home

Budget Committee Explains Its Failure to Agree

The Supercommittee explains its failure to reach an agreement on budget cuts and tax increases:

Both sides used remarkably similar language to describe their frustrations. A Democrat involved in the negotiations said: “We made a reasonable offer and got nothing in return. We got naked in the room. Republicans are standing there in overcoats, hats and gloves and are toasty warm.”

A Republican aide, who believed Mr. Toomey made a good-faith proposal and got nothing from Democrats in return, said a few days later: “We showed some leg. The Democrats want us to get completely naked.”

Maybe they should have met at the shvitz.

(Photo: Mark Kauffman,Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images, Apr 01, 1948)

< Louis Freeh to Head Penn State Investigation | Obama's Progressive Accomplishments >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    If they do meet at the (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by KeysDan on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:19:39 PM EST
    shvitz, I would like to pin a medal on them.  We will all have to live with that "investor uncertainty", but that goal of cutting social security, medicare  and medicaid will reappear soon enough so as to make our investors certain.

    Obama has done a fanastic job (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:35:06 PM EST
    of making cutting Social Security, Medicare  and Medicaid part of the Democratic Party agenda leaving the programs with few defenders. Example of the discourse:

    Note Kyl's language: he never says 1.2 trillion in deficit reduction. He says, "cuts", "savings", "reduced spending." No taxes or revenue of any kind. He's simply asserting that this is about discretionary and mandatory domestic spending cuts, period. And that trigger obviously means nothing.

    Then, you had John Kerry on right afterwards saying that the Democrats were more than willing to take a meat ax to the budget as well but they really, kind of, wanted some revenue too. It doesn't look like they are going to get even that (thank God.) But the terms of the election year debate are all going to be about how the Democrats are insisting on raising taxes. After all, the only spending cuts that are controversial anymore are the defense cuts --- which Democrats will never fight for.

    In fact, the Republicans will be able to say quite honestly in their campaign ads that the Democrats want to cut social security and medicare and raise taxes.

    Those are all very popular stands with the public. link



    Parent
    The Democrats bargaining (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by KeysDan on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:45:09 PM EST
    stance was, in essence, we will cut social programs in exchange for getting rid of tax loopholes, such as in the purchase of yachts.  The Republicans weren't having it.

    Parent
    That is the funniest darn picture (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:41:29 PM EST
    and oh, so accurate a portrayal. Thanks, Jeralyn, for my first big laugh of the day.

    The oligarchs wear no clothes... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 02:47:04 PM EST
    and from the looks of it they're gonna have a tickle party while Rome burns.

    Parent
    So on top of being inefficient (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by lilburro on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:42:15 PM EST
    and ill-intentioned, Congress is now also determined to be creepy.  Ok.

    Mitt Romney (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by CST on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 04:18:05 PM EST
    chimes in with his response to the debt committee failure.

    "Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney today called on President Obama to take money from Medicaid, not defense, to compensate for the failure of a congressional supercommittee."

    Link

    I think no matter what happens with the defense cuts, the republicans are going to have a hard time making a convincing argument that Obama is "soft" on defense.  Obama can counter that entire argument with three words: Osama Bin Laden.

    Not too surprising (none / 0) (#3)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:39:17 PM EST
    .

    Given the absence of any presidential leadership, any other outcome had little chance.  The do nothing President has one more failure to add to his abysmal record.

    Apparently a Republican proposal for a $500 billion increase in tax revenue was insufficient.

    .

    In the words of Rep. James Clyburn (none / 0) (#10)
    by Farmboy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 03:00:30 PM EST
    do we look stupid?

    Democrats would give up $542 billion in spending cuts and Republicans would give up $3 billion in revenue -- not a penny of which would come from additional taxes on anyone, but rather, the end of a tax break currently enjoyed by corporate jet owners.

    This, in the minds of GOP committee members, is a "compromise."


    source

    That answers one question about GOP "leadership." As to another question about leadership that was raised, "Republicans asked the president to stay away."


