The debt-ceiling crisis is, at least for a while, resolved. So, will it be smooth sailing for a while in Washington? Maybe policymakers' attention can turn to challenges like immigration and gun violence?
I'm afraid not. The debt limit has been suspended through May, but if Congress doesn't deal with automatic sequestration cuts before March 1 -- just 36 days away -- the result is a scenario that neither side wants to see: painfully deep cuts that would undermine both the economy and the military. As Suzy Khimm reported, avoiding the sequester won't be easy.
As such, the House and Senate would almost certainly have to go to conference to come up with a compromise between each chamber's budget resolution -- essentially kicking off another round of the negotiations that President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) had in the lead up to the fiscal cliff. That's likely to be a protracted process -- one that will probably take weeks after the March 1 sequester deadline to finish.
So as it stands, Congress will still have to put together a separate plan if it wants to prevent the sequester cuts from going into effect on March 1.
Even if both sides were inclined to reach a compromise -- they're not, but just for the sake of conversation -- this would be messy. On the one hand, Democrats and Republicans will be working on some kind of agreement on a budget plan. On the other hand, at the exact same time, they'll also be trying to find about $1.2 trillion in separate savings to turn off the sequester.
But this picture gets considerably uglier once we recognize the fierce Republican opposition to anything resembling a compromise.
In theory, it's not too hard to imagine a bipartisan deal: half the money could be found through new revenue via tax reform, half could come by way of spending cuts. The problem, of course, is that GOP leaders continue to insist that any agreement be 100% cuts, 0% revenue.
"There's not a single Republican vote" for more revenue, said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
No, of course not. That would be sensible.
In the House, the picture is similar.
"They already got their revenues," [House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan] said. "So what, we'll roll over and they get more revenues? That's not how it works. In the spirit of bipartisan compromise, they've gotten revenue increases already. We've yet to get anything as a result of it."
That Paul Ryan just doesn't have a very good memory. In 2011, there was a big debt-ceiling agreement in which President Obama accepted over $1 trillion in spending cuts.
"We've yet to get anything"? House Speaker John Boehner boasted in 2011, "I got 98% of what I wanted."
If the 2011 agreement included cuts, and the 2012 deal featured revenue, is it really so outrageous to think a 2013 compromise should be balanced and include a combination of both?
Leave a Comment:
Since you peeps from the left aisle have always like Eastern religions why don't you try some Yin/Yang a thang they call balance.Balance the budget.Show some Swami like restraint on spending, some Yoga like meditation on waste.Ghandi's needs and greeds quote as well.Your taking our needs to supply Washington's political greeds.
Perhaps you can give us some specifics on "spending"?
Because the House Republicans have yet to supply anything concrete.
Gandhi
I once heard a hillbillie say, the closer the kin the further in. Billhillie must be a product of that.
DAY, don't fash yersel'. billhillie is a troll, a shill, or one of the Taliban/Teaparty base (proud to say they refuse to let facts dictate their reality). Trying to teach a pig to sing simply wastes your time and only irritates the pig. Nothing wrong with being a pig, they just don't place any value on pearls.
He likes to poke people in the eye just for the reaction; or someone has paid him to say ... whatever, he doesn't care as long as he gets paid; or you'll need a stronger uplink than Houston Control to reach him.
And Mr. Ryan can actually talk about bipartisan compromise without blushing? I'm a dinosaur - if my cell phone ever runs out of kerosene I'll have to get someone else to refill it for me, 'cause I don't know where it goes, but unlike Ryan &co, I know the internet won't let them get away with the same ol' smoke and mirrors nonsense. Ask ol' Mitt. No, wait, he's still in denial.
To repubs to "cut spending" is exactly the same as "cutting entitlements".
One is code for the other.
This might be the reason repubs ingore all the spending cuts that Obama has made.
They are not "entitlement cuts" and so don't count.
I have said it before. What is going on here to a great extent, is the rich realizing that the Soc. Sec. Trust Fund bonds will need to be retired/paid off slowly over the next 30 years and the original plan was to tax the rich to do it.
This is so because the other 4 ways to pay them off are not reasonable. 1] cut benefits, not OK coz I paid double for 30 years so my benefit could be cut?, no way! 2] tax the working class, not OK coz the original idea was for the Baby Boomers to pre-pay coz the fewer workers in the next 2 generations could not afford the higher FICA taxes that it would mean without the pre-pay. 3] just borrow from China, not OK coz why did I pay double to just borrow it now? And 4] just get free money from the Fed., not OK coz why did I pay double for 30 yrs. just to get free money now?
The rich like keeping most all of what they earn, raising any tax on them is off the table. At least as long as they succeed in playing offense and diverting the discussion to "the problem is too much spending".
Sorry that our Fox-educated ignoramus wingnut friends didn't hear about all the cuts that have already been made. Much more than any revenue. Look it up for yourselves morons. I don't waste time on you idiots anymore.
"...President Obama accepted over $1 trillion in spending cuts."
And still the GOTP whine about not "getting it their way" - WTF! Does the government look like "Burger King" - where you have it your way? Seriously, the GOTP haven't got a clue and aren't trying to get one. When it comes to "budgeting" the GOTP is just dumb & dumber! Here is how we get to the figure that they want:
1) Cut DEFENSE CONTRACTING - If we can get a 15% reduction - WE'll still have more than enough to "defend ourselves" after all the US has more "military" than 7 other industrialized nations!
2) Cut welfare (subsidies) to BIG OIL/COAL/PHARMA/Agribusiness - They are already making a mint - they don't need more largesse from taxpayer money!
