home

Dog Bites Man: Boehner Balks At Revenue Increases

Deciding to pocket the 2 trillion in cuts President Obama has pre-conceded, House Speaker John Boehner says no to the "Grand Bargain":

Citing differences over tax revenues, House Speaker John A. Boehner on Saturday night said he would drop his push with President Obama for a far-reaching, $4 trillion deficit-reduction plan tied to a proposal to increase the federal debt limit.

Mr. Boehner issued a statement saying he would now urge negotiators to instead focus on trying to craft a smaller package more in line with the $2 trillion in cuts negotiated by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you! So Obama gets to be labelled as the guy who was willing to cut Social Security and Medicare while at the same time agreeing to slashing government spending that will hurt the economy. Well done. Political bargaining you can believe in. Not.

Speaking for me only

< Saturday Afternoon Open Thread | Breaking! GOP Only Cares About Tax Cuts For The Rich! >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Holy crap... it's like Obama's feelings are (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by Anne on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 09:22:24 PM EST
    hurt or something.  Here he was willing to cut really, really big and Boehner won't bite.  So, Boehner'll get the cuts without the revenue increases.  Which is what they wanted all along.  

    Great job, Barack.

    Out of all the things Obama could have chosen to be "resolved" to do, he has chosen to commit economic suicide.

    The White House, in its own statement, followed Mr. Boehner's announcement with the suggestion that the president would try to change Mr. Boehner's mind in their Sunday session.

    "Both parties have made real progress thus far, and to back off now will not only fail to solve our fiscal challenge, it will confirm the cynicism people have about politics in Washington," Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, said. "The president believes that now is the moment to rise above that cynicism and show the American people that we can still do big things. And so tomorrow, he will make the case to Congressional leaders that we must reject the politics of least resistance and take on this critical challenge."

    Yes, by all means...let's show the American people that we can put even more people out of work, force state and local governments to cut services - let's see just how much sacrifice we can stand, shall we?

    Some days things just don't make any sense to me.

    Oh my... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by masslib on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 09:35:27 PM EST
    Vague references to voters cynicism.  That's so 2008.  Boehner clearly caught them off guard.  I don't know whether or not it was intentional, but the Democratic raison d'être to be is to protect social security and Medicare, and now Boehner has put Obama ina position where can not use entitlements as a key issue(as it always is) in the presidential election...well, not in a way that will motivate the base.  

    Parent
    Eh, I screwed that up... (none / 0) (#8)
    by masslib on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 10:15:36 PM EST
    But doesn't this make Obama look rather impotent now.  The funny thing is he could really just change course and argue for spending on jobs now as the Times editorial suggests he does, and the public would support him.  If the Republicans were actually offering a solution to the economy people believed in, they would be cruising toward the WH, but they are not.  I don't understand why Obama wants to be the second coming of Reagan.

    Parent
    Because he said (none / 0) (#9)
    by Zorba on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 10:26:55 PM EST
    a couple of years ago that he thought that Reagan was transformative.  He admires Reagan, and appears to be modelling himself after him, Reagonomics and all.

    Parent
    Yes. (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 01:24:23 PM EST
    He's NOT caving.

    Parent
    Here's the new hopey slogan (none / 0) (#106)
    by Towanda on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 08:23:50 PM EST
    going viral on Facebook today.

    Parent
    Seriously (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Left of the Left on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 09:48:21 PM EST
    I hope Michelle takes him out for a sundae or something.

    I'd like to see it as a sort of blessing, but I'm waiting to see if Obama overreaches to try and get them to like him. Something like 3 trillion in cuts in exchange for a promise to talk about raising taxes over a round of golf.

    Parent

    Aside from all the tragic (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 01:09:32 AM EST
    consequences, some of this is borderline hilarious:

    " ... The president believes that now is the moment to ... show the American people that we can still do big things. ...

    BIG THINGS.  Like shrinking government to impotence during an economic crisis.  Stand by that bust of Herbert Hoover and show 'em we can eff up as we did in the days of yore.

    Parent

    I can see Obama sputtering now (none / 0) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 10:37:23 PM EST
    Woe is me. I promised my real base (Wall St.) that I would cut Social Security and now Boehner won't let me keep my promise. Why won't he cooperate? He is a real meanie. No gutting SS - no billion dollars.

    Parent
    Somehow I get the idea that their (none / 0) (#14)
    by ruffian on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 10:40:16 PM EST
    Idea of 'doing big things' does not match mine.

    And am I to believe that revenue increases were not part of what Biden was talking about in his deal making? Pathetic.

    Parent

    Doing big things (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 11:33:46 PM EST
    Is when the Elephants take you to their orgy as a spectator and then they throw you in the middle of it....maybe that's being done by big things....it's all the same right now :)  And if anybody passes you any popcorn don't eat it, at this point you have no idea where it has been :)

    Parent
    Negotiating (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by womanwarrior on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 09:26:11 PM EST
    Guess they didn't teach that at Harvard Law School?

    no one (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by desmoinesdem on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 09:45:58 AM EST
    could be that bad at negotiating. I think he is getting exactly the outcome he wanted.

    Parent
    Obama (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 08:16:08 AM EST
    is giving lawyers who graduated from Harvard a bad name. I mean really would you want Obama to be your lawyer? I sure wouldn't.

    Parent
    Nope!!!! (none / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 09:58:33 AM EST
    Not the sort of lawyer I have ever hired.

