Getty Images
We're down to just nine days before brutal sequestration cuts kick in, undermining the economy, the military, and public needs. At this point, it'd be a mistake to suggest the bipartisan talks have stalled, since there no talks -- Democrats have unveiled a sequester alternative, and Republicans have not; Democrats have said they're open to compromise, and Republican have said they aren't. The probability of avoiding next week's mess is quickly approaching zero.
With this in mind, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has a 900-word op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on the subject, devoted almost entirely to a desperate attempt to avoid blame. In the larger context, it's only mildly annoying that Boehner invests more energy in pointing fingers than working on a solution, but it's far worse that the Speaker peddles blatant falsehoods, lacking enough respect for the public and the political world to be honest with them.
During the summer of 2011, as Washington worked toward a plan to reduce the deficit to allow for an increase in the federal debt limit, President Obama and I very nearly came to a historic agreement. Unfortunately our deal fell apart at the last minute when the president demanded an extra $400 billion in new tax revenue -- 50% more than we had shaken hands on just days before.
Actually, during the summer of 2011, Boehner and his party held the nation hostage, threatening to crash the American economy on purpose unless their unconditional demands were met. Obama offered a far-too-generous "grand bargain," and the Speaker balked when he realized his own caucus wouldn't tolerate the modest tax increases.
...President Obama was determined not to face another debt-limit increase before his re-election campaign. Having just blown up one deal, the president scuttled this bipartisan, bicameral agreement. His solution? A sequester.
This is insane. As the president scrambled to pay the GOP's ransom, so Republicans wouldn't follow through on their threats to hurt Americans on purpose, Obama accepted over $1.2 trillion in spending cuts with no revenue. Boehner said that was inadequate. With time running out, the two leaders agreed to a sequester to give policymakers time for further fiscal talks. Obama pushed for a sequester that was 50% revenue, 50% cuts, but Boehner refused that, too. Eventually they agreed to 50% defense cuts, 50% non-defense domestic cuts, and the Speaker agreed to let the hostage live another day.
Ultimately, the super committee failed to find an agreement, despite Republicans offering a balanced mix of spending cuts and new revenue through tax reform.
Republicans on the committee didn't offer new revenue; they offered tax breaks they said might someday produce new revenue.
As a result, the president's sequester is now imminent.
To call this "the president's sequester" is idiotic. Republicans demanded a ransom, and at the time, boasted about the sequester they said they put into the law. Boehner and his GOP cohorts voted for all of this, making it the nation's sequester.
Both parties today have a responsibility to find a bipartisan solution to the sequester. Turning it off and erasing its deficit reduction isn't an option.
Sure it is. Congress doesn't have to make these cuts -- lawmakers can choose to simply turn it off. It would take five minutes and save us all a great deal of pain.
What Congress should do is replace it with other spending cuts that put America on the path to a balanced budget in 10 years, without threatening national security.
Even members of Boehner's own caucus realize this is absurd.
Having first proposed and demanded the sequester, it would make sense that the president lead the effort to replace it.
The president didn't propose or demand the sequester. Lying about the facts won't improve their accuracy.
Unfortunately, he has put forth no detailed plan that can pass Congress.
The president has put forth a detailed plan that includes sacrifices from both sides.
[T]he Senate -- controlled by his Democratic allies -- hasn't even voted on a solution, let alone passed one.
The House hasn't even voted for a solution, let alone passed one, either. The Speaker should probably be aware of this.
By contrast, House Republicans have twice passed plans to replace the sequester with common-sense cuts and reforms that protect national security.
House Republicans twice passed a ridiculous alternative that couldn't pass Congress or get the president's signature, and they did so in the 112th Congress. News flash: we're in the 113th Congress, and bills can't carry over.
The president has repeatedly called for even more tax revenue, but the American people don't support trading spending cuts for higher taxes.
Boehner should never speak for the American people, since the American mainstream generally has contempt for Congress and the Republican agenda. Regardless, Obama is calling for closing tax loopholes, and polls shows voters siding with the White House, not the radicalized congressional GOP.
The president got his higher taxes -- $600 billion from higher earners, with no spending cuts -- at the end of 2012.
And by this logic, Boehner got his spending cuts -- over $1.2 trillion worth, with no new revenue -- in 2011. Does the Speaker not remember 2011?
Republicans' willingness to do what is necessary to save these [retirement-security] programs is well-known. But after four years, we haven't seen the same type of courage from the president.
What's "well-known" is that Boehner and his party have voted to end Medicare, replacing it with a voucher scheme, and occasionally support privatizing Social Security out of existence. What's also "well-known" is that the president has expressed a willingness to approve "reforms" to social-insurance programs as part of a bipartisan compromise, but can't get Republicans to meet him half-way.
The president's sequester is the wrong way to reduce the deficit, but it is here to stay until Washington Democrats get serious about cutting spending.
Washington Democrats have already cut spending, and are prepared to cut even more if Republicans would compromise a little bit.
Reading this breathtakingly dishonest op-ed, I can't help but wonder about the House Speaker's frame of mind. Either John Boehner actually believes the transparent nonsense he wrote for the Wall Street Journal, which would mean the Speaker is alarmingly ignorant about the basics of current events, he's deliberately trying to deceive the public, counting on Americans to be foolish enough to buy demonstrable falsehoods.