3) Cut aid to Israel - WE have to do nation building (read: infrastructure) HERE in the USA, let the Israeli's take care of their nation thru their taxes!
4) Instead of rewarding large companies for "off-shoring", raise their taxes and close the loopholes!
5) A slight Financial Transactions Tax on Wall Street - would both slow down on "speculative trading (gambling with other peoples money) and stop that non-sense that they're doing again!
Pick one or all Congress - at least act like you all actually work for the taxpayers that are paying your salaries!
A good, rich Republican under the Eisenhower administration would have just sucked it up and paid the 71% tax rate of that time!
If I hear just one more Republican leader say we're done raising revenues, I'll be inclined to unclog my left nostril in his general direction! We have far too many richly rich people shirking on their taxes! Let's go after the deadbeat corporations, tax dodging uber rich, and tax stock transactions for the needed revenue!
Hell, if we do just that, no more cuts would have to be made! -Kevo
CUTS !!, Whooo!, skeered the Hades out of ya didn't it. Whether its budget or spending, when you hear that word you go to feuding. An economic implosion is eminent and it don't take an Elijah to prophesy that friends and neighbors!!!
Hillbilly is proof positive why 1st cousins shouldn't mate and have children.
In the original sequestration deal, Obama negotiated out a number of categories of discretionary spending that would be spared from the automatic cuts, if it came to that.
It's not that he wants those cuts to go forward in a grand-bargainish kinda way, it's just that he's going to be able to tolerate the cuts more than if it was cutting programs like SNAP along with everything else.
I'm betting Obama can live with his end of the cuts longer than the Republicans can live with the defense cuts. I'm betting this way because the groundwork was laid all the way back in August.
Welcome to the new Republican strategy...avoid anything that you know your base won't want you to do anything about (immigration reform, Guns, etc) while pretending to work on the only thing left that is considered your party's traditional strong suit (fiscal policy) and hope that no one notices that your arguments don't stand up to even modest scrutiny, you really have no idea what you are talking about economically, and that you are just playing for time while hoping the adults in the room do something responsible but unpopular that you can pull apart into a TV soundbite for your next campaign add.
Bit long winded but I got there in the end...phew.
Dems are better off letting the sequestration occur since there are certain domestic programs that are protected from benefit cuts. Republicans can negotiate cuts and revenues or they can stand firm. But the latter course hurts them since Dems have no incentive to cut more domestic spending without tax revenues.
painfully deep cuts that would undermine both the economy and the military
To me at least I like the undermine the military part as we basically remote control kill our "enemy combatants" now without even a whisper of a declaration of war by Congress. Of course, they're "too busy".. with this horsesh!t..
Is is just me or is the military "budget" too big already? Maybe WikipediA is wrong about the 1 to 1.5 trillion for this year, +/- some "small potatoes"? Are they simply grossly exaggerating? Will this cut make us less safe from our own ridiculous federal legislature?? This is money we are throwing away, this is not for national defense.. Hell. even the generals agree!
This is the first time in my life (or any of our lives for that matter) where there is talk of actually cutting the military budget instead of continuously expanding it! This is really a no brainer!!
Given that our military budget is bigger than the next 30 countries combined, 28 of which are our allies, we could let the entire military sequestration take place and have no effect on our security, though we would deal a (hopefully) mortal blow to the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Complex. Cancel the worthless F-35 and take care of all the cuts needed.
We have been at peace with Germany and Japan for 60+ years, yet we have occupation forces in both countries. There has been a cease fire in Korea for 60 years, yet we still have an occupation force there. We have Occupation forces all through the Middle East, yet we are not at war there. The wars are over; its time to bring ALL our men and women home. Until they pay us to be the world police, we shouldn't try.
The GOP is so STALE. Not only do they say the same nonsense over and over again, they have no way to cope with contemporary life. They're way over the hill.
So how's that "fiscal cliff" deal where Obama actually fought to make the Bush tax cuts PERMANENT looking, huh? Here's how: the irresponsible Bush tax cuts became the irresponsible Obama tax cuts.
Stupid beyond belief.
I might accept a national "value added tax",
but only if it were combined with a return to the original idea of an "income tax".
That is, just income tax the really well off. Just tax income over say 1M$. At say 50%.
The wealthy love the VAT or sales tax because they get to invest "before tax" dollars instead of "after tax" dollars.
This goes to Jindal's idea in LA too. But, of course, NO WAY he would listen to me!
Convert the military and it's budget to civil service..
How bout spendin cuts across the board!! Everybody's pet projects and sacred programs, the GOP and the Dems both. Any takers or just all talkers ?
How about we just cut spending to red states instead after all they pay nothing in but take everything they can. Really why would anyone agree with a person who runs off at the mouth and proves he has no ideal on what he is talking about. There is no spending problem there is a GOP problem that created the mess you whine about.
the REPUBER CRISES are always a fraud upon the American public. That is, the repubers M.O. is to steal credit for what is favorable and blame everyone else for their goofups. Keep in mind the repuber thieves steal because earning a living is not what they are all about - and can't be because they are 100% against the earning power of employees because every dollar employees earn is $1 less that they can claim from the greedsters they serve. Their deal with the greedsters is "for every dollar we steer your way - through depriving employees or reducing your contribution to the country that supports you - we want our cut".
The crises the repubers claim is their effort to curry favor to get elected to steal more from the people they pretend to represent for the greedy thieves they serve. Crisis? Since the only real crises is the theft of employee earning power, the repubes would look really bad if the fools who vote these fraudsters in boothered to look behind the repooblicon crisis curtain.