Associated Press
The White House made the first formal move last week in the ongoing fiscal talks, presenting congressional Republicans with a substantive, detailed plan. GOP leaders, not surprisingly, hated it -- President Obama's proposal met the goals Republicans laid out, but did so in a way they found offensive.
What striking, though, is the extent to which the congressional GOP leadership seems absolutely stunned by the White House's opening bid.
[House Speaker John Boehner] said the reason negotiations are going so poorly is that Obama administration officials -- in particular, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner -- aren't taking Republicans seriously. Boehner said he was shocked at Geithner's proposal to Republicans last week.
"I was flabbergasted. I looked at him and I said, 'You can't be serious.' I've just never seen anything like it," Boehner said.
If Boehner has "never seen anything like" Obama's debt-reduction plan, the House Speaker probably needs to do more to keep up with current events. There's nothing in Obama's plan that (a) wasn't already included in the president's previous budgets; (b) wasn't part of his 2012 re-election platform; or (c) both. The president's opening gambit was bold, but there wasn't anything that new in the proposal.
So why in the world are Republicans looking for the fainting couch? Why did Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) reportedly "burst into laughter" after hearing the White House offer? Because GOP congressional leaders thought they'd established certain unwritten rules for how this game is supposed to be played -- and Obama is choosing to ignore them, leaving Republicans flummoxed and stunned.
The New York Times reports today that the president is "scarred by failed negotiations in his first term and emboldened by a clear if close election to a second, has emerged as a different kind of negotiator." Throughout his first term, Obama "repeatedly offered what he considered compromises on stimulus spending, health care and deficit reduction to Republicans, who either rejected them as inadequate or pocketed them and insisted on more."
So, this time, the president presented a plan that met his own standards, and challenged GOP leaders to do the same. Apparently, Republicans didn't see this coming, leaving them, in Boehner's word, flabbergasted.
But as E.J. Dionne Jr. explained, an "entirely new political narrative is taking shape before our eyes."
[W]hy was anyone surprised that Obama's initial offer to the Republicans was a compendium of what he'd actually prefer? We became so accustomed to Obama's earlier habit of making preemptive concessions that the very idea he'd negotiate in a perfectly normal way amazed much of Washington. Rule No. 1 is that you shouldn't start bargaining by giving stuff away when the other side has not even made concrete demands. [...]
[A] normal negotiation looks strange only because the past two years have been so utterly abnormal, driven by tea party extremism and an irrational hostility to Obama, a fundamentally moderate man who has already shown a willingness to offer more than his share of concessions.
Under the rules Boehner and McConnell drew up last year, Republicans are supposed to tell the president, "Make us happy," and Obama is supposed to keep offering conservative ideas in the hopes of guessing what they'll find satisfactory.
The sooner GOP leaders realize the rules have changed, the easier it will be to find a resolution to the current impasse.
Leave a Comment:
Andy Borowitz has it figured out:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2012/12/boehner-obama-needs-to-stop-acting-like-he-won-election.html
Great snark by Andy! Love it!
it sounds more like truth than snark.
It does appear as if the Republicans still haven't accepted the fact their candidate lost the election. Still, the Benen post is exactly correct. Republicans have become so accustomed to Obama making huge concessions before the negotiation has even begun that they're having a very difficult time dealing with the current situation.
I believe the only way to solve this is to go off the cliff. The GOP doesn't believe the Dems will do that, and odds are they won't see reality until it actually happens. At that point, it may become possible to come up with a workable plan, but not until that has occurred.
Obama needs to accept the fact that the Republicans have a mandate, based on their retaining control of the House of Representatives.
If in fact such a mandate exists, it will erode for the 2014 elections should the country roll over the 'fiscal cliff'.
The repubs have no mandate. The district were drawn so they could win. Without that they would have lost a ton of seats. Do the research.
How does one take a gaggle of talentless wannabe circus clowns and treat them seriously?
DC...
I don't think these other folks realize that you were joking about the 'Republican mandate', mirroring comments made by Eric Cantor that made him look like an idiot...
umm... You WERE joking, right?
I love the Andy Borowitz piece. Hilarious!