Either way, Boehner's mendacious piece is a profound disappointment, and beneath the dignity of his office. If the Speaker is still capable of shame, he should be embarrassed to peddle such nonsense.
Leave a Comment:
Come on, Boner! Enough already with the Op Eds- man up, and file those Articles of Impeachment.
(The reason? We are Republicans- we don' need no steenkin' reason!)
the real reason...Op-Ed's aren't entered into the Congressional record
What a tragedy that the News media covers controversy, not necessarily the news. If the other side of partisan divide does not take a contrary position, as far is the Main stream press is concerned, there is no story to cover.
Multiple polls identify Job Creation as the number one issue Americans are concerned about. We might flatter ourselves that this forum is immune and that the issue is covered well. You would be wrong about that.
Instead of talking about Jobs we are talking about what the GOP wants us to talk about. Compare the list of articles in the last two months about Jobs versus the list of articles about austerity (sequestration, fiscal cliff, tax hike, entitlement program cuts). The difference is staggering.
Just look at the 12 articles tagged "Jobs" in the last 2 months. And if you take a look at them, they are formulaic- the same 2 charts is used as the graphic in all but one of them. The format and theme of the post is largely identical.
We are not making progress on issues. We are not making progress on controversy. But controversy and not issues get the page hits, and gets the ratings numbers.
We pick on Boehner as our bozo the clown blow up toy that we gratuitously take swipes at. Sure, it is entertaining, but its just not journalism. I am not so confident the Press is all that good at its job.
John
Put another way: "sex sells"
Nicely done
You Republicans think you are above everything,even the law and in the moral arena,you have no morals,bunch of idiots!
@Day, how the hell can you impeach him on what grounds you dummy?, You want to impeach people, impeach the Reperbs, stop tlking like an ahole
Irish
I am thinking you must be new around here...
You fell into the Sar-casm
Don't forget legislation like the Sequester must start in the House which is controlled by the Republicans. So.... this bill was written in the house, passed before the Republican caucus in a meeting with a PowerPoint slide show, and then voted on. 218 votes are need to pass legislation in the House. 174 Republicans voted for Sequestration. 66 Against. 95 Dems for. 95 Dems against. The Dems could not have passed the bill if they wanted to, and they clearly didn't by their split vote. Republicans jammed it thru. It would never have gone to the Senate and certainly never reached the Presidents desk. So, this is NOT Obama's Sequestration! The Republican insistence that it is is simply a lie.
Unfortunately, he has put forth no detailed plan that can pass Congress.
There haven't been a lot of bills that can get through the House, but the few we've seen have been grandstanding nonsense.
I know, I know, they're bravely defending the last bastion of our grand democracy, back against the wall, everyone against them and closing in. No, you're not paranoid, everyone is out to get you...to do the right thing. Take a hint.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
I sure do miss the weekly repeals of Obamacare
Yeah...you don't really appreciate what you have till it's gone...
Morals...ethics.......Sanity
It's sad to see someone become so exorcised over a miniscule 1.7% cut in spending. ($60B/$3500B) Oh the horror! Heh.
well mr. Shooter then it's sad to see the Right get so exorcised over a miniscule 4.4% 60bn raise in taxes through closing of loopholes. (60bn/1359.3bn). Seems to me that we could come to an agreement where both of those are accomplished. Except that every legitimate economist says that a sudden 60bn cut is actually a HUGE deal.
And yet somehow as if by magic we can balance the budget by getting rid of Big Bird???
Sorry tiger, Your side got tax revenues with no actual cuts so far. Democrat promises and proposals aren't worth the paper they are printed on.
Sorry shooter your side got 1trn in spending cuts in 2011 so we're actually behind, nice try.
@Shooter
Your number (60 bn) is not correct.
From the bipartisan Budget Control Act it is 1.2 Trillion, discounted by 18% (because of hypothetical savings on interest), or somewhat over 900 billion. This is divided over 9 years, so 100 / billion per year. Note that this is cumulative. 100 billion cut this year. Another 100 billion cut next year. Etc.
Shooter, in case you haven't noticed we're still in economic turmoil and the WORST thing you can do right now is have spending cuts. I hate to actually agree with Dick Chaney but deficits don't matter. Right now the government should be spending as much as possible on infrastructure, etc., to put people back to work so that they can then spend money, pay taxes, etc. And cut the tax loopholes to pay for it.
Mel, I'm citing $60 billion as $120 Billion as you document less the new tax revenue of $60 Billion for a net of $60 Billion in cuts. Close enough for Govt work.
Raquel, do you understand that the purpose of Govt stimulus is to boost profits for business? I'm asking a serious question.
Shooter= you would not know serious or anything based in fact if it hit you on the head.
To keep them from going bankrupt Shooter. Remember, Businesses are people too. You can't pull a flip flop (seem familiar?) and complain about it later.
@Shooter
The revenues from the the American Taxpayer Relief Act do not count towards a reduction in the sequestration cuts. The act only delayed the cuts by 2 months. It's still 1.2 Trillion in cuts or across the board cuts of 100+ billion per year, every year for nine years.
SHOOTER ..you can't post the blather you do, everyday, and then expect me to take you seriously, just because you say you are being serious. You are mean spirited and cynical or you are on somebody's right wing payroll. I wish you would simply go away, but you won't.
The revenues from the the American Taxpayer Relief Act do not count towards a reduction in the sequestration cuts.
Yes, it does. Money is fungible.
