Craig Crawford: Why Obama Won Debt Deal

[UrbScotty]

The President got what he most wanted, postponing another debt ceiling fight until after the election and without politically damaging entitlement cuts.

Everything else is eye wash. Most of the spending cuts are in the out years, which is another way of saying it won’t happen.

And one more committee to study cuts? Oh please, even if they call it a “super” committee that’s always a Capitol Hill euphemism for doing nothing. Adding so-called triggers for cuts if goals aren’t met also means nothing. Remember Gramm-Rudman?

Giving up tax increases on the wealthy is probably Obama’s biggest concession, but that fight lives for another day when the Bush cuts are scheduled to expire later on.

http://craigcrawford.com/2011/07/why-obama-won-debt-deal/

Interesting read. Even though it hasn't been finalized, it doesn't look as bad as many of us (myself included) feared.

[AtomicKitten]

1. Triggers are also bullshit. nt

[joeybee12]

2. Up is down...nt

[jefferson_dem]

16. Around here...

Often that is the case. :thumbsup:

[NC_Nurse]

3. uh, ok. I'll believe it when I see it.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Oh what a relief! Our team won! Yay!

forget about the details and ensuing screwage, the important thing is that we chalked up a win Team D!

[Supersedeas]

47. have you seen the size of that eye-dropper?

[Botany]

5. now do I file this under the Clinton will go back and ..

... fix NAFTA file?

[mzmolly]

6. What? A reasoned analysis?!

K and R.:freak:

[stubtoe]

9. Refreshing, isn't it?

I'm predicting this fiasco has damaged the Tea Baggers. Hell, you knew it wouldn't take long for them to overreach. They own this debacle.

[mzmolly]

12. I agree.

I think it's also given us a chance to demonstrate (essentially) that government is good. :hi:

[SusanaMontana41]

62. I hope you're right. But

when corporatists get everything they want, they tend to celebrate and invest in those people.

Yes, the 'baggers might have scared them a little. But in the end, this benefits corporatists, and it's the bottom line that counts with them.

Go ahead. Fire away. :hide:

The 'baggers are batshit crazy. No question about that.

[grantcart]

24. There seems to be a small hole in the net. Need to get it fixed before

anymore slip in.

[mzmolly]

56. .

:)

[humbled_opinion]

7. He didn't win crap...

The entire national conversation is about cuts, reform, caps, balancing budgets.. These are all losers for a President that needs to stimulate economic growth, invest capital in green energy futures, and create jobs.....

..... Instead of insisting that in a down economy any cuts are off the table and the real change would only come when we have a single payer healthcare system that makes the entire medicare issue moot and when the super rich are actually paying their fair share.....

The President seems to be chanelling Smoot and Hawley instead of Huey Long. A great Huey Long type speech is long overdue.

[99 Percent Sure]

14. +1

[Lasher]

63. What, a reasoned analysis? Refreshing, isn't it?

[NorthCarolina]

8. ..

:rofl:

Yep, Obama won alright. :rofl:

Who do they expect to buy this excrement?

[MissDeeds]

26. Yep

But I'm sure some (many?) will buy it. Sad.

[Ikonoklast]

54. Like Bernie? Bet you he votes for it.

Will that make you sad?

Or will Bernie now be sad?

[MBS]

10. I sure hope he's right.

but I'll believe it when I see it.
If we can get the House back in 2012, and a stronger majority in the Senate, there might be some hope, but with the crew in there now. . .

[99 Percent Sure]

15. +1

[humbled_opinion]

19. Although I agree with you

I find it hard to dismiss the fact that between 2006 and 2010... We had the majorities in the House and the Senate and still managed to accomplish so very little. Of course if we had super majorities then sure these points would be moot, however, One party super majority is considered tyranny by some.

[treestar]

11. Hyperbole is so popular

Both for the M$M and here. Everyone loves to ratchet up the drama.

[indepat]

13. The Bush tax cuts have expired: the Obama tax cuts are now in effect

:patriot:

[humbled_opinion]

20. LOL... Yes, I agree

Obama should get the "CREDIT" for cutting taxes for the rich now.... No wonder so many still call them the Bush Tax Cuts.

[polmaven]

43. As are

the Obama Unemployment Benefit extensions.

[Top Cat]

17. K&R... I totally agree

[DCBob]

18. Crawford is a straight talker.

I think he has it about right.

[Imajika]

21. I've been saying the same...

The cuts are peanuts. The only cuts that matter are what is slated for 2012, and for that year we are only talking about a few billion dollars. Everything in the out years will be replaced by new budget agreements that will completely ignore this deal.

The super committee, triggers and all the rest of it will simply be bypassed by later agreements and budgets. Congress and the White House can simply re-legislate all of it.

At the end of the day we gave up around 5-10 billion dollars in the 2012 budget. That's going to be about it. In return, Obama took another debt limit increase dog and pony show away from the teabaggers.

