« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

A Deal No Republican Can Support

There's been enough compromise with big government. It's time to raise the compromise floor.

By: Daniel Horowitz (Diary)  |  July 31st, 2011 at 12:30 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

On Friday, House Republicans voted overwhelmingly for a plan that would raise the debt limit a whopping $2.5 trillion.  All but 22 members, including many stalwart conservatives, supported the bill because they were promised that the second installment of the debt limit increase ($1.6 trillion) would only be approved under two conditions: 1) A debt commission identifies at least $1.6 trillion in spending cuts.  2)  Congress (both houses) passes a balanced budget amendment (BBA) and sends it to the states for ratification.

While it is hard to imagine that GOP leaders would suddenly have the courage to hold firm on a BBA next year, after punting on it this year, most rank-and-file members felt compelled to trust their leaders.

While it is credulous to believe that a Simpson-Bowles 2.0 commission would force passage of massive entitlement reform without tax hikes – and that leadership would go to the brink for such cuts; nonetheless, conservative House members got their rumps behind Boehner’s line.  They swallowed their pride, endured much acrimony, and took one for the team.

Now it’s time for Boehner to hold his own line and not leave his men in the field.  Presumably, at the very least, he would not agree to any increase that overshoots the elections, and that terminates the requirement of a BBA as a precondition for such an increase.

Accordingly, any outline of the following plan being reported by ABC should be dead on arrival:

ABC News has learned that Republicans and the White House have struck a tentative deal to raise the debt ceiling before the Aug. 2 deadline. It’s not done yet, but here is the framework of the tentative deal they have worked out, according to a source familiar with the negotiations:

  • Debt ceiling increase of up to $2.8 trillion
  • Spending cuts of roughly $1 trillion
  • Vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment
  • Special committee to recommend cuts of $1.8 trillion (or whatever it takes to add up to the total of the debt ceiling increase)
  • Committee must make recommendations before Thanksgiving recess
  • If Congress does not approve those cuts by late December, automatic across-the-board cuts go into effect, including cuts to Defense and Medicare. (emphasis added)

Shouldn’t it?

 

Tags: , , , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • littlehouse18

    then the Republicans get portrayed as the Grinch right before Christmas. Or, they’ll be so eager to get home for the holidays that they’ll just accept anything the panel puts out there.

    Not to mention the whole idea that cuts get spread over 10 years, hence are fictitious. Meanwhile, Obama gets his big increase right up front to buy off 2012 votes.

    This worries me. The Sunday media will be all for it. Unreal. Pulled out of the hat just like Erick predicted. MSM will say it’s the greatest plan ever, and if the House votes it down at the 11th hour, they get heaped with blame.

    • gekster

      Might as well get blamed for standing up for principles.
      At this point, whats to loose?

      • http://www.AmericanThinker.com Hammer2008

        might as well earn it!”

        That’s an old Navy Chief axiom for “Do the right thing”

        • littlehouse18

          ..

    • Donald Ayotte

      Wait until you see what Reed sends back to the House for approval. It will start a virtual war and never be passed.
      Boehner better hold his ground, because when Reed finishes butchering the House bill, it won’t be recognizable. The American People and especially the Tea Party Movement won’t stand for another waste of trillions of dollars.
      THE DEMOCRATS HAVE NO INTENTION OF SCALING DOWN THE DEBT!!!

      • hmbill

        What many Republicans don’t give enough weight to when some claim that we control only one leg on the three legged stool of power is the fact that we have the majority in the only legislative body where revenues and
        expenditures may originate! We are in a position to say “cut” and they (the Democrats) are in a position to say “How much?”.

        When the Senate guts Boehner’s bill and sends it back to the House, the Republicans need to say sorry, we’ve changed our mind. We will be sending you the Connie Mack bill with a 1% cut in current spending now and annually thereafter for six years with a GDP percentage Cap on spending, and a balanced budget amendment requirement that prohibits raising taxes as part of the balancing effort.

        When we send it over we need to advise them that that we are prepared to increase the current year spending decrease .01% for every week they dally with the bill, including waiting on the president’s signature. In the mean time, we, “we have now reached the debt limit, so consider the budget balanced”!

        We should remind ourselves: “Compromise is but the sacrifice of one right or good in the hope of retaining another- too often in the loss of both” -Tyron Edwards

        My opinion; Only losers compromise if to do so is to sacrifice what is right and just in order to dilute it with evil and unjust.

        If in a burning building, one group occupies the ground floor and a second group occupies the 40th floor, it would do neither group good to compromise and move to the 20th floor. That is where our nation finds itself today.

        We should stand firm. If Obama and “Little Tim” decide to stiff bond holders, SS recipients, medicare, military pay and veterans while the debt ceiling restricts payments, then the problem is theirs. This is what we used to call checks and balances in government, before Congress abdicated it’s duty.

        It is now time for the House to do it’s job!

        Hardball anyone?

  • Paul Seale

    At this very moment I think the title of your post is a bit over the top since we get a very large percentage of what we’ve been fighting for. Democrats are saying the President has captitulated (good!).

    With that said, you make a compelling argument – however no one has explained to me how you get 20 Democrat votes in the senate and quite a number in the House to sign on to pass a balanced budget amendment.

    Show me a plan which does so successfully and does not “crash the car.”

    I am being dead serious in that I am asking for an answer not be sarcastic or defensive – it is an open and honest question.

    It is the hurdle I, and many others, cannot cross.

    Please address!! Thanks!

    • proudgop

      BBA is huge win now is Obamacare killed too?

      Folks at Daily Kos are so pissed it makes me think this is win for us

      • Paul Seale

        It is not a knock out punch by any means in that I do not think the BBA will be passed.. I am not sure it even gets a vote yet.

        Any such agreement as layed out is a START and should be treated as such with the annual budget coming up in September.

        What a deal would do is reassure creditors and settle the market and start the ball moving forward.

        At that point, we continue to point to the massive deficit and play for getting a President and Senate who might be really interested in attacking the deficit (like coburn’s 9 trillion dollar reduction plan).

        • gekster

          75% of the American people WANT a BBA.
          If they have to vote on it, then they will be on record as to having to vote for, or against it.
          Great trying to explain while running for re-election.
          It will put them in the hole.

          Question: Senatore, just why did you vote against the BBA, when you know that is what this country needs.
          Just what are your reasons.

          Senatore: Well, a, err, umm, you see, err, I, ahhh, this was, ya see, ahh,
          next question.

          • Paul Seale

            Remember my senator, Claire McCaskill, voted for Obama care even as our stated voted with 65% saying no to it in a state referendum on the matter.

            I hope Claire goes on record as being against it as just one more issue we can pin her to as not being any sort of fiscal conservative which she claims she is (she aint).

            A BBA vote, for me, is necessary for this deal to happen at all.

            Requiring BBA passage is another matter..

            Do we put the vote off until November and then run a national campaign for its passage?

            The problem is that any deal needs to happen in the hear and now.

            I would argue that if we do not get a BBA, it must be part of the 2012 campaign.

            In the past people signed on to no new tax pledges. What is to say we cannot leverage some sort of a BBA vote commitment?

          • gekster

            Getting people to register a vote on this will make a big difference this election.
            There will be some splaining to do.
            And the Dems will toe the party line.
            They want that campaign money.
            It will tear them apart.
            Much more than we just went through.

          • keven

            I have read that 20 Dem Senators are already on record as being in favor of the BBA. It hasn’t hurt their fund raising much. The BBA has to get 2/3rds in both the Senate and House just to get to the states. This will allow EVERY single vulnerable Dem to vote FOR it. Maybe 16-18 Dems will vote for it in the Senate. And they will. It will still only get 62-64 votes and will fail in the Senate aswell as fail in the House. This will give great cover to the Claire McCaskill’s of the Senate. She can tout her conservative cred with this vote. See how serious she is about fixing our debt issues. She voted for the BBA for goodness sakes.

            Then, even if we still beat a bunch of these 2012 candidates who are vulnerable and used this vote for cover, we won’t actually add any votes for the issue in 2013 cause these lost seats voted for it anyway. Only in 2015 will this be even possible if we won some seats that voted no this time. The odds we win another 3-5 seats that actually voted no is highly unlikely. But even if we do and we end up with 67-68 Senators on record as voting for BBA, then at that time 1-2 Dem will have a change of heart and vote no. Probably somebody that is ready for retirement or is 4-5 years from re-election time. Even if we run the table we will never pass a BBA in the Senate, let alone the House.

            Until Marxists Democrats want to tie their greedy hands behind their backs and vote against everything they actually stand for, 67 votes in the Senate will never occur and 67% will never occur in the House. Therefore the BBA vote will be used as excellent cover for every vulnerable Dem in 2012. Sure seems like a lose to me.

          • kyconservative

            Just allowing a vote on the BBA is a disaster for us. It will never pass unless we condition an increase of the debt ceiling on passage, and by allowing a vote, Senators like Ben Nelson and others can go back home and demonstrate how they voted conservative and bucked the national Democratic Party, which in turn, helps them get re-elected.

            What kind of fools do we have devising Republican strategy right now?

          • gekster

            Grab your camping gear and head to the mountains of Canada.
            No one will survive in the US, and anyone who stays is already dead.
            I’m putting my canned goods in the freezer now.

