PDA

View Full Version : Boehner Tells Obama "No" on Big Debt Deal


Dusty
07-10-2011, 09:20
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/9/boehner-tells-obama-no-big-debt-deal/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

Speaker John A. Boehner told President Obama on Saturday night he will not agree to the president’s most ambitious plan for deficit reduction, citing the administration’s pursuit of tax increases as one of the main hurdles.

“The White House will not pursue a bigger debt reduction agreement without tax hikes,” the Ohio Republican said in a statement released Saturday night. “I believe the best approach may be to focus on producing a smaller measure, based on the cuts identified in the Biden-led negotiations, that still meets our call for spending reforms and cuts greater than the amount of any debt limit increase.”

White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer issued a statement later Saturday night repeating the president’s call for a “balanced approach” on deficit reduction and urging congressional leaders to keep negotiating with the administration on the largest possible deal.

“To back off now will not only fail to solve our fiscal challenge, it will confirm the cynicism people have about politics in Washington,” Mr. Pfeiffer said. “The President believes that now is the moment to rise above that cynicism and show the American people that we can still do big things.”

Mr. Boehner still will attend a negotiating session at the White House set for 6 p.m. Sunday, but his declaration appears to shatter Mr. Obama’s effort to pursue the largest possible deficit reduction deal of $4 trillion over 10 years by including tax hikes. Earlier talks led by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. had reached consensus on about $2 trillion in deficit reduction through spending cuts.

Conservative House Republican leaders have been wary that the administration’s pursuit of the goal of $4 trillion could include as much as $1 trillion in tax hikes by closing loopholes and other changes in the tax code.

Congressional Democrats have rebelled in recent days against the president’s willingness to consider spending reductions on entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare in pursuit of a higher deficit-reduction target.

The talks have reached a critical stage as negotiators seek a deal that will include raising the nation’s borrowing limit of $14.29 trillion. The administration has warned that unless Congress approves a hike in the debt ceiling by Aug. 2, the government will begin defaulting on its obligations, which could throw financial markets into turmoil.
Mr. Pfeiffer said the president plans in Sunday’s talks to “make the case to congressional leaders that we must reject the politics of least resistance and take on this critical challenge.”

Congressional leaders met with Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden at the White House Thursday, after which Mr. Boehner said he was skeptical that the parties could bridge a wide gap in the talks. Mr. Obama also has acknowledged in recent days that significant differences remain between the administration and congressional Republican leaders.

Best not wimp out, now.

uplink5
07-10-2011, 09:54
I believe Boehner's aiming (rightfully so) for a congressional majority to make longer term and deeper cuts in those areas which the Dems won't consider without tax increases. This might have to suffice until then, assuming we get the majority and the WH in 2012.

This half-assed fix won't diminish the sentiment for real cuts in government spending for the voting population, as I'm sure Obama is hoping for......jd

Dusty
07-10-2011, 09:58
This half-assed fix won't diminish the sentiment for real cuts in government spending for the voting population, as I'm sure Obama is hoping for......jd

lol I did a double take on that post until I realized you didn't mean he was hoping for "real cuts in government spending for the voting population."

uplink5
07-10-2011, 10:10
lol I did a double take on that post until I realized you didn't mean he was hoping for "real cuts in government spending for the voting population."

Nope, I'm sure we agree he'd want more spending until he's reached his goal of a collapsed US economy. Thank God we took the House in 2010 or we'd be well on our way. :mad:

Dusty
07-10-2011, 10:20
Nope, I'm sure we agree he'd want more spending until he's reached his goal of a collapsed US economy. Thank God we took the House in 2010 or we'd be well on our way. :mad:

Let's just hope the House has balls.

Dusty
07-10-2011, 17:41
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6ce92636-ab1a-11e0-b4d8-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1RkUQ404d

Axe
07-10-2011, 20:53
I tried to view the article, and FT required registration.

Once I registered and tried to get to the article, FT told me I had already viewed the 10 articles I am allowed to view per 30 days with a free registration and prompted me to fork over cash.

I had a certificate authentication error the first time I tried to register, so maybe it is just my computer.

I've never run into problems viewing an article before like that.

I will probably lay awake deep into the night wondering what the article said now....LOL

Dusty
07-10-2011, 21:01
I tried to view the article, and FT required registration.

Once I registered and tried to get to the article, FT told me I had already viewed the 10 articles I am allowed to view per 30 days with a free registration and prompted me to fork over cash.

I had a certificate authentication error the first time I tried to register, so maybe it is just my computer.

I've never run into problems viewing an article before like that.