What we have lost is the framing of the debate. We are now talking about debt and deficits instead of stimulus and jobs programs. That could dog the President right through the rest of his term. This deal itself doesn't seem nearly as bad as many are making it out to be. At the end of the day, the way I see it, we lost a handful of billions of dollars in the 2012 budget, but other than that it seems like a win for Obama to me.

[rury]

32. I hope that's true!!

[sundancekid]

52. me 3 - let's get a grip and grow a pair to be smart enough to see ...

the whole long distance picture here just like you suggest, Imajika ... the freepers and redstate are on fire with ire - does that get a clue??? Now let's see who else stays home in Nov 2012 since cutting our noses to spite our progressive faces has worked out soooo well - it goes back to Scotty Brown and Martha Coakley - do we understand the meaning of 60 damn seats in the Senate NOW??????????????? Governance is NOT fairyland with magical thinking.

[alsame]

22. I want the American people to 'win'. nt

[banned from Kos]

23. He is right. Committees are where dying ideas go for life support

and then die anyway.

[rug]

25. "Eye wash"? "Most of the spending cuts ... won’t happen"?

Hog wash.

[Igel]

36. They won't.

Nothing this Congress can do can bind the Congress to vote in a given way in 2012.

Any cut not placed in the upcoming year's budget is meaningless.

In fact, since there *is* no budget for the upcoming year, any cut proposed for next year is meaningless. Any cut made without reference to a preexisting number is junk.

[rug]

37. That;s an interesting spin.

Why not cut out Medicaid right now since it's meaningless.

[otohara]

27. The Rich Won Again

they must be so happy.

[Vattel]

28. Well, at least Obama didn't get the cuts

in Medicare and Social Security benefits that he wanted.

[ClarkUSA]

29. Where are all those who JUST KNEW President Obama would cut SS and Medicare benefits now? Hmm?

Democrats won't like the fact that Medicare could be exposed to automatic cuts, but the size of the Medicare cuts is limited and they are designed to be taken from Medicare providers, not beneficiaries.

Two sources briefed on the framework say the automatic cuts would hit Defense spending harder than Medicare. A Republican briefed on the framework says this will be unacceptable to many Republicans because it could force them to face a choice between accepting tax increases (if that is what the committee recommends) or automatic cuts that would gut the Pentagon's budget.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/07/white-house-republicans-strike-tenative-deal-to-raise-debt-ceiling-.html

[Unvanguard]

35. That quotation has been egregiously misinterpreted.

The committee is free to recommend cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. The automatic cuts that go into effect if an agreement isn't reached exempt Medicaid and Social Security, and protect Medicare from baring the brunt of them.

[ClarkUSA]

39. No, it's you who has misinterpreted. I can read the news report perfectly fine, thanks.

[Unvanguard]

41. Do you have a response to the distinction I drew?

Do you have any source indicating that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are protected, not from the automatic cuts, but from the committee's recommendations?

[ClarkUSA]

42. What facts from credible news sources do you have that back up your claim?

[Unvanguard]

46. The committee has to recommend about 1.5 trillion in cuts.

It is extremely unlikely that it will reach that target without touching Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. There is only so much money in the federal budget. Republican intransigence on defense cuts and tax increases only makes that more likely. Do you know of any bipartisan debt agreement plan that leaves those programs untouched? Bowles-Simpson didn't, the Gang of Six plan didn't, the Obama-Boehner plan that fell through didn't.

Further, I can't find any statement anywhere that the committee is being denied the authority to recommend cuts to those programs. Conversely, several articles suggest that "entitlement reforms" are within the purview of the committee: see, e.g., http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-debt-negotiations-20110731,0,6783653.story?track=rss">here. http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/144057/congressional-leaders-work-on-framework-for-debt-deal">This article is even more explicit:

The committee would appear to have the power to increase or reform taxes and to cut or reform entitlement programs.

"The committee has a broad mandate to look at the entire spectrum of concerns and certainly tax reform is something both Democrats and Republicans think is long overdue," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on CBS' "Face The Nation."

"The committee has no restraints on it. We will fight very hard for revenues on that committee, if it should come to exist," said Senator Charles Schumer on the same program.

[mzmolly]

57. They're predicting future cuts.

I hope we have second term for some to accuse the President of these things. That means they can stretch out the panic for another five plus years. ;)

[DLnyc]

30. With wins like this, who needs enemas?

Obama started out saying that cuts had to be balanced with increased revenue coming from the very wealthy and from large corporations who were getting unreasonable breaks. The Republicans were trying to do just cuts.

We ended up with just cuts.

So if 'winning' means getting zero of what you're asking for when the other side gets all of what they're asking for, then I guess Obama 'won'.

[ClarkUSA]

31. With empty rhetoric like this, who needs No-Doze?

:boring:

[DLnyc]

34. Not "rhetoric" and not so empty, I think.

Obama gave a speech a couple weeks ago (July 25) which I listened to very closely. He very clearly laid out his position, which was that any cuts had to be balanced with increased revenue. He talked very clearly about the very wealthy and the large corporations doing their share. You can listen to the speech here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x603583 (try listening around 2:40 and on) It has phrases like "the burden is fairly shared" and "balanced approach" versus "a cuts-only approach" . . . "debate is about how it should be done ... ask a senior citizen to give up . . . before we ask . . . hedge fund managers . . . people like me . . . to give up tax cuts."

