The debt reduction committee: a likely disaster

[Craig234]

The setup of the committee: three each from each party in the house and the Senate.

Nine have been named, waiting for Nancy Pelosi.

Republicans promised to appoint people who would not agree to any tax increases. They include people like the uber-ideoluge former President of the Club for Growth.

If Democrats appoint good people, it will be a deadlock. With a deadlock, triggers take effect, which aren't the worst thing - they're the only likely change for big defense cuts.

If one Democrat compromises with six far-right Republicans, the Republicans win.

Inexplicably, one of Reid's appointees is Max Baucus - one of the worst, corporatist Senators.

So IMO, this thing is doomed now. Baucus at least will vote with Republicans, and that's that.

That makes the only chance being it gets blocked in the Senate when the proposal is put up for a vote - and it's likely they can get 10 corporatist Dems to go along there.

Obama veto the thing? After he's let Congress do what it wants, after it passed a Democratic Senate? In the middle of a re-election trying for 'centrists'? That's a joke.

That's my view of where this is going at this time. I'd have preferred a deadlock, given the Republicans are very unlikely to agree to anything decent.

The Tea Party is a bit of a wildcard - it's sad to look for them to block a bill.

 

[senseamp]

Obama can always just let triggers take effect. It's going to hit GOP harder than Dems. Defense and Big Health lobby is not going to be happy. Plus Obama can say, see GOP forced Medicare cuts.
Or he may fold with a winning hand again, who knows.

 

[Craig234]

Obama can always just let triggers take effect. It's going to hit GOP harder than Dems. Defense and Big Health lobby is not going to be happy. Plus Obama can say, see GOP forced Medicare cuts.
Or he may fold with a winning hand again, who knows.

He can't. He can't stop the committee from voting for a Republican plan, or Congress from passing it, he can only veto it which I think is almost impossible to happen.

 

[glenn1]

I would actually be pretty pleased if the end result included large cuts to defense. I don't have a reflexive opposition to tax increases either, but realize that any taxes raised are typically considered "found money" for Congress to spend and therefore oppose them unless offset by even higher spending cuts (e.g. I'd be fine with the "grand bargain" deal for a 3 or 4 to 1 mix of cuts to increased revenue).

 

[senseamp]

He can't. He can't stop the committee from voting for a Republican plan, or Congress from passing it, he can only veto it which I think is almost impossible to happen.

Why not? If he vetoes it, we get trigger cuts, not default. If he prefers those trigger cuts to the bill passed out of Congress, he can veto it.

 

[Fern]

The debt reduction committee: a likely disaster

I agree, but not for the reasons you state ("Repubs are evil and in spite of good democrats it will fail because of evil Repubs....")

No one in Congress has the balls to make the deep cuts necessary. Deep cuts are necessary even with tax increases, and not many want to do tax increases either.

This deal was another 'kick the can down the road' because they lack the cajones. Unless these 12 Congresspersons have zero ambition to remain in office, we'll see the same thing. Why should they agree to be the sacrificial lambs?

Fern

 

[Nebor]

Obama can always just let triggers take effect. It's going to hit GOP harder than Dems. Defense and Big Health lobby is not going to be happy. Plus Obama can say, see GOP forced Medicare cuts.
Or he may fold with a winning hand again, who knows.

You always have the most clever Democrat plans. But the Democrats never actually do any of them. They just cave in, get trounced, look weak, etc. They should hire you. Srs.

 

[Craig234]

Why not? If he vetoes it, we get trigger cuts, not default. If he prefers those trigger cuts to the bill passed out of Congress, he can veto it.

To repeat my explanation from the OP, if it passes Congress, I think Obama will be under huge pressure not to veto it - it'll make him look like he's more 'pro deficit spending' than the Democratic Senate, and be a disaster for his re-election message appealing to 'centrists'. It's also at odds with his Republican policies for his whole presidency. IMO, not gonna happen.

 

[Fern]

Look, we're going to have cuts in Defense. Heck, most know that it's already planned. It's no 'deal' at all. We're ramping down Iraq and Afghanistan anyway - there's your cut!

Then remember baseline budgeting. I keep hearing automatic 8% increases. Anything less than the automatic 8% increase is consider a 'cut" by Washington DC and their double speak BS.

Even so, the above won't be enough unless the economy comes around strongly, but that doesn't look likely.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

I agree, but not for the reasons you state ("Repubs are evil and in spite of good democrats it will fail because of evil Repubs....")

No one in Congress has the balls to make the deep cuts necessary. Deep cuts are necessary even with tax increases, and not many want to do tax increases either.

This deal was another 'kick the can down the road' because they lack the cajones. Unless these 12 Congresspersons have zero ambition to remain in office, we'll see the same thing. Why should they agree to be the sacrificial lambs?

Fern

Bunch of crap with your whiny rhetoric trying to demonize the progressives (they call the Republican evil, that's evil!) The Progressives made the People's Budget - it balances it without the huge 'austerity' cuts' that help complete the process of shifting wealth to the top, first put the money at the top, create massive debt, then cut off spending for the people. Starve the beast. Your saying they won't do it is naive and inaccurate IMO.

 

[senseamp]

Baucus is a health care industry's lapdog. He's the guy who killed the single payer idea during health care reform debate. He has raised literally millions of dollars from Big Health. He's there to fight any cuts to Medicare reimbursements. He also voted for all the Bush tax cuts, so don't expect him to stand up for a balanced approach.

 

[cubby1223]

Seriously, dude, it's impossible for *anyone* to have any rational discussion when you still haven't a clue what "far-right" means.

