The president made some phone calls today from Air Force One while he was headed to Hawai’i for an economic conference. From there, he continues on to China and he won’t be back until a mere three days before the super committee hits its deadline for producing a deficit reduction package.
President Obama called the Democratic and Republican chairmen of Congress’s special deficit reduction supercommittee Friday and urged them to reach a deal, as the panel’s deadline for agreeing on a strategy to slash the nation’s debt rapidly approaches.
In separate phone calls, Obama urged Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.) to find a way to steer the 12-member bipartisan panel to an agreement, the White House said.
Now, the key here is that the president had a special message he wanted to deliver. If the super committee doesn’t produce a package, then there will be automatic cuts to both the Pentagon’s budget and to the payments received by Medicare providers.
But he also carried another message: Congress should not undo the painful consequences for failing to reach a deal that were agreed to when the supercommittee was created in the August debt deal.
According to that agreement, if the committee of six senators and six representatives deadlocks, budgets will be cut automatically by $1.2 trillion over the next decade.
Half of those cuts would come from the Pentagon, a prospect daunting enough that leading lawmakers have suggested the cuts should be repealed.
But the so-called sequester could not be undone without a sign-off from Obama, and he made clear Friday that he would not agree.
“The sequester was agreed to by both parties to ensure there was a meaningful enforcement mechanism to force a result from the Committee,” the White House said in a statement. “Congress must not shirk its responsibilities. The American people deserve to have their leaders come together and make the tough choices necessary to live within our means, just as American families do every day in these tough economic times.”
There is a remote possibility that Congress could be so spooked by these cuts to our defense budget that they would override the president’s veto. After all, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Defense Secretary have testified that such large cuts would put the country at risk by undermining our national security. But the president’s veto-promise should focus people’s minds. There are a lot of Republicans who would have a hard very time defending an attack from their right that they’re soft and irresponsible on defense. The same kind of attack would be leveled at the president if these cuts go into effect, but he will argue that he’s willing to fix it the moment the Republicans are willing to let the 1% pay their fair share in taxes.
So, the president is now bringing the strongest lobbying group in Washington, the Pentagon, down on the rank-and-file Republicans. I imagine that a lot of Medicare providers are giving Republicans an earful, too.
They’ve been out-positioned. Yet, I don’t think they’re capable of self-preservation. I didn’t see it in 2006 or 2008, and I’ve seen scant signs of it this year. These folks like to sail straight into danger and then go down with the ship.
amazing how President “can’t negotiate” managed to by sheer luck get in a strong position despite a GOP House and a weak Senate.
If it were not for all the brilliant “progressive” negotiation experts who assure us that the President is a clueless moron who lacks their grasp of negotiation 101 I might think President Obama was pretty slick.
Those folks were too busy believing Mr. “I got 98% of what I wanted” Boehner.
Sucks to be the Speaker now though.
How to massively cut defense spending and get almost all the blame placed on the Republicans?
I’m thinking….
How many dimensions does that involve?
On the other hand, the GOP could always call his bluff and we’d be left with a deal that is pretty shitty.
Are you suggesting that someone in the Congressional leadership would dishonestly spin a legislative outcome in order to make it more palatable to his base?
If we can’t trust John Boehnor, whom can we trust?
There is a remote possibility that Congress could be so spooked by these cuts to our defense budget that they would override the president’s veto.
They’ll override the veto. Enough DLC/Blue Dog Democrats will jump on board.
Assuming that every Republican and Joe Liberman votes to override, they’d need 18 Democrats.
18 conservative Democrats, who’d spent the last year bemoaning the deficit, voting to undo deficit reduction, and side with the Republicans, against an incumbent President who will be on the ballot next year.
That’s a steep hill.
There’s a word that rhymes with “Yo’ Mama” that makes me think the Prez isn’t going to be vulnerable to any attacks that he’s soft on defense.
Actually, I’m pretty sure this brinksmanship is the definition of national security irresponsibility. And though I hate to have to do it, both sides are guilty as hell.
Is there a particular defense strategy articulated from, well, anybody regarding future budgets? Or was this number just pulled from somebody’s ass last summer to make it a 50/50 ratio with other spending cuts? The latter, right?
It’s amazing how quickly we’ve all become accustomed to absolutely batshit insane hostage-taking this year. Although this hardly rates compared to holding the debt ceiling hostage.
“You won’t cut spending? Then we won’t finance any new debt!”
“You won’t raise taxes? We’ll cut defense spending and blame it all on you!”
“You try it, and any hope you have of a payroll tax cut expansion goes out the window!”
“You weren’t going to do that anyway! You’re sabotaging the economy!”
I assume this game ends badly for Republicans. Because they’re dumb and incompetent. But I also know that it is no fun to watch.
well, personally, I think our foreign policy/military posture is irresponsibly grandiose. So, I don’t mind too much if constrained budgets produce constrained empire. But, yes, it has to be done responsibly.
And I totally understand that. Especially from somebody leery of things like Libya. And yeah, our standing army and marines will have to be downsized, weapons programs cancelled, health care costs shifted, etc. But I hate to see any budget decisions anywhere made arbitrarily.
Congress is so fucked up.
Seems to me I reecently heard something about pulling out of Iraq by Christmas? And Huntsman …. Huntsman … is calling for troops to leave Afghanistan?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/huntsman-urges-us-troops-to-withdraw-from-afghanistan-i
mmediately-to-focus-on-home-front-goals/2011/11/12/gIQANdjKGN_story.html
Could save some serious money if anybody wants to.