The current reporting about the 'deal' which is said to have been made consistently fails to say anything about revenue changes.

So what I'm saying, far from being "rhetoric", is actual fact-based information.

With all due respect, I think calling this 'rhetoric' is inappropriate and inaccurate.

[ClarkUSA]

40. So what? Nothing is agreed upon until everything is agreed upon.

You're reading tea leaves when the OP is dealing with the present.

[DLnyc]

44. With all due respect, I am dealing with very concrete

things, not 'tea leaves'.

1. Obama very specifically started out insisting on finding revenues as well as cuts.

2. Nobody tonight is saying a word about revenues. Even the OP you point to says:
"Giving up tax increases on the wealthy is probably Obama’s biggest concession, but that fight lives for another day when the Bush cuts are scheduled to expire later on."

So if you don't like my point of view, fine. But to tell me it is 'rhetoric' and 'reading tea leaves' is, well, not, to my mind, fact-based.

[ClarkUSA]

45. What exact details of the final approved debt plan can you point to that supports your rhetoric?

Like I said: Nothing is agreed upon until everything is agreed upon.

[DLnyc]

50. Well, okay, that is a valid point. But revenues aren't likely.

No one has been talking about revenue for quite a while now. I will be quite shocked if this deal has anything to say about revenue. So we'll see what we get.

For the record, I would happily bet 10 to 1 there is no revenue in this deal. And I would be so happy to see some revenue actually in the deal I would pay off 20 to that 1 just for the fun of it.

I certainly haven't heard a whisper of anything about revenue in all the reporting so far. Have you?

[Recursion]

61. Only if you follow Boehner's logic that letting the Bush cuts expire isn't "new revenue"

That's the beauty of this -- Republicans now have to simply pretend that that isn't a tax increase..

[Unvanguard]

Duplicate. n/t

[Unvanguard]

33. That's total bullshit.

The committee has to find 1.5 trillion in budget cuts over the next ten years. You know the Republicans won't go along with real solutions, like tax increases on the rich or cuts to defense spending. So we will get cuts to social spending instead, almost certainly including entitlements.

That's all there is to this story. The debt agreement demands 2.4 trillion in debt cuts; we know that the Republicans won't budge when it comes to cutting what they care about, while Democrats will; hence, that 2.4 trillion will come from Democratic priorities instead, given that we've already cut what nobody cares about in previous budget agreements. We already know the first round of $900 billion will.

[MissDeeds]

38. Won what?

The final votes aren't in - a bit premature to anoint a victor.

:eyes:

[Change Happens]

48. AGREED!!!! 100%!

[LaydeeBug]

49. "politically damaging entitlement cuts" = throw seniors under the bus, just not right now. ew.. nt

[Blue Owl]

51. This ain't fucking helping

Just more salt in the wound IMO.

[Igel]

53. Granted, postponing discussion of the debt until after the

election was the most important thing. If his words are to be taken at face value, even more important than raising the debt ceiling.

But I suspect that the continued fight resulting from the select committee will be intriguing, as will the fight over the timing/pacing of the cuts. One significant result, I think, is that the Senate will be motivated to continue to fail to pass a budget. I figure that they couldn't finish passing *'s 2009 budget and they're on track to actually not pass any budget under Obama. That would present an opportunity to discuss the deficit, and the Senate has studiously avoided that.

I also think that people are tired of word games. We keep getting them. They're corrosive.

[ProSense]

55. Here

is a fact sheet.

[Cowpunk]

58. Craig Crawford? Seriously?

Anyone who has seen this guy talk for two seconds on TV knows he's a flippin' moron.

[boxman15]

59. Obama and the left got the better end of the deal honestly.

I still don't get why there even need to be spending cuts at this point, but considering the circumstances, this was a better deal for the left than it is for the right. Entitlements are off the table, it's extended through 2012, we can still end the Bush tax cuts, defense is cut, domestic cuts aren't nearly as deep as many thought, etc. The right gets no tax increases for a year and a half until the Bush tax cuts expire and some domestic cuts that aren't nearly as much as they wanted (thank God).

I'll take this deal. It's not great, but it's not bad either.

[Tx4obama]

60. Spending cuts were part of the Deficit Reduction Framework Obama released back in April ...

Here is a link to Obama's plan from APRIL 13th
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/13/fact-sheet-presidents-framework-shared-prosperity-and-shared-fiscal-resp

[Ruby the Liberal]

64. I don't give a flying fuck if it is 8 years out

The mere fact that they tossed Medicare on the table and (akin to the Single Payer option) "kept the powder dry" on tax/revenue increases told me all I needed to know.

[Cosmocat]

65. It is a nothing deal ...

I am struggling to see that this does anything beyond increasing the debt limit.

It is a sad excercise in congress acting like it is doing something when it is not doing anything.

[Vinnie From Indy]

66. LOL! This OP is total nonsense!

The crazy is everywhere it seems!