President Obama met with congressional leaders from both parties and both chambers at the White House this morning about the latest in a series of self-inflicted, easily-avoided wounds. There were no realistic hopes that the policymakers would somehow reach an agreement to replace the sequestration cuts, and expectations were met: the group spoke for about an hour and then quit, resolving nothing.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) left the meeting and spoke for about a minute to reporters without taking questions. For those who can't watch clips online, he argued:
"Let's make it clear, the president got his tax hike on January 1st. The discussion about revenue, in my view, is over. It's about taking on the spending problem here in Washington."
I'm trying to think of a way to explain this in a way Boehner will understand. As the Speaker sees it, the very idea of a balanced compromise is ridiculous -- a compromise would necessarily include revenue, Democrats already got new revenue, so it's outrageous for anyone to even raise the possibility.
Let's put this as plainly as possible: in the summer of 2011, both sides accepted a debt-reduction deal that cut spending by over $1.2 trillion without any additional revenue -- a win for Republicans. In late 2012, both sides accepted another deal that raised about $600 billion in revenue without any additional cuts -- a win for Democrats.
Now it's time to add another piece to the puzzle, and the Speaker of the House only remembers part of the very recent past.
This sentence...
"Let's make it clear, the president got his tax hike on January 1st. The discussion about revenue, in my view, is over."
...makes exactly as much sense as this sentence:
"Let's make it clear, Republicans got their spending cuts in 2011. The discussion about spending cuts, in my view, is over."
Substantively, there is no difference between the two arguments. Both represent extremes. Except right now, Republicans think the first sentence makes perfect sense and no one is even bothering with the second sentence.
Indeed, if Boehner were to accept Obama's compromise, Boehner would still come out on top since the spending-cut totals would still easily outweigh the revenue totals. The president's offer, at face value, is already a win for the GOP.
But Republicans won't accept a win; they'll accept a rout. According to Boehner, the only available solution to a problem he helped create is one in which his side gets 100% of what it wants, predicated on the assumption that the massive spending cuts agreed to in 2011 have escaped Republicans' memories altogether.
At this point, most Americans want a compromise. Most Democrats want and have already proposed a compromise. But Boehner wants everyone to know there will be no compromise, and there's nothing the president can say or do to change his mind.
I'll now look forward to pundits everywhere telling me how "both sides" are to blame.
Leave a Comment:
Seditio!
Dr. Screwdriver, rogue economist and alcoholic, needs a few more to stop the jitters but then may become weepy! It's always a tradeoff when you titrate yourself with alcohol daily.
Remind me - how exactly is his name pronounced?
His name rhymes with the product he uses for that healthy glow. You know, "Toner".
I am finally speechless. Boehner (rhymes with loner, Adam) and his caucus (circus) live in an alternate reality where the rich have to be protected at all costs. Screw 99% of America.
That just floors me. Aw, geez, there goes my hair on fire again...
Time to take a break.
Bonehead's compromise is just like his booze......100% booze - 0% ice/mixer.
The only rational explanation I have for this NO COMPROMISE behavior is that someone is holding the families of Republicans hostage somewhere demanding this childish behavior. Let us let them off the hook in 2014 and elect adults who will govern.
Why should Republicans be anything other than uncompromising when Democrats keep giving them what they want?
It's simple, folks. Republicans are winning. They know it. And Democrats refuse to stop giving in to them.
You need to get that through your heads.
Charles and David Koch could not have said it better than Boehner. In fact, their $30 million lobbyists and FoxNews etc. have already said it. The Kochs even want the Bush tax cuts agreement re-negotiated. Kochs friends in the defense industry do not like the sequester cuts so they may prevail upon the Kochs to blink.
It is becoming clear that Obama is not going to blink!
Obama believes in the people and works every day for the people. His "compromises" help the people. Not matter what the FoxNews and friends say. Remember the $716 billion cut from medicare. All it did was extend medicare another 8 years. The Kochs don't like that kind of spending cut.