          • acat

            And, not really germaine to much, have you looked at the number of American expatriates in places like Costa Rica, Viet Nam, parts of Mexico, and even Eastern Europe?

            Way, way up, and it’s not just college kids.. it’s semi-retireds or middle age “galts” – not by name perhaps, but by action… learn some of the langauge before leaving the states, sell everything, and live on the interest (and a little of the principle) overseas.

            I’m not sure what it means, other than it’s going to have an impact on both countries as they demand U.S.-level services, and as the U.S. loses cash…

            Mew

          • gekster

            Sarcasm. Lousy, but still sarcasm.

          • acat

            I knew you were using sarcasm.

            It’s just that, for all the time we’ve spent mocking the hollyweird lefties who threaten to leave but never actually do … some of us are picking up and leaving.

            At what point does sarcasm become truth?

            Mew

          • gekster

            ………

          • keven

            If you gain more then you lose, it might be wise to try something that is certain to fail. I think, especially in relation to the 2012 Senate races, this will be more harmful to our side then positive. Thats my opinion. Cause I believe the vulnerable candidates will vote for it. The fact the Democratic party has decided to allow this vote says they are not too afraid of the outcome or aftermath.

            As for your hyperbolic ramble, whatever.

          • gekster

            Being sarcastic.
            Making fun of the situation.
            Pay attention.

          • bigredone

            That’s who. We Kentuckians must ditch Mitch in 2014. It is time for him to go.

            A vote only on BBA does indeed provide cover to Democrats. Sad, sad.

          • http://www.AmericanThinker.com Hammer2008

            There are two (or maybe more) views on this. Sure, Claire McCaskills of the Senate might get cover BUT if debt limit increases are forever tied to the passage of a BBA out of Congress, then in due course, it will happen.

            How to make it happen sooner than later? Find real painful ways to force votes, especially once the GOP takes over the Senate in 2013, make it painful for each democrat (or RINO for that matter), to vote against the BBA.

            Incrementalism can be played in spades. It’s always been a shame that we conservatives don’t go for as much as we can get, without forgoing our principals, in order to obrtain our eventual objective. For 50+ years, liberals have done so, knowing they’d get their socialist republic — and we are coming closer to it now more than ever — it is time to change the tides, and it starts right now.

          • windwaker24

            do Democrats care what the people want, even during an election year? (Think Obamacare!) Also, if confronted about it, they would just say some BS about “I know I supported a balanced budget amendment before but this was too extreme blah, blah, blah…”

          • gekster

            Obamacare was passed after 2008, and before the last election.
            Dems thought that it would be forgotten by the next (2010) election.
            They were wrong.

            Think McLooser during the last election.
            Conservative enough to make Reagan proud while running.
            Now that he got re-elected, well, look at his statement the other day on the Senate floor dissing the Tea Party.
            The Dems see the next election comming up.
            Why do you think Obama wanted the debt ceiling to go till 2013.
            To take it off the table for the 2012 elections.
            And 75% of the American people want a BBA.
            Either you are for, or against it.
            Thier vote will prove which.

          • ghostship

            Yes they get to make a symbolic vote on the BBA. Congress makes symbolic votes all the time when they know there’s no chance for it to become law that’s why symbolic votes are worthless.

            Let’s see them vote on it when it’s PASSAGE IS REQUIRED in order for them to raise the debt ceiling. Oh, look they won’t want to vote on it then.

            Symbolic votes are for the rubes. It’s so they take credit for supporting something when THEY knew there was no chance of it actually passing.

          • littlehouse18

            He doesn’t even see what’s wrong with such hypocrisy, and is even proud to point it out.

          • wbb1950

            A: because we now have a debt commission, hence we do not need a balanced budget amendment. (Subtext: the American People have no say in this–they are all bitter clinging racists, etc. the democratic party mantra, remember? Forgive me Eric, I am trying to be respectful, but where the party of Obama is concerned there is nothing there to respect.)

            That is the problem with this debt commission–if the plan it comes up with is final and binding on the political branches and the American People. On the other hand, if we had a balance budget amendment and a debt commission it is unclear to me how the two would play out. I suspect it would end up in the courts. In the long run, the most toxic piece of this whole thing, I think, is that debt commission, depending on how it works.

      • littlehouse18

        It merely promises to vote on BBA. Passage of BBA is not a requirement for anything.

        The big problem for me is the large up-front debt ceiling raise, and then being pretty much held hostage by the committee after that.

        • gekster

          …..

        • Paul Seale

          Correct in that it mearly promises a vote for a BBA. I get that.

          The question is, how do we get 20 Dem senators to vote for it in order to pass.

          No one has answered this question for me – and I cannot in good conscience require an element which has no way of passing to part of a deal.

          Its sorta like Democrats asking us to put tax increases into the deal. Not happening.

          That said, the deal moves us forward in getting some potential nice cuts (not what we need clearly).

          • gekster

            All will be on record as to how they voted.
            Run on that. Your no vote on a BBA. And a no vote when you voted yes on it before.

            We started as total loosers,
            and we were told we were total loosers from the git go.
            Next election will depend on how these people vote on this.
            It is a “loose the battle, win the war” scenario.

          • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ Daniel Horowitz

            How do we repeal Obamacare?

            How do we close a single agency out of the hundreds of government agencies and offices?

            How do we reform welfare, let alone non-welfare mandatory spending?

            All of these things will need Democrat support. As I’ve explained in these pages ad nauseam, even if we win back the Senate, House, and POTUS, no small feat, we will lack 60 seats in the Senate. The bottom line is that either now, or at some other time soon, we will need to do something big by using our leverage.

            At some time, we have stop being scared of our shadow and utilize this historic era, in which people are finally waking up to the vices of big government; people overwhelmingly want obamacare repealed, people overwhelmingly want a BBA. At some point, whether now, or in September, or some time before Obama’s tenure of socialism become immutable, GOP leaders will have to have the courage of their convictions to properly articulate their case before the American people and force the issue. I guarantee you, it will never happen through the front door.

          • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ Daniel Horowitz

            forgetting about the BBA for a moment, this plan would undermine Boehner 2.0 as well.

            Assuming some rough version of the above is the current deal, we would lose the one saving grace of Boehner’s plan; the fact that it brings up the issue again next year. If true (the deal is totally unconfirmed at this point) we would be handing Obama a bailout until after the election. Wasn’t that the grand idea of Boehenr’s deal that was so meritorious that it was worth tearing apart the conservative movement to supplant CCB with it?

            Additionally, nobody is focusing on the fact that after all is said and done, this will not forestall a credit downgrade. How can we own a deal that fails to uphold our credit rating? At least the McConnell plan, which gave us nothing policy-wise, made the Dems own the whole darn thing. This plan would give us little fundamental change and make us own at least a part of the fallout.

          • kyconservative

            we shut our mouths, stand by the bill that we passed in the House and let Tuesday come and go. No one really knows for sure what will happen on Tuesday but my hunch is that it will be underwhelming. If the markets tank, we just blame it on Obama and the Democrats. Since Obama is the President, he will ultimately be judged more at fault than anyone else because he is the President.

            It’s important to realize as well that America is extremely polarized and most Democrats and Democratic leaning indies will blame us no matter what and no matter what the media does. On the other hand, most conservatives and conservative leaning indies will stick by us if we stick by our principles. They will do this because cutting spending and the size of government is critical to the survival of our country in their view.

          • tea4me

            And the sadistic part of me really wants to see the government shut down. It sure is a way to reign in spending. I really have gone back and forth on this.

            But the reality is…at some point someone would have to cave. And do any of us really think Republicans would win this battle in the end?

            Just look at their history. They’re known for caving first.

            We’ll win that battle but lose the war. We all know it. It’s why the word primary is so prevalent across these discussions.

          • tea4me

            … take on this on Monday. He tends to be quite persuasive as far as i’m concerned.

          • http://www.barrypopik.com barrypopik

            http://www.marklevinshow.com/home.asp

            Nothing new since Friday.

          • http://www.barrypopik.com barrypopik

            Like I said six weeks ago, Boehner and McConnell need to go. http://fb.me/F80yakJy
            6 hours ago ? reply ? retweet ? favorite

            Dreamy. So now supporting the Balanced Budget Amendment makes you an extremist! http://fb.me/197F28e3d
            6 hours ago ? reply ? retweet ? favorite

          • Paul Seale

            The good sounding part was that tax increases were off the table.

            If tax increases are back on the table, kill it.

          • Paul Seale

            1) Repeal it however we can once we have the majority to do so. If memory serves me correctly, Democrats manuevered around things to by pass the filibuster. Fair is far on this count.

            I dont care if we have to deem and pass, it must be repealed.

            To do so, however, you must Constitutionally have control of all three branches.

            You cannot expect the President of the United States who repeal his signature piece of legislation.

            Likewise it is completely unreasonable to expect the Congress critters we elected to do everything in a single 18 month span. Period.

            Democrats waited 50 years to get socialized medicine passed. We must fight smart and repeal (and replace with maket based, individual liberty loving solutions) obamacare.

            2) Repectfully, the CR passed which in the long run doesnt save much did so. If you are talking about the Department of Education or such – that is a long term battle you take one Congress at a time. Similarly, if and when we were to win the Presidency, we could kill off all the czars and return that power where it needs to – the people or Congress.

