Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Speaker of the House John Boehner says he “got 98 percent of what I wanted”. But did he?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
rhiannon55 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 12:41 AM
Original message
Speaker of the House John Boehner says he “got 98 percent of what I wanted”. But did he?
Debt Ceiling Deal: The Devil Is In The Details

Democrats are upset that the deal does not include increasing revenues. But that’s not accurate. In fact, it virtually guarantees a revenue increase by the end of 2012. And Boehner knows it.

Here’s how it works: Part of the deficit reduction estimates used to sell this deal to the Republicans count on Congressional Budget Office estimates. Those estimates set a baseline. All reductions have to come from that baseline and if any additional spending is to be made, offsetting cuts must also be enacted.

Here’s where it gets interesting. The CBO baseline already assumes that the Bush Era tax cuts will expire at the end of 2012. The spending levels for 2013 include the additional revenue from those cuts expiring. If Republicans want to extend those tax cuts (which are considered spending), they will have to make cuts to the budget to offset every penny. They won’t have the political control needed to do that before the end of 2012, even if the President loses his office and they take control of the Senate, as the cuts expire in 2012, and a new administration and Congress would not be seated until January 2013.

So, unless Republicans want to try to pass an extension along with offsetting cuts during an election year, those cuts will expire. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has already said he will not allow the issue to come to a vote, and the President has vowed he will veto it. So if Republicans want to extend those cuts, they will have to come up with $4T in spending cuts to offset the tax cuts. To make it more difficult still, the deal makes it clear that those cuts must come in a 50/50 ratio between defense and non-defense spending, with Social Security, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, civilian and military retirement off the table. Medicare cuts would only come from the provider side, not the individual.

Now, take that in for a minute. If Republicans want to extend the tax cuts, they will need to cut an equal amount out of spending, with half of that coming from defense spending. Half. This is in addition to the $350B that are already being cut as part of this deal. To get their tax cuts, Republicans would have to slash another $2T from defense spending. They would have to justify slashing the defense budget for the benefit of the wealthiest Americans. And with all the social programs off the table, where will they find the other $2T? The plain fact is, they can’t. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he won’t let it come to a vote, and the President says he would veto any extension.

...Why does this leave Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is a tough spot? Because they must pass $1.3T in cuts before the end of the year to avoid the automatic trigger. They don’t want to be seen as cutting military spending (although that is likely where a lot will come from anyway). And because they insisted that the decrease in spending from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan not be counted as spending reduction, they’ve removed that ploy from the table as well. If they are unwilling to compromise, they will be facing massive additional cuts to the military. And all while not touching sacred social programs. That’s a hell of a corner to be painted into.

http://www.editedforclarity.com/2011/08/01/debt-ceiling...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 12:44 AM
Response to Original message
1. Most of the shit that he "wanted" got kicked down the road a few years.
The Congress giveth, and the Congress taketh away.

I think he got pwned, (as the kids say) myself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MarianJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 12:46 AM
Response to Original message
2. The fact doesn't change that he is...
...the weakest House Speaker ever.

PEACE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dad Infinitum Donating Member (125 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Ironically....
Edited on Thu Aug-04-11 12:52 AM by Dad Infinitum
...he is the strongest speaker ever too. He is calling most of the shots in the country these days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polmaven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #4
11. I disagree...
He couldn't even get his caucus to agree to his own plan until he went back and conceded to teabagger demands. It is THEY who are are calling the shots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OHdem10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 12:46 AM
Response to Original message
3. It does not guarentee the Tax Increase later. Again it will have
to be fought out. We certainly hope the Democrats
win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phleshdef Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. No tax increase = a blood letting at the Pentagon
As the author cited in this OP says in their article, this is going to pit the Pentagon against the wealthy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeff47 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. The author is wrong.
The committee doesn't have to make 1/2 of it's cuts defense spending. There is no such restriction in the debt deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 01:03 AM
Response to Original message
5. K&R. I hope everyone reads the WHOLE article. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CakeGrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 03:51 AM
Response to Original message
7. No, he didn't.
Too bad some DUers take him at his word more than they do the President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeff47 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 08:45 AM
Response to Original message
8. This article is wrong in many places.
Edited on Thu Aug-04-11 08:46 AM by jeff47
First, the bill does not specify if the baseline is "current law" (tax cuts expire in baseline) or "current policy" (tax cuts don't 'expire', because it's based on the numbers for 2011). This is what the Democrats and Republicans are currently fighting over.

Second, there is no requirement that the super-committee's cuts are half defense spending.

After correcting those errors, their entire thesis falls apart.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creon Donating Member (723 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 08:53 AM
Response to Original message
10. Maybe, maybe not
maybe he did, maybe he didn't.

What he got were "promises" to do it in the future.

Boehner still has to produce.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 09:18 AM
Response to Original message
12. That's what he said to convince himself---because he was close to losing his title.n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec 28th 2014, 07:50 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC