Soon to be ex-Speaker of the House, John Boehner, has cut a deal with the Obama administration to extend the debt ceiling until 2017, eliminating the possibility of the most extreme factions of the Republican House caucus ruining the credit of the country and shutting down the government until after the 2016 Presidential election. The deal is far from perfect. It expands military spending, and some domestic spending for 2 years, but it reportedly imposes cuts on Medicare and Social Security Disability, among other many other things (for example, the ACA requirement that businesses with 200 or more employees must enroll them in an ACA qualified plan would be eliminated). Increased spending for 2016 and 2017 would end in 2018, when the current limits under the sequester would be reinstated.
Boehner hopes to pass this deal with support from Democrats and some members of his own party prior to the election of Paul Ryan as Speaker, currently scheduled for Wednesday. This lets Ryan off the hook from having to deal with a possible debt default by the Federal government that will occur on November 3rd of this year absent an extension of the debt ceiling.
If the ceiling were breached it could entail a debt default, leading to surging interest rates and turmoil in global markets. As the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan policy organisation, put it in a recent note: “Failing to raise the debt ceiling would be disastrous.”
Ryan, in a classic Washington “Kabuki” theater reaction, expressed his public outrage at Boehner’s actions.
Rep. Paul Ryan blasted Speaker John Boehner, Senate leadership and the White House for cutting a budget deal behind closed doors, saying the “process stinks.”
Ryan said he hasn’t gone through the agreement, which was posted last night.
“This is not the way to do the people’s business,” the Wisconsin Republican said. “And under new management we are not going to do the people’s business this way. We are up against a deadline – that’s unfortunate. But going forward we can’t do the people’s business. As a conference we should’ve been meeting months ago to discuss these things to have a unified strategy going forward.”
Of course, this deal takes any discussion of extending the debt ceiling off the table until October of 2016, a huge benefit to him, and to the country, considering the effects of the Republican refusal to extend the debt ceiling in 2011.
Although the crisis was eventually resolved, it produced a downgrade of the country’s credit rating, and some economists believe that the resulting hit to consumer confidence significantly damaged the economic recovery from the Great Recession.
Not sure I like any deal, and I confess I don’t fully understand all the details that have been reported. Nonetheless, if it passes before Ryan’s election as Speaker, Boehner will have given his replacement a huge political benefit.
If it his SS and SSDI then it is a no go. The Democratic party members voting for it will here from their constituents in droves and their families that are on both these programs. It is a no go for me to make the budget depend on cutting people already living far below the poverty line.I will not vote for anyone that supports that.
No, they will swallow it because “it’s the lesser evil”. More evidence that both Parties must go.
I wonder who pushed the SS cuts recalling Obama’s past effort to hurt senior citizens (chained-CPI, means testing).
Just as “we” swallowed all the dreadful legislation that Clinton signed (usually have been engaged in getting it passed as well). (I still deeply resent having been put in the position among family, friends, and co-workers defending his not admirable personal behaviors. Nor do I respect women who stay with such men and expect sympathy from others for being married to a cheater.)
Just as Democrats and feminists are now dismissing (spinning, denying) Hillary’s record in favor of electing the first woman POTUS and could care less that she’s a legacy hire, an economic neoliberal, and warmonger.
Oh but Cruz and Lee could filibuster the deal. This could be the moment Cruz has been waiting for. CNBC debate about the economy is his opportunity to break out of the single digit polling and his PAC to do some serious fund raising.
My guess is that the White House might be counting on this as a litmus test of GOP seriousness to compromise. Failure sort of puts them to blame for any bad consequences. No doubt there will be attempts to wriggle out and spin a Democratic fault. It’s not over until it’s over.
But we will have to see if the House is settled first.
Huh. I wonder why he -wouldn’t- try to filibuster. Of course, despite Booman’s constant explanations, I’m still not quite sure how–or if–actual talking filibusters work.
Does Boehner have the 30 votes?
Will all the Democrats hold their nose for the DoD and SSDI parts in order to get to 2017 without another hostage crisis?
Will enough Republicans walk the plank to put some seats in play?
People might want to actually look at what the SS and Medicare components do before going on the warpath.
Exactly my thoughts reading down the comments. Darn it if we aren’t as bad as the members of the Freedom Caucus in having virtual temper tantrums when we have to give up something, anything.
To govern in a divided government you have to give up something in a compromise, no matter what side you are on. Geez, people!
The only way to get your way is to make sure enough like minded folks turn up at the polls. That’s what we ought to be working on, along with a couple of constitutional amendments to undo/redo campaign financing regs, eliminate gerrymandered districts, and reaffirm voting rights for all.
Thank you, my thoughts exactly
Not to challenge you personally, but that’s been the MO of Democrats for decades. “If it’s only a small concession, we can live with that.” Small concessions are chinks in a good and decent structure and one chink leads to going along with another, and another, etc. until finally the structure is like swiss cheese and can be knocked over with a feather.
The Hyde Amendment didn’t affect good middle class women, but it was a real if unseen chink in the rights of all women to control their own reproductive freedom. And where has that taken us to? G-D politicians that run campaigns in support of transvaginal probes!
Poor kids are stuck in lousy schools when for the same or fewer public dollars they could be sent to parochial schools with surplus capacity. Well, those parochial schools didn’t exactly have surplus capacity because they were beginning to run out of all that almost free teacher labor. It also violated the separation of church and state at the institutional level, but bleeding heart liberals accepted that because those poor children weren’t going to receive any religious instruction in those parochial schools. It was a chink that paved the way for private charter schools.