Or pass the American Jobs Act.
They do not have a ship to go down with. GOP current approval rating is in the single digits. If they fail, we may see the first negative approval rating.
I’m withholding judgment until I see what becomes law. Everything else is just theater – and I’m extremely skeptical of all published reports of the negotiation.
Actually, even after the law passes I may have to pause before making judgment. HCR passed in spring 2010 and we still can’t really assess its impact. We do know that the GOP used HCR as a hammer against the Dems during the 2010 campaign, and we know that a few of the HCR features are now (generally beneficial) law, but nevertheless the big stuff is still two years and one major SCOTUS ruling away from possibly becoming law.
If the Dems fuck with the Social Security or medicare benefits that I’ve been paying into for the past 24 years they can kiss goodbye any vote that I might have cast, however begrudgingly, for them in 2012. They’ve already totally capitulated on the climate and on absolute abdication of authority to the military-Israel complex. If they also screw with the U.S.’s minimal vestiges of a modern 1st world social infrastructure then there is no reason to support them – no matter how scary the GOP candidates are.
Make that: “the Social Security or medicare benefits that I’ve been paying into for the past 34 years”. Scary just how many years I’ve been doing this. If they screw with our benefits there are few responses that I would consider too extreme.
And that’s just why they’re not going to do that.
exchange cuts in defense (which needs to be massively cut) for a partial repeal of the Bush tax cuts which he, Obama, so recently endorsed.
Yeah, that must be 11th dimensional chess because I sure the fuck don’t understand it.
The President never endorsed the Bush tax cuts.
He endorsed it when he signed the extension. And afterwards the WH promoted the tax cuts as stimulative.
Not saying he wanted to do it but he did it.
I’m sorry, but “endorsed” does not mean “accepted it as part of a compromise in which he got unemployment extension and a number of other things he supported”.
I’m totally sick of the purist “left” which thinks it’s moral to trade away other people’s lives in support of some bullshit principle they just discovered last week.
Obama signed the extension. Only in the land of make-believe does that mean he was against it.
And I’m “totally sick” of Obama butt-boys calling his Republican administration “progressive”.
But it’s pretty weak. I wouldn’t call the Obama administration “progressive” because it is (a) multi-racial, (b) effective and (c) has accomplishments.
Progressivism seems to be nothing more than a bunch of middle class twits congratulating themselves on the the ethical purity that comes from absolute lack of accomplishment.
accomplishment was electing a Republican congress in 2010 with his dithering and vacillation.
That is about the level of “analysis” I’d expect from someone who uses “butt-boy” as an argument. Take your peevish ignorant bullshit to someone who cares.
Obama signed the extension. Only in the land of make-believe does that mean he was against it.
I wish to God I had lived a life of sufficient ease and privilege that it was possible to make this error of understanding.
Ed’s a troll not a leftist. best not to feed
Anyone who says the emperor has no clothes has to have another agenda. The emperor simply MUST be dressed.
And what they promoted as stimulative was the PAYROLL cut. There’s a difference.
The Bush tax cuts expire at the end of next year even if the automatic cuts go into effect. So $60B from defense, $60B from Medicare providers, and expiration of the Bush tax cut if the SuperCommittee fails to act and Obama carries out his threat.
The SuperCommittee has to agreed to reinstate the Bush tax cuts for it to happen. Dems want the middle class tax cuts reinstated (for political cover); GOPers want the whole package reinstated.
You have to remember that on domestic legislation, Congress (especially the Senate Dem Caucus) is driving Obama, not vice versa. On foreign policy, the defense establishment is driving the agenda to a point. Obama has shown more power to restrain the defense establishment in order to get a workable foreign policy than he has had success with the Democrats in Congress.
Obama has shown more power to restrain the defense establishment in order to get a workable foreign policy than he has had success with the Democrats in Congress.
Remember when we were never going to leave Iraq because Obama was too weak to stand up to the pressure from the MIC?
I remember that. He can’t lead … (it does become tiresome doesn’t it!)
The Bush tax cuts will be renewed. They have been in place now for a decade. They are the new standard. Democrats blinked and extended them last time. Next time they will blink so much you can call it rapid eye movement.
Why is it that I’m hoping for deadlock? Medicare providers (the unified healthcare systems run by private companies, counties, and universities) have an incredible amount of MBA waste in their hierarchies. And nationally, specialists are overpaid compared to the ability of their patients to pay. (Preserving that is why the docs in Congress are primarily specialists and Republicans).
The total $1.2 trillion over 10 years comes down to $60 billion a year on average for each cut. And it will drive the momentum for single payer healthcare.
What’s not to like (besides the folly of cutting in a time of high unemployment)?
Cutting payments encourages providers to drop out of Medicare.
When a party hinges all its platform on the core promise not to raise taxes, and forthrightly says no to even the thought of any cognitive thought then they must view giving in to raising any tax, even to save their own country, must then logically mean the collapse of the rest of their platform.
So in the end, it will be a death by hundreds of knives of no to the GOP. Sad. If they just understood the bumper stick, “Evolve Damnit”!
Looks like the committee may just punt until after the elections, according to todays LA times
It wasn’t obvious at the time, but it is now: Obama took a better hostage in the debt-ceiling deal.
Bye Bye Social Security.
What are you talking about?
No defense cuts. No (significant) tax increases. Where else is trillions of dollars going to come from?
There will be both defense cuts and tax increases (for the one percent).