The Republicans wanted to cut $4 billion from the budget in any deal they made to keep the government open for two more weeks. The Democrats wanted a longer extension without cuts. The compromise is that $4 billion will be cut and the extension will be for only two weeks, but the cuts will come entirely from line items that the Obama administration has already identified and approved for elimination.
This pushes back the new potential government shutdown date to March 18th. The upside is that programs that the Democrats value were protected, but the downside is that the Dems now have that much less to give away in the next negotiation.
One significant part of the cuts comes from a $2.7 billion reduction in earmarks. The deal allows both sides to claim a victory of sorts, which is the basis for a decent compromise, but it doesn’t solve anything. In two weeks, we’ll probably be right back where we started, trying to pass another two week extension.
Correct, which is why Obama was wrong to make his tax cut deal. He’s embraced right-wing framing, and rather than fighting against tax cuts, he’s stuck doing battle on the spending front. Good luck with that.
The tax cut deal was the only way that unemployment would be extended. Without the tax cuts, the unemployed would have been up a creek.
That’s a false reality. That may have been the case, it may not have been. I don’t believe that it would have been if push came to shove. I don’t totally fault the president for his choice because his party abandoned him, even though he practically begged them to vote for it before the election. However, it’s going to be far more painful watching the government shutdown and seeing spending immediately cut than any stimulus obtained.
This was his choice. He decided to “compromise” — read capitulate — and now we must deal with the consequences of the Norquist Strategy coming to fruition.
The UI extension had been blocked before and unemployed people suffered. The Republicans would have been fine not extending the UI. They said they would not extend it without the tax cut and DADT would not be repealed.
That’s how it works with the Republicans and blaming Obama isn’t going to change it.
And meanwhile, the Republican budget will kill 700,000 jobs through 2012 (less than two years).
I won’t say that their plan will make it — surely it won’t — but a good half of it probably will because Obama won’t stand up to the Republicans when they throw their tantrum. So in the name of compromise and the “need to avoid a government shutdown,” Obama will get some immediate cuts through in order to keep the government functioning.
So let’s just say that 350,000 jobs was not worth his Deal.
Boo, can you remind me why we couldn’t pass a 2011 budget when we had the house and 59 senators? Did the conservative senators in our caucus collude with the other side or did McConnel control the procedural vote of Brown, Snowe, Voinovich and Murkowski?
If Obama/Reid had asked McConnel to allow any of those 4 to defect from the caucus line or no tax cut deal, would he have flinched.
I’m not trying to be a pest here, I just think in hindsight its looking like McCOnnel is the LBJ of obstruction- seems amazing that we couldn’t get a budget passed with 59 senators and I’m wondering whether you think its because the dems botched this or is McConnel a legislative god, sort of an evil LBJ.
When I next buy a car I want to buy it from Obama Motors. I’m pretty sure I’ll get it far below their actual cost.
What incredible negotiators they are. They enter negotiation with a list of things they can give ground on, and they give them up for a two-week extension. So what do they give up in the next round for the next two week extension? And so on?
In March, 2009, I was still thrilled with how well the Obama team ran their campaign, so I figured that anything that looked like a poor negotiation on their part was probably some far-seeing move that was going to pay off later. By March, 2010, I was still HOPEful that this was the case. Now I see they just suck at negotiating.
there’s always the matt stoller argument that Obama doesn’t want the same things you want- ie, they actually want the things that you think they are “conceding.” People like boo generally disagree, give Obama the benefit of the doubt and take the view that outsiders don’t understand the dynamics of how hard it is to get things done and how awesome Mitch McConnel is at stymieing the progressive agenda. Put me down in the boo camp, but I have my doubts.
Here’s another possibility. Obama & Co. decided they were going to give up that $4 billion anyway. When Republicans offered a deal on that basis, Obama took it. (Why risk getting “blamed” for a shutdown over $4 billion that you had already proposed cutting?)
Two weeks from now, Obama can say to the Republicans (and the nation), “I already cut programs I care about because I assumed Republicans were bargaining in good faith. It’s clear now that they are not.”
I don’t know if that’s what he’s thinking, but it’s a possibility. Obama’s a pretty even-tempered guy, and is therefore sometimes perceived as a weak negotiator—when in fact he’s proven to be a better negotiator/politician than any number of supposedly “tough” opponents.
Good point. But I think Obama just keeps doubling down on the strategy that eventually, the public will agree that Obama is the reasonable adult. But there’s a definite possibility people will never think that.
Or, and I know this is a shocking thing for many Democrats, “the public” may very well agree that Obama is the reasonable adult in this situation and not give a flying rats’ ass.