            3) Welfare was reformed in the 90s. If you are refering to refining the process or reforming entitlement spending – medicare, soc sec, etc – then that is something we can tackle at least partly in the forth coming budget battle for next year, and the years after.

            All do require Democrat support if we do it right this instant, even long term there will need to be some level of sausage making (compromise).

            However, that does not preclude trying to do the right thing and being smart about the way we go about it.

            What we accomplished in 2010 should not just be about 2010, but about the long term fight and re-igniting people into becoming involved with their government to ensure freedom and individual liberty.

            To that end, the only litmus test this year should be whether or not the ball was honestly moved forward and honest attempts were made.

            To that end, if you cannot answer yes for most of the GOP and conservative movement, then I would like to hear why.

            Results matter in business and outside of Washington for sure, but as most business owners will tell you – dont expect success over night.

            To that end, we should not swallow the deal with eyes closed. Nor should we slam the door shut simply on the basis of whether or not it demands that a BBA is passed.

            We must examine carefully and truthfully.

          • acat

            Which, if you’ll recall, is about what I expected last time we chatted….

            I’ll give you this, you’re consistent.

            Mew

          • Paul Seale

            Depends upon which report is correct – the National Journal or ABC News report.

            If it is ABC News, then this deal must die because it explicitly includes tax increases in a number of places.

            I have a hard time believing that would be in the deal and nothing is confirmed, so I am hoping to hold out hope that the report is wrong.

            If the National Journal report is correct, then it is far from a raw deal. Not perfect, but takes us in the right direction.

          • acat

            Really, Paul? You’re surprised that Dems want to raise taxes?

            They’ve been railing about the Bush tax increases for what, a decade now?

            The nature of a democrat is not to want what’s best for the country, it’s to want to control the country, and control mechanisms (i.e. more government) needs money…

            Boehner has, as most GOPers do, “compromised” by giving the Dems most of what they want in return for little blue beads and promises that they’ll let us get what we want later on.

            I am disgusted.

            Mew

          • Paul Seale

            We have been controlling the debate up to this point.

            It was Reid who caved, even with his own “no tax increase” plan which was filled with gimmics.

            That is what is so shocking about the ABC News report.. Everything I read up to that point seemed to be saying what the NJ article posted.

            As far as railing against Bush era tax rates – you are correct.

            Even then, however, they compromised last December to keep them in place. (Back during the original debate Dems compromised for us to get them, remember the Senate was split b/c of jumpin Jim Jeffords).

            So yes, I am shocked that any deal would be taking a step backwards and Boehner and McConnell would be giving up what theyve spent so much political capital to save – no tax increases.

            We will find out tomorrow.

          • acat

            Or, what of the CCB is left, for that matter?

            Boehner folded.

            Mew

          • wbb1950

            Krauthammer, others and you perhaps Paul argue that one branch cannot control government, and cannot implement its agenda, and is best served by biding its time, not falling into Obama’s trap, because in the fulsomeness of time, we will win the 2012 election, and then we can begin passing our agenda. There are alot of if’s in that equation however, and the biggest if is what would Boehner and McConnell do in the next congress assuming this goal is achieved. And that begs the real question–how far can we trust them? If the leaders were DeMint and Ron Paul, I would not worry about that. Paul, I know both of them and it is unclear to me that they will do what is necessary to repeal Obama care. When I say I know them what I mean is I have met them, spent time with them, and have a window on how they think. When Eric shows us that Boehner let McConnell and REID staffers draft his bill, I begin to wonder.

          • wbb1950

            Big media stands poised to torpedo Republicans and as long as they live under that shadow, they will behave as we are seeing now. The most important thing that happened last week for me was that video by the now displaced head of the msnbc talk show The Young Turks where he recounts in some detail the circumstance surrounding the ending of his career with that network, specifically the conversation wherein the head of that network Phil Griffin threatened him for criticizing Obama and told him in no uncertain terms that outsiders are cool, they drive motorcycles, wear leather jackets and attack the establishment . . . but that is not what we (big media) are . . . we are insiders, part of the establishment (meaning the Obama Administration) and Washington (meaning the Obama Administration)does not like the “tone” of your remarks (critical of Obama). We talk about a liberal bias in big media, but that is not the root cause of the problem–nearly as much as the fact that they are running the political system to their benefit and contrary to the interests of the American people. And that is why Daniel’s observations are spot on.

  • http://www.firstchevalier.com Mark Malcolm

    I do not care one lick for getting ‘most’ of what is needed. The AP is also reporting the BBA passage is NOT tied to the increase. (here-http://news.yahoo.com/stab-debt-limit-deal-avert-us-default-204034740.html).

    If that is true, this should never see the light of day or be voted down swiftly.

    Do not compromise on this. We hold the cards, and we should play them instead of folding our hand. Anything less is capitulation.

    • proudgop

      $2.8 trillion in deficit reduction with $1 trillion locked in through discretionary spending caps over 10 years and the remainder determined by a so-called super committee.

      The Super Committee must report precise deficit-reduction proposals by Thanksgiving.

      The Super Committee would have to propose $1.8 trillion spending cuts to achieve that amount of deficit reduction over 10 years.

      If the Super Committee fails, Congress must send a balanced-budget amendment to the states for ratification. If that doesn’t happen, across-the-board spending cuts would go into effect and could touch Medicare and defense spending.

      No net new tax revenue would be part of the special committee’s deliberations.

  • tea4me

    “If Congress does not approve those cuts by late December, automatic across-the-board cuts go into effect, including cuts to Defense and Medicare. (emphasis added)”

    Sounds like real cuts. And that’s what we all want. And although the BBA won’t get to 67, we already knew that. But it will get the libruls on record (although most will get away with voting for it anyway).

    The left is going to go crazy on both of these points. Worse than the Tea Party did on Boehner’s plan.

    And it’s not going to save Obama. Even though he thinks so. 0.4% growth in the first quarter and 1.3 in the 2nd. We’re heading to another recession and higher unemployment in time for the election. The leftist regulations in the EPA and Dept of Energy will assure us of that. And especially that albatross which is Obamacare.

    Obama is history after next year.

    • acat

      Ross Perot got one thing right – the devil is in the details.

      I do not trust that these are real cuts until I see the numbers, and that they don’t include the usual D.C. tricks and gimicks.

      Mew

      • boballab

        What if the $1.2 trillion in “cuts” is the same cuts that Reid had in his plan based on the ending of Iraq and Afghan and the commission uses the ending of the Bush tax cuts as “Increases” to fix the other $9 Bn to $1.2 trillion?

        So then it all boils down to giving Obama a debt ceiling increase for a vote on a BBA.

        • tea4me

          I can’t see it being the case though. With the news of the morning, i’m just going to have to wait to hear what they’ve come up with before a decide for myself.

          • boballab

            $2.4 Trillion ceiling increase

            $ 900 Bn in cuts

            A super committee that needs to come up with the additional $1.5 Trillion Deficit Reduction

            If the committee does not come up with the needed amount or the congress doesn’t agree to them automatic cuts go into effect. The automatic cuts can be used to make up a difference in the committee’s recommended deficit reduction number if it isn’t $1.5 Trillion

            If the automatic cuts get trigger both medicare and defense get cut, however what they are negotiating over now is the amount defense gets cut: The Dems want a 50% cut in Defense spending the Repubs want less. On the Medicare side Bloomberg reported that the cut in it is 4%

            Now the wording in the deal is important: Deficit Reduction. A Deficit Reduction can be accomplished by either “Spending Cuts” or Tax Increases.

            As I stated all night this is no Win for the GOP, all we got was a vote on a BBA.

            We are going to get stuck with a choice in an election year of either being blamed for raising taxes on people or gutting defense by up to 50% and slightly cutting Medicare.

            If this deal passes Obama wins re-election and the GOP wil be lucky to keep the house.

  • boballab

    need to think on “Baseline Spending”.

    You see with Baseline Spending the budget automatically grows by a fixed percentage. For the US budget that is now 7%. so each year for the next 10 years the budget will automatically increase 7% over the previous year.

    What this means is that in 10 years the deficit will be over $9 trillion dollars for that year. So lets stipulate for argument that both sets of “cuts” are “Real” (Not just bookkeeping gimmicks) in this deal. So instead of a deficit of over $9 Trillion in 2021 we will “only” have a deficit of just under $7 Trillion.

    So for giving Obama a pass on the debt ceiling before the election and cover for the economy for the next year, the giant hole we are in will not increase as much as it would have.

    Remember Obama has been beating we need to increase “revenue” drum the entire time including on Saturday just 3 days away from the “deadline”. Now ask yourself why was he doing that when not even the Senate was asking for “increased revenue” in the Reid Plan?

    Because when the economy tanks (as it is. 0.4% growth is tanking) Obama will beat the GOP over the head with: “See we did it your way, Spending cuts only and now look at the economy. If you had down it my way of “increased revenue” this wouldn’t happen.

    Yep a real “win”. The GOP bought the blame for the economy for the next year for a possible $2.8 trillion reduction in the increase of the debt.

    There is a term for “wins” like this: Pyrrhic.

    • __t_i_m_o_t_h_y__

      Kills this dynamic by starting with a zero base line and makes a 1% cut for 6 (or 7?) years and brings the budget into balance.

