Getty Images
President Obama was all smiles after his meeting with House Republicans yesterday.
For my money, one of the most entertaining events of President Obama's first term came in January 2010, when the president spent an hour and a half fielding questions directly from members of the House Republican caucus. Obama seemed to enjoy the give and take -- the entire event was on camera -- and clearly got the better end of the deal.
GOP leaders soon after decided: the next time the president does a Q&A with Republican lawmakers, it'll be behind closed doors and away from public view. Why give Obama another chance to make GOP officials look foolish at one of their own events?
With that in mind, we can't say with certainty exactly what was said yesterday when the president fielded questions again from House Republicans on Capitol Hill, but going over all of the available reports, we did learn a few things. For example, Obama explained that he considers deficit reduction a priority, but not his top priority.
Under the leadership of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), House Republicans on Tuesday introduced a budget resolution that eliminates the federal deficit within a decade through steep spending cuts and entitlement reforms. Rep. James Lankford (R-Okla.), asking the first question of Obama, sought a commitment from the president for a 10-year balanced budget.
Obama said no. "The president tactfully said 'That's not my priority, my priority is not slowing the recovery down and the long-term economic health of the country,' " Rogers said.
Obama instead talked about balancing the budget "in principle," lawmakers said, meaning eliminating all deficits except for payments of interest on the debt.
As Dave Weigel noted, Republicans considered this ridiculous. One GOP lawmaker was incredulous, amazed that the president said "continued deficits are OK with him."
Let's quickly note a few things for the record. First, as a matter of economics, prioritizing economic growth and job creation in the wake of a brutal recession isn't exactly radical policymaking. Second, the key reasons the nation has large deficits in the first place is because Republicans threw away a balanced budget, putting every penny of the price tag for two wars, two tax cuts, Medicare expansion, and a Wall Street bailout on the national charge card.
And third, the House GOP budget plan unveiled by Paul Ryan a year ago had deficits running every year for the next two decades, and nearly every Republican on the Hill voted for it. So maybe they can spare us their righteous indignation about "continued deficits" in the new future.
What else did we learn?
As best as I can tell, there's no transcript of the entire event -- if someone has one, please let me know -- but yesterday's conversation also included questions on the Keystone XL oil pipeline (Obama was noncommittal), White House tours (Obama doesn't want to furlough Secret Service officials), immigration (Obama said he doesn't want the issue to die just so he can use it against the GOP in 2014), and contraception access (Obama listened politely).
In all, seven Republican House members asked questions, which were chosen by GOP leaders in advance.
Rep. Tom Latham (R-Iowa), a close ally of Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), complained afterwards, "It didn't change anything at all. He didn't offer anything new."
Well, no, I suppose that's true. The president has a set of policies and priorities, they're in line with the wishes of the American mainstream, and they were recently endorsed by the American electorate. Obama clearly wants to get some governing done in this Congress, and he's making a considerable effort to reach out to Republicans directly, but the president doesn't see the need to "change" his positions.
Rather, he's prepared to accept concessions and meet GOP policymakers half way to reach meaningful compromises, and Obama's hoping concerted efforts will spur Republicans to become more flexible, less dogmatic, and less intransigent.
In other words, it's really not up to him to "offer anything new," and I'm reasonably certain that's not what yesterday was about.
Leave a Comment:
You sure he did not convert to wingnut? There was some yellow smoke billowing from a chimney that kinda looked like that tea party flag with the snakes, and Obama was drinking from a 32oz Big Gulp...
How many terms does Obama have to win before you guys stop underestimating his nuance and tact? I'm pretty sure he's not converting to the Tea Party, you jackasses.
And he STILL said he was "open" to "entitlement reform," i.e., imposing cuts through Chained C.P.I.
The only reason I could find last year to vote for this SOB was "he's not the other guy." That reason is rapidly evaporating. Vote for what you hope is someone in the tradition of FDR, Trumman, Kennedy, Johnson (domestically) and you get Bob Dole with Lyndon Johnson's war policies.
Tom, how do you know he said he's open to "entitlement reform"? We only have the Republicans' word for that which, to me, means "don't believe it"
GOP officials have no problem creating huge deficits: concluded..
So the GOP has the attitude of "my way or the highway" and they are surprised when the president doesn't automatically bow down to their superior greatness? No rational person would appreciate such an attitude, but the Republicans just keep banging their head into the wall of reality.
My question is why would Obama agree to a closed door, no press meeting with GOP leaders? The president and his proposals desperately need MORE publicity. He should be highlighting GOP obstructionism vs. the popularity his policies enjoy with the American mainstream on a weekly, primetime address to the nation.
