Looking at the Fine Print of the Debit Ceiling Law - maybe there is a lot of smoke and mirrors

[Samantha]

I listened to Chris Hayes and Ezra Klein last evening discussing the "fine print" in the debt ceiling law just passed. They were smiling as they spoke. The inference was that not all agreed to could possibly be implemented because of the fine print and limitations on one Congress to pass legislation that binds future bodies of Congress. Any legislation agreed upon by THIS congress including a trigger, for instance, can be repealed in the NEXT Congress, and there is precedent for the repeal of a trigger. I think the trick would be for the electorate to make sure both houses were controlled by the Dems (as well as the White House). The example quoted was a trigger repeal enacted for Graham Rudman, and here is some discussion I found on this:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-29/debt-plan-includes-spending-cut-triggers-with-long-histories-of-failure.html

"Anything Congress does, Congress can undo,” said Bob Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, an Arlington, Virginia-based group that advocates for balanced budgets. “They can’t really bind themselves. You really have to have a political will to make these things work or they won’t.”

Formulating an effective way to hold Congress to its promises to make the choices required to slash trillions in spending in the next decade is key to satisfying demands by credit rating services like Standard & Poor’s for a credible commitment to taming the long-term debt.

Without enforcement powers, any new bipartisan committee may not be taken seriously on Wall Street and by ratings agencies, said David Ader, head of government bond strategy at Stamford, Connecticut-based CRT Capital Group LLC."

Here are excerpts of Ezra's Klein's reasoning that I found at this site:

http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2011/08/01/legislative-entrenchment/

"The other half of the trigger comes from domestic spending. But Social Security, Medicaid and a few other programs for the poor are exempted. So the trigger is effectively treating defense spending like it comprises more than half of all federal spending. If it goes off, the cuts to that sector will be tremendous — particularly given that they will come on top of the initial round of cuts. Whether you think the trigger will work depends on whether you think the GOP would permit that level of cuts to defense.

***

"The answer is supposed to be the trigger. Those cuts are meant to be so brutal that neither party will risk refusing a deal. But a deal means taxes, or at least is supposed to mean taxes. And Speaker John Boehner is already promising that taxes are off the table.

"What one Congress enacts, another Congress can repeal. Always. This problem is often brushed aside, but it makes a lot of policy proposals ultimately silly the longer you look at them. Al Gore’s Social Security lockbox is the most infamous example, but unless I’m missing something really big, this one bids fair to surpass it."

(end of quote)

I think there might be a lot of subtle things that can happen as well as the obvious that we have feared. Perhaps we should wait to panic until we see the need to do so.

I had to post this in a hurry this evening because I do not have the time to host a thread here at DU tonight. I thought this was important information to share so, if you have any comments on this information, I hope you leave a reply. And I didn't post this information to arouse anyone's anger, just to provide food for thought. Maybe there is something to all the whispers of smoke and mirrors. After all, that is pretty common here inside the Beltway.

Sam

[Cool Logic]

1. Surely, you must be accustomed to smoke and mirror deals by now.

[Samantha]

4. More than accustomed

And that is why I try to pick up the covers and look beneath.

Thanks for your response.

Sam

[Ineeda]

2. I think many have underestimated three things:

1. the intelligence of this president
2. the determination of the rethugs to thwart anything, anything this president wants, even if doing so destroys the country.
3. the president's recognition of #2

But maybe I'm overly optimistic.

[Samantha]

6. Well, I think there are a lot of things in play here

This whole incident was designed to embarrass and humiliate President Obama. I think the end goal was the proverbial killer bumper sticker for the 2012 election. It would have read something like this:

OBAMA'S CHANGE YOU CAN'T BELIEVE
The First United States President to Crash the Economy

The day Obama walked out and calmly said, "We will not default" they knew they would not reach their goal. He had devised that plan to pay our creditors first and under any and all negotiating circumstances, they would not be able to hang a default around his campaigning neck next year, regardless of the terms contained in the debt ceiling law to be enacted.