      Simple.

      Easily communicated.

      It works.

      • littlehouse18

        a key component to the Penny Plan is a balanced budget starting in 2018, along with projections of healthy growth in GDP.

        It seems to envision an increase in the overall debt in absolute terms, with program spending decreasing but interest payments increasing. Though it’s better than most plans, I’d like to see a reduction in the overall debt.

        I don’t think any plan has any wiggle room for new wars or other calamities that might come.

  • tea4me

    …but i’m realistic. If we get these concessions from Obama. It will be a knife in the heart of leftists both in and out of Congress. And the leftists in the media won’t be able to pin being non-compromising on Republicans. Cause it’s a joint deal that Obama sanctioned.

    And a better deal would never have been realized for conservatives anyway. That’s simply reality. We simply don’t have the votes. We just got to make sure to get them and keep the pressure up when we do.

    • windwaker24

      Someone just needs to tell the people over at Hotair! They are over there having a fit! I think this is a win! There are no tax increases and the Tea Party changed the narrative of DC! Anything that makes liberals made, makes me happy! :)

      • windwaker24

        S/B “Anything that makes liberals mad, makes me happy!”

        • bigredone

          nt

    • rdelbov

      BBA will never pass the states IMO

      How dhambers do D’s control?

      We have one house and we are getting committments to serious spending cuts. Heck two years ago Obama could not find $100 million to cut and here are getting 1 trillion over 10 years in committeed cuts.

  • kyconservative

    Well, if this is really the deal, it’s really a total and unconditional surrender by the Republicans to Obama. I think the repercussions of this ill-advised capitulation will be huge.

    1) I think you will see third party, Perot style candidates all over the board in 2012, some running under a Tea Party banner, some under other banners. Ironically, the Establishment Republicans, including Laura Ingraham apparently, argue that we need to win the White House and Senate in 2012 to act. This “deal” virtually guarantees that we will win neither and may lose the House to boot. The conservative base of the party will be totally demoralized and the many third party candidates will split the center-right vote and cause many Democrats to get elected who normally wouldn’t be.

    2) Obama will now be re-elected, but you know what? I don’t really care any more. There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between him and the Establishment Republicans anyway. I guess 2012 will be the year to punish Republicans for selling out. 2014 and 2016 will need to become our new target dates for unleashing holy hell on the Democrats.

    I am so disgusted…..

    • tea4me

      We got everything we asked for except tying the BBA passage to the deficit increase. We were never going to get that. Never. We need a Republican President and more conservatives in the Senate. We may even need 67 of them. How do we otherwise get it passed. The fewer Libruls left in Congress…the further left they get.

      Maybe the cuts could have been better. But there’s still time.

      • boballab

        For giving Obama cover for the economy we got:

        No BBA
        Increases in Spending
        Larger Deficits and greater Debt.

        I guess we can call it a win because we didn’t cave on tax Increases….Oh wait ABC now reports that the deal has a possible Tax increase provision in it.

        • tea4me

          Remember…If they can’t come to agreement with the committee by December…it’s automatic and across the board cuts. The House will never allow tax hikes.

          That would be finished with this bill.

          • boballab

            The GOP will be forced to either accept Tax Hilkes or see the Defense budget gutted. From the article:

            QUOTE:
            Democrats won’t like the fact that Medicare could be exposed to automatic cuts, but the size of the Medicare cuts is limited and they are designed to be taken from Medicare providers, not beneficiaries.

            Two sources briefed on the framework say the automatic cuts would hit Defense spending harder than Medicare. A Republican briefed on the framework says this will be unacceptable to many Republicans because it could force them to face a choice between accepting tax increases (if that is what the committee recommends) or automatic cuts that would gut the Pentagon’s budget.

            So there is your choice gut defense or raise taxs.

            Yep a win for the GOP we gave Obama what he wanted.

          • gekster

            nt nt nt

          • boballab

            What they always want cuts in Defense. For the last 20 years that is the Dem dream:: Cut Defense, that is a blank in their party.

          • littlehouse18

            And when will people see that cuts to providers means less provision, ie de facto cuts to beneficiaries.

        • wbb1950

          And that is why Morris says this will be a short term victory for Obama. He lead from behind yes, but he saved the country by signing this pro Obama bill. Say what you will, this was not a smart move. On the other hand, I do not think this mistake by Boehner and McConnell will save Obama. But I do think it will screw the American People–and diminish their trust in the Republican Party. It is good for Wall Street and bad for Main Street.

      • kyconservative

        the Republicans won’t win the Senate until 2014 at the earliest and Obama will be re-elected.

        Millions of new votes can out for the Republicans in 2010 because we promised we would cut government spending and defund/repeal Obamacare. Instead of using the rare moment when we have some leverage to accomplish one of these goals, we sellout the people who supported us. Worse than that, we break our word to these people. How can we expect them to show any enthusiasm for us or even support us next election?

        To your point on us getting everything but the BBA, that is a joke I hope. The spending custs in all of the bills are trivial. We are not actually cutting any spending; just the rate of increase of future spending. Plus, very little of the cuts are in the first year of the plan, and cuts after that will be revised and ignored by future Congresses.

        Make no mistake, Republican leadership sold us out if they support this “deal” and people will not forget that

        • tea4me

          wrong on this point. The economy is tanking and Obama and the lefists will get blamed for it.

          …by the people.

          • tea4me

            with the current make up of Congress that we could get anything better?

            It would be nothing but posturing by Conservatives. To their own detriment. I truly believe we got the best deal possible. Although we haven’t yet really got it.

          • boballab

            You do realize that due to baseline budgeting that FY 2012′s budget will increase by 7% over FY 2011′s so called budget (it is by CR right now not a true budget)?

            Do you understand that even if all $1.2 trillion in cuts happen in FY 2012 that FY 2012′s budget will still be larger then 2011′s?

            Do you understand that means we will have a deficit next year and the debt will grow?

            There is no cuts, there is only a reduction in the growth of spending.

          • tea4me

            Do you understand that we have a Senate and Oval office populated by Marxists that would never allow what we all want?

            What you’re expecting is pie in the sky.

            This isn’t what any true conservative wants. I’d like to eat caviar and drink Dom Perignon at the Playboy mansion every night. But it simply ain’t happening.

          • boballab

            The US has a Fiat Currency. Now what that means in the debt ceiling context is that the US Government can never default on it’s debt, they can just print more money and pay. Now this decision is completely out of Congress’ hands.

            To put it bluntly if there was no deal and Aug 2nd came and went the Treasury Secretary could have authorized the printing of more money to pay our debts. He could also authorize the minting of special Platinum coins of any denomination. He could then on his own authority deposit that new currency into the US governments accounts with the Fed and pay everyone.

            So if there was a “default” the blame falls entirely on Obama and Geithner since Congress doesn’t have any role in that.

            Now what we are facing is a Credit Rating Downgrade by the Credit Agencies (S&P, Moody’s and Fitch). They have stated if we (The congress) do not “cut” enough they will downgrade the US AAA rating. S&P has stated that number is around $4 Trillion over 10 years. I think we can both agree that that $2.1 to $2.4 Trillion is not close to $4 trillion. So to put it bluntly even if the Debt Ceiling gets increased and we get $2.4 Trillion in cuts we are likely to still be downgraded on our rating. Wall Street is already counting on a Downgrade of US debt.

            Now what does that mean? With a Downgrade Interest Rated go up, thus we must pay more in interest for the Bonds we will be trying to sell to China. It also will increase the Interest on Car Payments, Credit Cards and non fixed Home Mortgages. The reason for that is because banks raise the Interest rates on their Savings Accounts, CD’s and Interest bearing Checking Accounts.

            This then ripples through the economy because people will have less money to spend so the economy tanks. Right now the economy is stagnant but this will push it over the edge and the GOP will get the blame .

          • bigredone

            Is we didn’t even try to get anything better.

            Boehner was back at the legislative drawing board before Cut, Cap, and Balance was tabled in the Senate. If he had recessed the House, Reid and Obama would have peed their britches, passed C,C, & B, and all this would be history.

            We never tried.

          • gekster

            They are all gloom and doom.
            Nothing you say will change it.

          • kyconservative

            The massive turnout of conservative voters you saw in 2010 simply won’t be there. Obama will rally liberals and minorities using cultural issues, immigration and race and will spend a gajillion dollars. This will particularly be the case if we nominate a poster boy for the Eastern /Wall Street Republican Establishment like Mitt Romney. You will see large numbers of conservatives stay home or vote third party if there’s a viable option.

          • tea4me

            Come back down to earth and join us again. The people are motivated. This won’t change that.

          • kyconservative

            when you tell them you are going to do one thing and then turn around and do something else. Lying to someone is not an effective strategy to keep their support in your next election.

          • acat

            That seems to be a common mistake, for some reason. Could it be the ‘o’ in both terms?

            Mew

          • tea4me

            good point….

          • gekster

            It is great that you have such insite on the future.
            You know all and see all.

          • kyconservative

            It’s all as plain as day.

            I’m not going to keep arguing with the two of you. If you support this “deal” there’s no way I think you’re either a conservative or affiliated with the tea party. This deal is utter capitulation. Why do you want to post in RedState or other sites established for dissemination of conservative opinion? Why not go to other sites where your point of view is more welcomed?