Far too many people have no clue whatsoever what is happening in this country, and far too many people believe “facts” which are patently untrue. If the President made correcting that situation his top priority, all of his other priorities would soon fall into place.
Then again…
Perhaps if the Media DID THEIR JOB, it wouldn’t be necessary for the president to overcome such obstacles.
The last time the President did that Q&A, he cleaned their clocks and embarrassed them not just with his knowledge & understanding of the issues, but they looked not just "foolish", but more like the simpletons that they are.
The president is capable of doing more than one thing, you know. It's not like he hasn't been out speaking to the nation plenty about his priorities and how they're being obstructed -- you could tell that was happening because the Beltway media endlessly repeated Republican complaints about how he was "campaigning" instead of negotiating. (It's too much to expect them to report on the content of what he was saying, apparently.)
The idea that all he has to do is go on TV and explain to people how they've been fed a line of BS by Republicans and "all his other priorities will soon fall into place" is a nice fantasy, but it's completely contrary to reality. Congressional Republicans have shown no sign of being persuaded to go along with the will of the people by election results, polls, or speeches, and like it or not, a lot of the president's priorities require congressional action.
I have to respectfully disagree with your defeatist attitude,
Redshift.
My guess is 90% of the Americans don’t know who Richard
Cordray or what the CFPB is. Those 90% have no idea what the Ryan Budget
contains or that the Democrats even proposed a budget. The same nine out of ten
don’t know we can’t put federal judges on the bench much less why, why sensible
gun laws are a non-starter, that Obamacare reduces the budget deficit, that the
deficit has been reduced under Obama’s administration, or that the biggest
threat to our economy is our own congress.
If Americans were aware of these things, they just might put
some pressure on their representatives to change them, and vote them out of
office when they refuse to do so.
The President OWNS the bully pulpit and it’s long past time
he started using it.
Dear GOP, please review the definition of the word "compromise." I'm pretty sure it does NOT mean that the losers get to tell the winners how to run things. Pray, continue with the delusion and the insanity; sooner or later, the public will figure out your scam, and stop voting for you. For now, continue to demonstrate obstructionism and simple rejection of any proposal set forth by the President. Pretty please?
i hope this was no more than punching the 'bi-partisanship' ticket the msm has been whining about for the last four years. they seem to share the definition richard mourdock came up with last year.
Nothing but a meeting of the meat puppets of Wall street....PBO is exercising extreme self control with these....Ahhhh, hmmm, I really can't come up with a strongly negative adjective to apply to the GOP...I am out of them, I am out of patience with these ass clowns....there, I found one closely resembling the august body of political flunkies of the corporations and the Koch boys....
Benen writes:" Why give Obama another chance to make GOP officials look foolish at one of their own events?"
Yes, because they have been doing just fine for years, with no help from Obama at all. . .
That is, Obama is willing to continue moving the country right instead of what he should have been doing since 2009:
- reversing the rightward direction 30+ years of failed conservative ideas and policies have taken the country, and
- crushing the Republican party.
"...meet GOP policymakers half way to reach meaningful compromises..."
President Can't-We-All-JKust-Get-Along has become the definition of insanity: doing the same thing in the expectation of a different outcome.
We should have believed him back in 2006 when he said he was a moderate Republican.
you one-sided thinkers only have half a brain.
To both Disgusted & TC, you do realize that the President is a "black man" don't you? And not only that but he's articulate and intelligent to boot, so already there are enough strikes right there. You do realize that contrary to the pablum pushed about this nation being "post racial" - the rabid right is frothing at the mouth about this, and those old, white, men on the right are NONE too happy to have to deal with him. They cannot find any dirt with which to slander him and he's about as cool as a cucumber - generous even in the face of blindingly fierce discrimination.
Don't get me wrong, I've too have had more than my share of disagreements about his policy proposals, and yes, I'd really like to see him get angry once or twice and pop off at these idiots - but I realize that he cannot, nor will he stoop to their degenerative level.
I also believe that the President thinks that if he is shown to be more reasonable (which isn't hard) and more willing to "work with the other side" the American people will make up their own minds and start contacting their legislators demanding that they start not only doing their jobs (legislation) but will compromise. I know, I know so far it isn't working - but what do you suggest he have the Secret Service lock them (GOTP) all in a room at gunpoint and force them to "do something" constructive? Just asking, cause right now I believe that it's up to US - you know WE the PEOPLE to start organizing and demonstrating and start garnering media attention to the frustration that WE are feeling.