    Parent
    Not to worry ... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Erehwon on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 11:07:55 AM EST
    He won't need to work as a lawyer when he is done in 2012 or 2016! :-(

    Parent
    Boehner is the Master 11 dimensional chess player (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Dan the Man on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 09:45:43 PM EST
    First Boehner says he wants to cut medicare/social security.  Then Obama says me too!!  Then Boehner says nope, hate cutting medicare/social security because we wanna keep the government hands off your medicare/social security.  Then Republicans will run ads against Obama for supporting cuts in medicare/social security.  11 dimensional chess player at its very best.

    By the way doesn't this prove me right?  As I said before, the best way to prevent social security/medicare cuts was to have Republicans control the House because, whether or not Obama is just plain stupid or just plain evil, House Republicans would be smart enough to oppose medicare/social security cuts if Obama actually got out and supported the cuts.

    Dunno where you're getting... (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Romberry on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 11:28:42 PM EST
    ...that Boehner is now against cuts to Social Security and Medicare, 'cause that sure isn't contained anywhere in this latest bit of news. What Boehner is rejecting is any tax reform that results in actually collecting more taxes. The Republican position is that tax reform is fine...so long as it is revenue neutral.

    In this down is up and up is down spectacle of a presidency, we're now left with a "Democratic" president begging the Republicans to go bigger and cut more. And if you read the White House statement carefully...

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    July 9, 2011

    Statement from White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer on Budget Negotiations

    "The President believes that solving our fiscal problems is an economic imperative. But in order to do that, we cannot ask the middle-class and seniors to bear all the burden of higher costs and budget cuts. We need a balanced approach that asks the very wealthiest and special interests to pay their fair share as well, and we believe the American people agree.

    "Both parties have made real progress thus far, and to back off now will not only fail to solve our fiscal challenge, it will confirm the cynicism people have about politics in Washington. The President believes that now is the moment to rise above that cynicism and show the American people that we can still do big things. And so tomorrow, he will make the case to congressional leaders that we must reject the politics of least resistance and take on this critical challenge."

    ...it should be apparent that for the president, Social Security remains a target.

    Back in December I posted this in comments over at SPK's The Agonist:

    Did you catch Robert Kuttner's article the other day?

    Obama to blink first on Social Security

    The tax deal negotiated by President Barack Obama and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky is just the first part of a multistage drama that is likely to further divide and weaken Democrats.

    The second part, now being teed up by the White House and key Senate Democrats, is a scheme for the president to embrace much of the Bowles-Simpson plan -- including cuts in Social Security. This is to be unveiled, according to well-placed sources, in the president's State of the Union address.

    The idea is to pre-empt an even more draconian set of budget cuts likely to be proposed by the incoming House Budget Committee chairman, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), as a condition of extending the debt ceiling. This is expected to hit in April.

    White House strategists believe this can also give Obama "credit" for getting serious about deficit reduction -- now more urgent with the nearly $900 billion increase in the deficit via the tax cut deal.

    Obama has been telegraphing his intent on going after Social Security back even to the primaries and the presidential campaign. And his establishment of his deficit commission after congress refused to establish it for him was a huge tell, especially when you look at the cast of characters he appointed and the man who underwrote the cost. This cast of characters is not new. If you followed the FDL book salon back in May with Dr. Steve Gillon, author of "The Pact", you'd have come across this:
    How Monica Lewinsky Saved Social Security: Clinton, Gingrich, Bowles and "The Pact"


    I thought it would be instructive to have Dr. Gillon on to talk about Bowles's history of shuttle diplomacy in 1997 to negotiate a deal between Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton to cut Social Security. He based his book The Pact: Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and the Rivalry that Defined a Generation on interviews he conducted with Clinton, Gingrich, Bowles and others involved in the negotiations. And according to Bowles, the deal would have gone through save for one factor: the Monica Lewinsky episode.

    Bowles was uniquely suited to the task of negotiating a deal on Social Security. He had the trust of Newt Gingrich and the Republicans that Clinton would need to carry out his vision of Social Security reform:
    Bowles became the liaison between Clinton and Gingrich, shuttling back and forth brokering deals between Capitol Hill and the White House. Neither man trusted the other, but both trusted Bowles, and he became the key figure in their evolving relationship. "You cannot underestimate the role that Erskine played," recalled Joe Gaylord. "He and Gingrich liked each other. They trusted each other." Bill Archer, the powerful head of the House Ways and Means Committee, also felt comfortable with Bowles. "He was not ideological. He was not pushing the big left agenda. He was there to make things happen between the White House and a Republican Congress." Later, Gingrich would call his appointment "decisive," and a turning point in his relationship with the White House. "It is the one brief period when you have a significant adult whose experience transcends Washington, who understands making deals and getting business done, and who has a center-right bias in fiscal policy," he said. "He had the ability to bridge the White House and my party in Congress."

    Clinton had been trying to deal with Social Security for some time. In 1994, HHS Secretary Donna Shalala had appointed the 13-member Danforth Commission to advise on Social Security. She appointed three members from labor (including Richard Trumka), Republican Alan Simpson (appointed by Obama to co-chair his Deficit Commission with Bowles) and Pete Peterson (the hedge-fund billionaire funding much of the current economic work being used to justify dismantling Social Security).


