Deal or No Deal?

Typical (4.00 / 2)

I'm getting pretty tired of the political posturing that results in a "deal" being announced at 11 p.m. on the very last day available for a budget settlement. Perhaps we should insist in fines for representatives - senators and house members - who cannot get their job done on time. In fact, perhaps the American people at some point might be ready to admit the truth of two facts:

1. If Republicans actually believe that "government is the problem," they should resign from office immediately. They are unfit for office.

2. If career politicians cannot represent the voters who sent them to Washington rather than the lobbyists and the wealthy who give them money, they should get a real job.

Good luck on both counts.

---

by: Elaine in Roanoke @ Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 03:37:44 AM UTC

This, and... (0.00 / 0)

This is a completely trumped up deadline.  The REAL deadline was 6 months ago, since then we've been living on CRs while Congress tried to get its collective head out of its collective ass.  Now here we are, one blocked Omnibus bill and several CRs later, looking at a possible end to this mess and we're supposed to be standing up and cheering??!!?  For what?  It's all bullhockey, plain and simple.

---

by: Clemgo3165 @ Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 03:48:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Stephen Stromberg writes (0.00 / 0)

at Post Partisan:

...we aren't necessarily through with shutdown scares this year, and Friday's deal may make them more likely. It absolves the brinksmanship that led to it, rewarding Republican leaders for saying no until the last minute with more spending cuts than Democrats said they were willing to approve. It has fueled a nasty back-and-forth between the parties that encourages mistrust. These factors, combined with the fact that the speaker will have to convince his Tea Party wing to swallow the deal by promising bigger fights in the future, could make this sort of behavior more probable later, when the stakes are higher.

Higher stakes...like the upcoming debt ceiling debate (which shouldn't even be a debate if we were dealing with rational, sane people), and also on the 2012 budget debate. I sure hope that, as part of this deal, the Democrats got rock-solid assurances from Republicans that they'll at least vote for the absolutely necessary debt limit increase. If not, what was the point of all this, other than to not shut down the government for a few days?

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 10:19:18 AM UTC

The point is... (0.00 / 0)

To make the other guy look bad, and themselves look good with their supporters.  They haven't won any friends among the normal and sane with this game playing, and if they try it again they'll lose even more.  

Times like this, we need adults running the government.  I'm not sure there are enough adults on the Hill to even properly chaperone all the children.

---

by: Clemgo3165 @ Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:44:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'd really like to know what the (0.00 / 0)

details of this "deal" are.  Where are the cuts being made?  How many riders really made it into the deal and what are they?  I've searched this morning and don't see a comprehensive list of what the deal is.  Do we have any real proof that the deal will get enough votes to pass this week?  I heard Anthony Weiner tweeted last night that he wasn't sure he could support the deal.  The Tea Party Nation tweeted they are going to primary Boehner because he gave in and didn't get enough. So, will there be enough votes to get it through if both Dems and the Tea Party think it is a lousy deal?

---

by: pontoon @ Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 12:15:18 PM UTC

See (0.00 / 0)

Reuters for more detail:

KEY DETAILS

The short-term measure cuts nearly $2 billion in spending from transportation and housing programs, including $1.5 billion from a high-speed rail program and $280 million from capital investment grants.

The longer-term agreement will cut spending in the current 2011 fiscal year by about $38 billion, including $17.8 billion from benefit programs, or "entitlements," lawmakers said.

The rest would come from so-called discretionary spending, including a cut of $3 billion from defense programs, according to House Appropriations Committee Chairman Mike Rogers.

Changes in mandatory spending, or "CHIMPs" in Washington-speak, minimize the impact of the spending cuts in future budget cycles because they do not lower the baseline levels for discretionary programs such as space exploration or housing, whose funding levels are set by Congress each year.

The package of cuts falls short of the $61 billion that Republicans passed through the House in February, but it is still above the original proposal they advanced in January.

Measured another way, the longer-term agreement cuts $78.5 billion from the budget proposal submitted by Obama to Congress a year ago for the current fiscal year, which began on Oct. 1.

:

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 12:32:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks Lowell (0.00 / 0)

But what are the entitlements that are being cut...it's all still pretty vague.  Do they know, or was a number assigned to an area like "Benefits programs" and they still have to hash out the specific programs?

When, if ever, are Dems going to attack these tax giveaways to the rich and the corporate subsidies to oil companies and ethanol?  If we gave up so much, why didn't Repubs have to give something up other than defunding planned parenthood and NPR?  Do Dems know how to negotiate?

---

by: pontoon @ Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 12:43:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

More details (0.00 / 0)

here:

Before discussing that, let me make two points.  First, the short-term deal cuts clean-tech programs (and one can assume that the full-year package will have even deeper cuts in both clean energy and  in environmental programs).  Here's some of what I was sent on a short-term deal's $2 billion in cuts:

A Summary of the $2 billion in reductions contained in the 1-week CR is below:

Section 295 cuts funding for the Transportation Planning, Research, and Development account from $16.1 million in FY 2010 to $9.8 million....