Yes, Mr. Johnson, I was. I'm afraid that this little test of Poe's Law once again failed to disprove it.
But I do appreciate your kind efforts.
Interesting... Having never heard of Poe's law, I had to check it out...
So, you've been deliberately acting the provocateur to test whether anyone would catch on...
I've given you too many "thumb's up"'s to think you had incongruously gone over to the Dark Side...
The Force is strong in this one...
Gee, the Republicans need to do their jobs. Get down to the details, boys, and actually propose what you have been nattering about. Show your constituents what you really feel about them.
I guess they have become so used to letting other people do their work that their brains have atrophied.
Actually, Joan, they ARE showing the constituents how they feel about them: contemptuous. They pledged allegiance to Norquist, not us.
Possession of a brain is a deal breaker when it comes to being a Republican.
Speaking for myself, and probably on behalf of all the others who got the White House emails for the last 4 years , it's about time.
Yeah, someone needs to get word to Mr. Boehner - elections have consequences! -Kevo
And if Rule #1 is to not start by making concessions, Rule #1a is to make sure you arrive at the negotiation with a Threat Option. This time, there's a big threat hanging over the heads of the Republicans, and they know it. Whine, whine, whine all you want. It won't work. Sorry.
To be fair, the Republicans have one too: the debt ceiling. As Norquist has been saying since last week, the House should extend the ceiling by monthly (or, if the President isn't sufficiently deferential, weekly) increments.
IMHO Obama's first response should be to sell gold reserves. For one, the price is inflated so it's a great time to sell. Better yet, the most loyal parts of the Republican base have put all of their life savings into gold -- and just the announcement will cause incredible pressure on Congressional Republicans to take the debt ceiling off the table ASAP.
Not to mention the entertainment value of what Glenn Beck will do ...
Love it, Sessions. Yeah, hit 'em where it hurts. Would love to sit back and watch that little sideshow.
And it seems to me that Norquist said something like "if [President Obama] doesn't behave" when saying they'd make the debt-ceiling decision weekly. I mean, really. It was so condescending. Who does GN think he is? God???
And considering the last time the Republicans pulled this little tantrum it cost the US $1.3 billion when our credit rating got downgraded, how expensive would it be if we got to go through that every week?
Norquist is just plain bat crap crazy, but why is he still given a place to spout his insanity?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-gongloff/federal-debt-ceiling_b_1695876.html
Let it all go over the cliff.
I would love to see a Republican proposal to mess with Medicare, all they do is talk about cuts, without ownership.
I propose "the cliff" for them as well. It may well take mentioning this retarded stall tactic in WH communications again and again, call them out in front of the country at large. If the press won't do it through "investigative reporting", the press still has no choice but to broadcast it.. And the best thing for this country is a return to the pre-Bush tax rates for all. I'm looking forward to cliff jumping!
Psst, GOTP because you all don't want to be seen as the ones cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Pell grants, etc., you've actually convinced yourselves that this President should come to you with those offers on the table - guess what NO DICE, game ovah!
I suggest that you put your big-boy underwear on, swallow hard, make a counter-offer and negotiate in "good faith"! You all are NOT going to continue get whatever you like so stop the whining!
I don't think they're quite ready to take of the magical underwear quite yet. I think were gonna go over the cliff and then you will see a scramble to get new tax cuts authorized early next year.
The extremists just dont seem to get that this is not a lose lose and that they are blowing their only chance to have a chance come 2014.
Perhaps the Republicans have been allowing ALEC to write their legislation for so long that they no longer have anyone aboard that knows how to approach the task .
Also (too), isn't this "taken off guard" thing with Republicans becoming a trend? It's as if they are living in some kind of bubble where reality can't intrude. Oh...wait...never mind.
They are just stupid.
besides the obvious lies they're telling about their reactions to obama trying to get what he wants in the deal, i think they genuinely believe that they should dictate what happens, even though obama has earned leniency. why aren't reporters asking Boehner and McConnell straight forward questions about cooperation?
For reporters to ask those kinds of questions they would have to be, you know, actual "reporters."