    Erskine Bowles. Alan Simpson. Pete Peterson. Funny how these names keep coming up. Funny how Obama appointed Simpson and Bowles to co-chair his catfood commission. Funny how Pete Peterson underwrote the cost of the commission and provided staff. And funny how Obama's "deal" with Republicans just happens to include the precedent setting payroll tax holiday that diverts Social Security contributions away from the trust fund for the first time ever, exactly as the Republican American Enterprise Institute had proposed to Republicans more than two years ago as the first step towards undermining the program. All just coincidence, I'm sure. Or maybe not.

    The Kuttner article on Obama going after Social Security came out only a few days ago. A day later it didn't seem to have drawn much notice (as in none at all) on some Democratic leaning news sites, so I emailed an excerpt to a few to be sure they were aware. The replies I received from (rhymes with Bosh Farcial) at the memo joint and from a few writers at Salon basically boiled down to "I trust Obama and he would never do this. Robert Kuttner is obviously lying."  The replies were polite, but they made it clear they were not interested. It felt a lot like I was talking to the cute brown bear. (Maybe I should have tried to catch them off guard by mentioning Air America and Lionel?)

    If the 112th goes after Social Security, it will be with the direct assistance and acquiescence of the 44th president. The congress can't get anything past a (putatively) Democratic president unless he wants it to get past. And in this case, it's pretty clear that he does. Just don't try to get the cute little brown bear to understand.

    On edit...

    An addendum with a portion of Obama's interview with Steve Inskeep of NPR. Just for good measure. About Social Security, Obama said:

    INSKEEP: Won't Republicans argue -- and, in fact, won't reality argue that any cuts will have to be even deeper because this package that you're pushing for now will mean there's even less government revenue?

    OBAMA: Actually, I think that if you talk to economists, both conservative and liberal, what they'll say is the problem is not next year. The problem is, how are we dealing with our medium-term debt and deficit, and how are we dealing with our long-term debt and deficit? And most of that has to do with entitlements, particularly Social Security and Medicaid.

    Got that? The President is saying that Social Security, with it's 2+ trillion dollar surplus that is on track to grow to 4+ trillion dollars by 2020 with money that working people have paid in advance to fund the retirement of the baby-boom demographic is an entitlement and is particularly important to dealing with the debt and deficit...even though Social Security has nothing at all to do with the debt and deficit.

    The Social Security trust fund has been raided to finance tax cuts for the rich. That money was loaned to the federal government to help fund those tax cuts. Paying those loans back means that the rich will need to pay higher taxes (which of course Obama just agreed to cut.) They don't want to pay those taxes. Obama doesn't want them to pay those taxes. They don't want to repay the money that was contributed by working people. They want to effing steal it.

    Obama has Social Security in his sights. He's had it in his sights since before he was a candidate for the Democratic nomination. He has said so repeatedly. He isn't about to let go of it now when it is so clearly within his grasp. This is the opportunity he has been working on manufacturing in word and and deed since before he became president. Read that quoted portion of his interview with Steve Inskeep of NPR again:

    INSKEEP: Won't Republicans argue -- and, in fact, won't reality argue that any cuts will have to be even deeper because this package that you're pushing for now will mean there's even less government revenue?

    OBAMA: Actually, I think that if you talk to economists, both conservative and liberal, what they'll say is the problem is not next year. The problem is, how are we dealing with our medium-term debt and deficit, and how are we dealing with our long-term debt and deficit? And most of that has to do with entitlements, particularly Social Security and Medicaid.

    Obama wants this. He's worked to set this up. In the end, I expect he will get most if not all of it. Obama is not a weak negotiator. Obama is a Republican.

    Parent

    Obama began talking about Social Security (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 01:52:01 AM EST
    financing, I believe, in Iowa in 2008.

    Though I'm not absolutely sure it was Iowa I do remember being shocked, I remember thinking the big threat to Social Security was beaten back in 2005 and even bringing the subject up was exposing it once again to right-wing attack.  

    There was no need to say anything about Social Security but here was Obama putting the subject up for debate.  There was only one reason to expose Social Security and that was to undermine the program.

    The December Deal was a direct assault on Social Security and additional proposals to again cut employer's share is an attempt to imply that Social Security is a drag on jobs creation.

    Parent

    I'll need to do some research... (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Romberry on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 02:30:38 AM EST
    ...but Obama was actually talking about Social Security and conflating it with deficit reduction well before Iowa. He was on record on as saying that Social Security was "in crisis" at least as far back as 2007. Take this exchange from March of 2007 with George Stephanopoulos as an early warning sign:

    STEPHANOPOULOS: You've also said that with Social Security, everything should be on the table.

    OBAMA: Yes.

    STEPHANOPOULOS: Raising the retirement age?

    OBAMA: Everything should be on the table.

    STEPHANOPOULOS: Raising payroll taxes?

    OBAMA: Everything should be on the table.

    And after the election (but prior to the inauguration) he was already talking about a "fiscal responsibility summit", and specifically mentioning Social Security:

    President-elect Barack Obama will convene a "fiscal responsibility summit" in February designed to bring together a variety of voices on solving the long term problems with the economy and with a special focus on entitlements, he said during an interview with Washington Post reporters and editors this afternoon.

    "We need to send a signal that we are serious," (said Obama.)

    [snip]

    Obama said that he has made clear to his advisers that some of the difficult choices--particularly in regards to entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare - should be made on his watch. "We've kicked this can down the road and now we are at the end of the road," he said.

    "Send a signal that we are serious." Obama apparently believed in the confidence fairy even then. But confidence fairy or no confidence fairy, the fact is that Obama has had his sights set on Social Security for quite some time, and careful parsing of his words both before and after he was elected should not be a source of comfort to anyone who believes in this foundation of Roosevelt's New Deal.