No Blankman, it's only your brain that's turned spongy....Too much FAUX NOOZ has definitely zapped your thought patterns/discernment/ability to reason & logically reach conclusions...
Republicans flinched on tax rates. They flinched on the debt ceiling. Their base knows it and isn't happy. They don't want to flinch again on the sequester. Democrats are betting that a coalition of public opinion, the Republican party's own Wall Street and Corporate bosses, and the military industrial complex will exert enough influence behind the scenes to force Republicans to flinch again. Their only other way out is to let catastrophe occur and blame it on the president, a strategy that has a remarkable failure rate since it's brief success in 2010.
Good news, though. Once this fight is behind us, we've got the budget fight coming up next month. And people think Congress will find time to get immigration or gun reform done...why?
I know many democrats and liberal minded people will dislike what I'm about to say, and for transparency's sake I do tend to take a leftist view on most things, but I firmly believe the president specifically put up legislation that CAN'T be passed where gun control is concerned. Contrary to the fear mongering extremists on the right who continuously gawk and crow about how "Obamer wunt to taek teh gums!", nothing in his history as president has suggested this. I suspect he is simply playing politics and covering his ass. In this way, I sincerely agree with you. Obama knows this budget fight is pretty much going to span the next year at very least. Nothing else is getting done in congress in 2013.
I think you're wrong about the opinions of 'many dems or liberal minded people' taking a dislike to what you said, Strange. I think myself a Dem rather than Repub and I have been called "liberal" many a time when I try to make comments that were common sense elsewhere.
Besides me cracking up on the impressions of the fear-mongering extremists on the right (that hit it dead on - I'm impressed)..at least I (can't speak for like minded individuals, I'm not them) have come to realize that with people like John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, etc in positions of power; the budget talks will never get done because they will play the stubborn card and rally supporters to their cause to filibuster every sense of progress like they have been doing for the past few years now.
And where are the Dems fighting back against this sack of lies?
I agree wholeheartedly with this comment. It really seems like Pelosi and Reid have been very silent in defending the President here. They seem to be willing to let the GOP spout off about the "President's Sequester" without so much as a response. It is very frustrating to hear Obama and Boehner simply duke it out where are the D's on this.
I don't agree. It's just not getting media coverage (surprise, surprise). The House Dems put forward a plan and also strongly urged Boehner not to recess the House. The Senate Dems also put forward a plan. Boehner wants to pretend that no one else is doing anything by not taking up anything that is being done. Meanwhile the mainstream media is presenting the dynamics in the usual Obama vs. Boehner narrative.
I'm not saying they haven't "done anything" I'm saying they're not screaming from the top of their lungs that this is EVERYONE's sequester. Where is Pelosi's oped responding to Boehner. Where is Reid on face the nation responding etc.
Is there a 900 word op ed in the Wall Street Journal from the Democrats? Our silence is tacit capitualtion to these lies. The right continues to lie because there is so little forceable push back from truth.
Just remember who owns the WSJ: Rupert Murdoch. Well, whaddaya know. . . .
What is frustrating to me, Boehner, Cantor,and all, complain that our President needs to show leadership, he shouldbring out his own bill, show the country what he wants to do, etc. So a immigration bill is leaked out of the White House, and all of a sudden, they are all saying, its dead in the water because he did not wait for the Republicans. That he should not have made a possible immigration bill,, because that is their job. They want his leadership (not) when he's waiting on them They don't want his leadership when he tries to give them a nudge.
Republicans in Boehner's House voted for the sequester by almost 3:1. They passed the bill along with the Senate (over 50% Republicans in favor), and sent it up to the president. It ain't the "president's sequester." The sequester was a bipartisan agreement.
And since when does limiting the Republican / Bush tax increase become "the president got his higher taxes"?
So you're calling Bob Woodward a liar?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/02/17/bob_woodward_sequester_was_obamas_idea.html
No what he's saying is that the sequester, whether proposed by Obama or Boehner was an agreed to deal among both sides to put off an additional 1tn in spending cuts demanded arbitrarily by Republicans. It was either do something to placate the hostage takers (GOP) or default and Obama came up with something that EVERYONE AGREED TO AND VOTED FOR to avoid that secondary option of default. Who cares who's idea it was, GOP voted for it, Dem's voted for it, Obama signed it. Afterward everyone said how it was a great compromise because everyone hates it (except the GOP who touted it immediately after passing it). Then the super committee failed (who knew 4 Dems and 4 R's couldn't come to an agreement). And now we're at another self imposed crisis.
Way to complex a though, tigerarmy. At least for shooter.
tiger
Benen continues to lie about the origins. Fine, that is how he makes a living. You on the other hand are correct about the fact that everybody was on board. The Obama team came up with it figuring that the republicans would not let the sequester cut the military budget. (now who is the hostage taker?) Well the "Super crew" which was actually 6v6 did not come up with a bipartisan plan and the republicans are now abiding by the agreement, therefore calling the democrats bluff. As Shooter correctly noted we are only talking about 60 billion dollars. The federal government spends more than that on toilet paper in the pentagon per year. I read the link provided in this story and found something in it that really struck me. The president must not be listening to Krugman or Benen, because he still believes that deficits are a bad thing that is keeping the economy from growing.
@Shooter
Facts are pesky things. Did Boehner's House Republicans overwhelmingly support the sequester? Answer: Yes. Did a majority of the Senate Republicans support the sequester. Answer: Yes. Was it a bipartisan bill? Yes.