Unfortunately at the moment, the president's hands are tied by the way our government is set up (Has always been set up). There is no magic wand he can wave to get congress to do his bidding. His hands are tied by the constitution. The founding fathers did not want another King and deliberately weakened the presidency. They could not foresee a case where the enemy of the country is in the congress. But here we are. We have a group in congress taking us from self-inflicted crisis to yet another self-inflicted crisis. This will not stop until America is on its knees. These people have a real agenda: Starve government to death. Undo the New Deal. Every man for himself.
Bills, all bills, originate in Congress. When we have, as we do now, a bunch of obstinate, T-Party, anti-government, anti-Obama, anti-female, anti-minority, anti-Democratic group of neo-Nazis in congress who are determined to take Obama and the government down, it is a bitter pill to swallow to say that the President of the U.S. can do nothing, but that's a hard fact.
There is also no way to get them out short of their own extreme right constituents having an epiphany. Don't hold your breath. They are gerrymandered in till 2020, and can only be afraid of being primaried by someone more extreme than they are.
They might have to resurrect Hitler to do so. They have changed the voting laws, as well, to insure their continued power over the people of the United States.
Amazing.The Koch brothers have been very successful indeed. Money not only talks, it buys votes. It funds organizations that parade as grass-root populism, like the T-Party.
@India: Great description!
Thanks so much Tony. Did you get that writing done you were working on?
The Washington DC Press need to wake up and smell the coffee - now that the sequester is going into effect, Boehner simply has to repeat his summer 2011 statement - "I got 98% of what I wanted" - as now he's cashing in on his utterance!
Fools in the DC Media Machine - you've been played! The only way the Republicans were gonna get anywhere close to their love of austerity was to sign on to a pact made during a moment of national distress, and then just wait for the moment it would be implemented!
Well, here we are - Happy Sequester to you Mr. Speaker, and to your Republican posse! -Kevo
The groundhog lied. It is going to be a long Winter, kevo. A long, bitter Winter. Now we get to watch them gloat. OMG
I was so glad the Pres dealt with the idiot Whitehouse press core. It's like they don't even listen to what he is saying....just sit there looking for an opportunity to insert a gotcha question.
Where is Jeff Gannon when you need him?
Where are the black helicopters and the FEMA camps when we really need them?
Exactly. Boehner is pretending to want to do something about the sequester. But what he's asking for in "exchange" is just more cuts. Since the sequester itself is nothing more or less than a bunch of spending cuts, you can't really be against the sequester and for more spending cuts at the same time.
Logic has never been a GOP strong point.
Neither has thinking, but why let that stop them.....
Zore, #3.2
Don't underestimate them. They're thinking. They're probably, at this very hour, thinking what the next crisis they create is going to involve, and how Fox news and the toxic talkers can start a propaganda war to insure its success.
They simply lie and obfuscate and double talk so that most Americans don't know what they're actually thinking about doing.
We've heard nothing bot the "both sides" BS for weeks on network news.
The illusion of impartiality helps Chuck Todd sleep at night, I suppose. Bully for him.
Weird double-posting behavior, with an error message that said "Bubblegum".
Seriously? Bubblegum? LOL
#5
That happens sometimes. Don't worry about it.
Today, after reading all the posts on MaddowBlog, I want to ask a Repub what color is their world. They don't know what's going on, they don't TRY to know what going on, and they perfectly illustrate Einstein definition of insanity. Yikes!
Steve, I have to thank you for doing this every day! Do you ever have the urge to hit your head against the keyboard?
Someone needs to call out the Republicans continued lie that they raised revenue. The tax cuts were expired. The revenue was already there. If anything they lowered the revenue by extending the lower tax rates. Their logic would be like me saying "the sun will rise in the east". Then when it happens taking credit for it. NO it was already going to happen with or without me saying it. Sure i could take credit for it but that doesn't make it so.
"Sure i could take credit for it but that doesn't make it so."
That's cause you don't live in "limbo-land" where "normal" rules apply.
That is correct. The tax cuts expired..........Oh...not exactly......one was actually allowed to go back up..... (the payroll tax) on the working class wasn't included. Huh! So they were willing to raise taxes on folks making around $25,00.00 a year or so...
Gee, probably just a mistake.
Does anyone but me think the payroll tax cap at $100,000.00 is ..........Oh.....fair?
