• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

On the budget, Obama has Republicans cornered

zsdersw

Lifer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...icans-cornered/2011/04/04/AFbin9eC_story.html

If there were any doubts about the political skills of the new White House team under Chief of Staff William Daley, they have now been satisfied.

Recently, the Congressional Budget Office reported that President Obama’s budget had underestimated the deficit over the next 10 years by $2.3 trillion. Deficits will exceed 4 percent of gross domestic product each year, with the federal debt eventually rising to 87 percent of the total economy. Obama’s budget plans are a gaudy spectacle of irresponsibility.

In spite of this, Obama now has Republicans cornered in budget negotiations. By accepting $33 billion in cuts for the remainder of 2011, Obama has taken the middle ground and exploited a major division within the Republican coalition. The administration has transformed a weak record into a strong political position.

What made this possible was Obama’s willingness to betray progressives in Congress even before the budget conflict began. In February, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had criticized spending reductions in the range of $30 billion as “draconian” and “unworkable.” Now that figure is a floor. The left has already lost the budget battle — though the right has not yet won it. Obama clearly takes liberals for granted, shoring up his own fiscal reputation at their expense. Given their quiescence, it seems a good strategy.

This maneuver has also placed House Speaker John Boehner in exactly the position he wanted to avoid. Obama’s offer is more than reasonable. A $30 billion reduction, after all, was the initial Republican negotiating position back in early February. Given that Republicans control only the House, this level of cuts would normally be viewed as a remarkable success. But a portion of the Republican conference longs for a confrontation that results in a government shutdown, preferring a fight over a victory. And the only worse outcome for Boehner than a politically risky shutdown is a deeply split conference, pitting the Republican establishment against Tea Party purists — a result that would undermine all future Republican progress.

So Obama has managed to lighten his liberal baggage, turn Republicans against each other and ensure they would be (justifiably) blamed for a shutdown. Not a bad month’s work.

This strategy may succeed because Republicans are genuinely divided. One bloc — the faction of the serious — is led by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), author of the 2012 House Republican budget. Few details of that document are surprising, but the cumulative effect is comprehensive and impressive. House Republicans propose major tax reform, including lower top rates, a broadened tax base and the closing of loopholes. The plan sets hard spending caps and adopts a number of recommendations from the president’s fiscal commission, which were largely ignored by the president himself. Ryan’s proposal takes on corporate welfare and farm subsidies, consolidates job-training programs, and includes welfare and litigation reforms. Most important, Ryan begins the Medicare debate in earnest, proposing a system of means-tested premium supports — taking seriously the challenge of 80 million baby boomers beginning to make their way into the system. Unlike his more libertarian colleagues, Ryan makes the case that entitlement reform, properly designed, can actually strengthen the social safety net for the poorest.

The less-than-serious faction of the Republican Party is intent on squeezing more savings out of the 2011 budget or pursuing a government shutdown as an end in itself. Some of this bloc is composed of House freshmen, who share the unrealistic expectations of the Tea Party base — the undoing of modern government by one-half of one branch of that government. Others are more senior members of the Republican caucus — representatives such as Mike Pence and Michele Bachmann — who seek to raise their profiles by establishing themselves as rebel leaders.

Even by the most exacting conservative standards, the contrast of ambition and sophistication should be clear. Ryan Republicans are talking about trillions in eventual entitlement savings that would release America from perpetual debt and allow some room for future discretionary spending. They are proposing a series of broad structural reforms, each of which will be a plank in the 2012 Republican platform. Pence Republicans seek billions in savings achieved through a strategy that, in 1995, helped rescue the Clinton presidency. Their policy platform shows all the creativity and strategic positioning of a stop sign.

Boehner’s task is to persuade House Republicans to take a good deal for the rest of the year and focus on next year’s battle over the Ryan budget. This fight will be considerably more difficult — and dramatically more consequential.

Seems about right, to me.. and it's unfortunate for all of us that these divisions in the GOP are likely going to result in little if any spending cuts.
 