If Bob Woodward or you disagree with these facts, then yes, you are liars.
Why aren't you folks able to distinguish that starting an idea, and someone else agreeing, with it isn't the same thing? The point being that Obama is campaigning today against his own idea... AKA lying?
Obama offered a sequester of automatic tax increases (to hurt Repubs) and automatic discretionary spending cuts (to hurt Dems). Boehner offered a sequester of automatic military cuts (to hurt Repubs) and automatic discretionary cuts (to hurt Dems). Boehner's sequester is the one that became law.
Look, I'm willing to agree that both sides thought that this was a good idea at the time in order to spur deal making. That doesn't mean anyone was FOR the sequester actually going off. No sane person wants to use nukes, but they sure helped keep the cold war cold.
Taking a cue from Solomon is what the sequester is. It's not meant to actually be a plan. GOTP think it's a good plan, even if economy tanks big time again. Even if people are hurting big time, that is fine. It's easy for them to do this, until we see defense spending cut, then they get busy with the emergency spending bills again. They had lots of practice with that during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars/surges, etc. That's easy for them.
I suspect we are going to have to brace for more economic downturn, they just continue blaming Obama and try to push for more wars.
We could have done this so much differently. But crisis, war, drowning in bathtubs, anti worker, anti voter, anti-choice GOTP power grabbing took priority.
We used to believe in forming a more perfect Union, Liberty and Justice for all. Do we still, or that has to wait until we pay off all debt? Nobody is saying not to make cuts, just not too much, too fast. And economic growth for more people would solve it, just not cut cut cut.
Sandy, #5.8
All economists agree that this is not the time to make spending cuts, but to produce revenue to jump start a flagging economy. Of course we are being held hostage still be the NO TAX EVER crowd of GOP thugs.
Obama has done over a trillion in spending cuts already, and anymore will undermine programs we really need. If we just closed some of these loopholes, like subsidies to the profitable oil corporations, we could balance the budget. But........there's that BUT......the GOP says that is a tax raise!
Is there anyone in the country who doubts that the GOP cares only for the upper.01%? I don't see how there could be.
The sequester won't be as terrible as the hype suggests, and it can be remedied later if the House GOP is willing (LOL) to do what is necessary to reinstate the cuts to the elderly and the poor. (Oh, I fell asleep and was dreaming there for a minute!) LOL I dreamed we had a working government! I dreamed Boehner's house T-Party was aware of reality and cared about the vulnerable among us!!
It was a nice dream, though.
Does anyone remember Boehner (and Ryan) saying about the Sequester that they got 98% of what they wanted by the Sequester? Now, it is th Presidents Sequester, GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!!!
tigerarmy247...None of this was necessary...the entire crisis was manufactured by republicans. Raising the debt ceiling is and always has been just automatic without any drama until these repub extremists held the nation hostage to extort money from the treasury and get rid of programs they didn't like.
They forced the idea of sequestration to continue the blackmail.."do what we want or we will destroy the economy and the full faith and credit of the US".
There has never been an emergency or a 'debt crisis'. Government spending was never out of contrtol and is now the lowest its been since 1952. Republicans created all this drama and "crisis" just to make Obama and the dems look bad, to lower taxes, get rid of unions and so called 'entitlement' programs like SS and Medicare Medicaid (wall street and big business have been historically more profitable than ever) and attempting to make us forget about the republican depression/recession from Bush period. ALL OF THIS DRAMA THE REPUBLICANS MANUFACTURED and none of it was necessary or needed. Adults could have resolved all these issues long ago except for republican obstruction.
This all started from something as routine as raising the debt ceiling which Boehner/McConnell used to manufacture this so called crisis and now this sequestration. Senate progressive caucus has laid out a detailed budget which accomplishes everything Repubs claim they want. Boehner is a goober standing in the way of economic serenity.
The man looks defeated. No more free lunches for him.
I hate this incompetent, lying hack with the heat of a thousand suns. It is now common and unremarkable to lie without any consequences in major news outlets in media interviews (and not just on Fox) due to the abdication of so called journalists. The media covering Romney's campaign finished off any sense of truth in a political campaign, listening every day to a stump speech riff with provable lies and never challenging them. I think that was a test for the media by the GOP, one of many actually. Now like Kelly O'Donnell on MSNBC, the Relublicans hand her their talking points and she reads them, the end.
Projection is not your friend.
Mdborn, #7
Journalism has really taken a hit lately. They allow a free pass on the continual lies by the likes of Boehner!
Don't bother Shooter, you're on ignore. I don't give a rat's a## what you think about anything.
@Shooter242
If Md born is right, then think of the consequences -- you must be WRONG. Obviously that isn't the case, so Md born must be projecting. It is the only way to make the logic fit.
So how do you know what is real? As a side note, there is an inverse correlation between confidence and competence, and you seem very, very confident. Probably worth exploring.
Remind me again, who voted for the sequester? Seems like everyone who did so now owns it. If the President actually did propose it, how did it become law? Is this part of the President's overreaching by executitive order? I missed where he implemented the sequester by fiat. But maybe I was out that day.
The POTUS wanted a clean debt ceiling bill like the last twenty Presidents had. This notion that the sequester is his idea is the height of deception...