    Parent

    Thanks Romberry (none / 0) (#86)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 12:50:41 PM EST
    The evidence is overwhelming and his catfood commission headed by Simpson and Bowles is a sign of overt mischief.  Simpson an avowed hater and Bowles would sell it in a minute.

    I have the feeling that Obama believes history will somehow reward him for whacking Social Security just as he may believe history will reward him for his bi-partisanly behavior.  

    As far as I'm concerned his payroll tax cut was a deliberate attempt to sabotage Social Security.

    The last thing this country needed was a morally bankrupt President.  

    Parent

    And the Democratic Party (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by shoephone on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 10:57:10 PM EST
    goes the way of the Whigs...

    And with a ... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 01:44:51 AM EST
    whimper.

    Parent
    A whimper indeed (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 02:02:50 AM EST
    as one would expect from the party that has become the party about nothing.

    Parent
    "About nothing" but not in a ... (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 02:20:44 AM EST
    cool Seinfeld way.

    Parent
    Ugh... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by masslib on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 11:00:57 PM EST
    I made the mistake of making known my sense of total shock at Jed Lewinson's spin on this at dkos and the comments are mind blowing.  There are people there who don't think Obama put Medicare and social security on the table.  

    Like all cultists, those people need to be (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by shoephone on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 11:04:05 PM EST
    kidnapped and brought to a hotel room for five days to get deprogrammed.

    Parent
    Maybe I should send them a copy (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by nycstray on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 11:10:49 PM EST
    of the Oakland Tribune (only paper I saw yesterday). Main head across top of page "Social Security is on the Table". As painful as seeing that headline was, I was d@mn glad it was there for all to see, not hidden below the fold in the middle of some story.

    Parent
    Have a link? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Romberry on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 11:36:33 PM EST
    I don't generally spend a lot of time wading through the various diaries and comments at Kos. It's too much like trying to talk to the cute brown bear.

    Parent
    Mark Fiore one-ups the cute brown bear (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Romberry on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 11:44:36 PM EST
    You Just Have to Find the Right Obama for You

    (One line from the video: "Not long ago, I almost piddled myself when this Obama promised to make his administration the most open and transparent in history.")

    Parent

    Here... (none / 0) (#29)
    by masslib on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 11:43:55 PM EST
    Thanks! (none / 0) (#31)
    by Romberry on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 11:45:44 PM EST
    Now off to the Great Orange Ghetto, no doubt soon to be reminded once again why I left and why I peek only seldom...

    Parent
    Not as bad as I thought (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Romberry on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 12:03:25 AM EST
    The level of delusion seems to have abated somewhat, though there remains plenty. A lot of it seems based on just being misinformed (or willfully ignorant) of what Obama has actually done and said, and some of the rest is still in the "hope and change 11th dimensional chess" category. But I was able to read through a substantial portion of the thread in response to the diary without feeling a need to bang my head on the wall. That's real progress.

    Parent
    I am numb (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 11:26:50 PM EST
    I can't feel anything about it that would be worth wasting a moment on I've been so royally screwed over by this President in the area of the economy so many times for so long....I can't feel a damned authentic thing at the moment.  I'm just going to stand here, that's all I can do anyhow.  

    I keep thinking of Charlie Brown and (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 12:02:20 AM EST
    that football.  

    Parent
    But I used to feel like that (none / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 12:42:49 AM EST
    when Bush was president, and I knew he despised me.  I sort of always understood he lived to put me in my place, thrived on upsetting me and making my life as difficult as possible.  This is like having your big brother push you down and laugh whenever he gets the chance and doesn't think he'll get caught.  He's about to come home with one of those mysterious black eyes that he never tells anyone how he really got.....from his super pissed off sister.

    Parent
    Great line! (none / 0) (#39)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 01:43:46 AM EST
    He's about to come home with one of those mysterious black eyes that he never tells anyone how he really got.....from his super pissed off sister.

    Yup, that's about the size of it.

    Parent

    Fine, iron your skivvies (5.00 / 6) (#45)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 02:24:32 AM EST
    but some of us would prefer to say "H*ll Phucking NO! to even putting these ideas on the table. YMMV.

    And the fact remains (5.00 / 7) (#48)
    by lilburro on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 02:55:36 AM EST
    nothing but a clean vote on the ceiling is the progressive option.  I'm not going to "wait and see what the deal includes" - there shouldn't be one.

    Personally I'm not fond (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by sj on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 03:51:09 AM EST
    of waiting for more obvious symptoms -- whe it's likely too late for a cure.  I prefer preventative medicine.

    Although I have a huge fear that it is already far too late for a cure.

    When We Needed A FDR We Got an Obama (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by john horse on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 09:55:32 AM EST
    I used to think that the problem with Obama was with his personality.  He was too weak when it came to negotiating with the GOP because he didn't like conflict.  He reminded me of the character Robert the Bruce from the movie Braveheart.  The Left has been like William Wallace urging him to fight ("if you would just lead them . . . they will follow") but instead Obama has been continuously conspicuous by his his willingness to make concessions.  

    But maybe Obama's negotiating position reflects his actual beliefs.  Obama is not the populist he presented himself to be in the election but is, in fact, nothing more than a corporatist Democrat.  The reason he never fought for the public option was that he never really believed in the public option.  The reason he suggested cutting Social Security and Medicare was that he really believes that these should be cut.  He never fought for a bigger stimulus because he never believed in a bigger economic stimulus.  He never fought for serious financial reform because he never believed in it.  