This gives the opportunity to the Democrats to have a great bumper sticker (not that I think they are important but some here do):

THE GUERRILLA POLITICAL REPUBLICAN TACTICS:
Can you take four years being held a political hostage?

Secondly, as always, their tactic is not just to separate the Republicans and Independents from Obama allegiance, they want to separate Obama from his base. And in that regard, they have surreptitiously succeeded thus far. The planting of misleading information so far has been at a shocking, disgusting level. I have no idea how to overcome the tactics the Republicans are utilizing today and rise to another win. But somehow, someway Dems have got to prevail.

Thank you for your response.

Sam

[jwirr]

8. I do not like this deal but I hope you are correct. For sure that is one

of the reasons I will vote for him again. The other is the SCOTUS.

[Samantha]

17. The SCOTUS alone is an excellent reason

but I think we need to work hard for all Democrats, despite the hard feelings over the debt ceiling law. It is truly important that we take back the house and have a united Democratic front in all tree branches of government.

Sam

[Soral]

3. Good read. K&R

[starroute]

5. This is why the Tea Party wants a balanced budget amendment

They know anything short of that can be reversed.

On that one small point, at least, we have to defer to their political savvy.

[The Magistrate]

7. There Is Definitely Something To This, Ma'am

At the most basic level, any ten year projection is bean breeze. Even the Soviets contented themselves with five year plans, and they reserved the right to shoot people who went off the rails....

[Samantha]

10. I think we all tend to forget sometimes the Republicans' number one priority

and the depths to which they will sink to achieve it. Yesterday, I heard a Republican credit President Obama with accumulating a 10 trillion dollar surplus in the two and one-half years he has been in office. The outright public lying to me is beyond belief. Perhaps we will get better at refuting all this and once again start expressing support for our President.

Thank you for your response. Always a pleasure to hear from you.

Sam

[amborin]

9. i'd put more stock in the Economic Policy Institute's analysis here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1635881

[Vattel]

11. Maybe I am missing something, but

I don't see how the trigger can be repealed before it is too late. If the necessary deficit reduction is not passed, it goes off in 2012, right?

[SpartanDem]

13. 2013

[Vattel]

15. Actually, I checked to be sure, and the trigger is pulled in 2012.

The actual cuts would occur in 2013, but they would be "triggered" in 2012.

[Samantha]

14. I understand, the "next Congress" will NOT be before Thanksgiving

but commentators have made it clear that Republicans absolutely do not want further cuts in defense which will prompt them to reach some sort of agreement with the Dems, who do not want the cuts in entitlements. If no agreement is reached, the automatic cuts would take place (I believe). Right now, there is a lot of talk about achieving the change in the taxing, putting everyone in one of three brackets. Republicans are aching for this, tax reform, and would probably bargain with the Dems regarding the 14 TRILLION DOLLARS in revenues which could be achieved by nullifying a lot of the tax subsidies to special interests in order to not have the trigger impact Defense. I heard this figure today so I have no link. But I think that is what the initial deadline will revolve around.

Most of the cuts were "back loaded" so as to not hurt our delicate recovery, and all of this will take place over the next ten years. But from what Ezra Klein said in future negotiations after the next election in which the composition of the House, for instance, will change, the first time when the Senate and the House have the opportunity to repeal this trigger because something is staring them in the face they do not like or want to have to negotiate, they will just say, "We are going this," and repeal the trigger. That is what has happened in the past.

I believe Thanksgiving is the first time the new Committee meets, but it might be Christmas. Maybe if this is wrong, someone reading this thread will correct me.

Sam

[gkhouston]

12. You know what these arguments remind me of?

Us telling ourselves that W would be a one-termer who wouldn't do that much damage.