Get motivated, get angry, get active, get organized - just get to working on something!
Reading through these comments I keep seeing this common concept. Everyone seems to think that because President Obama won, then his political ideologies are what the American people want.
This couldn't be farther than the truth. America is not a Monarchy. THe reality is that We The People vote for representatives that represent a federal interest in comparison to our local needs. Our president's job is to listen to We The People and find ways to settle compromise. America voted strongly that President Barack Obama would be better suited for this than Mitt Romney.
UNfortunately for President Obama, We The People have voted in more republican representatives. By this standard, our President is the one who should move towards the people, not Vica Versa.
There's good news, though. Historically speaking the economy does best when there is a Republican Congress and a Democratic President taming them. Even though most Americans were strongly against The Affordable Healthcare act, it passed, therefor We The People voted our the democratic congress because they were working in opposition to public opinion. THis is the beauty of America. Right now the Republicans have a greater control of the government, so they have every right to be stubborn ---- because We The People voted them in.
I understand that all congress has a horrible approval rating, but ask your typical american passerby who thier local congressman/woman is and I bet 9/10 have no idea.
What is this claim based on? Bill Clinton's 2nd term and . . .
and....every democratic president that had full congress which stunted America's growth. I'm looking at Truman, Carter, and Lyndon Johnson here.
It works the same way Vica Versa also. A full republican cocngress is a bad thing as well, but flourished very well while Reagon had a democratic congress.
We The Gerrymandered People have voted in more republican representatives
Fixed it for ya
#10
“UNfortunately for President Obama, We The People have voted in more republican representatives.”
No We did not vote in more republican reps. More democrats were vote for in this last elections than republicans but due to gerrymandering more republican were sent to Washington.
Ok. So, when you said:
You were (to put it politely) exaggerating.
You could have named the instances in history (Dem POTUS and GOP congress) to back up that claim, but you didn't.
US GDP Growth by President, 1948-2009
http://www.davemanuel.com/2010/08/03/us-gdp-growth-by-president-1948-2009/
1948-1952 (Harry S. Truman, Democrat), +4.82%
1953-1960 (Dwight D. Eisenhower, Republican), +3%
1961-1964 (John F. Kennedy / Lyndon B. Johnson, Democrat), +4.65%
1965-1968 (Lyndon B. Johnson, Democrat), +5.05%
1969-1972 (Richard Nixon, Republican), +3%
1973-1976 (Richard Nixon / Gerald Ford, Republican), +2.6%
1977-1980 (Jimmy Carter, Democrat), +3.25%
1981-1988 (Ronald Reagan, Republican), 3.4%
1989-1992 (George H. W. Bush, Republican), 2.17%
1993-2000 (Bill Clinton, Democrat), 3.88%
2001-2008 (George W. Bush, Republican), +2.09%
2009 (Barack Obama, Democrat), -2.6%
First of all, calling out gerrymandering is the political equivalent of a sports fan screaming foul when thier team loses. This whole warped gerrymandering fantasy is silly. The other side can just point and scream just as loud, so lets all just put side this ridiculas notion.
@rollo
Not exagerating at all. Just being specific, and yes there is only one instance of my example. I cannot think of any other time when there was a full Repblican congress for an entire term while a president was Democratic, can you? Nonetheless, the US ecomony grew at its best and most stable marks during this time therefor my statement was accurate. Additional, the point of balance was well made. PLease also take notice on the economic recovery during the republican house stopping government expansion from the senate. I have every reason to believe that the economy would be improving even better had the Senate also turned red.
You all should also know I've voted Obama twice now. I think he's deplorable, but a better option than Romney. I do however believe that the reblicans have the right ecomonic answers while the dems have all the moralistic answers.
now, now, Rollow -- be fair.
If you are going to rightfully blame Bush's congress for the ecomonic collapse of Obama's first term -2.3 economic growth, then you have to take down that silly GDP table you posted.
The only reason why Carter's term didn't kill the American growth is because Regan could tame the congress. I was hoping that Obama could do the same in a democratic way, but he's been nothing but disappointment so far.
#10.7
“This whole warped gerrymandering fantasy is silly. The other side can just point and scream just as loud, so lets all just put side this ridiculas notion.”
Unfortunately gerrymandering is not a fantasy and yes both side can and do use it. Which is why gerrymandering needs to die and a nonpartisan system take it place.
@oldbat.
Well said.