    Obama is a Bluedog Democrat.  What is tragic about Obama is that if there was ever a time for serious economic reform, now is that time.  Instead Obama beats a retreat and allows whatever is left of the social safety net to be destroyed.  I think when future historians analyze this period they will sadly conclude that when we needed a FDR we got an Obama instead.

    Perhaps he'll get what he wants and (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 10:04:33 AM EST
    graciously decline to run for a second term.  

    Parent
    Here is how you will know if the strategy (2.00 / 1) (#72)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 11:08:55 AM EST
    is working.  I believe liberal pressure over entitlement cuts would kill the Big Deal anyway.

    The stories could easily have been "Pelosi and Reid block Obama's grand strategy".

    But if it is framed as a GOP backtrack, it is a winner.

    Just stupid (5.00 / 9) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 11:31:09 AM EST
    Sorry. but it is.

    Parent
    Liberal pressure... (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by masslib on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 12:02:37 PM EST
    LOL.

    Parent
    Who knew (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 01:14:45 PM EST
    72 - 80% of people in key states are liberal.Polls were states of Democratic Sens. Sherrod Brown (OH), Claire McCaskill (MO), John Tester (MT), and Amy Klobuchar (MN), all of whom are up for reelection in 2012.

    In order to reduce the national debt, would you support or oppose cutting spending on Social Security, which is the retirement program for the elderly?

    Ohio: 16% support, 80% oppose
    Missouri: 17% support, 76% oppose
    Montana: 20% support, 76% oppose
    Minnesota: 23% support, 72% oppose




    Parent
    i'm going to hazard a guess (none / 0) (#95)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 01:47:04 PM EST
    that the 16%-23% range of "support" is coming overwhelmingly from young/youngish white fauxgressive Obama fanboiz & fangrlz

    am i wrong?

    Bush had his diehard 16%-23%, & so does Obama

    plus ça change . . .

    Parent

    Oh, I would hazard a guess (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 02:08:28 PM EST
    that there are quite a few people from investment types who want to get their hands on those funds as well as the uber-wealthy who demand the whole pie and not just 98% of it.  

    Parent
    i think the word you want (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 01:42:09 PM EST
    is "strategery"

    re: Social Security & Medicare, "Build the pie lower!"

    Parent

    Are you dizzy? (none / 0) (#92)
    by Romberry on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 01:22:49 PM EST
    If I spent that much time spinning, I'd be really dizzy. You must have had formal dance training...

    Parent
    Shocked, Shocked (none / 0) (#5)
    by Captain Renault on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 09:39:26 PM EST
    The problem is that the cuts are (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 10:33:57 PM EST
    over 10 years and there is no guarantee they will ever happen.

    Repubs remember well when the Demos promised GHWB $2 in cuts for every dollar of tax increase and then the cuts  never happened....

    Fool me once and all that stuff is ringing in the Repubs ears.

    That's the good news (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 10:37:20 PM EST
    Beat me to it (none / 0) (#15)
    by ruffian on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 10:42:49 PM EST
    I so rarely look to Jim for my feel good moment of the day. I'm turning in on that note,

    Parent
    I am glad to be of service (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 08:16:42 AM EST
    ;-)

    Parent
    Thx! I slept like a baby (none / 0) (#96)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 02:02:13 PM EST
    :-)

    Parent
    not the worst ever, (none / 0) (#11)
    by observed on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 10:35:57 PM EST
    Obama may be the most incompetent in ages.


    Worst (none / 0) (#32)
    by cal1942 on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 11:58:30 PM EST
    "Democratic" President since the 19th century.

    Parent
    ABG????? (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 11:02:45 PM EST


    It's the weekend (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Towanda on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 11:12:04 PM EST
    so transmission of the talking points is delayed.  

    Parent
    Give him a minute (none / 0) (#21)
    by nycstray on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 11:12:00 PM EST
    I think he's working on some spin :)

    Parent
    Me thinks (none / 0) (#51)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 07:47:52 AM EST
    That you underestimate both my ability to talk a lot and the impact of the GOP walking away from the biggest debt reduction in 30 years.  My response is below.

    Parent
    Looks like you should (none / 0) (#84)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 12:32:18 PM EST
    have worked a lil' harder . . . .  :)

    Parent
    BTD's title says (none / 0) (#23)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 11:21:53 PM EST
    "Dog Bites Man: Boehner Balks At Revenue Increases"

    So Obama gets to be labelled as the guy who was willing to increase taxes for the rich while Boehner balked.

    Nice try (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by nycstray on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 11:26:16 PM EST
    But in case you missed it yesterday, that wasn't the story.

    Parent
    Who's "story"? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 12:17:03 AM EST
    Whose. (none / 0) (#36)
    by Romberry on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 12:38:12 AM EST
    nt

    Parent
    Okay, you obviously did miss it. n/t (none / 0) (#47)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 02:31:00 AM EST
    This commentary is all wrong (none / 0) (#50)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 07:45:11 AM EST
    I see things completely the opposite way.  The GOP said massive cuts were needed and Obama offered them the biggest deficit cut in 30 years and is on record cutting everything.  The GOP had everything they wanted if they agreed to reasonable tax increases and they caved.  THEIR bluff was called and orange guy caved. Now we have a narrative in which deems can say that they had real debt reeducation on the table and the GOP balked to protect the rich.