[Samantha]

16. In other words, we are in denial or kidding ourselves?

I think a lot of things have been said, humiliating and demeaning things, about President Obama that have not been said because they are true but because Republicans cannot resist the opportunity to take a barb at him to make him look smaller in the eyes of the American public, and thus his chances for re-election slide. And from where President Obama sits, he doesn't really have the option to think like an individual, as you or I do, because he has a larger, greater, more complex responsibility, and that is to make decisions in the best interests of the Country, whether he likes them or not. As an example, if there had been outright cuts to Social Security benefits in this deficit reduction act that ensured Dems would reject the legislation, I think President Obama would have been forced to sign it whether he liked the cuts in Social Security or not to avoid a default.

I think the biggest problem we are looking at now is to figure out exactly how we Democrats can ensure we retain the White House, hold the Senate and take back the House. How we can accomplish this should hopefully be high on our list for discussion now, not simply refusing to support President Obama.

Just my humble opinion. And, Bush was not re-elected for the second term; he simply stayed in the White House despite that just as he did his first term. And that is the other thing we have to take on more successfully in order to meet our goal: election fraud. It is easy to pinpoint the problem -- the solutions, not as much.

Thank you so much for your response.

Sam

[TheKentuckian]

18. Magical thinking since the trigger would already be pulled.

Plus, this stuff is not happening in a vacuum. Actions taken now impact the ability to make future decisions, especially as hamstrung as we are fiscally.

Congress can, if willing, can change laws but they don't have a time machine. There are consequences and one must be realistic about what can actually been done in this cycle. Maybe we can take the House back but just holding the Senate would be pretty much miraculous consider which seats are in play, certainly a majority that could offset Turd Wayers and break filibusters seems like a hell of a stretch.

Even then we have believe that we aren't essentially going down the very path Obama wants.

I'm sorry but this seems like another "we'll fix it later" defense than an actual plan that is going to come into being and be executed. We can't even be rid of these stupid tax cuts or the even dumber wars.

[Samantha]

19. Yes, the trigger will already have been pulled but it can't fire off Social Security changes

They were exempted in the agreement.

I am not a magical thinking person, I deal in logic.

Sam

[TheKentuckian]

20. It would, however decimate discretionary spending. Social Security is not all the government does.

Hell, the military cuts are dangerous to the overall economy if the money isn't rolled into more effective stimulus until we climb out.

How much demand and employment do you think we can afford to destroy?

This shit is straight insane and I have not a clue how any argument can be made to the contrary.

[Samantha]

21. I agree with this post

Overall, President Obama has little wiggle room to spend money to stimulate the economy. And that is one of the reasons this legislation overall is disastrous. But I think he had to go with the lesser of two evils, and that was signing off on this bill to avoid a default. They backed him into this corner, and to be honest, I think many of the right-wing extremists did not care if the Country defaulted since they personally carry no debt and wouldn't have to worry about rising interest rates and all of the other extreme consequences. I am referring to the backers of the Tea Party crowd, such as the Koch Brothers. In times of deep recessions and depression, vultures such as they sweep in and buy whatever they want at bargain basement prices, so it is a real economic opportunity for them, although a disaster for us in the middle and lower classes.

Their goal was to humiliate him politically and make him look like a weak leader to separate him from his base of voters during the 2012 election. Winning is everything to them, and if they had to throw in a few wretched lies, so what? What more could they ask for, as I posted above, than a slogan in 2012, framing the change Obama promised in 2008 as materializing as the first economic default by a U.S. President?

I told a good friend a year ago I thought Election 2000 was pretty bad but it was starting to look like 2012 would be worse. As it is shaping up now, I think that prediction was accurate. These past couple of weeks have been so stressful, I could hardly stay tuned, and that is, I feel sure, the way a lot of people are thinking now. Hold on, it is going to be a hell of a ride from hereon out. But I will try to keep my eye on the ball, and I hope you do as well, no matter how despicably ugly the politics become.

Thank you for your response.

Sam