Revisiting the stimulus negotiations

I wrote long ago about the breakdown of bipartisanship in 2008/2009 even in the midst of the economic crisis. I was reminded of it today while reading an interview with Obama:

"When I came into office, my working assumption was that because we were in crisis, and the crisis had begun on the Republicans’ watch, that there would be a window in which they would feel obliged to cooperate on a common effort to dig us out of this massive hole. ...I vividly remember having prepared a basic proposal that had a variety of components. We had tax cuts; we had funding for the states so that teachers wouldn’t be laid off and firefighters and so forth; we had an infrastructure component. We felt... we would begin negotiations with the Republicans and they would show us things that they thought also needed to happen. On the drive up to Capitol Hill to meet with the House Republican Caucus, John Boehner released a press statement saying that they were opposed to the stimulus. ...And I think we realized at that point ... was a calculation based on what turned out to be pretty smart politics but really bad for the country: If they cooperated with me, then that would validate our efforts. If they were able to maintain uniform opposition to whatever I proposed, that would send a signal to the public of gridlock, dysfunction, and that would help them win seats in the midterms."

Many conservative commenters have harped on a large meeting Obama had with most of Congress, where he said "I won." They have claimed those two words were enough to ruin the budding relationship, and therefore it was Obama's fault that Republicans didn't work with him. This is such bullshit--that two words would have been enough. But I wanted to look at the contemporaneous reports of this meeting.

From HotAir on 1/23/09, the same day as the meeting:

"Vintage O: Always willing to hear the other side out, never willing to actually vote with them. ... The GOP’s simply not going to obstruct Hopenchange this early, when he has this much goodwill from the public, when the economic circumstances are this dire, and when even conservative economists are endorsing some sort of stimulus."

Fascinating. That conservative author had already decided that Obama was the problem because he wouldn't listen to them. That's such a contrast to Obama's memory of it. I have to support the notion that the GOP already planned to oppose rather than negotiate, and had their talking points prepared, as in this one from Boehner:

"How can you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives? How does that stimulate the economy?"

The GOP version of the stimulus was to have only permanent tax cuts--no money for states to maintain teachers and police in their jobs, no money for working poor in the form of rebates. The GOP wanted only their version, or there would be no GOP votes for the stimulus.

A few GOP senators defied this solid opposition, or there would have been no stimulus, with the GOP reaping the well-deserved blame. The GOP avoided that big mistake because there were enough Dems to vote for the stimulus, but that only allowed them to continue the strategy of heavy obstruction and almost no negotiation.

That remains their strategy through the present, and probably into the future. That strategy started right at the beginning of 2009, and it wasn't due to intransigence from Obama, no matter what they claim.

...because they didn't win.

Image: pinterest.com

Extras. More talking points from the GOP from January 2009. Tight cooperation between the GOP and Fox News. NY Times report from late January 2009.

Update 10/5/16. A different viewpoint on the incidents discussed here.

Peeling through the many reasons for Boehner's resignation

Boehner's resignation is not a surprise to me. I don't know how he could stand the job. That said, I didn't know he would resign imminently, or that it would be on Friday, Sept. 25. So why now?

Reading the news reports, at first it sounded like Boehner was somehow inspired by the Pope's visit. Boehner stated that he woke up and knew that "this is the day."

The same story says that Boehner had determined to resign on his 66th birthday on Nov. 17, but brought it forward by a few weeks. Foolish me, I thought he finally got fed up.

Luckily I can read, and found much more revealing reports elsewhere. This article lays out the actual reasons pretty clearly:

• The Freedom Caucus (a very conservative group in the House) were planning to challenge Boehner's speakership if he didn't let them shut down the government by sending appropriations with poison pill/veto bait provisions defunding Planned Parenthood.
• Boehner found out that the Dems weren't going to help him stay as speaker, so the threat of being unseated was credible. 
• Boehner will resign, avoid the challenge, and gets to avoid the shutdown with a clean appropriation bill that lasts until mid-December.
• The GOP will have between now and mid-December to elect their new speaker, if they can settle on someone.