If you make over $100,000.00 you don't have to pay the payroll tax. That's fair, isn't it? .............Isn't it? Isn't it?............
typo, $25,000.00 a year. And was excluded, not included. The cat says I am sleepy and must now stop and go to bed. That is an amazingly smart cat.
I hope that previous comment made sense. You guys are smart and will get what I meant to say.
It appears that Obama's idea that adding deep cuts to the military would allow him to bludgeon Boehner & Co into a sane policy was for naught. Silly Congress for thinking that was so, and really stupid those who voted Boehner & Co back into office. Of course, the alternates may have been worse as the Republican Party has been coopted by ideologues.
I have to wonder if the reason wall street is booming and repugs not worried about defense is that there is a great anticipation of massive privitizations.
Make the cutbacks in Republican districts.
I have a great idea, mentioned before. The first cuts in the sequester is to cut all pay to congressmen, all perks, health insurance etc and then see how quickly they do a deal.
Petitions on We the People for that. Sign them!
Under the constitution, congresses saleries can not be touched.
#9.2 Larry74,
Rats are amazingly good survivors, Larry. So are cockroaches!
No disrespect to vermin intended.
The Republicans will not even recognize a plan unless it privatizes SS, Medicare, and nearly everything else that involves a lot of money.
Yes, everything associated with gov functions expected to be privatized. see 8.1
Again, someone, (like a journalist who still remembers how to do their job), needs to ask Boehner what cuts he wants. Over and over again, the repub line has been that they want spending cuts, but they themselves don't want to say what they are; that is the President's job, according to them. You know, I'd like a new car, but I'm not going to tell you what make, model and color I want. You have to guess what I want, and if it's wrong, I'll blame you for making a wrong guess. Of course, even if you make the right guess, I'm going to criticize you anyway.
Boehner next week, "Well there was a tax hike back in '82. So blah, blah, blah..."
So, now that we've learned that it's not a good idea to govern by setting up a hostage situation, then maybe we shouldn't do it anymore. Or maybe next time, set it up so that the Republicans would be really opposed to it.
Suppose next time instead of cutting defense spending, we enact a sequester that would result in top marginal tax rates (income taxes on the rich) to increase from a puny 39.6% to 70% like it was pre-Reagan. Somehow I doubt the Republicans will go on vacation a week before the sequester is set to kick in if that happened.
Alva: What planet do you reside on... There will be no next time on the sequestor, and it takes two to tango. Now go watch your gun conspiracy theories on you tube...
Everyone seems to forget that republicans got a huge bonus on Jan 1. The Bush tax cuts for the middle class were made permanent! No body seems to point that out in any of these discussions.
The Republicans ONLY? So no Democrats voted for this? These same tax cuts are/were one of the biggest contributors to the deficit. Maybe not making them permanent would have prevented this sequester. I mean they are still adding to the current deficits big time. Most Democrats complained about these all those years Bush was in office, but now they seem to be OK with the exact same cuts.
I was in favor of letting them all expire. Sure, I'd pay more taxes, but I was against the tax cuts in the first place, as they were a major factor in taking a big surplus and turning it into a record deficit in the space of a single year. Added on top of a couple of wars and a Medicare drug benefit put on the national credit card, it should have been no surprise that the result would be deficits as far as the eye can see.
Remember... Obama wanted the old rates on the first $250,000.00, not $450,000.00 like it ended up being. That makes a huge difference for the deficit. Thats for you Skip, you rail on endlessly about the deficit and try to pin the entire deal on Obama. Had Obama gotten his way, the deficit would be far less...
Also, recall that the stimulus that repubs rail on and on against ended up being comprised of 50% tax cuts, which studies show are the least stimulative option available. That also added to the deficit, and gave us far less bang for the buck than if it had been all spending directed toward economic recovery.
Lebowsky,
I have never tried to pin the deficits soley on Obama - although the last 4 years DID have $1 Trillion plus deficits. I have always brought up Bush, including my post above:
These same tax cuts are/were one of the biggest contributors to the deficit. (note the emphasis on were, as in past years, like during Bush's tenure)
I do not like the size of the deficits for the past 10 or so years, regardless of who was in the Oval Office.
And you are correct Uffda about the stimulus and tax breaks. I agree that more of the stimulus should have gone directly into the economy...maybe with more infrastructure jobs that the POTUS and many in Congress have been stressing lately.