NYT, WTF? Counting is still going on for Election Day, but it's looking like Obama will have won by as much as 5 million votes, plus he won the electoral college by over 100 points. Also if the current state of vote tallying continues, Obama will end up with more than 51% of the total vote. I think that's only the second time that's happened to a 2-term President since Ike. It will be close to a 4 percentage point victory which is more than Dubya ever won his second election by, and don't get us started on the first, which he won by one vote. HOW is this "a clear if close election?"
As far as the GOP flabbergastation goes, don't be duped by the posturing, which is meant to dupe you in the first place, or at least, dupe their base. They ran on the platform of "Obama doesn't know what the Hell he's doing." Thus whatever Obama proposes, Republicans have to treat it like they're looking at artwork done by a monkey with the flu that the liberal elite is pretending is a masterpiece. In other words, they're (supposedly) the only clear-eyed level-headed grownups in the room to say "that's a load of crap," and oh, aren't we the better off for it, reallies?
Not to mention the fact that with what...27 senate seats vs 10 for the Republicans up for re-election, the Dems actually managed to GAIN seats in the Senate? Contrary to what major organizations have been reporting, Nov 2012 election was a real victory for Dems in every sense of the word (presidency, gain in House, gain in Senate).
The House leadership is only further marginalizing the GOP with McConnell's gleeful help. I don't get it. Voters clearly blamed the GOP for the last couple years of gridlock yet somehow they claim a mandate to dictate terms to every piece of legislation that comes up. It wouldn't be so bad if they would man-up and compromise in the end to create effective legislation, but they won't.
*shrug* If there were a viable third party, the GOP would be sh*tting themselves right about now for potentially being relegated to an "also-ran" party.
Democrats also picked up several House seats, however it wasn't enough to flip the majority. Just thought I should point that out.
Additionally as of election night we knew that President Obama was re-elected with roughly 3 million votes. President Bush was re-elected with roughly 3 million votes. Now someone explain to me how Bush's re-election was a mandate for Republican policies and for Bush's desire to privatize social security, but Obama's re-election with 3 million votes somehow is not a mandate for Democratic policies and for his policies regarding economics? It's absolutely asinine for Republicans to try to argue the opposite in this situation. The fact that Obama may have won by around 5 million votes is just icing on the already existent hypocrisy cake.
The same alternate reality the r's created for themselves in the pre-election polling is guiding them in their expectations of what Obama Clause should be bringing them from the North Pole now.
Arrogance, and very little else, (well, there's greed, but that's related), is their overriding characteristic.
Speaker Boner's caucus does not have the cajones to stand up in public for their radical views. They fear their own electorate, despite being the ones that fed that monster for the last 4 yrs. It is actually funny now, that their bluster no longer works. If the president's ideas are so bad, it would have made sense to allow them to be implemented so his failure would be on record. Of course, his ideas are not bad, and that is exactly why they are afraid of supporting him.
Amen, they cannot cage the beast and they're terrified of it.
Republicans are afraid to enunciate what they really want in the way of cuts because they realize the angry old white guys in their base aren't going to like them. Obama has put Boehner and McConnell between a rock and a hard place. Welcome to the big leagues boys.
Boehner's job is to create legislation that is good for the country. Assuming it passes the Senate, Obama's job is to sign it if he agrees, or veto it if he doesn't.
So get on with YOUR job, Boehner. Write whatever bill you think will actually make it to the President's desk. He's told you what he would like to see in it. Your call as to how much of that to give him to make sure he signs it.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
"why i'm just so flabbergasted that after winning re-election on a specific plan that the majority of the population is in favor of that he would actually try to impliment it. i have guffahed!"
The optimist says we'll avoid any real "cliff." The pessimist says we're going over and are all gonna die. The realist grabs a hang glider and prepares to yell, "Wheeee!" The Democrats seem poised to gain even more political capital from Republicans' obstructionism here.
And it's clear as day that Republican obstructionism is just going to continue into the new term. The only reasonable thing to do is ignore the whole lot of 'em until they say something reasonable or, better yet, vote reasonably on something.