          • gekster

            And 2. what? You know the future. Are you connected with Miss Cleo?

          • tea4me

            I couldn’t give two sh*ts what you think we are or are not.

            I know two things for sure. What i’ve personally been doing for the cause. And that there’s irrationality at both ends of the political spectrum.

          • kyconservative

            if you really are on our side and not trolling. You and a couple others on this site just seem a little too anxious to cut a deal with the Democrats. I’m always suspicious of people who want to compromise with Democrats, because we all know that Democrats are perfectly willing to sell our country down the river to gain power and impose their ideology on the rest of us.

          • tea4me

            guess you just need to be a little more trusting in the motives of your conservative brothers and sisters.

            I’m personally suspicious of radicals of any stripe.

          • acat

            because, right now, he’s got two blocs the Dems count on, blacks and hispanics, fighting tooth and nail for the shrinking number of jobs available…

            In short, ky, while I agree Mitt would be our worst case, I don’t see him as winning…. there are enough other northeastern establishment types (Huntsman isn’t one but plays the part… ) that Mitt’s road is by no means clear… and you’re otherwise overestimating our opponent quite a bit.

            Obama is not anyone’s messiah. Overestimating him is just as much a mistake as underestimating him. Why make either?

            Mew

          • kyconservative

            He’s the owrst President we’ve had, at least in the last 100 years if not ever. I also know though that Republicans usually lose when our base is demoralized. Usually, this cooincides with us nominating and establishment or “moderate” candidate. 1976, 1992, 1996 and 2008 are recent examples. At least two of these (1976 and 1992) and maybe more would have been won with an energized and excited base brought out by a candidate holding firm to conservative principles.

            Reagan probably wins in 76 where Ford lost. Bush wins in 92 if he refuses to compromise with the Democrats and raise taxes. McCain maybe wins in 08 if he stands firm and opposes TARP and the other bailouts. 96 was tough because of the economy so maybe nothing we could have done there.

  • tea4me

    to a large degree. If this really does take place…I will no longer think they were sell outs. Simply shrewed enough to get the best deal they could get with what we currently have to fight back with.

    Watching Harry Reid on the senate floor tonight now knowing he likely knew this was coming is priceless. He looked like an impetulant 3 year old who just had his favorite toy taken away from him.

  • boballab

    ABC has now updated what the “deal” contains:

    The ceiling is increase between $2.1 to $2.4 Trillion depending on how it is to be paid for in the end.

    There is only $1.2 Trillion in cuts over 10 years “guaranteed”

    The further reduction of up to $1.6 Trillion can be via cuts or TAX INCREASES depending on what the commission recommends.

    Congress then votes on that recommendation. if by Dec 23rd they don’t pass that recommendation then across the board cuts go into effect.

    • Xasteius

      via Yid on the Lid

      • Xasteius

        nt

        • boballab

          What is on the Lids site is the original numbers reported by ABC. ABC since then has updated the report and what is on the Lids site is now out of date..

          From the Updated ABC report:

          Quote:

          Here, according to Democratic and Republican sources, are the key elements:

          A debt ceiling increase of up to $2.1 to $2.4 trillion (depending on the size of the spending cuts agreed to in the final deal).

          They have now agreed to spending cuts of roughly $1.2 trillion over 10 years.

          The formation of a special Congressional committee to recommend further deficit reduction of up to $1.6 trillion (whatever it takes to add up to the total of the debt ceiling increase). This deficit reduction could take the form of spending cuts, tax increases or both.

          The special committee must make recommendations by late November (before Congress’ Thanksgiving recess).

          If Congress does not approve those cuts by December 23, automatic across-the-board cuts go into effect, including cuts to Defense and Medicare. This “trigger” is designed to force action on the deficit reduction committee’s recommendations by making the alternative painful to both Democrats and Republicans.

          A vote, in both the House and Senate, on a balanced budget amendment.

          http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/07/white-house-republicans-strike-tenative-deal-to-raise-debt-ceiling-.html

    • tea4me

      …the cuts may not be enough for our liking. But there will be NO tax increases in such a deal. The best the left could get is across the board cuts. And we know they won’t stand for that. They will fight tooth and nail to limit cuts to their favored programs and tax increases won’t even be on the table for the,

      • boballab

        Chose deep cuts in defense spending with light cuts in Medicare or Tax Increases.

        • tea4me

          There’s a lot of other places to cut too. A lot! Across the board to me means…across the board. Everywhere!

          Guess we’ll have to see the bill to know for sure

          • boballab

            Here it is quoted once again:

            If Congress does not approve those cuts by December 23, automatic across-the-board cuts go into effect, including cuts to Defense and Medicare. This “trigger” is designed to force action on the deficit reduction committee’s recommendations by making the alternative painful to both Democrats and Republicans.

            This is an either or situation they have no choice in the matter. Either accept what the commission puts out or Defense and Medicare get cut. Now do you really think any commission that a Democrat sits on will not include Tax increases? the last debt commission recommend tax Increases and it was back by GOPers.

            Now lets say that Congress doesn’t agree to the Commissions recommendation that includes Tax Hikes. When that happens it is written into this deal that Defense get hit hard while Medicare doesn’t.

            Quote:

            Democrats won’t like the fact that Medicare could be exposed to automatic cuts, but the size of the Medicare cuts is limited and they are designed to be taken from Medicare providers, not beneficiaries.

            Two sources briefed on the framework say the automatic cuts would hit Defense spending harder than Medicare. A Republican briefed on the framework says this will be unacceptable to many Republicans because it could force them to face a choice between accepting tax increases (if that is what the committee recommends) or automatic cuts that would gut the Pentagon’s budget.

            So there it is GOPers will have a choice gut Defense or increase taxes. For Dems they get a choice of tax increases or a slight cut to Medicare. Remember back in 2009 the Dems cut Medicare by $500 Bn as part of Obamacare, so you can bet they would do it again for another tax increase.

  • http://www.AmericanThinker.com Hammer2008

    For goodness*** sake,

    I had to reread the ABC article three times tonight to absorb what a SELLOUT #compromise has become. This is nowhere close to what even Erick termed as awesome ( http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/07/30/you-know-what-would-be-awesome/ ). When the news goes dark, we can tell a #compromise is close.

    Be prepared to be deceived by the GOP House and Senate leadership. If they claim that this is the “best that we could get”, then they suck much wind. They have no clue how to negotiate, haggle, reach higher ground, especially when This Debt Ship is sinking our republic.

    These should have been the demands (and can yet still be), if nothing more than to get a Balanced Budget Amendment passed by Congress to the States. Not simply a vote — even if it could be pegged to take place in October 2012 to expose all those 23 Democrat Senators facing reelection.

    1, Change the bipartisan committee to only send the bill to each floor, but NOT without objection (*requires 60 votes in Senate to move further).

    2. Senator Toomey’s Debt Prioritization Plan becomes the trigger should Congress not accept the bipartisian committee’s plan; with the second debt ceiling increase NOT going into effect until mid-February 2013. That’s right, President Obama and all in Congress get to deal with pressure of six-straight-months of prioritization payments forced upon the Treasury — yet assuring markets that after six months, the U.S. may borrow again. (ref Toomey’s plan: http://www.politicspa.com/toomey-reintroduces-payment-prioritization-plan-with-debt-ceiling-deadline-looming/26442/ )

    3. Florida Rep. Connie Mack’s “Penny” plan linked below, supported by “130″ members of Republican Steering Committee (even the squishy ones) becomes the Fiscal Year 2013 budget framework — period: http://mack.house.gov/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=14d5b552-47e6-44f3-9c00-c038841dd57b

    4. Balanced Budget Amenment passed by Congress onto these United States of America.

    (How’s that for a crap sandwich democrats? No good? Then try this AlGore endorsed one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=u1N6QfuIh0g )

    ***I’m trying to tone down my language this next year as I hone in on these cowards that are ruining our nation for its children

    • tea4me

      A lot.

      It simply isn’t realistic. We need to take the Senate in large numbers and kick Obama out of office to hope for any of that.

      • bigredone

        You think this is 1976.

        It is 2011. People are fed up. I have been a GOP elected official, and I can tell you, you are advocating a path to get the GOP thrown to the curb.

        Folks don’t want any more Washington, D. C. compromise. They want action, and they want it now. No matter the pain. We can take the pain now versus death later.

        How’s that for “radical”?

        • tea4me

          I also know that no librul in Congress will ever pass it. We can’t stop a filibuster, we can’t stop a veto, and the Libruls would NEVER cave on any of that.

          We could have 100% support for this in among the public, but if the loons stand against it…we STILL lose! And once the deadline passes, the divying up begins. And I believe the most essential payments will be prioritized. But even that only lasts so long. At 41% borrowing per dollar spent, it won’t take long before every branch of governement other than the 5 most essential will be closed completely.

          This will include essential government services. I’d like to see most government bureaucracies closed permanently, but there are some we absolutely need. Republicans could only hold out for so long before the roof caves in. And then so will they.

          • tea4me

            i’m still open to your opinion. Lke I said last night, I can’t wait to hear Mark Levin’s take on this. My opinion will ultimately fall with his. I’m realistic enough to know personally, that that’s how it always falls out for me.