“The public” kicked Jimmy Carter’s ass to the curb and put Ronald Reagan in in his place. “The public” also put George W. Bush into office the second time after seeing his record in action and gave him enough votes to get him the election the first time around.
“The public” doesn’t care if politicians are “reasonable adults” or not – “the public” in the aggregate is far, far more pragmatic than that. Does the politician deliver? Am I better off now than I was four years ago? Do I have a job? Am I worried about losing my job? Will my kid be able to go to college? Are we going to lose our house?
Those are the kinds of questions that voters are thinking about when they show up to vote. Politicians who think that being the “reasonable adult” who tells people they need to “sacrifice” for the good of the country might get lauds from pundits, but “the public” won’t reward them for it.
Like I said, I think that’s a distinct possibility. Not a day goes by that doesn’t show that the american people is woefully uninformed on facts or expressing seeminly contradictory positions. Anyone who thinks the american people are “reasonable” themselves or can discern who or what is “reasonable” is blindfully ignoring the recent empirical evidence to the contrary.
At least a third of this country lives in the fox news/tea party bubble.
nonynony, I don’t disagree with your point that winning the “reasonable adult” award from Washington pundits is no way to have a successful political career. Voters are (rightly) more concerned about who can help them with the questions in your third paragraph.
FWIW—and it’s one of the things that’s contributed to his success—I don’t think Obama is particularly concerned about the “reasonable adult” award.
I do think he’s constantly aware that he can’t afford to be seen as an “angry” or “uppity” black man. I think that factor, along with some others, is why he regularly positions himself within a broad (60-80%) center-left coalition and then tries to force his opponents to make one of two choices:
disagree with your dichotomy. often times, taking “half a loaf” now means losing future loafs down the road. if i take half a loaf (hooray!) and then in future negotiations such a position causes me to lose a whole bunch of loafs, then that half a loaf isn’t looking so awesome anymore.
You’re reverting to the same straw man Obama keeps falling back on: the left needs to grow up and realize politics is about sacrifice and be happy with your half a loaf. WHich misses the point of the progressive critique entirely: You need to properly manage the politics of the compromises you do make so that you don’t get boxed in on future points down the road.
I’m sick and tired of insiders telling outsiders on the left to grow and realize that governing means making compromises. Of course it does, everyone gets that. But reasonable minds can disagree about how the politics are playing out and the future choices he’s committed himself too.
Maybe, but I’ve thought that before then when it came time to go to the public and point out how badly the Republicans were behaving Obama either didn’t do anything, or couched his message in language that had no effect whatsoever.
Furthermore, if that is the strategy, it’s a losing one. How many people are going to notice that Obama caved on this round — let alone will remember it 2-3 weeks from now? Nope, once again he’s pro-actively caved to the opposition without getting any credit.
(In case you have forgotten: on the stimulus he put all kinds of Republican items in the package before negotiations began. On climate/energy he pro-actively announced he was opening up off shore drilling before the negotiations began. He took single payer off the table and then sent messages that they didn’t really care that much about the public option either.)
Sorry, after watching this for 25 months now I have to conclude that there is no grand strategy. They just suck at negotiating. Even if he never really wanted the public option or any of those other things he should at least have pretended he did so that he could get what he did want in return when the time was right.
I suspect Obama is using a negotiating technique he learned early in his career with in different situations, whereby offering to meet your opponent half-way up front generated good will and led to a better outcome. I can see that this probably worked for him when running the Harvard Law Review or as a community organizer. Maybe even in the Illinois Senate. But his opponent this time is taking no prisoners, and is literally willing to hurt their own side just to claim victory.
I’d say you’re correct. He was actually pretty successful in the Illinois Senate at getting Republicans to work with him in good faith, from what I read early on in the campaign in 2007.
“I suspect Obama is using a negotiating technique he learned early in his career with in different situations, whereby offering to meet your opponent half-way up front generated good will and led to a better outcome.”
that would be in the IL senate, where Democrats have a permanent majority, correct? Great.
Obviously you do not understand 11 dimensional chess, a game that Obama is a wonder at. In 11 dimensional chess, you lose for 11 years, and then you win for 1 year.
I hope they can come up with something pretty quick. The depth of the sacrifice that rich folk are having to make because Obama’s Great Recession are almost too much for my soft heart to take.
Rich Americans flock to fast food
Hurry up Congress!! It just tears my heart out to watch this sadness and misery. Do something. Do it for these poor rich folk waiting in that long line at Chipotle. Remember, there but for the grace of god………
It breaks my heart that the rich might have to “sacrifice” four-star restaurants. Cue the violin. 😉