The Party of No has spent 4 years of using total intransigence as their strategy for "governing" is suddenly being slapped in the face by a White House that has finally figured out that you don't give away everything at the start of a negotiation, and you don't provide the positions for both sides. Mittens spent months avoiding giving answers on what cuts he would make, hoping to run out the clock. How did that work out for him? Well, now congressional repubs can't play that game, because the clock is working against them. If they can't come up with some specific points of what they WANT in the negotiations, instead of what they DON'T want, then dems will let the country go off the cliff, and come back with a tax cut for the middle class that will force repubs to vote up or down on the tax cut. Not a winning proposition politically. As was also mentioned this morning on Morning Joe, if they don't make a deal now, the next congress will be forced to take what is likely to be an even worse deal for the repubs. So, take a deal you don't like now, or be forced to take one you absolutely hate next month. As the Templar in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade intoned so darkly, "Choose wisely".
Boehner would be flabbergasted if someone told him that marijuana doesn't kill people.
Bonehead does not get it yet! The GOP are in a state of denial, and are unable to face reality. I hope the president doesn't move an inch. Time to take some of your own medicine and see what it feels like. We had 8 years of cut throat,devious lies and distortion with the bush whitehouse. WE hated that! Our turn now to remove the 1% influence and return this country to a more even playing field.
Boehner looks like the type to be "flabbergasted" if his bartender uses cubed instead of chipped ice.
The man belittles the title of House Speaker, preferring it seems the role of House Drama Queen.
Yeah so the libtards continue on their record pace to fiscally destroy the Country. I say let them do it. Then let them grin all the way in to the toilet.
Mommy wants her computer back, little boy. Go fornicate sheep in public somewhere else, moron.
Lanche... that crap is getting really old? Don't you have any other whiney insults to try?
Wow, Lanche. You must have slept through the 2001-2009 period. You do know that The Bushwacker and the Dick took a projected $500 billion a year surplus in 2001 and turned it into a $600 billion per year defecit by 2009. Fact is, the annual defecit has become smaller under the current POTUS for the period since the2009, the last Bush-Cheney budget. Sooooo, since you have slept through the period, your brain should be well rested to help you in wrapping yourself around the concept that the so-called tax-and-spend liberals are not as bad as (or at least not any worse than) the borrow-and-spend cons.
@JCnGAM -- You do realize that the Repubs are trying to get people to think that just because Pres. Obama was President for most of 2009, is enough reason to think that the tradition that the last President is supposed to pass the budget for the 1st year of the next President's term is now null and void.
@Lanche -- I really wonder if you think there is ANYWAY IN HELL that the US could run a surplus to the tune of $16Trillion over say 20 to 30 years. No nation in the history of the world has ever paid off such a debt.
JC...
You are forgetting to include everything Bush/Cheney put on the credit card and kept out of the Annual Budget... Two wars, two extravagant tax cuts and a big handout to Big Pharma... Not to mention, the TARP bailout to 'too big to fail' banks...
And then, there's the $13 TRILLION IN SECRET LOANS given away to big banks around the world by the Federal Reserve, at hardly any interest... All to keep the coming fiscal debacle in 2008 secret as long as possible...
President Obama put the 'credit card' debt into the deficit as soon as he found out about it, and Republicans/FOX 'News'/talk radio blame him for a debt he didn't even make... We're still paying for some of those expenditures, and the interest on them...
There is no way to calculate how much these will end up truly costing us, because of the decay in infrastructure and opportunity costs wasted through funding these fiscal follies instead of what really should have been worked on... Education, infrastructure, innovation, incentive, research and development...
For twelve years, our country has been regressing rather than leading in the world... It is only our reputation that makes other countries look up to us, and the Right-Wing intransigence and short-sightedness has squandered that...
Who is in denial? We are broke and the dems don't know it or don't care.
What does it mean for a nation to be broke and how are we meeting that definition? What evidence do you have to support your conclusion?
Gold prices are inflated? They will double soon especially when we get another credit downgrade.
Which your side will be gleefully creating. Thanks for the double demonstration of how ignorant stupidity has to be to be one of you asswipes.
So then you agree that selling gold reserves would garner much needed revenues? Why are you disputing this when you agree?
