraud, waste and to make sure that people who can work, do work? Is there anyone who wants safety net programs to be in place for future generations? If anyone believes some or all of these things, I don't see how you could wish for taxes to go up first without some serious cuts in all of those programs happening simultaneously. If the taxes come first, none of the other things will happen and our debt will continue to climb. Anyone who believes the dems will actually cut spending after they have gotten everything that they want is delusional. The Republicans MUST hold fast or there will be no spending cuts. Future generations will suffer for our stupidity and greed.
@FromDownHere
IMO any post that begins with the now totally erroneous old rightist canard "Tax and Spend" is bound to be full of absurd assertions. You, Madam or Sir, did not disappoint. But let us allow that what you said is true and your son's employer has chosen to commit suicide, giving "taxes" as the excuse.
So what? Don't you believe in "the free market"? The vaunted "free market" will take care of it. The demand for HVAC services being met by your son's employer will still exist and that demand will go elsewhere. Either to another existing company, which will have to hire workers to meet the demand, or to some new firm that forms and hires people to fill the demand. Indeed, if your son and his fellow employees have sufficient courage, they COULD join together and buy the firm's assets and continue doing the jobs they have been doing.
This whole "Obamacare and taxes are putting us out of business" schtick is silly. Taxes are exactly like any other business expense, even in your example, and are treated exactly as any other business expense would be. If the landlord raises the rent, you have to consider if your profit structure can support the additional cost or close. It's the same with private medical, property, or liability insurance; the cost of the burglar alarm, the HVAC maintenance contract, or any other expense. Singling out Obamacare and taxes as a somehow qualitatively different and more "disastrous" category of expense is part of the "conservative" fiscal religion, but it is erroneous. Whatever happens if there is demand, the market will fill that demand. It may take some time and some individuals, like your son, will be uncomfortable for a bit, but unless the jobs are shipped overseas (not possible in HVAC) in the long run it does not matter, because if there is demand the market will fill it.
And if there is not demand, your son's employer was going to close anyway, and is just using Obamacare and taxes as a cover story.
@fromdownhere - lol "He really loves working for this employee conscious company claiming the owners, due to their religious back ground, truly believe in providing all they can for those that work for them and treat them as an extended family."
So this company is employee-conscious only because of their religious background. But in the very next paragraph:
" You see the owners don't need the shop because they have other income through property and other investments and the estimated tax increases will make it too difficult to make money in the industry without passing on the costs to their employees and customers."
They don't need the money, they have other investments. So because they don't want to burden their customers with higher prices or their employees with higher health costs they'll just shut down the company and deny their customers the choice and put their employees out of work because that's not as big a burden?
I wonder if @fromdownhere realizes how ignorant that sounds? Oh wait he/she's probably religious.
"
The HVAC company doesn't make 10-15 million a year they gross that amount and the profit margins are thin compared to the work that goes into sustaining a profitable business. They fall under the 50 minimum employee threshold for mandated employee insurance coverage but insist to offer it to their employees and choose not to exist if they cannot provide properly for their employees.
May the "free market" and tax increases never affect you directly by job or service losses or increases in costs of living with lower income."
And if they fall under the 50 employees, they also get tax incentives to continue to give insurance to their employees. If their insurance is going up, it is because it is covering things that probably weren't covered before; like well visits, mammograms, etc.
They would rather throw away a business that employees people for good wages and benefits and blame Obamacare, than do what's needed to keep their business going? Sound's a bit fishy. Especially if they're talking $100 more a year per employee for insurance? Give me a break!
He tried to offer a compromise solution the last time he negotiated a deal and everyone railed against him for being too soft and giving away the store. Some of these same pundits bashed him. Now he comes with a strong opening volley (which I perceive to be just that and not his best and final) and he is criticized for being unreasonable. They need to get over themselves.
So what game are we playing now? High Noon? Last man Standing? Face Off at the OK Coral? My Gang against yours? What a disgusting display of democratic governance! Mr. Jefferson are you turning in your grave? Is this what you meant with Republicanism? What has become of America's high ideals and morals? Makes me sick!!!!
@FromDownHere: there is a line where FAMILIES will just not exist anymore due to higher cost of living and decreased benefits. And then the cost falls back onto the government: witness the effect of the poverty-level wages at Walmart, whose employees cost taxpayers BILLIONS of dollars in Medicaid and food stamps.
Shoot for the moon. This pool of legislators has been stagnant for far too long. They've sat on their duffs, and watched our S&P rating get lowered, ignored the citizens who are, out of work, foreclosed on, and have no health care. All while they're enriching their bottom line. They don't have any fears about the next payday, not having a home, or not being able to be seen by competent physicians.
The informed, educated, aware American public is fed up with the obstructionism and mindless negativity of the GOP/TeaParty. Either they learn to play nice NOW - or we can always be even more devistating to their party candidates in 2014. The people spoke in November. Too bad the GOP/TeaParty still turns a deaf ear on the people they claim to represent.
There is only one part of this fiscal cliff that needs addressing: Raising the debt ceiling. That will hurt us for sure and that can be passed individually, in fact, it should. If the republicans are serious about paying down the debt, they would welcome the cuts in defense and the tax increases across the board t pay the debt down. It was this exact setup 14 years ago that had us in good shape.
BTW, I would venture to guess that this same HVAC company existed 14 years ago paying exactly what the proposed setup would be again. These are simple threats your "christian" owner has hit on you.
The guy I worked for hates Obama too but it hasnt stopped him from buying a new van for the fleet, or hiring new people. Stop being stupid and listen to the opinions of those who really dont have a dog in the fight. Otherwise , take those opinions with a huge grain of salt.
If you really want to see some Liberal ideas that make sense just go here. It is the blog of the Roosevelt Institute called the Next New Deal.
I agree that the President and democrats have a unique situation here and need to use it to their advantage. Not only that I think the democratic party needs to either get the Blue Dog Democrats on board or they need to get out of the party and they need to stand firm for Americans always. The American people are starting to see that the Republicans have been screwing us for decades and the only way we take our country back is to stand firmly together.
Red Rover, Red Rover send Karl Rove right over!!!!
There should be ZERO cuts to ANY social or safety net programs, period. These programs have been savaged already from 30 years of right wing economic fraud. The ONLY place in the budget where there is a huge amount of waste - surprise - in in the military budget, which has exploded over the past decade and Obama has engendered the wrath of the GOP for exploding it less quickly than they would like.
Repeal the bush AND raygun tax cuts for the rich. Curb military spending now, and cut back to 2000 levels over the next three to five years.
One last thing: "Entitlements" do not exist. It's a word that the right wing uses to attack needed programs.
I am going to disagree slightly, there are programs that over lap. We need to consolidate and clean up redundancy. Not just safety net programs, but other areas of federal government as well.