A raw deal - Steve Benen

[Mass]

A two month discussion to give the GOP twice what they asked at the beginning. Not sure how you can call that good strategizing. Now, we need to find what will be cut and who it will affect (not the rich, obviously)

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_04/028868.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+washingtonmonthly%2Frss+%28Political+Animal+at+Washington+Monthly%29

A RAW DEAL.... There was arguably no way this budget fight was going to end well. In November, Americans elected the most conservative House majority in modern political history, and in December, Senate Republicans derailed an omnibus that would have funded the government through the end of the fiscal year.

Those two developments ensured a few things: (1) we'd see an ugly battle that could lead to a shutdown; (2) President Obama was going to have to compromise; and (3) the end result wouldn't be pretty.

...

Consider it this way: on Feb. 3, just nine weeks ago, the House Republican leadership unveiled their spending-cut plan, which would have cut $32 billion for the remainder of the fiscal year. They acknowledged that this was far less than they'd promised during the campaign, but additional cuts, they said, were unrealistic. Democrats, at the time, thought this level of reductions was outrageous, and they were right. Indeed, the leadership's plan was considered so severe, one report referred to the proposal as "the GOP Chainsaw Massacre."

...

I realize Dems were left in an untenable position: allow a shutdown that would hurt the economy or accept spending cuts that would hurt the economy. Republicans, and the voters who mistakenly gave Republicans considerable power and influence, came up with the misguided agenda and relied on a hostage strategy that tends to work for them.

But those realizations don't change the relative strength of the deal, or lack thereof. I'm glad the shutdown was averted, but I'm trying to think of a way to defend the budget agreement on the merits, and nothing comes to mind.

I understand that, at this point, they did the only thing that was available to avoid a shutdown, but can we have people that start thinking a little bit. Fighting a battle to give MORE than was originally asked is STUPID and people will suffer unecessarily because of that.

[ellie]

1. I am completely disgusted

by this.

[Mass]

2. Me too, and we have not yet seen the details of what will be cut.

[tularetom]

3. All the compromising was done on the expenditure side

Raising revenues was not even on the table.

Obama's inclination to compromise has potentially gotten him into deep doodoo for 2012.

The spending cuts that will arise from this will only tend to derail the recovery and the republicans can beat Obama about the head and shoulders with high jobless rates and high gasoline prices.

And he did it to himself. The time was right for a game of chicken with those asshats but the president apparently is incapable of running a bluff.

[Mass]

4. It's not only Obama. Remember that Reid led the discussions for the Dems and Reid

(and Schumer, I imagine), both well known for their wish to compromise over anything else.

[ProSense]

5. Completely agree with this

I realize Dems were left in an untenable position: allow a shutdown that would hurt the economy or accept spending cuts that would hurt the economy. Republicans, and the voters who mistakenly gave Republicans considerable power and influence, came up with the misguided agenda and relied on a hostage strategy that tends to work for them.

But those realizations don't change the relative strength of the deal, or lack thereof. I'm glad the shutdown was averted, but I'm trying to think of a way to defend the budget agreement on the merits, and nothing comes to mind.

If the government had shut down, a lot of people, on both sides, would have blamed Obama.

Did anyone really think that budget negotiations around a government shutdown was going to be pleasant?

[Mass]

6. So this is a great deal. Giving more than was asked at the beginning.

Sorry, the deal is raw, and we should better accept it is raw, because otherwise, we will be the loser of every battle. Time to change the Senate leadership )as it seems obvious that Obama was only involved these last few days).

[BklnDem75]

7. They wanted $100 billion in cuts

I guess Benen forgot that.

[ProSense]

9. Republican senators demand spending cuts of 'no less' than $100 billion

Republican senators demand spending cuts of 'no less' than $100 billion

<...>

"We believe that, as part of the urgent need to cut federal spending, the total value of the fiscal year 2011 spending reductions in the upcoming continuing resolution should be no less than $100 billion," the senators said in the letter.

The senators noted in the letter that a cut of $100 billion would be only "one-15th" of this year's budget deficit.

The letter was signed by a group of reliably fiscal conservatives, including five newly sworn-in senators: Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Mike Lee of Utah, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Marco Rubio of Florida and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania. Sens. Demint of South Carolina, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, John Ensign of Nevada, Mike Enzi of Wyoming, Mike Johanns of Nebraska and David Vitter of Louisiana also attached their name to the letter.

<...>

House Republicans had said during last year’s midterm campaign that they would make $100 billion in cuts, but top lawmakers had announced they would not hit that mark because the figure was based on President Obama's budget request for fiscal 2011, which was never enacted.

<...>

Given that Republicans were hoping to attach dozens of riders to the budget, the number ($32 billion vs. $38 billion) is less important than the fact that the riders were rejected.

[_ed_]

8. It seems pleasant for the Republicans, no?

What did they give up?

[jenmito]

10. The teabaggers wanted the promised $100 billion. Did you see THIS thread?:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x648926 You DID see the thread since you commented on it, so you should KNOW they weren't pleased.

[_ed_]

12. Are you really treating $78.5 billion out of $100 billion

as a victory? Who cares what they say. The difference is that the people who are bitching because they got $78.5 billion out of $100 billion have the respect of their politicians, while we settle for a massive loss and are expected to support the pols who shit on us constantly.

[jenmito]

13. I'm treating it as a defeat for the teabaggers and everyone else who

wanted the promised $100 billion PLUS the de-funding of Planned Parenthood. Obama and the Dems. avoided a govt. shutdown and didn't cave on de-funding PP, the EPA, and other things the opponents wanted.

[KoKo]

11. K&R! And the comments on Benen's article at the site are worth a read.

Many reasoned, thoughtful pro's and con's that one won't find on DU these days. Definitely worth read for those who have the time.

[Enrique]

14. "at this point"

yes, that's exactly right, "at this point" options were limited. But how did we get to this point? What about the initial offer from the White House? I have an idea: how about we start out with a DEMOCRATIC position in the next debate?

[ProSense]

15. "But how did we get to this point? "

I realize Dems were left in an untenable position: allow a shutdown that would hurt the economy or accept spending cuts that would hurt the economy. Republicans, and the voters who mistakenly gave Republicans considerable power and influence, came up with the misguided agenda and relied on a hostage strategy that tends to work for them.

I'm sure Republicans were going to be in control of the House and simply give the President everything he wanted. Of course, he could have stood firm and allow the government to shut down to "Win The Future."

[Enrique]

16. "give him everything he wants"

don't make me laugh. How about giving as much as Obama gives? Is that too much to ask? He should actually give more, since we control the Senate and the presidency, but that seems out of reach.

[Mass]

17. Everything? You may be joking. Boehner had already said the $100 millions were ridiculous.

All we did is take his offer and give him a little more to avoid him a clash with the crazy in his party. But of course, pink glasses work so well. Tell that to those whose essential services will disappear (because we still dont know what will be cut, but we know that, if the GOP agreed, it cant be good for us.

[ProSense]

18. Do I sound like I'm joking?

I already said in another comment that the amount was less important than what was cut.

What specific cuts did Boehner get that he wanted?

[Mass]

19. Do you have the list of cuts? Because I dont and I cant find it.

But of course, Dems can only do good.

[ProSense]

20. There is

this.

[treestar]

21. Well they do control the house!

Welcome to reality! This is ridiculous. The House controls the purse strings. It was one thing to whine that the Democratic House didn't do enough but really? The Republicans control the House. Of course they will get some of what they want!

:banghead:

Anything to blame the Democrats and give the Republicans a free pass!