Chances for Budget Deal Fade

From the New York Times:

President Obama’s drive for a supersize budget deal was further complicated on Friday by the release of unexpectedly weak employment figures, which Republicans seized on to bolster their arguments against possible tax increases and Democrats said were reason to limit painful spending cuts…

If this does create an impasse then that will probably be for the best – no tax hikes can be contemplated, and massive spending cuts must be done.  This is the requirement of common sense in this – we’re bankrupt and we must not spend as much as we have been; meanwhile, our economy is teetering on the edge of a new recession and so we don’t dare put even the lightest additional burden on it.  If Democrats can’t see their way to clear to merely roll back spending to 2008 levels – all that would be required – then there is nothing to discuss.

We’ll see how this comes out, but it does appear that the Congressional GOP has discovered a back bone (or had one implanted by the TEA Party) and at the very least any deal which does come out will be defensible on conservative/libertarian grounds.

12 thoughts on “Chances for Budget Deal Fade

  1. Cluster July 9, 2011 / 8:10 am

    Raising the debt ceiling would be irresponsible and an admission of a failure of leadership. Oh wait, Obama said that about Bush in 2006, but I guess you have to agree with him right?

    • retiredspook89 July 9, 2011 / 9:46 am

      Cluster,

      Here’s a pretty comprehennsive look at where all the money goes.

      I’ve already written my Congressman and both Senators and told them if they vote to raise the debt ceiling without either cutting spending back to 2006 levels or getting a balanced budget amendment, I will no longer support them with my vote.

      • Cluster July 9, 2011 / 11:02 am

        The federal government spending initiated by Pelosi and championed by Obama is asinine and unsustainable. Those two are so far out of their depth it’s frightening to think that they were put in charge to rescue the largest economic engine in the world when neither of them has ever even managed a Taco Bell.

        And the faculty of Harvard, who counsels Obama, and their economic models are equally ridiculous, and proven failures as well.

        1/20/13

  2. Amazona July 9, 2011 / 10:14 am

    I was never quite as pessimistic as some about what was sometimes referred to as a lack of fiery commitment and leadership, because my own personal belief is that often you don’t need to come rampaging in with guns blazing and fire in the eyes to prevail.

    I’m still waiting to see how it all turns out, and I agree with spook that anyone who folds will face a serious reelection challenge next time around, but I also think that while some battles are best won by all-out in-your-face attack mode styles, some are won by more strategic maneuverings that are not as obvious. Not as emotionally gratifying, perhaps, as a big noisy beat-down, but with the end result being the goal, not the satisfaction of blood lust.

    As I have said before, for someone who isn’t really all that into sports, I still seem to think in sports analogies, and I compare one style of combat with boxing (or as some conservatives seem to be demanding, cage fighting) and another to judo, where there is less thumping but where you use your opponent’s size and momentum against him.

    We’ll see how this encounter turns out.

  3. Cluster July 9, 2011 / 10:54 am

    The false premise here that democrats want everyone to fear is that we will default on our debt. WE WONT default on our debt. There is plenty of revenue to service the debt, but what will happen, is touch choices will have to be made in re: to spending on favored democrat constituents, ie: public unions and favored federal agencies, where they receive the majority of their campaign contributions.

  4. tiredoflibbs July 9, 2011 / 1:42 pm

    Democrats want to “promise” what $4 trillion in cuts over 12 years???

    Oh I see, the same old song and dance. Will they ever change their MO? Promised cuts always seem to be conveniently forgotten. It is amazing that they actually proposed “promised” spending cuts, but their tax increases take effect immediately…

    …. again, same old routine, different day….. and the mindless useful idiot drones will eat it up as gospel.

    Pathetic.

    • neocon1 July 9, 2011 / 1:48 pm

      tired

      marxist communism 101
      like you said SSDD

  5. GreenMountainBoy July 9, 2011 / 5:02 pm

    Is there a time frame for this strategic manoevering? Is there an interest in knowing what is going on? Backroom deals are ok? Politics as usual. You get what you deserve. Boener, Cantor, McConnell what have they given the people that elected them in way of undoing anything bams has done? Easy answer, in the six months since the repubs took the majority in the house, almost nothing.
    Just how long are you willing to wait Amazona?