The Republicans are lying as usual, even though they've been called out on it by videos of Boehner saying he got 98% of what he wanted. Their goal is to hurt the country through the sequester and lie that Obama owns it.
They have no morals, values, or scruples. They are just a bunch of self-serving liars. They voted for the sequester. They know that! Their policy is to lie and then swear to it and then have Fox swear to it.
Fact is, the sequester was a man made wound inflicted by the intransigence of the GOP.
The Republican game is to blame the President. If they are successful then they won't take the heat for the layoffs and reduced government services that come in about a week. The President is not taking this lying down and probably has a bigger bully pulpit than Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. My brother the Fox News junky will buy Boehner, but not many of his employees will. I think ending Head Start is going to be one that gets everybody's attention. Last time closing down the parks got lots of blame heaped on Republican heads so who knows which shutdown will focus America's attention on the Republicans this time. Maybe the tipping point will be the 4 day weeks for all the civilian employees of the DOD. Northern Virginia is going to feel this pain. Four fifths salary is going to be tough for a lot of Pentagon officers to stomach. Defense contractors are really going to feel the pain. Boehner might want to spend time outside Washington to avoid the spouses of government workers brandishing pitchforks, tar and feathers.
If ignorance is bliss...then ol' john is the happiest person in DC
But he isn't at all happy, the poor dear. Maybe screwing lots of people over to get a bit more money and power isn't all the rich make it out to be.
It looks as if Boner is going to break it off in the American people. I sure hope that we are not so gullible to believe his lies that this is all the fault of democrats.
Boehner is witnessing a train wreck, and he realizes he's only bought the cheapest insurance policy to cover his ass! Now his recollection of the events leading up to the wreck will be skewed in his favor so he and his cheap insurance don't get cut out all together!
John Boehner is an embarrassment to the legislative branch of our federal government, an obstruction preventing our nation from prospering, and a poor excuse of a leader who obviously has worked the Peter Principle to its highest height!
John Boehner needs to begin bringing legislation to the floor of the House for the votes such legislation deserves! -Kevo
John Boehner is a weak leader with no followers, which is a desperate situation since we depend on our law makers to work for the good of the country.
Ain't gonna happen, folks.
I see our president as being at fault here, too. He needs to pretend to be LBJ and get their a##es in gear. But........he isn't doing that. Perhaps no one can, but he should at least TRY! i realize they hate him, but he needs to say, "Who cares", and try to engage them anyway!
By God, I'd find a way, and most women I know would, too. I think women are better with bullies than men are.
What's really disturbing to me is that the idiot just keeps throwing objectively insane ideas out there in a way that indicates he has absolutely no endgame in mind, no strategy whatsoever for avoiding a gigantic clusterfrak that will be as disastrous for his party as it will for the country. He's signalling in every way possible that, having deliberately steered the ship toward the iceberg, he's given up on the possibility of avoiding it and that there's nothing left to do but rearrange the deck chairs and get the orchestra tuned up for a final concerto before the icy water takes everyone to their watery grave.
This kind of hysteria over $60 billion just makes you look low information alarmist.
@Shooter
Your 60 billion is incorrect. It's just over 100 billion per year cumulative over 9 years.
Actual number 85 billion over 7 months this year. 1.2 trillion over 10 years.
@Inspector
Not to nit-pick, but you are not correct. The window is 2013 - 2021, or 9 years. Read the law. And yes, it is is 1.2 Trillion, but lowered by roughly 18% by projected decreases in interest payments. This is where the 900+ billion comes from, which is where the ~100 billion / year comes from.
You are correct on the 85 billion for the remainder of 2013.
Let's call it $120 Billion for each year. Republicans are contributing $60 Billion, Ergo, we're talking about a net $60 Billion, or almost what we sent Sandy Hurricane victims.
@Shooter
Minus ~100 billion per year, every year for the next 9 years. That's the law. All of your hand does not change that fact.
And Republicans are "contributing"?? Please. Maybe "proposing", but even that is incorrect.
I think let it all happen so people will see they are not doing nothing and will never do nothing! If people still believe Boner is going to do something to help us all they are in dream land!
Frontline reports that Obama, Boehner, and Cantor did strike a deal for $800b in revenue and Obama reneged on it because the Senate gang of six came back with a deal with $1200b in revenue. If that's true, Boehner is correct on the first point.
You can watch the reporting here at about 24:00 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cliffhanger/
Please don't cite this. On MSNBC, any facts that contradict the Democratic party line are not allowed.
Seriously.... there is blame to go all around. The big ugly fundamental truth is that we spend too much. If you want to argue that we need more revenue and should raise taxes, I can hear and even support that argument. But under any rationale set of assumptions, there is no scenario in which tax increases come anywhere close to closing the gap. And little tweaking around the edges cuts, paired with real tax increases also won't get us there.
The ONLY SOLUTION to our fiscal problem is real tax reform and revenue increases, and real structural reform and significant costs/reductions in the big entitlement programs. If you can't acknowledge that and start to engage on BOTH of those topics in an honest fashion, then YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM. That includes the 95% of people on this board that take the Democratic party line that you can't touch the big-4 entitlement programs. If that's your position, then YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM. Those that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
I've always appreciated the work of the Simpson-Bowles commission. They are the few that are seeking a balanced solution. This place represents one unrealistic set of ideals and positions, just as absurd and unrealistic as the idiotic talking heads over on FoxNews.
