Budget talks: This is getting nasty

What will happen to the Tea Party come Aug. 2 - or whenever the checks actually don't go out to old people? Finished politically once people realize that social security and Medicare rely on government money to function?

 

Just to be clear, in substance, the Tea Partiers are destructive for the country.

But as negotiators, they have what democrats, especially Obama, lack.

Great piece by Bartlett today. Earlier on this thread, Obama's failure as a negotiator was discussed and the question was rasied on what he could have done differently to avoid where we are without "giving in" to the inflexible opposition. Bartlett makes a great suggestion here: He should have tied the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts (a clear gesture on his part to be "in good faith") to raising the debt ceiling.

He could have made the GOP have to deal with the declining revenues in the context of also dealing with debt and dictated the narrative in that way. He also would have attached it to something the GOP very much wanted. In other words, we could have started budget negotiations with the debt limit already raised or with the deficit reduced by the elimination of the Bush cuts, if he played his cards right. Bartlett is also right in that the compromises Obmama agreed to on the stimulus package are what made it very limited relative to its cost. By adding the GOP-favored tax cuts that were highly expensive but did nothing to stimulate the economy (taxes were already low enough to not be a deterring factor to investing and spending) he doomed the stimulus to lack bang for the buck.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/07/29/Debt-Crisis-Was-Fueled-by-Obamas-Weak-Negotiations.aspx#page1

 

Brian -- I lose track of the gamesmanship sometimes, but didn't the GOP insist on the extension of tax cuts as a condition of extending unemployment benefits? That would have seemed a pressing need more than the debt limit being raised. I think that's where Boehner said the idea of returning to 1990s tax levels on millionaires was "chicken crap."

That said, the substance of the column is pretty dead-on, that Obama and his crew don't know how to obtain or wield power.

 

Can someone deduct the total cost of the Bush-Iraq War from the debt?

 

Teabag flexibility at its best.

We get everything, you get nothing. Take it or leave it.

 

I'm not sure about your question, but if you are right, to me that's another example of allowing the GOP to dictate the narrative which, to me, is part of a failure as a negotiator.

 

There's this old site: http://costofwar.com/en/

Can't vouch for the accuracy, but I'm sure it's pretty close.

 

Thaks, did a little research on my own

With enactment of the sixth FY2011 Continuing Resolution through March 18, 2011, (H.J.Res.
48/P.L. 112-6) Congress has approved a total of $1.283 trillion for military operations, base security,
reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care for the three operations initiated
since the 9/11 attacks: Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Afghanistan and other counter terror
operations; Operation Noble Eagle (ONE), providing enhanced security at military bases; and
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). This estimate assumes that the current CR level continues through the
rest of the year and that agencies allocate reductions proportionately.
Of this $1.283 trillion total, CRS estimates that Iraq will receive about $806 billion (63%), OEF $444
billion (35%) and enhanced base security about $29 billion (2%), with about $5 billion that CRS
cannot allocate (1/2%). About 94% of the funds are for DOD, 5% for foreign aid programs and
diplomatic operations, and 1% for medical care for veterans.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

 

I still don't see, though, how anyone but the GOP can dictate the narrative, just because the Tea Party is stomping around like 2-year-olds who only want their way. I guess Obama could try to crisscross the country to stump directly with the people. But part of what made the sainted LBJ (at least in this thread) a great negotiator is that he knew that legislators wanted goodies in return, and he also had the organization behind him to exile anyone who didn't end up going along. And, oh yeah, that worked so well he decided not to seek a second term because it was so obvious he would lose. (Yes, I know Vietnam had a little something to do with that.)

I see Krugman's point about the mistake of assuming that Tea Partiers are actually willing to negotiate, but I wonder if Obama sees this as a way to bring about the end game of the Tea Party. At this point, the narrative, particularly based on polls, is that if we go into default, the Tea Party is going to get the lion's share of the blame because it openly wanted default. Obama can reasonably say he tried to negotiate a compromise.

Also, the negotiations have exposed the fissures between the Tea Party and the Republicans. Shoot, Boehner couldn't even get a vote done in short order because Tea Partiers wouldn't take the deal, even though it's clear that if anything gets done, it's going to be a few parts of Boehner and a few parts of Reid. If anyone pays politically for failing to move the Tea Party, it's going to be Boehner. Also, if the Tea Partiers won't follow Boehner, what the hell can Obama do?

As for Obama throwing out the Bush tax cut extensions, that would be ruinous for him, and the country, As Ezra Klein pointed out today, all Democrats have to do to let those expire is -- nothing. If Obama really feels the Bush tax cuts are ruinous, and he wants to stake a spot in the campaign saying so, then it would be stupid for him to cave on this now, especially when Tea Partiers aren't even mentioning that in the negotiations.

 

I keep seeing these headlines referring to stock market plunges. So I check the ticker expecting to see 300 to 400 points off the DOW and it's down about 70 points.

:

 

The point is, everything is about throwing the first blow. You come out saying that the only way you'll support an extension of the tax cuts is also to have a debt ceiling raise AND an extension of unemployment. Or do better than that, just flat out reject the tax break and when they bitch and complain, you can offer everything you want in exchange for giving them what they want (the tax cut).

Where have we seen that tactic before?

Your assumption is that the Democrats HAVE to be willing negotiators. I really don't think the tea partiers are any tougher than Newt and the boys were in the 90s. Here's what has happened though: The 90s republicans didn't get all of what they wanted because Clinton and the democrats wouldn't let it happen. Because of the frustration of that failure, and the subsequent failures of the Bush presidency, the one-time supporters of the Gingriches of the GOPs brached off to become the vast majority of the tea party (if I said it "branched off to become the tea party," some tea partier would squirrel with an argument about how there are 1-2 non hard-core conservatives in the movement, a point one would have to concede).

Since then, the toughness of the Democrats has declined and now the right is not facing the same toughness in negotiations. Obama ran with a centrist appeal even if his reputation/past record was/is liberal. He's tried so hard to fit that description, he has not been a formidable opponent at the negotiating table. He has to understand, being a centrist has to do with results. If he, like Clinton, wants Centrist results, he has the enter the negotiation as a hard-line liberal, and walk away taking credit for a centrist result.

 

I think the market still can't quite grasp that this isn't actually going to get passed. When it blows up over the weekend, maybe then the markets will go haywire. Or maybe not. I can't figure it.

But I figure this: Let the balanced budget amendment go through. Promise to vote for it, even. It will NEVER, EVER get passed by 3/4 of state legislatures. Ever.