  • Xasteius

    $2.8 trillion in deficit reduction with $1 trillion locked in through discretionary spending caps over 10 years and the remainder determined by a so-called super committee.
    The Super Committee must report precise deficit-reduction proposals by Thanksgiving.
    The Super Committee would have to propose $1.8 trillion spending cuts to achieve that amount of deficit reduction over 10 years. If that doesn’t happen, across-the-board spending cuts would go into effect and could touch Medicare and defense spending.
    If the Super Committee fails, Congress must send a balanced-budget amendment to the states for ratification (at least according to Major Garrett, the ABC report is that there has to be a Balanced budget vote either way)
    The Super Committee is allowed to discuss spending cuts only…No net new tax revenue would be part of the special committee’s deliberations.

    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/319480.php

    • tea4me

      Hope it’s true.

      • boballab

        Link by the author (Daniel Horowitz) of this post. ABC since then has updated their post. So the best thing to do is go to the ABC post and read the thing yourself until other update their posts.

        http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/07/white-house-republicans-strike-tenative-deal-to-raise-debt-ceiling-.html

  • boballab

    will be good need to reread the ABC piece because the cuts fall more on Defense than on Medicare:

    Quote:

    Democrats won’t like the fact that Medicare could be exposed to automatic cuts, but the size of the Medicare cuts is limited and they are designed to be taken from Medicare providers, not beneficiaries.

    Two sources briefed on the framework say the automatic cuts would hit Defense spending harder than Medicare. A Republican briefed on the framework says this will be unacceptable to many Republicans because it could force them to face a choice between accepting tax increases (if that is what the committee recommends) or automatic cuts that would gut the Pentagon’s budget.

    • Paul Seale

      We didnt fight this hard, this long for a compromise just for Dems to sneak it in at last second.

      If it says no to tax increases and clamps down on the committee’s abilities, its more of a win.

      • acat

        Because they’re not addressed in this…

        Mew

        (quotes because, like every other good thing Obama’s done, he cribbed the tax cuts from Bush…)

        • Paul Seale

          You would know it is something that I felt is important which must be addressed in the details.

          As are who sits on on the committee and how much power does it really have (and what checks might there be against it being misused).

          So yes, Bush tax rates going away is a tax increase.

          It would be helpful to know what base line are they using.

          Likewise, I would not expect those tax rates to be made permanent in the budget.. But I also do not expect them to be rolled back, which is what President Obama and Dems were trying to do when this whole thing got started.

          That would have meant President Obama and Dems really didnt compromise in the lame duck session when we agreed to keep the tax cuts in exchange for extension of unemployment benefits.

          • acat

            Quibbling over the details of a plan I told you would be bad instead of holding the line and demanding a better plan.

            Mew

          • Paul Seale

            As a pose to 100% while flying over the cliff. (That is a quote from Ronald Reagan, and he is correct)

            Crash the car if you like. That is your business – but my self and I am fairly certain the majority of Americans would rather not.

            On this specific plan – I am unsure.

            If National Journal is correct, then I am leaning to support it.

            If ABC News is correct, then we must walk away until we get a deal that does not include tax increases – back door or other wise.

            To be frank, I would be okay if we had across the board cuts.. we need such a plan (I think wasnt it Rep Mack who came up with the idea?)..

            If ABC News is correct and it is not across the board and only hits defense – then its a farse.

            We wont know until details are released.. To be frank, this should be open to the public (pet peave of mine about this process).

          • boballab

            is what ABC was reporting (number wise and lack of possible tax hikes) before they updated their report. The author of this post quoted the numbers and condition from ABC and provided a link to the report. If you hit the link now you wil see the numbers have changed and the parts about the Commission being able to include tax hikes added in.

            I went looking around and the Bloomberg gives a number on how much Medicare would get cut if the automatic cuts went into effect: no more than 4%.

            They also have slightly different numbers: $1 trillion in cuts and up to an additional $1.8 trillion in “savings”.
            http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-31/white-house-republicans-said-to-reach-tentative-deal-on-u-s-debt-ceiling.html

          • acat

            with a side of Harry Reid pissing on my leg and telling me it’s raining.

            This is what I expected, Boehner folded.

            Mew

          • acat

            (nt)

  • tea4me

    Across the board to me says equal everywhere. Will have to see the plan before I make my mind up on that.

    • Christine (Trelaina)

      we have time to read it. I fear the compromise will hardly be public before Obama is signing it.

      That’s why we unfortunately have to get inside information.

      So far, things don’t smell too good….

  • fpete13527

    Translation of this plan:
    .
    Obama gets his $3 Trillion Obamacare funding increase, immediately of course – while everything else is is maybe, later, cave-able, and minimal except for immediate massive defense cuts with delayed conditional entitlement cuts probably not starting until around 2057 – but committees will talk about it with sincerity.

    More $Trillions in debt will additionally be increased next year during the “new” deal session and plentiful caving will abound there also. Staffers will ensure caving is built in to the GOP side.

    Also, once again, as stated prior, everything will get worked in the wee hours of the morning (like now) and staffers will finalize future portions during Christmas and again next year during a holiday – both times optimizing the cave-in propensity for McConnell and Boehner……just like last Christmas and the Christmas prior.

    Additionally, the left will call this a major sacrifice for Obama and will still demonize and blame the GOP (and Bush) for not raising the taxes on small business even though unemployment rate rockets toward 10% and the GDP at 1.3%

    This plan stinks and it needs to be DOA.

    Now is the time for the cave-in brothers to HTL and start turning this thing on the offensive – no matter what the cave-in-wait-till- later-we’re-helpless-demonize-the-Tea Party crowd says.

    • __t_i_m_o_t_h_y__

      Bill Kristol
      The WSJ
      Jennifer Rubin

    • bigredone

      You are correct, sir!

  • sarg01

    * $2.8 trillion in deficit reduction with $1 trillion locked in through discretionary spending caps over 10 years and the remainder determined by a so-called super committee.
    * The Super Committee must report precise deficit-reduction proposals by Thanksgiving.
    * The Super Committee would have to propose $1.8 trillion spending cuts to achieve that amount of deficit reduction over 10 years.
    * If the Super Committee fails, Congress must send a balanced-budget amendment to the states for ratification. If that doesn’t happen, across-the-board spending cuts would go into effect and could touch Medicare and defense spending.
    * No net new tax revenue would be part of the special committee’s deliberations.

    • Fla Mom

      Gee, if it sounds like a lot of money, it must be a great deal, right? What suckers our side are.

      Fla Mom

      • jimmyneutron

        when every man and his dog in the place know that those are absolutely meaningless. Are there that many staffers for Boehner, Cantor, et al posting today?

        Baseline budgeting has been mentioned before, so I won’t go over that again. We have heard this so many times – they promise that they are going to cut spending but it never turns out to be a real spending cut, it is a cut to the rate of growth (which gets added back in later in some committee) or it consists of cuts backloaded to years 9 & 10 of 10 year deals.

        We are going to go into debt an additional 20 or 30 trillion over the next 10 years (at least – I am thinking much more because when Obama care kicks in and the real expenses of that plan become obvious, I think they will take our breath away – in addition to which my bet is that the economy is going to continue to tank without a serious change of course so that we will see tax revenues continue to fall – it is a vicious positive feedback loop). Why are we supposed to get so excited about phantom 1 or 2 trillion cut in that timeframe?

        The devil is always in the details. At this point in time I would prefer a very short term limited deal and then take a few months to atttempt to negotiate a real deal. I would also suggest to Boehner and buddies that they include us in on the deal every step of the way. Publish all offers in excrutiating detail – no more closed door meetings, last minute agreements and publishing the deal as it is being signed. We may not get a long term deal until after the 2012 elections, but so be it then.

        Keep this dirty stinking messy process in front of the American people the entire time so they can’t forget about the fact that this country is going so far into debt that either we fix it thoughtfully now or it will fix itself in an extremely painful manner.

  • Ghost of John Brown

    We get dollar for dollar cuts vs. raise of the debt ceiling.

    According to National Journal, the select committee cannot talk about any net tax increases.

    Yes, there could be cuts to defense but there SHOULD be cuts in defense. We spend about $200 billion more annually in defense than we did during the Reagan years adjusted for inflation. The Defense Department is bloated and SHOULD be cut.

    Think about where we are with this. We have a Dem controlled Senate and a communist in the White House. Dems have been screaming about a “balanced” approach as what we need. We’re getting $2.8 Trillion in total cuts with no tax increase?

    Good grief – learn how to accept a victory.

    • Fla Mom

      Scoring political points in this decades-long dance in which government gets bigger and more intrusive?

      Or stopping increases in the budget and living within our means, period?

      It’s probably already too late, and the little that the true conservatives are asking for now will be looked back on wistfully.

      Fla Mom

    • bigredone

      Your definition of victory and mine are radically different.

      I don’t define victory as giving trillions in spending authority to a President who exhibits the propensity to spend that Obama exhibits in exchange for lower rates of spending increases for ten years into the future. It does NOT balance the books.

      We are not getting cuts. We are being sold down the river of Wimpee and his hamburger today to be paid for next Tuesday.

      We lose if this “deal” becomes law.

  • __t_i_m_o_t_h_y__

    We can beat this too.

    They have changed the terms of debate under our feet by promising and extending the debate.