    The gambit could not have gone any better and what is the negative? Obama is on record as having proposed entitlement cuts that now will not occur.  Fantastic I say.  It is only a bad thing if the left was the majority of the country.  But they arent and the absolute anger and outrage over the big deal proposal really only resides in places like this.  

    For everyone else, this back and forth cements the concept that Dems want to fix things and agree and the GOP does not.  I have conservatives friends genuinely shocked that Orange Man didn't take the deal.  Take of the liberal ideology blinders for a second and look at the broader discussion and you will see a huge chunk of moderates looking hard at the GOPs flip flop on what they claimed to be the no.1 priority.

    And what do we lose to get that fact out?

    Nothing.

    Win/win.

    Just curiously (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 09:23:07 AM EST
    Do you really believe that only "the left" (which as you correctly point out, hardly exists anymore) is horrified by the idea of cuts to SS and Medicare benefits?

    Parent
    I think Independents will be furious (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 09:29:22 AM EST
    and deeply turned off in the voting booth toward Obama too. They don't have the built in painful loyalty to Obama that I have and they swing elections. He's doing a really dumb thing.  When it comes to elections though, for Independents an election really is all about them.

    Parent
    Good point (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 12:46:45 PM EST
    & the polls I've seen show majority against cutting Social Security.  

    Result of all this, IMO, only youth turnout spurred by the latest debacle will be by youth sent by their parents and grandparents to try to save Social Security.  

    Parent

    And which party (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 12:55:13 PM EST
    should one vote for to save social security?

    Parent
    Good question (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 05:42:07 PM EST
    I believe (2.00 / 1) (#69)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 10:53:48 AM EST
    that the middle and right are open to a restructuring of medicare and SS.  Only the left believes that the programs can't be touched in an way.  

    This is the tight rope that the AARP is walking in their various statements.

    Parent

    That's just crap. Talk to some real people (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by Anne on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 11:24:57 AM EST
    and ask them if they would be open to any restructuring plan that would reduce their benefits, either by making them pay more, or by "chaining" it to the CPI, which will result in a decrease in the size of the checks.  Or ask them how they wold feel if changes to reimbursements to Medicare providers resulted in there being fewer providers and reduced access.

    There is a huge swath of people, across the entire ideological and demographic spectrum, who see entitlement reform as a threat to either their own financial well-being, or to the well-being of their parents.  

    So, how about we can the crap about how only those on the left are opposed to "reform?"

    Parent

    This is the (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 11:38:13 AM EST
    'Very Serious People' argument. You are essentially saying that what the right believes is to be taken more seriously than what the left believes.

    Parent
    Polls don't bear you out. (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by masslib on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 12:01:44 PM EST
    Hell, even 50% of Republicans don't want Medicare and Social security touched.  80% of this country earns less than 100k a year.  Why in hells name would you imagine both the middle and right of the electorate want their benefits restructured?  What ever the hell that means.  Indeed, this is not even a politically partisan issue.  It's a class issue.  The middle class and the poor do not want their social programs messed with.

    Parent
    "Restructuring" (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 12:54:27 PM EST
    What an obfuscatory word. (Did you study under Frank Luntz or something?)  Of course, we're ALL in favor of "restructuring."  The issue is what kinda "restructuring."

    By all accounts and uncontradicted by the White House, Obama -- not Boehner, not Mitch McConnell, not the Devil himself -- offered benefit cuts to Social Security and Medicare, including the actuarially insane proposition that Medicare should kick in at a later age than it does now.

    I ask again.  Do you think only the "left" is horrified by the idea of benefit cuts to Social Security and Medicare?

    Please answer the question that's on the table.

    Parent

    I think (1.00 / 1) (#99)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 07:18:10 PM EST
    Restructuring is the right word. ISA altering the retirement age for kids not even born a cut n entitlements?  Technically yes but if phrased that way, with an exception for labor careers or a means based test, they would.

    If I save my money the way I should, I shouldn't need SS. If at the time I retire I have money to live on, I have no problem forgoing my SS to strengthen the program for those who do need it.  

    Is that a cut? Yes.  Is that a cut i believe liberals and a majority of Americans would support? Yes.

    There changes a liberal could support.  The program isn't perfect and can be drastically improved in a way that makes the wealthy pay the same or more while cutting them off of they don't need the cash when the time comes.

    Parent

    just wow (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 10:27:39 PM EST
    If I save my money the way I should, I shouldn't need SS.

    there it is, innit?

    #delusional

    #'nother planet

    #fauxgressive elitist

    Parent

    Pretty hard to save ANY money when (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Anne on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 11:09:25 PM EST
    one doesn't have a job, and doesn't have any real prospects of getting one.  And all the government intends to do about it is make it harder for one to hang on.

    ABG's sentiments mirror Obama's to a "T"

    Parent

    i don't know what Obama's sentiments are (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 11:34:59 PM EST
    but ABG's speak for themselves

    Parent
    ABG a perfect advocate (none / 0) (#113)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 11, 2011 at 08:00:50 AM EST
    for Obama and his positions.

    Parent
    So you want to turn SS (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by itscookin on Mon Jul 11, 2011 at 07:28:07 AM EST
    Into a welfare program? One of the reasons that SS has become a sacred cow is that everybody pays in, and everybody gets something back. Telling people that they have to struggle to save for their own retirement while paying into a retirement system for someone else's retirement will certainly make SS a much less popular government program- one that will be much easier to get rid of all together. You might feel differently about this when your grandmother, your aunts, and your wife's elderly relatives all move in with you. Which is the way life used to be.

