Budget talks: This is getting nasty

Because covering the horse race is a lot easier than covering the issues.

Covering issues requires taking complex subject matter and simplifying it into little nuggets that will both capture the attention and be understood by a listening public with an increasingly short attention span. A very difficult task.

 

Load of crap, sub

 

A list of the packages the GOP has rejected:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_07/refusing_to_take_yes_for_an_an031072.php

* Democrats asked Republicans to pass a clean bill, just as GOP leaders had supported many times in the past. Republicans said, “No.”

* Democrats invited Republicans to Biden-led bipartisan talks. Republicans quit.

* Democrats offered a $2.4 trillion debt-reduction package, 83% of which would come from spending cuts. Republicans said, “No.”

* Democrats sought a Grand Bargain, with more than $4 trillion in savings. Republicans said, “No.”

* Several Democrats offered some preliminary support for the “Gang of Six” blueprint. Republicans said, “No.”

* Many more Democrats signaled support for the McConnell/Reid “Plan B.” Republicans said, “No.”

Is it me, or is there a pattern to all of this?

Late yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced his support for a yet another approach that would meet all of the GOP demands: it would (1) include about $2.7 trillion in debt reduction; (2) bring in nothing in the way of new revenue; and (3) require only one debt-ceiling increase this Congress, just as GOP leaders requested.

Someone please tell me -- what the hell do these Tea Partiers want? I can see if you're a liberal, most of these deals would make you seethe. But it's the Tea Party constantly saying, "No." If what they want is something that has to be their own idea, accepted in full, they ARE fucking loony, because part of the governing process is compromise. Otherwise, you get nothing done, and the system gets thrown into chaos.

And when I say Tea Partiers, I don't mean just the legislators. I mean the people who voted for them, too.

 

They believe that raising the debt ceiling is a compromise.

Without it, they've just cut Government by 40%. They're negotiating from there.

 

From Saturday.

These two do not look like they like each other:

 

When you find that the CBO does not show an increased trend (Tarp aside) in non-defense discretionary spending, get back to me. When you find that the CBO does show an increase in taxable income after the Bush cuts, get back to me. When you find evidence of a "blank check for a spending spree" get back to me.

Otherwise, you just presented a bullshit rant based on emotion, not fact.

 

I know that how one views what's going on is colored by one's ideological biases, but I am starting to get a feeling that neither side really wants a deal.

 

That's Obama's fault. He allowed the goalposts to be moved from the start. We'd probably be somewhere closer to the middle if the goalposts didn't start there.

 

There's more than one side to this. I'm part of the group that doesn't like elements of either extreme, but wants a realistic compromise in the middle. Some cuts, some tax raises (for the life of me, I don't see how they don't raise the limit on social security, given that's where we are running the biggest deficit).

For us, it's who's trying to compromise, who's not? Who's trying to get things done, who's not?

I think it's clear who has tried to meet in the middle, hell, not even the middle, and who won't budge.

 

For a percentage of people on both sides I think that's probably true.

 

Agree, though that's no surprise given Obama's track record on hard, bloody negotiations.

I'm not so sure about this. Much of the electorate may see what appears to be happening here as weakness on the Democrats' part.

Both parties in Congress are extremely unpopular. But they may prefer a party they hate but respect for being tough and strong over a party that they may hate a little less but perceive as weak and not worthy of respect.

 

OK, say, Obama walks in and says unilaterally that the debt ceiling HAS to be tied to nothing but taxing the rich AND letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Sure, he'd look "strong." And the conversation would never get started.

As YF noted, the Tea Party looks at merely raising the debt ceiling as "compromise." There appears to be no convincing them otherwise that the compromise is about how it's raised, not whether it's raised, no matter how many Wall Street types have come to Washington and explained the consequences of default.

If people, as suburbia notes, prefer a party they hate but respect for being tough and strong, then people are really, really fucking stupid. At some point, it's about getting shit done, and having the ability and means to govern, not just sign fucking pledges. If there's a criticism I have of Obama in his negotiations, it's that he keeps sticking his hand in the Tea Party wood-chipper and expects that, this time, he'll come back with his hand intact. However, with the Tea Party effectively in control of the House, Obama has no choice but to keep sticking his hand in that wood chipper.

By the way, I say the Tea Party is in control, not Republicans, because without the Tea Party, the Republican Party IS dead as an electoral force. The Tea Party IS different from the Republican Party. The Tea Party just was able to use the brand name of the Republicans to get itself elected, rather than having to form a third party. Heck, one of the best things that can happen for Obama in 2012 is that Bachmann -- if she loses the primary -- runs as the Tea Party candidate. I bet she gets more votes than the Republican.