Why don't you ever want to talk about reducing the defense budget. We won the cold war 15-20 years ago, but we still have major expensive bases in Europe. Hell we won WWII 62 years ago, but we still have giant bases in Asia. We have 3 times more naval battle groups than the rest of the world combined, and that includes our friends in England and France in the rest of the world. We are on a world war footing, but the world war ended decades ago.
America needs a smaller leaner and more effective military. Enough with the bloated defense budget. I am tired of the Europeans and Japanese eating our lunch while we "protect" them from who knows what.
Dog: Your caps use simply proves you are not entirely comfortable with your lies. A comfortable liar need not emphasize. You know full well that Social Security does not effect the deficit, and you also know Medicare is the deficit driver. Go ahead and pretend you are some "bipartisan" champion, but just be aware that many here can clearly see you for what you are...
A true bipartisan solution would deal with economy and jobs as number one issue to close deficit. It's as simple as that. Cutting (sequester) means job cutting, which would be the opposite of getting economy growing.
Economic growth is what is best, simple as that. I think economists from all walks of ideologies can agree on that basic fact. Jobs, jobs, jobs was the campaign slogan, but the actions are not promoting jobs, but every other thing and then do economic harm. Tax cuts do not create jobs. Cutting spending does not create jobs.
The GOTP has been so focused on kicking POTUS and power grabbing, they throw economy and American people under the bus in doing so.
http://www.businessinsider.com/closing-the-deficit-is-painless-2012-12
Ron - defense cuts will happen and are happening. That's the one thing that IS happening with the sequester. But you could eliminate the defense budget and it wouldn't close the gap. And credible experts in both parties agree that we couldn't reduce the defense budget by more than 20-25% without creating unacceptable risk to the nation. But we can and will cut defense costs, and the sequester starts there.
Lebowsky Dude - Thanks for the budgetary primmer. If I'm supposed to be impressed, keep trying. Yes, SS is not part of the accounting problem of the moment. But any actuary looks at SS and sees that it's on a 100% certain path to insolvency as currently funded, and needs structural changes. Those changes don't need to be big. Could be modest raising of the retirement age for future retirees. Or turning it into a needs-based program so that the wealthy don't receive benefits. But one way or another, the program has to be fixed to not go upside down in the next couple of decades. Because the Federal Government is on the hook for any unfunded future gap, and because the "trust fund" that has been built up is nothing more than a giant pile of IOUs to the fed. So you can play your accounting games all you want, but the fundamental truth is that the Social Security program is just another under-funded entitlement program that has promised to much and doesn't have the necessary revenue to fulfill those promises. The very fact that you don't see a problem and want to instead point out accounting technicalities rather than deal with the very real problem IS THE PROBLEM.
Well, SS was used to mask the deficits run up by the Pres. who brought down to our knees, doubling debt and hiding spending deficits while cutting taxes for the rich.
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2004/01/the_unlocked_box.html
The Bush years are a shining example of how not to run government, unless you are trying to run it into the ground.
You are obviously of the same mindset of W, calling SS, a beloved program nothing but a pile of IOUs.
The SS Privatization scheme is one that began in 1980's by Cato/Heritage.
http://zfacts.com/p/477.html The 1983 Cato paper about the strategy is highlighted/linked.
Your name calling and argument is pathetic. Calling the SS trust fund a "pile of IOUs" is fact, not a moral judgement. The federal government has taken every dollar that went into the trust fund, and spent that dollar. The trust fund is paper. It's not there. It's all been loaned to the federal government and spent. Social Security IS just a big pile of IOUs now. THAT IS FACT.
And your condemnation of Bush couldn't be less relevant. I couldn't care less about George Bush. EVERY PRESIDENT for the last several decades has been part of the problem with Social Security, because EVERY PRESIDENT failed to have the political courage to speak to the problems of the program and force a dialog about solutions.
And since YOU don't want to talk about solutions, and YOU can't have the intellectual honesty to look at the payout curve, and the funding curve, and the gap between them, and agree that we need to do something substantial to fix it, then YOU ALSO are part of the problem. Point the finger at Bush??? No. Point the finger at yourself. Because when people don't acknowledge and obvious problems and work towards solutions because it doesn't agree with their ideology, then THEY are the problem. That's YOU sandyc954. Part of the problem of our country - an ideologue that can't deal with the basic math and truth of our federal deficit.
IF you would just read the link, it shows my information/
"idealogy" on the topic. All you seem to offer is righteous indignation and calling it bunk. That is what is pathetic, IMO.
I think the minds have been shaped by think tanks and listening to angry people that blame liberals for their problems. As if they could just yell their way into power and authority. That's what I think. I think that is pathetic.
If you ever want to see something that happened in history and possible solutions that don't involve drowning in bathtubs. Try reading some other ideas. This guy is an economist. All economists do not agree. But if people would consider the facts (we don't really have a giant file room with IOUs), we have insurance policies and bank accounts that we paid into with records, guidelines to be met and accounting. It's just like an insurance company or bank, without less danger of going "belly up".
The U.S. gov't. is the least likely to default, despite all the activity going on to try to accomplish that.
http://zfacts.com/p/477.html
I think when it comes right down to it, the Republicans will agree to a set of comprehensive tax reforms that would include closing loopholes and raising some rates.
But their price for that will be real, substantial, structural reforms to reduce the growing cost of the big-4 entitlement programs (social security, Obamacare, Medicare, Medicaid). The Democrats are as or more unwilling to go there, as the Republicans are unwilling to talk taxes in the absence of structural spending reform.
We're at an impass. What is driving the left insane on this is that ultimately, the Republicans have the big hammer - without raising the debt ceiling, the "cost box" is fixed and the sequester mechanism will do the work that the politicians won't.
The sequester simply needs to happen. Let it roll. Let it roll for a while and actually get implemented. And THEN both parties can sit down and have a different kind of conversation that includes right up front structural reforms and cost reductions to the big-4 entitlement programs. When that's on the table, REALLY on the table and being acknowledged and talked about by the Democrats... stuff will start to move and happen again. But not until.
The big 4, as it is commonly referred to, is social security, medicare, medicaid and defense spending. The AHA is just an extension of medicare/medicaid.
Social security does need some tweaking, but it is not on the table for any cuts. It is a separate deal.
"Big 4" referred to entitlement programs. Choose your list. Defense would make it "Big 5". Obamacare may technically be part of other programs, but it's got a completely separate and enormous set of funding mechanisms and expenses, hence it's inclusion in my list.
And while Social Security may be accounted separately and not technically in the federal budget as with the other big buckets.... it's all one big bucket in the end. When SS runs out of cash, the Fed is on the hook. And the SS trust fund is essentially a giant pile of IOUs from the Fed, so in the end they're all one big bucket of unfunded cost commitment.
But the truth is they ALL need to be on the table for structural reform and cost reduction. NO SACRED COWS. EVERY PROGRAM is up for structural change and cost reduction. When we get there, that's when the logjam will break around tax increases and closing of loopholes and revenue.
The Democrats are being just as ideological in their absolutes as the Republicans. Thankfully the sequester will force both of them off of their positions, and it will do that by forcing a set of REAL CUTS (as opposed to the accounting game future cuts that politicians are more fond of) that will force some action.
Unfortunately there is far to few of us who are educated to our nations politics. My generation does not have a clue on the importance of our voices and what they can do. We sit back and choose to say to ourselves "what's the point, they're going to do what they want anyways" it's that kind of logic that is allowing people such as Boehner and the Republican party (and a few Dems I may add) to send us down this very visible path of destruction, and yet we still choose to keep our eyes closed. All it takes is for every person who questions the voting system to actually cast that so called "POINTLESS" vote, maybe just maybe we could change our path.
The "path of destruction" is the one we're on - perpetually spending more than we make. I'm not nuts about Boehner or how either party is managing it, but the sequester is the RESULT, not the SOURCE of the problem.
The source of the problem is those of us who know the country is heading in the wrong direction, and instead of voting in the elections they choose not to. So what I'm saying is, if they VOTE we could get rid of half the idiots in congress who are taking us down this "path of destruction" by simply letting go of the "what's the point" attitude.
Red Dog,
when anything that even resembles common sense tax reform is considered a plan devised by Satan to the GOP (lets not forget that the top tax rate is the lowest its been since about the great depression, and those in that bracket are making about 100 times as much now as then). and the loopholes in the tax code are large enough to sail a fully loaded super tanker of crude through
I have what, to my untrained eye, seems to be a relatively common sense approach to common sense tax reform that I posted around convention time of last year. I think is a step in the right direction. and maybe Im wrong, but it manages to be both progressive and conservative, while at the same time promotes domestic job creation
http://eltarindineer.blogspot.com/2012/09/dealing-with-taxes.html
Titokhan - The Republicans have drawn and absolute line in the sand on any/every tax reform, because the Democrats have done the same thing on structural spending reform on the entitlement programs. The Republicans gave in on a real tax hike. Not some future accounting gimmick, a real, right now, today, rise in tax rates that will generate real new revenue in 2013 and going forward.
The appropriate Democratic response should be to put some small, REAL reductions on the table in the entitlement programs. The Republicans allowed their sacred cow to take a hit. But the Democrats are holding theirs dearly. And so the Republicans are done. If the Democrats don't want to negotiate and aren't willing to put structural entitlement reform on the table, then the Republicans will let the sequester do the work for them by creating an environment in which BOTH groups will have to put their sacred cows on the block.
The President and the Democrats are very happy to talk about taxes and reductions to defense and the parts of the budget they don't hold as dear, as long as they can protect the 2/3 of the budget that they DO hold dear. That's not the way to start a negotiation.
So.... let the sequester happen. The game is about to change in a big way.
Once again, the R T Pubs are in an alternative reality. I mentioned in another thread many drunks and addicts live in and/or create drama and catastrophe.
We do not want to live in your world. It's ridiculous. Get some help. Get sober. We seem to be on the verge of needing an intervention. I try to be compassionate, but they are about to take us all down with their b.s.
I disagree with the headline-- It should read--
Reality 14, Boehner 0
fixed it for you
Sorry, I couldn't get beyond the first paragraph of this blog entry without having a fit. WHO IS COPYEDITING THIS BLOG?! I'm a super-liberal, gay, Rachel-loving democrat, but I have to call you out on this. Take a moment. Revise, edit, make an effort to sound intelligent. This isn't the first time I've seen crap copy go out, but this time it was especially bad. The word "probably" instead of "probability"? And there was clearly a missing word in the clause "since there no talks" before that.
Seriously, please hire a new copyeditor (or ANY copy editor). I'm available. Email me if you think I'm joking.