I think the article portrays Ryan's budget in an exceedingly rosy light. I like his attempt to move the debate forward, but he did so using voodoo numbers.
 
What Obama will accept and the House proposes may not be what the Senate will accept.

Obama has actually now backed the Senate into a corner; if they do not accept the House version, they would be considered to be at fault for gridlocking the government.
 
What Obama will accept and the House proposes may not be what the Senate will accept.

Obama has actually now backed the Senate into a corner; if they do not accept the House version, they would be considered to be at fault for gridlocking the government.

You're letting your partisanship cloud your thinking. The senate is willing to accept the Republicans' initial offer, and the Republicans changed it to make it more extreme. To think that if they don't accept the new, more extreme offer that they will be blamed is wishful thinking at best.

The Republicans' main problem is that they really are true believers. I'm never convinced that the Democrats actually care that much about their party platform, and so they have tons of room to maneuver and frequently do. The Republicans have considerably less. This can help them get a better deal in negotiations, but it can also lead to things blowing up in their face, like it appears to be now.
 
OH NO! You mean republicans have been talking out their ass again and criticizing everyone but themselves! Somebody should bitch slap the assholes the next time they start getting self-righteous and hysterical. Or is that what Obama just did?
 
While article paints the current negotiations relatively accurately according to the beltway spin machine its portrayal of Ryans plan is WAY too generous...
 
While article paints the current negotiations relatively accurately according to the beltway spin machine its portrayal of Ryans plan is WAY too generous...

Whats your plan to get our fiscal crisis under control? How can we start by getting rid of the FY deficit? Or are you a krugman koolaid drinker
 
There wouldn't be a shutdown if the Democrat's had passed a budget last year like they were supposed to.

Or of course if Republicans were willing to accept Democrats acceding to all their original demands.

If the government is shut down again, by far the most likely outcome is that the Republicans will be spanked once again. It's sad that they need to re-learn this lesson, but there appears to be no other way.
 
There wouldn't be a shutdown if the Democrat's had passed a budget last year like they were supposed to.

which everyone else seems to skip over when blaming the House Republicans for not passing the budget. Dems were supposed to do it and didn't. Both parties are at fault, anyone trying to put the blame squarely on one makes them a partisan hack.
 
There wouldn't be a shutdown if the Democrat's had passed a budget last year like they were supposed to.

People aren't going to care about that. They will care about a shutdown, and 2012 will be even easier for Obama re-election. Clinton is sitting somewhere laughing his ass off and having a cigar.
 
Or of course if Republicans were willing to accept Democrats acceding to all their original demands.

...or if the Democrats had passed a budget like they were supposed to when they had complete control. You see, that came BEFORE the Republicans took the house. Now you want to blame them? lol, get real
 
which everyone else seems to skip over when blaming the House Republicans for not passing the budget. Dems were supposed to do it and didn't. Both parties are at fault, anyone trying to put the blame squarely on one makes them a partisan hack.

Definately. But we have a crew of members that blindly follow the D's and don't see it that way. It's funny at least
 
...or if the Democrats had passed a budget like they were supposed to when they had complete control. You see, that came BEFORE the Republicans took the house. Now you want to blame them? lol, get real

Yes. We have two parties engaging in a negotiation, and the Republicans are acting like spoiled children. If you want to blame the last congress for not passing a budget that's fine. They already got blamed and got voted out.

Now the Republicans have a seat at the table. Every single one of them ran for office knowing full well that they would be coming in without a budget having been passed, and that it would be something they would need to do. (ok, some of the tea party people probably didn't know how government works) So, it's just fine to say 'man the Democrats should have passed a budget last year', and then say 'man, the Republicans need to act like adults now'.

Regardless of any of that, the Republicans are quite likely shooting themselves in the foot here. If they want to make Obama's re-election more likely, that's fine by me. For once we agree on something!
 
nick1985 said:
...or if the Democrats had passed a budget like they were supposed to when they had complete control. You see, that came BEFORE the Republicans took the house. Now you want to blame them? lol, get real





And of course the original "party of no" wouldn't have dared filibuster it, would they?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top