    Lets cut the leadership off at the knees and change the conversation back to what we want, not what they say is possible.

  • http://aposematic.wordpress.com aposematic

    All six bullet points are terrible. How could any R be dumb enough to think any of this is good for them or the people is delusional at best.

  • anjinconsulting

    The Senate and Captain Zero are in no position to negotiate. They need a debt ceiling raise, and they need a budget. Credit downgrade is going to happen because we spend too much, not because we didnt get a debt limit increase. Repeat: Credit downgrade is going to happen because we spend too much, not because we didnt get a debt limit increase.

    Traitors Boehner and McConnell and their junta tried to work a deal a couple of different ways and the administration didnt play ball. Tell them to pass the CC&B so that reconciliation can begin in earnest or better yet, JUST WALK AWAY. Let them come back with a good faith offer like a vote on the BBA BEFORE beginning to renegotiate.

    It is July 31st and the world will not end next week because we dont have an escalation of the debt ceiling, Captain Zero is going to make the debt payment and SS, medicare and military paychecks will go out. If the rest of the government begins to atrophy so be it; let the insane clown asylum fight over it until the next election.

    Nothing less than the viability of the nation’s governement is at stake here. Even more so, the viability of the democrat’s political operation is at stake. Talking about compromise and waffling on principle is something that losers and cowards do; grow some stones folks.

    • bigredone

      It is time to just walk away.

  • rbdwiggins

    Capitulation will only slow the rate of growth, and compromise is nothing more than an enabler for an out of control bureaucracy.

    The only acceptable path is a plan that solves our long-term debt problem.

    An increase in the debt ceiling that mandates verifiable across-the-board, dollar-for-dollar cuts over three years and is wholly dependent on a Balanced Budget Amendment being certified and sent to the States for ratification.

  • boonerdan

    Even in The Shire, a $2.8T increase in NEW DEBT minus $1T in magical cuts sometime in the future is still an INCREASE IN THE DEBT!

    For those of you who think the BBA vote is so good, there is nothing to say that it gets passed. The Dems have proven they will close ranks, threaten grandma and orphans, and vote NO.

    Oh yeah, they also setup a “Special Commission” to “recommend” cuts. How has that worked out for the last 30 years?

    If you think this is a “grand deal”, please invite me to your next poker party!

  • babykaboomer

    The rodeo clowns. Obama is stuck on the horns of a dilemma, and we need to help distract the bull before Dear Leader is gored. Hey, he dug this hole, let him climb out on his own!

  • nepanyrush

    * Huge increase in debt ceiling that lasts past the elections, with limited known cuts
    * Only a vote on BBA, which Dems can defeat in Senate
    * GOP will have to vote again on accepting a committee’s recommendation or Defense gets gutted and Medicare cut, which means GOP has to support what some committee comes up with or Dems get a huge PR win.

    This sounds like everything Obama and the Dems want. Yes, there may be cuts without tax increases, but who knows what some committee will come up with. And all this power to a Committee (or else Defense budget slashed and Medicare cut).

  • jpalm

    They accomplished Boehner’s goal of screwing the Tea Party!
    They get enough Dem votes now!

  • jaykali

    Is anything more of a giveup than a commission? I wish they would stop messing around with commissions, they are obvious punts on tough issues.

  • dajeeps

    It acquiesces to big government by replacing the limitations of the enumberated powers with an arbitray rmoney cap (a measure the government can – and will- lie about). It doesn’t strip the government of power that it should not have, the reason it spends too much money, and there doesn’t seem to be any desire to do that. In case you weren’t paying attention last year, Democrats had a supermajority and would have been able to override ALL of the caps and add trillions in debt. Or maybe that is ok with you.

    It is not worth putting ourselves in the position to take the blame for what Obama has done to the economy, and you know they will, with the help of the MSM, pin the blame for the coming crash/second dip on us.

    Dump the BBA requirement – get real cuts big enough to keep us from being downgraded and live to fight another day, already.

    • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

      to think unilaterally surrendering to your opponents will change their fetish for blaming you for alll their problems.

      We cave, they stop blaming us? No, no no.

      If you can’t win the day on your message and won’t fight, make room for someone who will.

      • dajeeps

        Just not be like General Lee at Gettysberg.

        I don’t agree with the demands, either, because the “why” government spends too much is completely ignored. There are other ways to spend and be statist, the BBA just shifts where the bill will come from, not the necessity of it to be paid. And it doesn’t even touch the agency debt, that as of 12/2010 was 80% of the debt held in treasuries. That is all off budget. It isn’t even included in the ~$14.5T number that’s being tossed about or subject to the debt ceiling.

        There is a fantasy floating around that the BBA will have a limiting effect on government, which really amazes me considering that from 2009-10, Democrats had a supermajority and could get anything they wanted by just overriding the caps – even ObamaCare. And if you look at H.J. Res. 1, it wouldn’t have changed anything about the last 10 years. We would still be int he same place with spending and debt, and with no budget because there is no requirement to pass one.

        And then I think about the amendments that were made after the Civil War, and it is quite telling about what they thought their problems were. They fixed the ‘why’ of secession, but not secession itself after more than 500,000 people died in the war.

        Yes, government spends us into the poorhouse, but it does it manily with power it has assumed and does not rightfully belong to it, and nearly all of it is unconsitutional. The 13th &14th amendments overruled Dred Scott, and we need to overrule slaughterhouse and the other gross distortions of the commerce clause all the way through the New Deal Court and beyond. After that, the spending and problems with statism at the Federal level will be mitigated.

  • carolina

    He refused to use the words “tax hike”. However, we all know that we are at risk.

  • runner12

    it is beginning to look like a very bad deal. There is room for some back door tax increases and the so-called “cuts” are a joke. Added to that the BBA vote will be another symbolic one. They should have held out for the BBA to be a pre-requisite for raising the debt ceiling.

    If the reports coming out are accurate, any principled conservative must vote against this.

    • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

      The Repubs are caving on EVERYTHING.

      • runner12

        According to a panelist on the Fox morning show, reports are coming out of Capitol Hill that the trigger to cut defense would slash it by 50%, with caps only on Medicare.

        Can anyone explain to me how that is a win for us, much less the American people?

        The meme is already going around that Boehner may have to rely on Dem votes to pass this disaster if the House GOP does the right thing and rejects this so-called compromise.

        I bet that knife in th back of those new GOP members by Boehner is smarting about now.

  • clintonformccain

    RedState and Daily KOS are both on the verge of meltdown. :)

    Looks like to me that I had Obama pegged all along. He would cave as long as he got the can kicked down the road past the election. That’s the only thing he’s ever cared about.

    • nepanyrush

      He got his debt ceiling increase
      He got enough to not have to deal with until after the election
      There is only a vote on the BBA, so he can expect that to be defeated in the Senate
      He got things kicked to a committee, and Congress will take the hit for any cuts to Medicare/Defense
      Even tax reform seems to remain on the table, which could be code for a way to get some tax increases in.

      I am not sure where his sacrifice is?

      • fpete13527

        Only the Kristol and Yosemite McCain coalition would consider this anything but garbage

        • fpete13527

          nt

      • clintonformccain

        If I recall, the Republican position going into this whole mess was:

        1) dollar for dollar cuts to match any debt ceiling increase

        2) no net tax increases (although tax reform was on the table)

        The Republican position was never to prevent a ceiling increase thru 2012 as long as there were offetting cuts. and no net tax increases. The Republican position was never tied to an unachievable 2/3rds majority vote for a BBA in both houses of congress.

        • kyconservative

          Everyone knows the “cuts” are either phony accounting gimmicks or pushed so far into the future they will never be implemented.

          Tax increases? I think not raising taxes in this economy is pretty must a given. I (and most Republicans) would refuse to raise the debt ceiling in a second before agreeing to tax increases.

          We need to stand firm on CC & B or a bill that contains cuts to spending this fiscal year or else let Tuesday come and go. Moreover, if McConnell, Boehner, Cantor & Co. pass their nonsense, we need need Congressional leadership ASAP. If we can’t do that, then conservatives need to form their own party.

          • clintonformccain

            I hardly think that no tax increases was a “given”. Maybe you’ve missed the last two months of Obama calling for “balanced approach” with a non-negotiable demand for tax increases. He only used the phrase 7 times in one speech last Monday night.

          • kyconservative

            to make people like you think Obama was giving something up in the negotiations when they actually never seriously thought any tax increase was possible in the House.

            I wish I could play poker for a living with the Republican Congressional leadership and their staffers. I could retire by the end of the year.

          • gekster

            It’s called the Republican party.
            You will have to show where a third party has ever worked.
            If you don’t like the party as it is, then chage it from the inside.
            (see ColdWarrior)
            Third parties only split the conservative vote, and hand the libs a solid win.

        • fpete13527

          The Boehner, McConnell, and liberal progressive, Republican faction of the GOP was never tied to a BBA. They faked the outward support while employing staffers to work on this piece of garbage.

          The legislators who wrote the BBA, at the request of the core conservative base of the GOP, were 100% clear it was a requirement, regardless and knowing that there would be a fight to get it.

          • clintonformccain

            Gettting a 2/3rds supermajority vote for a BBA in a Democrat controlled Senate as a condition for a debt ceiling increase was never in the cards. Not raising the debt ceiling was never in the cards. If you believed those were actually possible, then you set yourself up for disappointment, I guess.