I will probably lay awake deep into the night wondering what the article said now....LOL


Obama’s failed debt ceiling gamble
By Clive Crook
Amid disturbing signs that the US recovery has stalled, President Barack Obama took a huge gamble in his approach to the debt-ceiling talks last week. Believing he had an understanding with John Boehner, leader of the Republicans in the House of Representatives, he declared he wanted a $4,000bn “grand bargain” on the budget. Barely a day later, Mr Boehner said the deal was off. By Sunday evening, with talks about to resume at the White House, the president’s gambit appeared to have failed.

The weak economy makes a budget breakthrough all the more urgent. Jobs figures released on Friday were shockingly bad. They show that the US unemployment rate has risen again, to 9.2 per cent. In June, net job creation all but stopped. Even if uncertainty over the fiscal outlook is not the main reason for the setback, it certainly is not helping.

Quite what Mr Obama was thinking – and where things go from here – is unclear. Was his intervention a tactical feint, to weaken his Republican opponents? Was it a sudden conversion to the case for fiscal consolidation? What did the president expect to achieve?

Whatever else the policy was, it was new. Until recently Treasury officials had believed that the big fiscal issues could not be resolved with the debt-ceiling clock running down. After standing aside for months, Mr Obama took the opposite approach: nothing short of a grand bargain would work. He even promised to veto a stopgap measure. Liberal Democrats were stunned, because savings of more than $4,000bn cannot be found without changing Social Security and Medicare, which the party wants to keep off-limits. Mr Obama was offering these programmes up for cuts.

In return, he demanded movement from Republicans on revenues. This appeased few Democrats, much as they want to see taxes rise as part of a long-term budget solution, because the president was ready to settle for a ratio of three dollars of spending cuts for every dollar of extra revenue. These are proportions that a moderate Republican might prefer, if there were any such thing as a moderate Republican.

Many Democrats concluded that Mr Obama was preparing to reward the enemy, yet again, for its obduracy. With no shred of intellectual justification, and controlling just one house of Congress, the Republicans say, “No tax increases, ever” – and Mr Obama, instead of resisting, moves three-quarters of the way toward their position. Merely for the sake of appearing to take charge, he all but surrenders.

Then what happened? Mr Boehner’s House Republicans tell their leader they will settle for nothing less than unconditional surrender. The modest revenue increases envisaged by Mr Obama are still too much. The president tried for a bold solution that would have reflected well on both him and Mr Boehner. Liberal Democrats and, most crucially, rank-and-file Republicans in the House, were having none of it. For the moment, the president and the speaker of the House look equally impaired.

Could Mr Obama’s calculations have been more devious than this? Could this breakdown have been the White House plan all along? A theory to this effect is circulating. Maybe the president decided that the debt talks were going to fail anyway, and his main concern was to make sure that Republicans got the blame when they did.

Perhaps Mr Obama was pulling what Paul Krugman of the New York Times called an anti-Corleone: make them an offer they can’t accept. This tactic always had a fair chance of succeeding, because of the GOP’s mulishness on taxes. There was a fair prospect that the Republicans would reject even modest extra revenues, regardless of the spending-cut prize – even defying their own leaders to do it. And so they have.

But there is a catch, of course, even if the plan is working out: the cost of blaming a debt-ceiling breakdown on Republicans is a debt-ceiling breakdown. I doubt you could call plotting such an outcome, if that is what the president is doing, responsible leadership.

I think it more plausible that the president was sincere – far too late, but sincere nonetheless. By intervening in the budget talks and staking his own reputation on a dramatic new proposal, he hoped to break the stalemate. He knew he risked his party’s anger by putting entitlement reform, which is necessary, on the table. By doing so, he hoped to force Republicans to soften their resistance to tax increases, which are also necessary. A more balanced approach to long-term fiscal restraint would be possible – and if all went well, Mr Obama would get the credit.

It was too little leadership, too late. To make this strategy succeed, Mr Obama needed the pressure of public opinion to force Republicans to compromise. That pressure is still too weak, and the time to fix this is running out fast. Mr Obama has infuriated much of his party – again. And he has failed to budge a pathologically intransigent Republican party – again. He has come to a moment that could settle the fate of his presidency.

Does he press on for the big deal, fighting for public support at this absurdly late hour, risking even more? Or does he climb down from his threat to veto a smaller measure, settle on terms dictated by the GOP, and look still further diminished? Neither choice looks promising. Meanwhile, the debt-ceiling clock runs down.

Axe
07-10-2011, 21:13
Thank you Dusty!

Now I will lay awake for just part of the night hoping there is some small chance we aren't totally screwed as a country by our government-at-large's previous and ongoing inability to cut up even some of the credit cards, start spending responsibly, and pay down debt.

Dusty
07-11-2011, 09:34
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2011/07/11/obama_dems_skirt_the_issue_on_tax_hikes/