Otherwise, carry on the good work you do. In general, I'm a giant fan!
It made me feel better about my typos mostly due to auto spell correction.
But I do wish I could fix mine without spotlighting the errors.
All of the Republicans are attempting to place the budget blame on Obama, wrong. The Republicans are the ones who voted for all of the spending during Bush 42's terms, especially for a war that was forced upon us by the lying, and cheating of the executive office (Ms. Maddow's "Hubris"); Pres Clinton had us out of debt when Bush 42 took office, so man up, Republicans & Boener, who are the people who REALLY put us in debt, oh, and cut tax revenues!
"The probably of avoiding next week's mess is quickly approaching zero." Would it kill you to proof this?
How about just proofing the lede?
I hope they drag it out to the last second. That gives the rest of the world even more time to adjust their economies ahead of a post-America world economy. I am one Canadian who wishes we would slam the border shut to American trade, tourism and visitors. I will gladly run to the wide open arms of China; not because they are less corrupt than you, (they aren't) but because it is so much easier to deal with them and they have more money. And they are on the other side of the world. I wish you Americans knew how much it sucks being your neighbor!
Where's that Mary J. Blige song, Family Affair?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo2tD5Kr0kw
Why would the Wall Street Journal even allow such garbage to even be printed? Because ... oh yeah, it IS the Wall Street Journal and controlled by Rupert Murdoch. I'm afraid the WSJ has become just about as reliably mendacious as FOX NEWS.
What an absurd state of affairs.
It's a free country! We can print any goddamn lies we goddamn please!
Can someone get this article and responses to Bonehead and his idiot side-kicks to show them we know he's a liar and delusional...... Once again they need to be reminded of the true facts and that they lost the election. Honestly - this whole thing is getting old real quick. I say if we survive the two years, we make sure he and his cohorts get kicked to the curb.....quickly.
While everyone is arguing about who is to blame for the sequester -- meanwhile back at the ranch (the real world): The top headline in the Cortez Journal, (Cortez, Colorado is a small town in southwest Colorado which has the distinction of being the "gateway to Mesa Verde National Park") reads: "Cutbacks for Mesa Verde? Park hours, staffing levels hinge on Washington budget talks." In summary, Mesa Verde will lose $321,000.00 in funding if the sequester goes into effect which will mean reduced staffing for the summer tourist season and also reduced hours at the visitors center and maybe some campground closings. Yellowstone stands to lose $1.75 million. The article does not say how much the Grand Canyon will lose.
These funding cuts will adversely affect my community (Cortez), Flagstaff, AZ, and probably all of Wyoming. It will not matter much to us WHO suggested the sequester. It will matter to us if the problem does not get fixed.
Instead of pointing fingers I wish our elected officials would get together and agree on a plan that is acceptable to the majority of the American people as demonstrated by the November election results and the majority of the polls.
Whats your plan? Keep spending at an unsustainable rate?
" In summary, Mesa Verde will lose $321,000.00 in funding if the sequester goes into effect"
That tells me that, painful as it is, the sequester is doing what it is supposed to do.
You are correct, blame game doesn't matter, both party's will feel the heat.
Here is the truth, Republicans,at least, don't want to fix the problems. They think living in a world without national parks is a good thing.
Really: There is an article in this weeks Time, "The Most Expensive Weapon Ever Built," pp. 26-30. , about the F-35. Just one of those planes costs $400 billion and the Pentagon wants to buy 2,457 of them and I think that is more of them. They have already wasted over a trillion on them. Cut just one and we could save a lot of money.
And there are a lot of loopholes in the tax code that need closing.
The President and the Democrats HAVE put forth a plan of targeted cuts and revenue enhancements. I have not seen one from the Republicans.
I would also like to see a tax on credit swaps and maybe something on commodity futures to curb speculation. I believe there are some bills out there which should be considered.
Ron: wasn't it a Republican, I believe his name was Teddy Roosevelt, who created the national parks?
I do not, however, think that the Republicans want to live in a land without F-35 fighter planes. They may not care what happens to small businesses in Cortez, Colorado when Mesa Verde loses $321,000.00, but I bet that when Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raython, and a few other defense contractors start losing their progress payments, the Republicans will start to care. And that is not to mention what will happen when the military bases in their states start furlonging people. And they will yammer a lot about how those cuts will affect the small businesses in the areas. They are always talking about how much they worry about small businesses.
400 billion per plane? Get your facts right, then talk to me about how the conservatives wont cut defense spending. Why would we want sequestration if half of it is military cuts?
Oh yeah, btw, the jet:
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2011/05/so-how-much-does-an-f-35-actually-cost.html
The current price tag of the Air Force version of the F-35 is around $130 million.
http://www.npr.org/2013/01/02/167201865/at-130-million-a-plane-critics-question-the-cost-of-the-f-35
Really: "one of the 1,457 jets the Pentagon plans to buy for $400 billion," Time, p. 28. Maybe I am mis-reading what Time wrote; maybe they meant that all the 2,457 planes together would cost $400 billion. But according to their article, none of the planes is yet combat ready and the price keeps going up.
Even at $130 million each that is a lot especially if they cannot be flown by pilots in combat.
I worked for a company that built the tail section of the B-1 Bomber. To date I do not think that the B-1 has been used in any war. The American people paid for a weapon that was out of date before it was off the assembly line. It was just Reagan's jobs program. I guess I should not complain since one of those jobs was mine.