          • kyconservative

            Although I was never one to insist on BBA passage as a non-negotiable condition of a deal (guaranteed spending cuts THIS YEAR to actually cut spending significantly and not just the rate of increase of spending would have staisfied me), we could have gotten it, I believe.

            Once Tuesday passes with no deal, the stock market will likely drop 5-10% immediately and then a lot more after that. The global ecomony will be in chaos. People will be at the White House with pitchforks demanding action. The fact that Obama refuses to compromise on something 75% of Americans support (BBA) will not give him any leeway to successfully blame anyone else. By September 1 I predict we would have had a BBA headed to the states for ratification. Republicans are just crappy poker players, that’s all

          • acat

            That would give the Dems a new battleground, give the State GOPs something else to beat the Dems over the head with, and wouldn’t require Congress to do any heavy lifting for at least 3-5 years.

            Mew

          • kyconservative

            That letting Tuesday pass with no action would put a TREMENDOUS amount of stress on Obama and his team. My guess is that they would wilt under this pressure and do something stupid, like

            1) claim the 14th amendment gives them authority to unilaterally act (it doesn’t — sec. 4 was inserted to insure reconstructed southerners honored war debts incurred by the Union)

            2) print $2 trillion in money and use it to pay the nation’s debts.

            3) refuse to send out social security, medicare, veterans or active duty armed forces checks.

            Any of these actions taken by Obama under extreme duress in the heat of the moment would either initiate a constitutional crisis (#1), cause turmoil in the markets (#2) or really tick off most Americans (#3)

            With any of these outcomes, Obama would be toast, 100% guaranteed. I don’t think he or his staff have enough experience under pressure to avoid doing something stupid like one of these courses of action. It’s like blitzing on 3rd down and long in football. Make the opposing Q-Back make critical decisions under extreme duress. Most can’t, particularly rookies. They screw up or fold under pressure.

          • acat

            without a constitutional crisis.

            It will, however, move us very much closer to inflation, and cost Obama the election in 2012.

            Mew

          • fpete13527

            It was never in your cards and it was never in the progressive’s cards.

            At minimum, the BBA fight needs to stay on the table and pushed as long as necessary, whether the progressives feel it is a waste of time or not.

    • clintonformccain

      “A complete and total capitulation!

      “This is complete surrender, nothing less. Not ONE penny of taxes on the rich.

      Why doesn’t Obama just negotiate a capitulation on next years election?

      This is truly sickening!

      The Democratic caucus would be complete fools to accept this. They might as well line up at the slaughter house.”

      • kyconservative

        You can’t pay any attention to what they say. We could repeal the Bush tax custs as a part of this deal and they still would complain. Smart Democrats as well as Obama’s campaign strategists are breathing a huge sigh of relief with this bill. They are crossing their fingers and praying to God, Allah, Buddha and every other diety that Republicans are either sellouts or gullible enough to support this. Obama knows he will be home free until after his re-election and that was his big goal.

        • clintonformccain

          The ONLY thng Obama ever cared about was kickng the can down the road past his re-election. He just sold out his base for his own political purposes. He caved to the Republicans on every key point in exchange for getting through 2012.

          • acat

            This cat sure doesn’t see where Obama caved.

            Mew

          • swami7774

            I’m with Dick Morris on this: the damage Obama has absorbed–and will keep absorbing–from this episode is substantial and lasting. The economy will still suck next year, we’re still going to get a bond downgrade, and he will lose.
            Would it really have been a good thing for this issue to resurface next year? Wouldn’t our side be even more skittish and likely to cave on a worse deal?

      • fpete13527

        ….other than progressives.

      • acat

        Tax increases on the rich? Gee, did we somehow *stop* the Bush/Obama tax cuts from ending? If not then .. I’d call that more taxes. Morons!

        Mew

        • Doc Holliday

          but tactically it could help us, the economy will not improve as long as Obama is around, let us wrap this tax increase around his neck. Obama needs to go, that should be the first and last thing we say, like a Marine at Parris Island, with “sir”.

          And the tax cuts don’t expire until after the election.

  • caboose

    bill just to satisfy making a deal is ludicous. The Dems/Commies will vote it down and cover their @$$e$ with lame excuses, while the republicans stand with their finger up their casoot and plead insanity.

  • http://www.AmericanThinker.com Hammer2008

    http://news.yahoo.com/congress-closing-deal-avert-us-default-163724983.html

    “Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) voted against Reid?s plan, as did Reid himself in a procedural move that allows him to bring it back to the floor.

    Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) was the only senator to miss the vote.”

    If Senator Reid can lie to claim that six conservative Senators that voted along with Dems against Speaker of “The People’s” House Boehner’s bill ( ref: http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2011/07/harry-reids-claim-that-a-bipartisan-majority-voted-against-the-boehner-bill-is-an-intentional-fraud.html ), than can one say Reid’s bill wasn’t even fit for proclaimed Socialist Senator Sanders (I-Vt.)??

    • http://www.AmericanThinker.com Hammer2008

      … even in the best of times.

  • __t_i_m_o_t_h_y__

    “What is the magic in the $2.4 trillion addition to the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling?”

    “Answer: $365 billion. That is the average increase in federal debt per quarter since the middle of 2008. $2.4 trillion is six quarters worth of that… which is sufficient to see the current set of politicians safely past the 2012 elections.”

    via: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/07/debt-ceiling-dance.html

    • __t_i_m_o_t_h_y__

      Which–by Occam’s Razor–explains the behavior of Boehner since day 0.

      Which, suggests a Tea Party strategy; Insist on less than that average and call it a reasonable compromise.

      Then we can watch Boehner light up a cigarette on the house floor while his hands shake and he sweats a lot.

      It is time to have some fun and use the Rhino game against the Rhinos.

  • fortcollins

    The negotiations (and media reactions) are starting to sound far too much like the annual U.S.-Soviet arms talks of the 1970′s and early 1980′s. Then, the media pushed for “an agreement, any agreement because no agreement pushes the world to the brink of the unthinkable.” The media nearly had a collective stroke when President Reagan walked away without offering an annual “agreement.” Yet, his boldness and courage in doing so played a key part in destroying the Soviet Union.

    Right now all of the media outlets — including Fox — are openly pushing for “an agreement, any agreement because no agreement pushes the American economy to the brink of the unthinkable.”

    Where is our Reagan? Where is any courage to tell the Emperor the truth about his new clothes?

    On Friday, The Hill reported that Moody’s acknowledges that failure to raise the debt ceiling will not be treated as default, as long as both principal and interest payments are made on existing debt. Moody’s (like S&P) ‘likely” will downgrade the AAA bond rating regardless of any agreement, because the amount of debt is untenable.

    Many posters have noted that cuts to spending increases and to planned future spending are not budget cuts. Ditto to those comments.

    A vote on a BBA is worse than no vote on the BBA. Because the amendment needs a supermajority to pass, all red-state Democrats in the Senate seeking reelection in 2012 are free to vote “for” the BBA, knowing that it will still fail to pass. Far from placing them on record against a BBA, the vote will hand them talking points for the 2012 elections. A vote without linking to a requirement that it pass would therefore harm GOP chances in 2012.

    Both McConnell’s office and the White House are stating that the new commission would have authority to consider spending cuts and “tax reform.” We all know where that would head.

    At its very best, the purported agreement is an agreement to agree in the future. At its worst, it is complete capitulation.

    How does the GOP get out of this mess at the 11th hour?

    Option #1: Just say “no.” The sun will still rise on Tuesday and Wednesday and beyond. Comrade Obama will have to make a choice between actively placing the U.S. in default and making substantial cuts to discretionary spending. Once the effect of “no” actually takes hold, the playing field changes for negotiations. This takes sand, which appears to be in fairly short supply among Senate and House leadership.

    Option #2: Walk. The GOP could have every member vote “Present” on the negotiated bill, forcing Democrats to pass it without GOP support. That takes the GOP out of the media blamestorming, and makes the Democrats responsible for the result. This would be seen by many as a failure of leadership, especially in the House.

    Option #3: Capitulate. The GOP could split the votes, with enough supporting the bill for it to pass as a “bipartisan” (translation: Democrat) measure. This is the most likely result, and allows Comrade Obama to pretend that he has leadership skills, allows the Democrats to announce that they overcame horrible Tea Party obstructionism to save America, and allows the GOP power structure to maintain unfettered control of the party. It essentially negates the 2010 election and affirms the suspicion of a sizeable minority that there is not much difference between Democrat and GOP leadership in Congress.

    Option #4: Split. House conservatives could lay down the gauntlet with Boehner, letting him know that they will leave the GOP caucus if the bill is presented to the House in its present form. This would relegate Boehner to a minority leader, return Pelosi to the Speaker’s seat (without the ability to pass anything), and clearly differentiate conservatives from the GOP leadership. This would allow the House conservatives to use Erick’s ploy of giving Reid and Obama the choice of repealing Obamacare or passing a BBA as a condition of raising the debt ceiling. Boehner would be compelled to advocate for one of the other or to surrender his Speakership.

    None of the choices are pretty. More options would have existed, but for the late hour and incessant efforts of McConnell (in particular) to seek compromise at any price with a far more skilled and devious negotiator.

    JMHO.