So the arch-conservatives are forcing Boehner out. This will almost certainly be destabilizing. The Freedom Caucus will either force a shutdown, or will face the humiliation of not being able to force one. Can that really be a good idea? It doesn't sound like a good idea now, but forcing a shutdown in mid-December, just in time for Christmas, sounds even worse.

Maybe they'll wait until February, except that it's primary season, so that's not a good time either. The further they push the shutdown, the closer to Election Day it gets. So a failed shutdown (the outcome I predict) will be fresher in the minds of voters.

THIS IS THEIR STRATEGY?

Unbelievable. I have got to watch this melodrama unfold. It may even be better than The Walking Dead. We may have flesh-eating conservatives attacking fellow GOPers on the House floor. Maybe Dems will come in toting assault rifles. What a spectacle! I can't wait! (Or maybe I'm losing my mind. Time to stop blogging for tonight.)

Image:backfromthedepths.co.uk

Extras. The conservative press didn't seem to know the resignation/ouster was about to happen. No articles in HotAir, Daily Caller, etc. announcing a planned move. The Hill warned about the coup two days before Boehner's resignation. A member of the Freedom Caucus told a local Arizona paper about growing discontent. But when hasn't there been growing discontent?

A listing from 538 of the ultra-conservatives who ousted Boehner. Maybe some Democrats were going to prop up Boehner. A reasonably good summary of Boehner's history from a MSM perspective. Most interesting point: Boehner got to the top of the leadership pyramid because he wasn't highly implicated in the lobbying (Abramoff) scandals that wiped out most of the House GOP leadership.

Last outpost of crazy headlines: Boehner's bartender

"John Boehner’s bartender planned to poison him at Ohio country club"

That's only part of the wackiness. Let's see--according to this news story, the bartender turned himself in, perhaps because he was trying to get his bartending job back! 

He also claimed to be Jesus Christ and Boehner is the devil. Is this a case of someone taking a statement from a conservative source ("Boehner is the devil" or some such) literally instead of figuratively?

Well, probably not. I recognize this as manic behavior from someone who's gone off their meds, and I mean this literally, not as an internet insult. I've seen it often and in different forms, and once even called the applicable counseling service three days before the person ended up in a psych unit. Bipolar disorder is a common mental health issue among us wacky humans. I bet everyone knows someone with it. But I digress... 

Still, I wish everyone would desist from calling others 'the devil.' Some people can't process those statements appropriately, and we don't really need the vitriol. Give it a rest... and please drink and talk responsibly!

Image: onekit.enr-corp.com

GOPers hate their House leaders

It's no surprise that John Boehner held on to his position as Speaker of the House, despite all the conservative media that seem to hate him. The conservative media and their zipperhead followers seemed to think Boehner was about to be overthrown. They unfortunately overlooked the reality that most of the country and the GOP isn't as right-wing as they are, and they are in fact a rather small minority.

However, in one way the Tea Party types are correct. No one seems to like John Boehner. Who is standing up and lauding him for his clarity of vision or great leadership?  In contrast, Nancy Pelosi is frequently praised by her caucus. This is a strange difference... so I must investigate, or at least cogitate and speculate.

Looking at this historically, it seems that the GOP wasn't enthralled with their last Speaker either. Denny Hastert wasn't a fiery Speaker either that many in the GOP seem to long for. The last Speaker who had some of that fire was Newt Gingrich. But unfortunately, Newt was also rather too blustery and egotistical, so he resigned when his leadership proved counterproductive.

So it seems that the GOP has been fated in the past two decades to never have a satisfying leader in the House. If they managed to elect another popular firebrand, he would probably cause too many headaches as Newt did. Most GOP representatives seem to know this, so they've elected more moderate leaders for their last two speakers.