    Parent
    This (none / 0) (#70)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 11:04:11 AM EST
    is a good summary of what I think just happened

    "Obama-Biden also seem to know that the GOP is testing them as they move up and down the ladder, and now that Boehner is pining for Biden again, it shows how indispensable Joe Biden has turned out to be as a partner to Obama.

    Biden also has revenue increases in his more workable, less grandiose plan.  He's not soft on the GOP -- just pragmatic.  And now the Republicans are essentially going mostly the direction with Joe Biden where Obama wanted them to go in the first place."

    Link

    In fact, Obama is actually doubling down and saying that he still wants his big deal.  That's pretty smart what we are trying to break is the GOP stance on tax increases.  The tactic isolates everything on that one point which is a huge winner for Obama.

    It's a huge risk, but this shows why the primary criticism (Obama is a wimp) has always been BS.

    It's a bold strategy to break the GOPs back.

    Parent

    Ugh (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 11:34:29 AM EST
    Idiotic.

    Parent
    No wimp he (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 12:56:57 PM EST
    He just showed how tough he is by proposing to cut big holes in our already disgracefully puny safety net for the poor and the elderly.  In fact, he's trying to force these "tough" ideas down the throats of the Republicans despite their objections.

    Honestly, I don't know what planet you live on.


    Parent

    I amlivingin the world (none / 0) (#100)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 07:19:33 PM EST
    Where people here have been arguing that everything he's proposing is wildly unpopular.

    If it is unpopular it is hard.  That is really the point on the leadership argument.

    Parent

    Uh, killing people is (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 07:55:50 PM EST
    unpopular, too.

    Offering up the social safety net to the right wing is not being "tough," it's bending over and asking for you know what.  If you're a Democrat, that is, and perhaps that's the problem here, you know what I mean?

    Parent

    Stupid policies do not prove leadership (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 08:18:51 PM EST
    They are just stupid and harmful.  Selling out the poor and the middle class so that he can raise $1billion in campaign funds and his savvy friends can accumulate even more wealth is not leadership.

    Nothing really hard about robbing the poor and powerless to pay for the Obama wars, the Obama tax cuts for uber-wealthy and the proposed corporate tax cuts.

    Parent

    Obama only offered to go bigger (5.00 / 7) (#64)
    by Anne on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 10:04:49 AM EST
    if he could throw some revenue increases in there - and it's the revenue increases the GOP is rejecting; without the increases, the deal goes back to being what the GOP wanted all along, so I don't see how this becomes any kind of victory for Obama.

    And this?

    Obama is on record as having proposed entitlement cuts that now will not occur.

    Well, first, I wouldn't be too sure it's dead in the water, and second, even if it is, giving the GOP the opportunity to run as the party that saved entitlements from being cut seems like pretty bad strategy on Obama's part.  A winning strategy for Obama would have been (1) refusing to put entitlements on the table at all, and (2) steering the economy - from Day One, with the impetus of the stimulus - even if it did need to be bigger - in a direction that puts people back to work and contributing to those entitlement programs.

    I don't disagree that Dems want to fix things; the problem I have - that a lot of people have, including one of your faves, Paul Krugman - is that what the president is proposing is not the way to do it.  

    The GOP hasn't flip-flopped; they weren't the ones who wanted the $4 trillion deal - they were the ones who have, since Day One, refused to accept tax increases, and on that, they have held fast.  

    And my guess is, Obama will tweak his original offer and make it more palatable to the GOP, just so he can claim victory, but he will do so on the backs of average people; that's the pattern.

    Parent

    Yep, good campaign rhetoric (5.00 / 6) (#66)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 10:15:31 AM EST
    for Obama.

    Folks I was proposing to cut SS, Medicare and Medicaid but Boehner and the Republicans wouldn't let me. Vote for me and I promise I will work harder to cut, I mean "fix," the entitlement programs in my second term. Vote for me so that I can accomplish what I was sent to Washington to do.


    Parent
    Really (none / 0) (#90)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    It boggles the mind.

    Parent
    Again (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 11:33:35 AM EST
    this is as stupid as it gets.

    Here's why - spending cuts now is terrible policy. Nobody cares about a headline, which by the way, is not going to be what you want it to be at the celebratory press conference announcing the debt ceiling deal, in July 2011 when they vote in November 2012.

    And even the headline you want is "Obama wanted to cut Social Security and Medicare and GOP Did Not Agree." That's a winner?

    Honestly, this is as dumb as it gets.  

    Parent

    We always question whether Obama (none / 0) (#81)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 11:44:23 AM EST
    is being led about or whether he really wants what he is getting.  Same re ABG, it's his mission to put a favorable spin on Obama's actions.  But does he believe what he writes?  This one is exceptional though.

    Parent
    Simpler (none / 0) (#52)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 08:05:04 AM EST
    We know that the GOP doesn't really care about deficit reduction primarily.  They want smaller government. That's really the goal.

    Obama offers up 4 trillion with a trillion in tax increases.   He basically gives them everything they want.

    They say no.

    If the deal doesn't happen by the deadline, who does America blame?

    Parent

    The Dems had the Republicians (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 08:29:36 AM EST
    by the short and curlies after they voted for the Ryan plan to privatize Medicare. Obama in his great wisdom {snark x 10} took that edge away by offering to cut SS, Medicare and Medicaid.