    Parent

    maybe tomorrow (none / 0) (#7)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:47:02 PM EST
    they'll try again, this time in the language of the loathsome "open kimono" metaphor

    in the meantime i will be picturing the whole lot of them dressed in punctured hazmat suits, wallowing in a sump of bullsh!t & high on fumes

    Both partys being carbon copies of each other (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 02:01:16 PM EST
    has been the problem for decades.

    thank you for the photo (none / 0) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 03:03:47 PM EST
    but not for the image of the super committee in a similar situation.

    euu

    this outcome is the biggest non surprise ever.

    question (none / 0) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 03:05:10 PM EST
    if pepper spray can be used on peaceful students obstructing a sidewalk why cant it be used on politicians obstructing a country?

    They don't have the police... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 03:30:18 PM EST
    "outnumbered".

    Parent
    Charlie Pierce on Cat Food Com. failure (none / 0) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 04:22:35 PM EST
    ...Unfortunately, the Republicans are best suited to blame the Democrats for what's happened because a) the Republicans are better at blaming someone else than any organization ever devised by man, and b) the Democrats were the gold-plated saps who thought a compromise of some sort would be possible if they just pitched enough of their basic principles overboard....
    ...
    And this process has been a purely political one ever since the various clever d!cks came up with the idea of fobbing off their constitutional responsibilities to another impotent panel of Washington wise people. Kerry and the other Democratic suckers failed to realize that Republican intransigence appeals to an actual viable political constituency, while Democratic flexibility appeals to about 42 op-ed columnists and three guys with mailing lists.

    So the Republicans propose "revenue increases" that include whacking the mortgage-interest deduction for middle-class homeowners at a time when foreclosures are still at high tide, but oppose actual tax increases, which they have sworn with their hands on Grover Norquist's d!ck to resist to their last breaths. Meanwhile, the Democrats beg for tax increases at the top end while offering to take several bites out of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. A half-bright, blind zoo animal could write the attack ads. And, at the end of it, John Kerry starts calling people making half-a-mil "middle class."

    Read more:




    Didn't know if I should laugh ... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by sj on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 06:16:58 PM EST
    ... or cry at this:

    Kerry and the other Democratic suckers failed to realize that Republican intransigence appeals to an actual viable political constituency, while Democratic flexibility appeals to about 42 op-ed columnists and three guys with mailing lists.


    Parent
    Really nails it, doesn't it? (none / 0) (#20)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 06:46:12 PM EST
    So Pierce thinks the Super Committee was a (none / 0) (#16)
    by Farmboy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 05:35:10 PM EST
    Cat Food Commission? Interesting.

    Here's to hoping that the GOP does start placing responsibility for the failure of the SC on the Dems. That approach has nowhere to go but poorly for the GOP. It's like one of your friends complaining to your mother that he failed to talk you into trying crack. The best thing the Dems could do politically is let the SC fail.

    Parent

    What the Republicans are going to do (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 08:32:48 PM EST
    is campaign on the Democrats wanting to raise taxes and cut Social Security and Medicare. They have plenty of footage of Democratic politicians including Obama stating how willing they are to do both.

    Parent
    Now, correct me if I'm wrong, (none / 0) (#23)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 08:39:04 PM EST
    but isn't it Romney, Gringrich & the Republican Congress who call for destruction of Medicare & Social Security as we know it via vouchers & other privatization gimmicks?

    You seem to repeat your meme a lot, MO Blue. But, what is is; what is not is not...no matter how many times one says otherwise.

    Parent

    You seem to have this ongoing problem (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 10:14:49 PM EST
    with understanding the definition of the word cuts.

    Obama is on record on numerous occasions supporting benefit cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. He has stated he supports
    the Bowles/Simpson Recommendations
    which contain cuts to the safety net programs. He is on record supporting the recommendations of the Gang of Six which contained cuts to the safety net programs. He personally negotiated cuts to the safety net programs with Boehner.

    Nobody disputes that, except for the revenue part, the administration and Boehner had agreement over virtually everything else. And it was a deal that, like Obama's previous offers, was strikingly tilted towards Republican priorities. Among the provisions Obama to which Obama had said yes, according to a senior administration official, were the following:

    Medicare: Raising the eligibility age, imposing higher premiums for upper income beneficiaries, changing the cost-sharing structure, and shifting Medigap insurance in ways that would likely reduce first-dollar coverage. This was to generate about $250 billion in ten-year savings. This was virtually identical to what Boehner offered.