The fantasy I was illustrating is ths notion that the primary reason we have a majority of republicans in congress is from gerrymandering. It's preposterous.
Except that Ryan's budget forgets to address 4 important issues that make it completely worthless. It is the same one he ran on with Romney, but on steroids and "the People" voted against. The first is addressed by the progressives - Jobs. Doesn't putting people back to work stimulate the economy and increase tax revenues. Two - Ryan says we need to run our government like corporations and regular people who operate on a balanced budget. Who is he kidding? How many big corporations don't carry a fair amount of debt? How many regular family households don't include a mortgage, car payments and credit cards. In fact, under the Republican policies since the Clinton years the average American Families have not only continued to go deeper in debt, but have now reached the breaking point where they are defaulting on their debt. This brings up number three - income inequality. The wealthy have become exponentially wealthier over the last 30 years, to the point where they now control 95% of the wealth. Ryan's plan completely ignores that. Instead, his plan to balance the budget is to do it on the backs of the poor and withering middle-class. And finally number four, the one that irritates me the most. They are blaming Obama for our deficit. A deficit he inherited. A huge part of this debt came about because Bush paid for an unnecessary war on a credit card. Now Ryan is putting forth a plan. And one of the groups that would suffer because of this plan are the veterans who fought and risk their lives for this war. Ryan either has a lot of guts, or is a complete idiot for proposing that our Veterans should suffer one iota because of his and his colleagues poor governing.
Deficit hawks like Ryan make a fundamental mistake in thinking of the budget deficit as a stationary target. They propose to impose draconian austerity measures on the economy, which recent experience in Europe shows leads to vastly increased unemployment. This has been true of every austerity program throughout history, around the world. So, they cut spending, and millions lose their jobs. Even if repubs decided to completely end the social safety net, including unemployment and food stamps for those that lost their jobs due to austerity, the budget deficit would balloon as tax revenues dropped. That would then force them to make even more drastic cuts, continuing the cycle of increasing unemployment, decreasing tax revenues, followed by more spending cuts. Eventually, even the repub sacred cows of defense spending and tax cuts for the rich would be unsustainable. On the positive side, I think almost everyone of every political stripe would immediately rebel if Ryan's budget were actually put into place, even low-information red state voters and Tea Partiers. They haven't got a clue how much they get from government programs, but they would learn pretty quickly once Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other programs got the ax, and they were forced to pay higher taxes so the 0.1% and the corporations could get their tax cuts.
"they cut spending and millions lose thier job"
That's only 1/3rd of the picture.
Any college-entry economist will understand that when you cut government spending in most any other department OTHER than defense, then those jobs are transfered to the private market. So Yes, millions lose thier jobs, however those jobs are then transferred to the private market.
However that's only 2/3rds of the picture. Does anyone know the other piece of the puzzle?
What, common sense??? What private market is going to pick up inspection/oversight functions for food safety, pollution violations, weather monitoring, tax cheating, etc, etc, etc...... The primary reason the gov't takes on these functions is the private sector won't - either they can't charge enough for a healthy profit, the payback period is too long or they don't like those functions because they eat into their profits (innocent victims be damned).
Futher, didn't you notice that the private sector is totally intrenched in the defense dept? There were more private contractors in Iraq than military personnel. Every piece of equipment, software, etc. for DOD is contracted out to private companies.
Look, in my view, the primary goal of our gov't regulations is to protect the innocent from the greed of others - greed meaning pursuing profits, power, whatever in a manner that infringes on the rights of others. Corporate America has proven over and over again that without regulation, they will pursue their goals regardless of the harm to others. See 2008 meltdown - caused less by homeowners taking on more debt than they could afford, and more from corporations chasing fees without regard to risk, the conscious lack of regulation around deriviatives, and the loosening of capital reserve requirements on the big 5 Wall St invest. banks. See coal (lung cancer anyone?), oil (tar beaches, dead wildlife), food processors (e-coli), manufacturers (remember sweat shops?) transportation, etc. prior to regulations.
Better check your common sense meter
I had a hard time reading all that because you started talking about the profits from defense don't transfer to the private market when cut from the government after I specifically emboldened the word "OTHER".
Nontheless, everything else you mentioned accounts for less than 4% of the budget....and it is also a completely seperate arguement/rant. Lets get serious with our common sense, please. I was adressing a ridiculas claim that "cutting goverment spending, and millions lose thier jobs".
The sellout is now set. From TPM:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said on Thursday that she would be willing to consider switching to a new inflation calculation, known as "chained CPI," for various entitlement programs such as Social Security as part of a broader package designed to reduce the deficit.