I was extremely disappointed that we didn't do far more spending on infrastructure with the stimulus. According to the DOT, we have literally trillions of dollars of repairs that need to be done to the existing infrastructure, let alone the new stuff that needs to be built to keep us economically competitive. Other nations have sprinted far ahead of us in high speed rail, for example. I would think that business would be the biggest booster for infrastructure spending, as they need modern, well-maintained roads, bridges, railroads, ports and airports to bring in workers and raw materials, and ship out their products.
Skip: As long as you realize and admit that Obama has been much more concerned and honest about the deficit than the Republicans, then I can respect alot more of what you post (I see it more as a long-term problem). This last deal is a good example of the Republicans hypocrisy on deficit/debt.
Uff: What I have read shows that tax breaks are more stimulative than directly giving the money to the taxpayers. Giving people checks makes a splash with the people, Bush did exactly that, but I believe the experts say Obama was correct to give the tax breaks. I agree about the infrastructure.
There were some articles here during the stimulus that showed how much stimulative effect you got for each dollar spent. I haven't been able to find the graphs yet, but I recall that tax cuts were at the very bottom as far as bang for the buck. I'll keep hunting, but I do remember the reasoning was that tax breaks, especially to the rich, tend to end up in savings, whereas direct payments such as unemployment benefits, etc., are used almost immediately, because the recipients are barely scraping by, and any money they get is truly needed.
Payroll tax cuts put more money into the hands of the consumers who are the engine of our economy.
Stimulus spending to create jobs rebuilding infrastructure (win/win!) can have a similar effect.
secretly amused,
Amazing isn't it. So we let the payroll tax go up on the working class who make under $100,000.00 a year, and the Republicans won't permit a stimulus, nor will they allow the wealthy to pay one more cent in revenue from loopholes or anything else.
Huh!.........I wonder why the economy is ....well....stagnant? I can't figure it out.
Does anyone but me (my dark side) hope that that bridge which is in terrible shape from Ohio to Kentucky gives way when Boehner is driving McConnell home?
I must really never let my dark side take over...
So when is a reporter going to ask him "What about the $1.2 trillion in cuts that were agreed to in 2011?" As a follow up he needs to be asked if he's going to ask for $ for $ cuts to raise the debt ceiling when that comes up again in a few months on top of the 100% cuts he's asking for now. If for some reason Obama caves and gives in and agrees to 100% cuts or some other highly disproportionate "compromise" on the sequester, he needs to have the debt ceiling eliminated in return.
"He got his tax increases" = Obama preventing most of the tax increases that were signed into law by the Republicans in 2002/3 (scheduled to hit at a later date).
Who needs pretzels or Twister when you've got Republicans?
Did you honestly think Boehner would come out of that meeting farting roses, and saying everything is going to be alright?
You can count on the MSM to not challenge anything the right says.
Part of me wants to throw my hands up and say "Fine, let the GOP secede with a portion of the states." Then, I immediately realize that there would never be consensus about the logistics of such a decision and it would be mired in countless years of congressional debate culminating in the Republicans renouncing the exorbitant spending costs of such action in the first place.
What I mean to say is: These people are stupid.
How come the government won't help us lower income people out. Not the lazy ones. I am talking about those of us who work full time jobs and get paid dirt. Or people trying to support families on $8.25/hr. Where is the help for those people who will go to work sick, and half dying because they need their job? I steadily see the lazy people get $500-$1000 on food stamps with a new car, the whole family has iPhone 5's, their clothes cost more than my car note, and they don't have a job. I work full time and can't even use my insurance. Where is the help for the people like me? While congress is continuously shooting down deals and constantly on vacation, I work 275 days a year. Congress blames the president for the mess he has created and his spending but I don't see anyone even trying to make a change. This is Beyond politics and is destroying above all, the hard working American people.
The really lazy people are the ones in the corner offices making $1 million a month off other people's work. The chances are you work for one of them. What about the guy who owns Subway complaining about food safety regulations and who does not want to have to buy health insurance for his employees, mostly part-timers making minimum wage.
I doubt there are very many people making $500-$1,000 a month on food stamps who have a new car.
