Why is the White House defending Boehner?

[Enrique]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wonkbook-why-is-the-white-house-defending-boehner/2011/07/27/gIQAvBobcI_blog.html

(...)

Enter OMB Director Jack Lew. Earlier in the day, his office had issued an almost-veto threat on behalf of the White House. So no one would mistake them as fans of the Boehner plan. But in a blog post Tuesday evening, Lew rallied to the plan's defense, arguing that Boehner's plan only undershot its spending target because the CBO tested it against the "adjusted March baseline," which includes the cuts passed as part of the appropriations deal that kept the government's lights on earlier this year.

Why does that matter? Because depending on which baseline you use, the cuts don't need to be as deep. Lew argues that the two parties have agreed we need to cut $4 trillion starting from the CBO's January estimate. And if you start from that estimate, Boehner's plan cuts $1.1 trillion.

According to Lew, the debate has, until now, proceeded from that baseline. "Both the House Republican budget proposal unveiled by Congressman Ryan on April 5 and the President’s fiscal framework that he introduced on April 13...were introduced before the agreement on appropriations for FY 2011, the baseline used for them did not reflect the spending cuts enacted this year in that legislation. Indeed, throughout our weeks of talks, all parties have worked off a January baseline because we all recognized that we needed to start from the same place." If the two sides stop using that baseline, then the ultimate cuts will need to be significantly deeper than what was discussed in the White House meetings.

Somehow, I doubt House Republicans will find Lew's logic convincing.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. To be the Kiss of Death of anything Boehner endorses?

Right now, if the WH likes anything Boehner likes, the Tea Party will dismiss it out of hand. Reverse psychology by the White House perhaps. To dilute Boehner's leadership.

[backscatter712]

19. I think you're onto something.

I'm highly entertained by the wedge that's been driven between the batshit teabaggers and the Wall Street/K Street Republicans.

If it weren't for the consequences of a failure to come to a deal (Second Great Depression, anyone?), I'd be laughing my ass off seeing the Republicans drawing the long knives against each other.

Maybe some of it is Obama driving a wedge in the Republicans, and getting them in-fighting. I just hope we don't go over the financial cliff...

:popcorn::scared:

[Atman]

2. Obama is rope-a-doping his chess powder dry.

Don't worry, he's got it figured out.

I can't decide whether or not to add a :sarcasm: tag.

.

[Kolesar]

3. Triple-mixed-metaphor

Not often achieved :thumbsup:

[vi5]

4. Oh man...

I hate you. This seriously made me almost choke on my coffee from laughing.

[truebrit71]

11. Classic!

:rofl:

[GumboYaYa]

5. It's the Brer Rabbit strategy...

please don't throw me in that briar patch.

[karynnj]

6. There is a good reason - the CBO moved the bar by changing the baseline

Similar accounting will affect all plans that CBO scores.

arguing that Boehner's plan only undershot its spending target because the CBO tested it against the "adjusted March baseline," which includes the cuts passed as part of the appropriations deal that kept the government's lights on earlier this year.

Why does that matter? Because depending on which baseline you use, the cuts don't need to be as deep. Lew argues that the two parties have agreed we need to cut $4 trillion starting from the CBO's January estimate. And if you start from that estimate, Boehner's plan cuts $1.1 trillion.

It is NOT good to keep the same goal in terms of size of cuts - and shift the baseline like this. IF the WH did not point this out, they would look hypocritical pointing it out when Reid's or another proposal is costed out.

As to House Republicans accepting it - they want even larger cuts and were already against the plan.

[Inuca]

9. Exactly

I was going to write something similar (but less well informed and detailed) after I posted my snarky comment. Makes more sense now that Reid's proposal was also analyzed and found "lacking".

If it were not so important + enormously frustrating on so many levels, all of this would make for absolutely priceless entertainment.

[Cirque du So-What]

7. To sow discord & confusion in the repug ranks?

At this particular juncture, that's a worthy goal.

[Inuca]

8. To make you happy?

YOu should send them a Thank You note.

[Cosmocat]

10. Because they have to pass SOMETHING though the House ...

Look - the batshiite looney half of the house is not going to vote on the final bill.

That means the Boehner, as the speaker of the house, and the person who has to get SOMETHING through the chamber that matches what the Senate is going to do, has to be able to muster enough Rs to get with the Ds and pass something in the next week to keep this country from being absolutely screwed.

Boehner has to get SOMETHING passed here ...

[Enrique]

12. but this is the bill Obama threatened to veto

as I understand it.

[Cosmocat]

13. Either way ...

they have to ease up the pressure on Boehner ...

Not that I feel sorry for ANY republican in DC at this point, he is in a TOUGH spot.

If this was just a piece of legislation that could crash and burn, it would not matter.

But, they HAVE to pass something to raise the debt limit, and while it may end up having some things to it that we may not like, Boehner has a full out insurgency in his caucus, and if he loses control completely, or power, the lunatics who overtake him are likely to us default.

I think the white house has to help prop him up through this, then see if they go full out Ceaser on him and deal with what happens after that.

[Hawkowl]

14. Stockholm Syndrome

I'm absolutely serious. Obama has been held hostage so long by the Rethuglicans in Congress and the Senate, that he has actually begun to sympathize with them. You can see this by his adoption of their talking points and his putting SS and Medicare on the table.

Can we send the SEALs in to rescue him?

[CakeGrrl]

15. ...

More "diagnoses" from the armchair set.

:rofl:

[TheKentuckian]

16. He is not a captive but rather a participant.

[woo me with science]

20. +1

[fujiyama]

17. The problem is the administration and democrats in general

never made any major effort early on to tell people why increased and accelerated deficit spending during a recession was necessary, and that the increasing debt, while obviously a major concern, was mostly a function of revenue - and that once stimulus measures took effect, tax revenues would increase due to employment and spending. Instead we got a very timid stimulus package, mostly with tax cuts(!), emergency funding for unemployment benefits, and money for state governments. Little of the package actually went toward massive infrastructure spending (an absolute necessity). Instead over time we have gotten increased spending on the wars - wars which have gone completely unfunded. Democrats (and I'm talking about those OTHER than the president) have also not made it clear that cutting taxes while starting two wars has largely led to this mess. Of course, many democrats can't argue about this because many voted FOR the tax cuts in the first place.

What's irritating is that in the media, there are few, if any talking heads making the point that austerity measures during a recession do not stimulate the economy in any real way. Instead the consequences of such measures are just felt by those hurting the most already - the poor, those on fixed incomes (elderly), and the unemployed in general (which now makes up a significant % of the population).

The government doesn't function like a family household and it's stupid for the president and other politicians to keep making the analogy of a family's spending habits and budget compared to that of the government. Yes, taking increasing debt loads do increase interest rates over time, but I'm sure most would rather take that risk than simply cutting the programs used and needed by millions. The $1,000 or so may not sound like a lot for those worth several million dollars (your typical politician), but it sure does when someone is close to or under the poverty line - with savings of barely a hundred bucks, and a home with no equity.

But as for why the administration is giving credibility to Boehner's plan? Well I suspect that it is because he's the closest thing they have to a partner among House republicans. They already know Cantor was impossible to deal with. And Boehner, while he is indeed a dick and unreliable as indicated by his walking out recently, I think understands that defaulting will not politically help the republicans in any way. He's (albeit slightly) saner than the teabaggers he has to round up to simply keep things going. It's no doubt a shitty plan, but our government is held hostage by the freaks the American public voted into office last November. This should be a lesson to all...

[Warren Stupidity]

18. because you don't bring a knife to a gun fight, you bring a spork.