"In terms of C.P.I., I have said let's take a look at that," she said at a weekly press briefing in Washington. "What is it -- there are elements in our party, who have said that we can do this without hurting the poor and the very elderly. So let's see what that is. There are others who are objecting to it plain and simple. I have to say if we can demonstrate that it doesn't hurt the poor and the very elderly, then let's take a look at it because compared to what? Compared to what? Compared to Republicans saying Medicare should wither on the vine? Social Security has no place in a free society? These are their words. These are their words."
Thank you Madam Moron and the rest of you spineless scum masquerading as Democrats.
How about COMPARED TO LEAVING IT THE HELL ALONE YOU IDIOTS!!!!!!!!!
IT HURTS THE POOR AND THE ELDERLY YOU @#%$#@!%^$#!!!!
The whole point of Obama going to meet members of Congress is for him to have the opportunity to tell voters he met with Republicans and tried to negotiate, but Republicans refuse to make any compromises. Of course, the president is not going to change any Republican's vote because they are voting based on personal political considerations rather than what is in the best interests of the whole country. This political theater will play out, but will it pay out for the president and the Dems? We will know when the next manufactured crisis by the House becomes the major news story.
Republicans should be voting for personal interests.
It is thier job to vote by what they feel will get them re-elected. That's the whole point of democracy!
Now when the lies start to produce and finger pointing becoming the primary objective, then I start getting mad. Unfortunately, the tables have now turned and the immature finger pointers have become the president & company. At this pace congress will remain red for a very long time.
You are wrong. Personal political interests have shaped our political system. But Congress' job is to do what is good for the whole country.
Voting "by what they feel will get them re-elected. That's the whole point of democracy!" shows how "rare" your brand of "common sense" is. Your name ought to be TheRare-Common Senseless.
Congress' job is to represent the people who have elected them, not to represent the country as a whole.
Only the executive branch is whole scope of the country with the supreme court. Everyone else looks at the district that elects them. Now, in most cases the betterment of the country is in the best interest of the district, but not always.
Here's my case and point. What about casastrophic events? A congressman's job is to look out for his people and demand congress get started. Was giving billions of dollars to NJ in the best interest of the country as a whole? Probably not, but Christie used political sway to defend his people. That is politics and common sense, people.
Apparently Republicans don't understand English very well.
We live in what is known as a "representative democracy". The standard definition of that is one in which the electors choose people to act in their stead in governing the country instead of doing so themselves. The thing is, elected Republicans don't seem to realize that they represent those who didn't vote them just as much as they do those who did.
I certainly didn't vote for the RWNJ that currently represents my CD, but I am one of her constituents; ergo, she should also represent my interests. The odds of her ever doing that are, shall we say, slim? But that's just where the Republicans are losing it - they refuse to represent anyone other than those who will vote for them. Or pay them to run.
And that group is getting smaller and smaller and smaller...
I agree this is a representative democracy..so let's talk about what's happening in Michigan. This is a state where the representative democracy has been taken away.
Talk about stacking the deck and allowing the minority run the show. Mark my words, this is where the inequality game that the Republicans are playing is going to be shown for what it is....a power grab...seeing the majority as just number that can be control by changing the rules.
It's time for the hip-hoppers and rappers to come out in protest and support for their base...the City of Detroit.
Obama is finding out that his sequester offensive led to lower approval ratings. Thus, the charm campaign he is attempting now with Republicans. While the lobster salad and blueberry pie luncheon that American taxpayers paid for today was probably tasty, nothing was accomplished, and the rest of us are left with tuna salad and Rice Krispie treats.
With all this discussion about gun control, an interesting letter to the editor appeared in the local paper with an idea that seems obvious once presented.
The Second Amendment was placed in the Constitution not to prevent the rise of a tyrannical government by an armed citizenry, but to maintain the existing police state. The slave holding south existed only as long as slaves were prevented from rising in rebellion against their masters. To maintain control, the states formed armed militias, requiring men between the ages of 18 and 45 to serve as slave patrollers. The militias would inspect the slave quarters for weapons, seek out and punish anyone suspected of plotting a rebellion.
The south feared that by ratifying the Constitution to form a strong central government they would lose control of the state militias. To secure the votes of the southern states a compromise was needed. So, at the request of Patrick Henry and James Mason, James Madison drafted the Second Amendment to read: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed: a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security to a free country, but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
The southerners objected so Madison changed the wording to the present version.
All this is obvious if you consider the matter, but completely off the usual line of "thinking".