    • Amazona July 9, 2011 / 8:13 pm

      Gee, GMB, after being savaged for agreeing with you I’m not quite sure how well you will take a minor disagreement, so I will just leave it at what I said.

      There might be an emotional gratification for some in seeing hootin’ and hollerin’ and blood on the floor of Congress, but others might see a way to accomplish the same end goal without coming across as wild-eyed yahoos.

      “Almost nothing” is just a pessimist’s way of saying “something”. And as for “backroom deals” some negotiations need confidentiality to proceed. I only have a problem with them if they fail or expose corruption.

      But then I have been in the position of having to make deals which depended on secrecy till they were finalized, so I may have a different perspective on the strident demands for having every aspect of every negotiation made public.

      I don’t know how much progress has been made, and neither do you. I haven’t been the one having to decide on the most productive way to strive for the intended goals, and neither have you. In the long run, all that matters is what happens IN THE LONG RUN. All either of us can do is hope that the best strategic decisions have been made, and we won’t know till the dust settles.

      Cooler heads are not synonymous with spinelessness, and patience is not the same as cowardice.

  6. GreenMountainBoy July 9, 2011 / 8:41 pm

    What a way to dodge the questions. Just how long are you willing to wait? How long does it take to tax your paitience? Why should the peoples business ever be conducted in secret?

    • Amazona July 10, 2011 / 3:08 pm

      GMB, your belligerence is quite striking. No, I did NOT “dodge the question”. You just didn’t like the answer.

      Neither one of us has any idea of what has been accomplished, or, quite frankly, what CAN be accomplished. Neither one of us has been sitting in on discussions. Neither one of us has full knowledge of what can or cannot be cut, or of who will support how much of what.

      I don’t think utopian absolutism is a very good strategy and I don’t need my emotions massaged by shows of strength or antagonism.

      This Congress will do what it will do, and when it has done what it will do I will look at what it has accomplished and decide if I am willing to keep any of the players in office or if I need to join a very active and aggressive effort to replace them. If you see a different role for the citizens of the nation, please tell us what that is. Aside from making our demands clear and the consequences for ignoring them even clearer, what else do you think we should do? Can do? Bullets and blood? Whose blood? What targets for the bullets?

      It is a mistake to think that not beating on ones’ chest and bellowing threats means weakness or willingness to give up. I happen to believe that when it comes to legislation, especially when it comes to legislation that demands bipartisan cooperation, desk-pounding and chest-thumping and loud belligerence are counter-productive.

      The harsh reality of politics in July of 2011 is that we barely have enough Republicans to carry a majority vote in the House and not enough to carry the Senate. And we for absolute sure don’t have enough to override a presidential veto. I am not interested in a symbolic victory with lots of noise and fireworks and bluster. I want a serious, solid, victory, which actually ACCOMPLISHES something, which demands not only cooperation with some Dems but a policy which may let them save face to some extent. We are asking many Democrats to step away from their party line, and do something that is very dangerous to their political careers, and if getting that accomplished means acting in a low-key manner, not blustering or issuing ultimatums or making threats, if it means quiet discussions off the record to find ways for them to cross the aisle on this issue, then I’m for what needs to be done.

      And I find the question “Why should the peoples business ever be conducted in secret?” to be stunningly naive. What, exactly, do you think the advantage would be in having an open meeting with fence-sitting Dems, so their party can see from the get-go that they might be encouraged to vote for the budget bill? Our court system is open, yet attorneys meet “in secret” with clients and witnesses and do not make their entire cases and strategies available to the other side until it is the right time to do so.

      The military cannot function with every step of every stage of every act and every decision open to the opponent. The government cannot function with every step of every stage of every act and every decision open to the opposition. Business cannot function with every step of every stage of every act and every decision open to competitors. To view practical protection of negotiations as sinister and sneaky is simply silly.

    • Amazona July 10, 2011 / 3:13 pm

      As for trying my patience, I am not at the mercy of my emotions. I may feel impatient and frustrated, but I also believe that I have a pretty good grasp of what options and actions are open to me, and don’t waste time and energy on fussing over things I can’t control.

      I also understand the Rule of Unintended Consequences and have seen, far too often, how rash efforts to “fix” something have created more, and worse, problems. Until you actually know everything Congress knows, and have gotten input from everyone advising them on the impacts of various actions, you have no idea of what really bad outcomes might result from what you simplistically think of as solutions.

Comments are closed.