You label them as "far-right" to say you will not even listen to what they have to say. You do not value anything about them. Fern is spot on when he summarizes you with "Repubs are evil and in spite of good democrats it will fail because of evil Repubs...."

 

[Balt]

Republicans likely won't agree to any revenue increases. Democrats (and some Republicans) likely won't agree to any entitlement cuts.

The automatic cuts will probably be all we get.

 

[IronWing]

Unless these 12 Congresspersons have zero ambition to remain in office, we'll see the same thing. Why should they agree to be the sacrificial lambs?

Fern

Jon Kyl isn't seeking re-election which is a positive sign for the committee. However Kyl is also an ideologue and an idiot so it's a mixed bag there. Putting Baucus on the committee was a move worthy of Harry Reid. Craig has Baucus nailed pretty well.

 

[senseamp]

To repeat my explanation from the OP, if it passes Congress, I think Obama will be under huge pressure not to veto it - it'll make him look like he's more 'pro deficit spending' than the Democratic Senate, and be a disaster for his re-election message appealing to 'centrists'. It's also at odds with his Republican policies for his whole presidency. IMO, not gonna happen.

A veto would be deficit neutral since it will trigger automatic cuts. Plus Obama can then say, I vetoed cuts to Medicare and defense that these teabaggers were trying to get past me.

 

[IronWing]

The automatic cuts will probably be all we get.

This is probably the best outcome possible under the circumstances. I suspect what we'll end up with though is renigging on the debt ceiling law and some reprieve will be negotiated on defense and Medicare cuts.

 

[Craig234]

However Kyl is also an ideologue and an idiot so it's a mixed bag there.

It's a pretty sad commentary when that isn't enough to prevent it being a 'mixed bag'.

Putting Baucus on the committee was a move worthy of Harry Reid. Craig has Baucus nailed pretty well.

This is enough to threaten my support for Reid. One weak Dem threatens the whole thing.

 

[piasabird]

You overlook one very important possibility.
1. China refuses to loan any more money.
2. We are forced to default or make drastic cuts.
a. We make cuts and survive.
b. We default and our bonds become junk bonds.

Cant we all just get along?

 

[Craig234]

A veto would be deficit neutral since it will trigger automatic cuts. Plus Obama can then say, I vetoed cuts to Medicare and defense that these teabaggers were trying to get past me.

I think Obama *wants* the Republican agenda on this. His vetoing it would be an easy political attack for Republicans, whatever his explanation. I don't think he wants to.

He sure doesn't have a defense about 'vetoing cuts for defense' because the trigger has big defense cuts.

He'd need a very good reason to defy the will of both parties in Congress.

 

[Craig234]

You overlook one very important possibility.
1. China refuses to loan any more money.

That's many years away. China is dependent on our depleting our wealth to buy their goods and fuel their economy for a while yet.

 

[senseamp]

Jon Kyl isn't seeking re-election which is a positive sign for the committee. However Kyl is also an ideologue and an idiot so it's a mixed bag there. Putting Baucus on the committee was a move worthy of Harry Reid. Craig has Baucus nailed pretty well.

It's true that Baucus is a pile of sh!t, but he will fight for the Health Care industry against any Medicare cuts. He is on their payroll to the tune of millions of dollars. So in his typically perverse way, Reid is appointing someone to fight for Medicare even if for all the wrong reasons.
Patty Murray is going to fight to limit Boeing from the impact of the defense cuts. Not sure what Kerry is there for. Going to be fun to watch.

 

[IronWing]

You overlook one very important possibility.
1. China refuses to loan any more money.
2. We are forced to default or make drastic cuts.
a. We make cuts and survive.
b. We default and our bonds become junk bonds.

Cant we all just get along?

We won't default. Last week's bill closed that door until the next election. Unless even more batshit crazy Tea Party brand Reps get elected the votes aren't there to destroy our economy. We'll print money before we default.

On the spending issue the "grand bargain" was too much cutting for either the Reps or the Dems to stomach. What we'll see from here through the election will be posturing and squawking but no more brinksmanship.

 

[senseamp]

I think Obama *wants* the Republican agenda on this. His vetoing it would be an easy political attack for Republicans, whatever his explanation. I don't think he wants to.

He sure doesn't have a defense about 'vetoing cuts for defense' because the trigger has big defense cuts.

He'd need a very good reason to defy the will of both parties in Congress.

Signing a bill with Medicare cuts is going to make it harder for him to bash Republicans for them. I think he's better off politically vetoing it. Trigger thing is too complex and easy to muddy the waters on, he can just blame Republicans for putting in those triggers. Saying, look at me, I vetoed cuts to defense and medicare that GOP House voted for is an easy message. Plus, having gotten his debt ceiling increase,he can then immediately start demanding that GOP reinstate "critical" defense spending and undo their heartless Medicare cuts.

 

[Craig234]

Signing a bill with Medicare cuts is going to make it harder for him to bash Republicans for them. I think he's better off politically vetoing it. Trigger thing is too complex and easy to muddy the waters on, he can just blame Republicans for putting in those triggers. Saying, look at me, I vetoed cuts to defense and medicare that GOP House voted for is an easy message. Plus, having gotten his debt ceiling increase,he can then immediately start demanding that GOP reinstate "critical" defense spending and undo their heartless Medicare cuts.

Obama is the one who put Medicare cuts on the table in the debt ceiling negotiations. You keep confusing what's good for Democrats, with what Obama's agenda actually is.

 

[MotF Bane]

lolkerry