Budget talks: This is getting nasty

He answered pretty clearly, saying the GOP members of the House had seen plenty of proposals and counterproposals, and that things were outlined Friday night.

Please tell me you're not naive enough to believe the President doesn't know what he wants. He may not have drawn u a plan because, as he's said all along, he preferred a plan to be reached by compromise. Does he have a plan written down to ship off to Congress? Maybe not, but I'm betting from all the negotiations, they could draw one up in a couple of hours.

But why bother? It's DOA in the House. He presented his plan to House negotiators, who didn't like it and decided to try to marginalize him. Maybe he should come out with it now, but what would be the point? To show what he wants? He's already told us that several times over.

 

So, for example, stop exempting anything beyond the first $100,000 (or whatever the exact figure is) from payroll tax? So that if I make $50,000, I don't pay a ridiculously larger percentage of my income in payroll tax (6.2%) than the guy making $500,000 (roughly 1.25%, based on the cap being $100K)?

Sure, that sounds good.

 

To expand the amount of taxpayers, you have to have workers ... make more money.

Problem is, they're not. Middle class wages have stagnated for the last 30-plus years. That's due to a number of factors. Corporate greed. The global economy. Technological improvements.

Tech improvements really can't be dealt with. It's all part of modernization. But corporate greed and the global economy can be dealt with. But they're dirty words. Higher taxes on the wealthy. Tarriffs, or punishments for companies shipping jobs overseas.

I fully agree that spending needs to be cut. But the thing is, aside from political BS and pork, there wouldn't need to be so much money spent by the government if workers earned more money.

 

If the negotiations made Obama look weak, then they've made Boehner look even weaker. I would suspect Boehner should be ready to move out of the speaker's chair after the 2012 elections -- even if, or especially if, Republicans maintain control of the house.

 

Yes and no.

I'd say that for the most part, the Conference still supports Boehner.

In some ways, it makes him look weak that he can't get this new Bill through the House (remember, he already passed Cut, Cap, and Balance).

But, it also makes him look like a guy willing to compromise. He's the adult in his room. And, he get's to play good cop to Cantor's bad cop.

And, that would make it harder for the Dems to demonize him.

The Dems were never able to demonize Dennis Hastert. Who could dislike Denny? (Though he did have some really shady business dealings.) Meanwhile, Tom DeLay - who for most of the time held the number three position -- was the "hammer".

If Cantor were to step up, he'd be on the firing line. The Republicans are far better off with Boehner -- the sensitive guy who cries at the drop of a hat -- in the lead role, and with Cantor leading the pitchfork brigade in the background.

 

I would agree the Republicans are better off with Boehner. And I don't think the Democrats want to "demonize" him. As you've pointed out, His Royal Orangeness is someone they can work with.

But Boehner is not really leading the House Republicans -- the Tea Party is only giving him permission until such time as they amass the power and will to depose him. Cut, cap and balance is a Tea Party idea, not a Republican idea. And it's not a good sign for Boehner's leadership that the Republicans are rejecting his latest debt-ceiling compromise so quickly.

If -- and this is a big if -- Bachmann is losing to Romney and decides to run for president as a third-party candidate as a Tea Partier, then all bets are off for Republicans. The money and energy for the party comes from the Tea Party. The Republican party itself is otherwise an organizational and financial mess. The Tea Party needs the Republican brand name to give it more legitimacy with independents, but with the way they're not lining up behind Boehner, who knows how long that will last?

Really, half the problem in these negotiations is Republicans and Democrats unable to find common philosophical ground. The other half is Republicans and Tea Partiers unable to find the same. (As I recall, one of the issues behind the NFL lockout for a while was the owners themselves not being united on a plan, so this kind of thing has happened before in very recent memory.)

 

I'm not sure why this surprises people.

For some, this is a wet dream. By doing nothing they get to shrink the Federal budget by 40% or so in one fell swoop.

Now, I think it's unrealistic because interest payments on the current debt alone eat up too much money. But the "true believers" want to kill Government programs, entitlements, and entire Departments.

They look at this as a way to accomplish that.

Though, with a Democrat in the White House, if spending has to be "prioritized", I don't think they'll like where his priorities are.

It will be a major shit show if we don't pass some increase in the debt ceiling. But, some people think it's worth it -- desirable even.

 

Good points. And, as impatient as the "Tea Party" is, I think they know they are far better off trying to take over the Republican Party than they are if they go third party.

Sure, there are some kooks who would like to go third party, but it's not worth it if they can accomplish their goals by working through the Republican Party.

And, I still need to point out -- again -- that the Democrats have the exact same problem.

Boehner is willing to compromise. He's willing to do a deal without the "Tea Party's" support.

But their aren't enough Dems to work with to do it.

 

YF, as you know, a lot of those true believers are well into retirement age.

Do they understand that the largest of those entitlement programs affect them and them alone? Do they also understand that the military would be the second expense cut to the bone?

There has to be an intellectual heart beating somewhere in the deep recesses of the Tea Party that reconciles these things. I'm just having a difficult time locating it.

 

Oh, and I would say that Boehner had to pass Cut, Cap, and Balance in order to set up a compromise.

Without doing so, the "Tea Party" would always say that they didn't give it a shot. Now he can show them that there was no way to get it done. He can push for a compromise and tell them to win more elections in '12 and they can try to bring it back.

 

Here's the thing: If you cut people's taxes, you enable companies to pay them the same amount -- or even less -- on an aggregate basis and still have them end up with more money in their paychecks. So you are, in effect, subsidizing corporate profits by removing the burden of maintaining wages in line with the cost of living (we'll not even get into increasing wages). No wonder, then, that corporate America claims to advocate for lower personal income taxes as well.

Also, and this is not my idea, the idea of things like working tax credits, child tax credits, etc.? That is effectively the government sanctioning and subsidizing employers to pay a wage upon which one cannot live.

I dunno if all that has a point. Just things to consider in the grander scheme.

 

Compromise is always a good thing but when you're elected to lead the country you need to actually, you know, fucking lead every once in awhile.