Section 298 reduces FY 2011 funding for FRA High Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail to $1 billion, a reduction of $1.5 billion from FY10.

Section 299 reduces the Federal Railroad Administration's Research and Development account to $35.1 million, a reduction of $2.513 million below FY 2010....

Section 301 reduces funding for the Transit Research and University Research Centers Program to $64.2 million.

So  the brunt of the short-term cuts come from R&D and medium-term efforts to reduce oil consumption -  at a time that oil prices are soaring again!

I will report on the details of the  $38 billion in cuts when I have them.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 13:29:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks, Lowell. n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: pontoon @ Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 14:26:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pathetic performance al around. (0.00 / 0)

What I'd like to see is the president submit the budget, not leave it to TeaPublicans, or Max Baucus and his pal Kent Conrad, though even Conrad opposes Paul Ryan's upcoming effort to impose the sham/boogus/giveaway-to-the-rich Koch Budget on America.

I would also like to see Dems getting ahead of the TeaPublican nonsense.  Had they (or enough of them) been brave enough to spell out that, for example, apx 3 million more women (and some men) would then go without cancer screenings, basic tests, and physical exams, then maybe this whole past week could have been avoided. They needed to do this on every single major outcome of the GOP cuts.  They should have been everywhere, not quietly hand-wringing, except for the few who ventured to MSNBC.  (My boycott of MSNBC didn't last either And if they cannot figure out how to do this, they should be forced to watch Cenk at 6 PM on MSNBC or take a framing class or classes.  Let's hope they do it before the next round.  Cenk can sum up in one sentence what the sound bites could be.  Why cannot Democrats?

Then the Senate needed to promote the WH budget by using it as a basis for negotiations.  

If the WH would send over the bill it wants, we would be a lot better off (I hope).  But leaving everything up to TeaPublicans in the House is a recipe for disaster and puts the WH in a one-down position.

Giving Orange Man such power is really foolish.

There's nothing in the middle of the road except yellow stripes and dead armadillos (Jim Hightower). PS I'm on Twitter here.

---

by: KathyinBlacksburg @ Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 12:31:52 PM UTC

But... (0.00 / 0)

The President DID propose a budget.  These cuts are to Obama's proposal.  The deal was hashed out between the WH, Reid and Boehner.  I agree that the Dems need to be more outspoken and on message, but like it or not, the Republicans DO have power with their numbers in the House.

---

by: Clemgo3165 @ Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 14:51:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It (the WH) did. (0.00 / 0)

Originally, he did.  So you are right.  And it is true that it is the Congress's fault a budget wasn't passed BEFORE the new Congress was sworn in.  It's pathetic that they didn't do it.  But along the way, as the Congress failed to act before the new Congress took over, the budget got lost in the shuffle. As far as I know, he sent no modifications/revisions, but rather allowed the GOp to control the process.  In essence, the wrote it.  Since the fall election, the GOP took over the process as if they won the WH.   With every demand by the GOP, The WH caved.  Ultimately, the WH bested the GOP's original demand by 20%.  (They originally demanded $30 billion. The Wh and Senate handed over $38 on the  backs of important programs and the poor.  

There is also a 2012 budget, which originated in the administration and about which I will write about shortly.  But you'd be hard pressed to know it.  It is as if the media don't even want to discuss it.  And the President hasn't talked about it, introduced it to the public or pushed for his budget at all.  And so he might as well have done nothing.  I may not be giving him enough credit.  But the WH can do better than that. President Obama is president.  He should drive the process, not just call everyone to the WH at the last minute.

Now a new budget languishing and not introduced to the American public (with some fanfare, as previous presidents have done).  I wonder if Obama will continue letting Paul Ryan drive this process.  I hope not.   The President has a narrow window to get back in the driver's seat.


There's nothing in the middle of the road except yellow stripes and dead armadillos (Jim Hightower). PS I'm on Twitter here.

---

by: KathyinBlacksburg @ Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 23:34:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We have been shocked doctrined (4.00 / 1)

This is what has been happening since the GOP won in November.

It is sad to see how little of the budget does so much to make this country great. And those program have just been made a lot weaker or effectively non-existent.

Had these cuts been done together with tax hikes, then we would be talking about solving a deficit. But this has nothing to do with it. Why give up on the deficit when deficits can be used to destroy pro-social programs?

There will be no one moment that we can look back and point at the time when the U.S. fully abandoned the New Deal and devolved into a country with  3rd world dynamics, but it will be around this time.

What the GOP did is what the IMF and World Bank do to countries in crisis. But at least the leaders of those countries can pretend that it was some foreign body that force them to make draconian cuts in social programs.

The GOP, with the help of Democrats, did it to their own country.

---

by: Hugo Estrada @ Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 14:53:17 PM UTC

A Depressing Look Into Our Future? (0.00 / 0)

Not only are you right but the World Bank and IMF have a track record of often exacerbating economic problems in underdeveloped third world countries with their so called help. Their bailouts, which often come with the imposition of draconian budget cuts and forced austerity plans, frequently leave misery for ordinary people in their wake.  

---

by: AnonymousIsAWoman @ Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 23:54:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]