And yet every Republican lives in a neighborhood with lots of them. Or so they tell us online.
D.C.: I defy them to name one and give an address. If Senator Rubio has neighbors in his "working class neighborhood" on food stamps, there is a bit of fraud going on.
And the President will save the day by making a "Grand Bargain" throwing 99% of Americans under the bus.
While this may endear him to the T party, it will only be until the next manufactured crisis. He will have to "re-prove" himself over and over again until something truly bad happens to the T types. By then, it will be far to late to "re-invent" either himself or the GOP. The next Congress will be Democratic as will the next presidential administration.
The Tan Man and his caucus are turning off independents faster than Romney ever could.
Today I tried to stomach watching some of MSNBC...I'm amazed to think that this network could actually believe the mindless nonsense they spew out everyday. I realize this is the "Obama Propaganda Network" but when the president creates the " sequester" and MSNBC will blindly report Obamas lies that this is caused by republicans leaves me wondering... are you not aware of the videos of Obama in 2011 when this whole sequester thing started?? You guys are so dishonest but what troubles me is the millions of Americans who blindly follow and believe you,,, God help us and God have mercy on MSNBC.
Are you kidding me? Where did you get those lines "Foxskews"? I'll trust MSNBC way before Fox the network that makes people dumber. I bet they never showed you as you watch foxskews the study done that people that watch fox are more uninformed then those that don't watch any news at all. Last i heard the POTUS can't just pass laws. They have to be voted on by a majority of those in congress like the 174 GOP that voted for the sequester. But please don't let the facts get in the way Fox and GOP never do.
Rodney,
Please tell me the last time that ANY President passed a bill and then signed the same bill making it a law.
The President didn't create anything.
Rodney: What makes you think you are the one who doles out "God". You might be perfectly content beleiving the nonsense you spew out, but this freaky notion that your "God" has to intervene in a cable TV outlets content makes it sound like you feel you are superior. You are not based on your post. In fact, I trust MSNBC much more that any religion. My experience is that people who wear their religion on the outside are often liars and hypocrites. not always of course...
Rodney, please explain how sequestration helps with the jobs deficit? How lame does Obama made me do it sound? How dumb does it make the GOP look?
LEBOWSKY -- MSNBC is a farce of a "news" channel. In fact, most "news" channels have agendas but MSNBC is by far the worst offender. As to your religion comment, EVERY religious person is a liar and hypocrite given the fallen condition of man. Similarly, those non-religious folks are also liars and hypocrites. One group repeatedly seeks forgiveness and the other refuses to do so.
Love & Peace: I don't look to MSNBC for "news", I use multiple sources for that. MSNBC covers politics, which I am interested in. I also watch FoxNews, listen to conservative talk radio in my car, and read books. I am actually intelligent enough to decide for myself what is the truth using the multiple sources. MSNBC is at the top of the truth food chain as it relates to politics IMHO, but each show is different and some are more forthright than others.
Unfortunately , this is also a glaring lesson for obama and the dems on why making deals with the gop is a joke , in my mind when they made this deal , I wondered "how can the gop lose at all ? ".....Reducing government is their main fantasy , so by doing nothing , the gop get exactly what they want
The one good thing that might come out of this ? the dems will not try and make any more
baddeals with the gopThis will stagnate our economy , which is also what the gop wanted , I hope it does not do that , but in the very least , it will hold the economy back , and the u s house is to dysfunctional to pass anything , and the senate is under minority rule filibuster , everyone can just go home now
“You differ from a great man in only one respect: the great man was once a very little man, but he developed one important quality: he recognized the smallness and narrowness of his thoughts and actions. Under the pressure of some task that meant a great deal to him, he learned to see how his smallness, his pettiness endangered his happiness. In other words, a great man knows when and in what way he is a little man. A little man does not know he is little and is afraid to know. He hides his pettiness and narrowness behind illusions of strength and greatness, someone else's strength and greatness. He's proud of his great generals but not of himself. He admires an idea he has not had, not one he has had. The less he understands something, the more firmly he believes in it. And the better he understands an idea, the less he believes in it.”
― Wilhelm Reich, Listen, Little Man!
And republicans wonder why they are dinosaurs