    Medicaid: Significant reductions in the federal contribution along with changes in taxes on providers, resulting in lower spending that would likely curb eligibility or benefits. This was to yield about $110 billion in savings. Boehner had sought more: About $140 billion. But that's the kind of gap ongoing negotiation could close.

    Social Security: Changing the formula for calculating cost-of-living increases in order to reduce future payouts. The idea was to close the long-term solvency gap by one-third, although it likely would have taken more than just this one reform to produce enough savings for that.

    Discretionary spending: A cut in discretionary spending equal to $1.2 trillion over ten years, some of them coming in fiscal year 2012. The remaining differences here, over the timing of such cuts, were tiny. link

     

    The fact that you try and divert attention from the fact that Obama has continually promoted his "Grand Bargain" which includes cuts to the safety net programs does not negate that fact regardless of the number of times you employ your diversionary tactics. That fact is documented by numerous articles and personal statements by Obama.

    Parent

    You keep posting links to articles based on (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Farmboy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:07:54 AM EST
    "unnamed sources," "anonymous sources,"  "sources close to the WH," etc. You seem to have an ongoing problem distinguishing between conjectures and history.

    For example, your first article is full of predictions, based on "anon sources," that Obama would support the SB report. History shows he walked away from the results of that train wreck as soon as it hit the light of day. He thanked them for their work (which bloggers read as a sign that he was on board), then later released his own plan - which left out almost all of the SB recommendations.

    In your second link, Obama is on record for supporting this summers' GoS suggestions, which made raising revenue a part of any budget deal - and because Obama said publicly that they were making progress, their plans were immediately dead in the water to the GOP's leaders.

    And in your third link, the events as they played out dispute the idea that "the administration and Boehner had agreement over virtually everything else." Did you not see the speeches they both gave after the talks broke down, or do those inconvenient truths get ignored because they don't fit into your hypothesis?

    We could go on and on, but the point here is that the game being played isn't 11d chess; it's good old fashioned triangulation. Obama is a politician, and remember the Creed of BTD: pols are pols. He'll say sure, I offered to raise Medicare age limits, if the GOP would raise taxes, cut out the middleman, and increase benefits - a non starter, and he knew it. But it makes him sound reasonable and paints Boehner as a jerk. And that's how the game is played.

    Parent

    The old blind-side (none / 0) (#28)
    by christinep on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 12:02:23 PM EST
    Yep, farmboy, that is exacly the issue for some. President Obama is turning out to be one good strategist...and if one isn't predisposed to him, that undoubtedly is cause for a harumph in itself. I'm coming to the conclusion that some who fit that bill might want to consider their usual "see there" predictable responses following any WH act & watch it play out a bit.

     Your last paragraph sums up the good strategist that the President has been in avoiding the "debt" minefields set the day after the 2010 elections for him...and, the new table setting seems to look a bit different with Repubs having to seek more $$$ (aka "debt" in Repub constituent language) in defense & with Repubs having to (choke, choke) seek extensions of tax relief for their buddy kazillionaires...in public, no less.  My, my...how did that happen?

    Bravo, farmboy. You said it well.

    Parent

    So is this a new idea for you? (none / 0) (#17)
    by sj on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 06:15:49 PM EST
    So Pierce thinks the Super Committee was a (none / 0) (#16)
    by Farmboy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 05:35:10 PM EST

    Cat Food Commission?



    Parent
    But I like (none / 0) (#19)
    by sj on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 06:19:26 PM EST
    ... the rest of your thinking.  Which probably means it's the opposite of what they'll actually do...

    Parent
    Metaphors? I'll give y'all a metaphor: (none / 0) (#21)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 08:29:43 PM EST
    Americans are the kid... Congress is Sandusky... President Obama is McQueary.

    If I were tasteless I would have posted that... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 08:42:38 PM EST
    Oops! (none / 0) (#25)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 08:42:51 PM EST