Same for religious affiliated hospitals and health clinics which has decimated the public hospital and clinic sector. One reason why per capital health care in the US (that doesn’t even provide any care or sufficient/adequate care for large numbers of people) costs 80-100% more than what is spend in other developed countries for universal care.
Oh, and we’ll just do a bit of corporate deregulation here — it won’t hurt anyone and will deliver either a bit more and/or for a bit less. And here. And here. How much did the financial meltdown cost this country? GWB, on average, added $760 billion/year. At that profligate rate of spending Obams would have added $3.8 trillion to the debt in his first five years (10/09 –9/14). The actual was $5.9 trillion.
It’s symptomatic that there’s not a word in there indicating that you have any knowledge at all of the actual provisions of the budget desl.
Do all the little trees matter? Or in this instance are they not excuses and rationalizations not to increase taxes on the “haves” or cut a few billion out of the obscene Pentagon budget?
DI revenue shortfalls — which is a small part of OASDI — could be fixed by raising the cap for DI contributions. (I’m not in favor of raising the cap on SS contributions unless or until the trust fund is exhausted. To do so at this time, would only generate more cash that will be squandered and increases the balance in the SS trust fund (federal government debt).
As there is no SS COLA adjustment for 2016 because there is no inflation, why would there be a shortfall in the Medicare beneficiaries premium portion of that account? Medical cost inflation. How can that be — no CPI inflation and the PPACA promised to “bend the cost curve” for health care. Yet for some reason, that doesn’t seem to be working when it comes to Medicare. (Actually I know why it’s not working — but nobody was interested in the details that I pulled together in 2009 that explained it; so, won’t bother looking for an audience now.)
It’s still the Third Rail.
Just e-mailed my Representative, Tammy Duckworth, and (respectfully) said the same, including the Third Rail reference.
You have to compromise when the other side has the power to compel you. If you have all the power, you don’t “have to” compromise. Sometimes it is still a good idea to build good will or other reasons, but the Ship Good Will has sailed here.
The GOP needed this issue to go away or the party would devolve into open civil war in the middle of a Presidential election. The business class that funds said election was also going to tolerate no part of this. I don’t see any reason Obama couldn’t have gotten a clean bill. Since a clean bill would have been better on the merits, a defense of compromise on principle is an example of poor principles.
My thinking exactly. There’s zero reason to bail out the idiots, and even less to concede major points and principles. A deal like this, if true, would essentially give the Republicans the reward for hostage taking that the Democrats have promised not to give. And, though Social Security and Medicare and the big issues, the employer mandate is no small thing.
Frankly, this is so stupid, I have trouble believing it will actually happen. If true, we need to all get on the horn and tell our representatives to stop being pussies and fight for what they supposedly believe in.
They know Democrats and liberals have no place else to go and they’ll tell us that the choice is this or a federal default and a default will be much worse for everyone. This is how Democrats ever so slowly continue to hollow out the principles and structure of the New Deal in tiny steps when they don’t manage to get “Grand Bargains” or sweeping reforms such as killing Glass-Steagall
My guess: Sanders calls for a clean bill, leading to the possibility of Dem defections in the house.
* From Maddow Blog: “In a bit of a surprise, Bernie Sanders has formally endorsed the bipartisan budget deal. The package has also picked up support from AARP, and the progressive Center on Budget and Policy Priorities had a largely positive reaction to the agreement.”
In the Immortal words of Statler and Waldorf: “Ho hah ha haha!”
Like I said in the other thread, I think we’ll see some Clinton kabuki too. She’ll come out against it, but not until after it passes.
The reason the SS and Medicare cuts matter even if they are minor is because it’s breaking a Dem taboo. Further cuts become politically easier now, because the toe has been dipped.
The “give a mouse a cookie” habit of DEM pols.
You know you can always be counted on to be cynical about the politicians of the party for whom you apparently vote. I presume that in your world the perfect is always the enemy of the good.
No wonder Boehner walked away if what has been posted here is symptomatic of what he had to deal with from his side. It truly gets old when one can never please those who are technically on one’s side.
Perfect? In government or from politicians? That expectation wouldn’t be rational.
Was the agreement with Iran “perfect?” Haven’t heard anyone say that it was anywhere near close to perfect. Have you seen me make any snide or “cynical” comments about it? If you’re honest that would be a no, wouldn’t it?
When the “cookie the mouse demands” puts chinks in the structure of good government — culturally, operationally, and or legally — you’re darn right I’m going to criticize it and that’s not being cynical or demanding “perfection.” So what you presume about me is wrong. Do you rarely err or is it more familiar to you?
You know you can always be counted on to be sensible. In my view, politics has played out the past 3 decades just like you have said. Booman hasn’t yet been able to delve into the details of the agreement, but other bloggers have. The perfect is not the enemy of the good, but the good is the enemy of the bad. Please keep up your comments.
So, what is your verdict about the deal just reached? Is it more bad than good, since we all know that it’s not perfect. What about it makes it bad or good? Is there anything positive here or did Democrats just cave once more as Marie obviously believes and give up something precious and irreplaceable?
The winners here may be the Democrats. The last government shutdown had a measurable effect on the economy. This deal, which happens about the same time as the deal in 2011, essentially removes some economic risk from from the 2016 economy.
There was a pretty good Dkos diary on Medicare stuff suggesting that it really wan’t significant, but I can’t claim to know the detail.
Ryan eh so they kick the can down the road. Eventually someone must tell the Freedom caucus they are luddites. Anarchists at best truly ignorant fools is the reality.