    Now instead of the Dems being able to run on the Republican actions, the Republicans can run on Obama wants to cut all of the entitlement programs that the public overwhelmingly supports.

    Republicans will get large cuts without giving up anything in exchange. At the same time they will be able run to the left of Obama with the same message that was so effective in 2010 but this time it will not be just the Dems want to take away your Medicare, it will be the the Dems want to take away your Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid.

    Brilliant? Maybe for the Republicans.      

    Parent

    Better question (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Romberry on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 08:53:42 AM EST
    If the deal does happen, who does America blame? You talk about this push for massive budget cuts as though it would be a good thing. Bizarre.

    Parent
    I (none / 0) (#57)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 09:06:29 AM EST
    didn't say it was good.  i say that majorities see it as a concern.


    Parent
    But those majorities (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 10:08:59 AM EST
    are wrong. Didn't I see a post from you a couple days ago saying sometimes politicians have to go against public opinion and do the 'right thing'? I'm pretty sure I did. You really can't see how your arguments are all post factum rationalizations for whatever it is Obama has done, can you?

    And how about all those people who look at the failure of this and say 'Obama was willing to cut $4 trillion including massive cuts to my social security and my medicare. What a jerk. And all he asked for was for a lesser amount of tax cuts to rich people. What a fool. And he still couldn't get a deal. What a loser.' How did Obama make the GOP look bad here? The narrative created is 'looks like Obama will have to give up $6 trillion in cuts for even tinier revenue increases now in order to get GOP agreement.' That's where this is headed.

    What deal do you think is going to happen? You think having rejected this deal Boehner is going to agree to a worse deal for his party, because he's worried that he looks bad? He's an idiot but he's not that stupid. His party can now say 'we rejected the massive cuts to social security & medicare proposed by the president. We are the champions of the working person.'

    Parent

    You did see that (none / 0) (#68)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 10:51:59 AM EST
    but the $4 trillion offer was really about what happens if no deal was reached and the Dem's ability to mute the GOP talking points if a deal is reached.

    We know right now that the deal is going to be in he $2 trillion range and have some tax increases disguised as something else. This week and last week are all about optics.

    Parent

    Since the GOP was largely rejecting the (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by Anne on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 11:15:23 AM EST
    original $2 trillion deal, why wasn't that enough to show what would happen if no deal was reached?  Why wouldn't the Dems be able to mute the GOP's talking points on that deal?

    What was the point of sending Biden to get the smaller deal done, and then have Obama step in - and eat Biden's lunch, by the way - and offer to double the size of the deal?  So that when it went back to the smaller deal, people would think we'd dodged a bullet?  Too bad the obvious takeaway is that it was the president firing the gun in the first place - I guess he thinks he gets points - and votes - for being a bad shot?

    You've invoked the "optics" excuse on pretty much every crappy deal Obama and the Dems have been involved in, but the thing is that those optics must be where all the transparency he promised us is residing, because we can see right through them.

    The truth of the matter is that there never needed to be any kind of deal done in exchange for raising the debt ceiling; there is all kinds of historical precedent for a passing a clean bill, and then there is that increasingly foreign concept known as "leadership" that could have been brought to bear.  Why not hold the GOP's feet to the fire on what would happen without passing a clean bill?  Simple: Obama wants these cuts, has wanted them for some time.  He miscalculated and thought the GOP would go for bigger cuts in exchange for some three-card monte on revenue.

    Oh, there's optics, all right...just not the kind you wish they were.

    Parent

    Those optics (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 11:34:19 AM EST
    don't help the president, unless you are seeing them through rose colored glasses.

    Parent
    Barely... (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by masslib on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 10:33:21 AM EST
    Not compared to jobs and like protecting their social security and Medicare.

    Parent
    Very good, really. (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 11:25:02 AM EST
    Does (none / 0) (#101)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 07:22:55 PM EST
    Obama's approval rating go up or down if he cuts the deal we suspect he will?

    I am looking for an objective way to measure the results that people believe will occur.

    There's your problem (5.00 / 5) (#103)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 08:02:08 PM EST
    All you seem to care about is Obama's approval rating.  Some folks here care about the effects of what he does.

    Do you deny that his precious approval rating would soar if he did the things that would make people's lives better, instead of worse?

    Can he get by with terrific framing by you and others while making people's lives materially worse instead of better?  Perhaps he can, but I very sincerely hope not because it will mean we as a nation, as a people will be royally f***.

    I'm actually glad I'm as old as I am because with luck, I won't live to see the finaly stages of the total implosion of my country.  And brought about by the actions of a Democratic president, no less.

    Parent

    I also am looking (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Towanda on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 08:28:17 PM EST
    for measurable results:

    Jobs.

    If you want Obama to have his job after 2012, worry about whether he starts doing his job now.

    A hint:  His job now is not about the debt ceiling, when Americans' debts are causing them to fall through the floors.  

    Parent

    I know you're not trying to be funny (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 09:33:04 PM EST
    ... but have you ever noticed how your penultimate measure of any policy or proposal is its effect on Obama's approval rating?

    I have no doubt that if you were a doctor, you'd forgo a thermometer and stethascope in favor of a quick check of Obama's approval rating.

    Parent

    More to the point (none / 0) (#104)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 08:03:11 PM EST

    Why would Boehner accept tax increases now for promises of spending cuts later?