Both parties ran up a debt that cannot ever be paid. Some day the debt will be reset and the country will not be destroyed. Get a grip.
The goal is to reduce the budget deficit, correct fellow Americans?
In our own households, we can not get away with spending more then we make without facing the consequences. Why should our government be any different? We, tighten our belts by reducing expenditures. We don't turn to our spouse and say, "go get some more money so we can keep on spending".
You can tax the rich 100% of their earnings and it still wouldn't make a dent in the deficit.
The cuts I've seen proposed by the WH equals only approximately $80B/year.
If we are going to right our fiscal ship, we first have to stop spending more then we are earning, agreed? And there are many cuts that can be made without blowing a hole in the bottom of the economy. We need to stem our addiction to spending. I would support increasing taxes on everyone - only with the caveat that the increase in revenue is directed at reducing the deficit - not more take and spend or failed efforts toward stimulus.
So 4% of the incomes of the top 2% amount to $80 billion a year. A little bit of sixth-grade arithmetic tells me that each 1% gets $20 billion, so 65% (from 35% to 100%) gets $1300 billion -- more than the current deficit, even in a depressed economy. Our structural deficit is quite a bit less, but I can work with that. An increase to the revenue-maximizing point (around 70%) would more than close the structural deficit.
Did someone say, "Peanuts?"
Work, The goal is to cut the budget deficit WITHOUT slipping back into a recession in a way that allows us to grow outa the debt, remember Cheny's "deficits don't matter" remark?
Taxing the rich 3.9% more then current amounts is going to make a huge dent in the yearly debt. Either your just repeating a talking point or as DC points out math is not your strong point.
National economics does ≠ house hold economics.
If you have only seen 80 billion of cuts proposed by the WH then your eyes are closed.
Being that America is doing better then just about every nation in the world other then China and considering that we didn't fall into a full blown depression I would hardly called the stimulus "failed" starting stimulus was probably the single most intelligent decision the GW Bush ever made.
Ever bought a house or a car??? Sounds like you are saying people should only buy items when they have all the cash, which would destroy our economy. Thats where your arguments unravel, when the truth is spoken...
I see someone else spent their time in Economics 101 with their head hanging over the back the chair, snoring away.
Thanks for the demonstration of what the basic problem with Republicans is: lack of a brain.
Heck even K-mart ofers layaway
Because governments do not operate like our family households. If the government stops spending money in certain areas it will cause loss of revenues which is something that can never happen with you or your family. Additionally your family does not print money and cannot issue treasury bonds. This is a false comparison fallacy.
This isn't true. Taxing the wealthy 100% (which no one has proposed) would eliminate our deficit entirely and give us a surplus. What you meant to say is that taxing the rich 100% would not pay off our national debt, but since no one is proposing that taxing the rich 100% would pay off our national debt you'd be debating either a strawman or a red herring which would, again, be an illogical argument. What we are proposing is a series of cuts along with revenue increases. There is absolutely NO way to reduce the deficit without doing both.
Additionally you should know that saying it won't pay off the entirety of the debt isn't the same as saying it won't help to pay off the debt. One implies that it would help, but by, say, only 20% in reduction. Of course that 20% is 20% of spending that we won't have to cut and that means more GDP generation. But, ya know, why worry about math when you're chasing fallacies, 'eh?
Er yes and no. During a recession it's not a great idea to pull back on a lot of social spending programs. The biggest thing that would help would be to end the wars and to reduce the DoS and DoD budgets, but I am not sure how much of that is going to get through. Eventually speaking we should be *hopefully* bringing in more money than what we are spending on a year-to-year basis. But that also depends on a lot of different things. If there's a natural disaster, for example, then it's totally expected for the country to go into a deficit if necessary to repair for those damages. The same goes with wars or recessions. Don't forget that we aren't out of the Great Recession yet and we likely won't be for some time.
Also what "failed efforts towards stimulus?"
Work...
How much did you pay, IN CASH, for your home? How much, IN CASH, for your car? How much did your wedding cost, out of your pocket? Do you pay your family's hospital bills from your wallet?
There's an odious smell around here, and you are full of it...
As Sherlock used to say...'The Game's afoot'!