These leaders might be taking on the Speaker's office as a favor to the party. They know they won't be popular, and that the conservative media will revile them, but someone has to sacrifice and take one for the team. That's what I think Boehner is doing. He has taken on a nearly impossible job, and will get no thanks for it. Maybe there are some perks that he really likes, such as tossing rebels off committees or perhaps assigning them tiny basement offices.

I'm afraid I can imagine all too well that it's satisfying to 1) keep your caucus from exploding, and 2) mete out petty punishments to the poorly behaved children in the caucus. Yikes! I might have the personality to be a GOP Speaker of the House. Quick, shoot me!

Image: dancingczars.wordpress.com

Extras. Bernstein series on Boehner here and here and here.

Will we see a battle for the GOP's soul?

Is the GOP the party of the white working class traditionalists, or a modern business-friendly party? Is it for crony capitalism where everyone gets a piece, or for small government?

This has been a big question ever since Reagan pretended that he was for small government, but never followed through. So many Republicans since then have winked and lied to the electorate about being for small guvmint, and the lie has taken root with conservative talk radio and the non-elites who think they are now the heart of the GOP.

First contender - Louie Gohmert

Maybe we will see the answer to this question in the next few years. Some of the Tea Party types are again hopeful that they can overthrow the business/establishment GOP leaders, as Louie Gohmert challenges John Boehner for leadership in the House.

To most people, Louie Gohmert is the embarrassing fool who talks about the dangers of letting gays (with their strength-sapping sex-same massage techniques) in the military. He probably denies evolution, and doesn't think that we should have freedom of religion for non-Judeochristians. I don't know that Gohmert espouses these religious views, but it would be all of the same piece if he did.

However, to some people, Louie Gohmert "is a good conservative- he’s been on Hannity a number of times." Wow, to some people, Louie Gohmert isn't a laughingstock! Who would have thunk it?

Nonetheless, it's highly unlikely that Gohmert will prevail as he tries to win the speakership. The true conservatives will probably be thwarted by the establishment yet again.

Weightier contender - Jeb Bush

The bigger contest will be for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination. Jeb Bush looks like he's going to run, and he isn't going to pretend to be more conservative than he is. He's sitting out an anti-immigrant conference (or at least that's the spin from the liberal MSM).

If Jeb Bush can blatantly run as a moderately conservative Republican and win the nomination, that will say a lot about the GOP. It will be a repudiation of the trope of 'true conservatism,' meaning the conservatism that desires to roll back almost everything since the 1960's. It would be a boon to rationality for this kind of conservatism to be defeated because this conservatism is chock-full of contradictions. They can't decide whether they are for or against Medicare, for or against Social Security. Many lie to themselves about how the government actually spends our tax dollars. They imagine that they are taxed heavily and benefit lightly while deadbeats make out like bandits. They refuse to see how they (or Granny) are actually the huge beneficiaries of taxation.

It would be great if Jeb Bush would run as a conservative who looks at the budget and tells the truth about it. It's good whenever any politician in any party does that. I don't know that Jeb Bush will do this, and I'm not counting on it, but maybe he'll get closer to this than any other GOP politician. And it could be that his wing of the party, including business people who regularly look at balance sheets, will be ready to hear that kind of message.

I keenly hope for this, but not because I believe in Jeb Bush or because I'm tired of the Dems. I hope for a heavyweight in either party who will run a campaign based on hard numbers instead of inflated hopes and vaguely sketched proposals. What would Americans do if someone confronted them with the truth? That would be a telling experience!

Image: rackjite.com

Extra. Another bozo running against Boehner: Ted Yoho.

Update 1/7/15. I have to chuckle about how the conservative media caters to (or lies to) their audience. These guys don't have the numbers, but their media outlets never tell them that hard truth. Here's just one example:

"I am tired of all this big talk from all these people who keep losing. And losing. And losing. They talk this big game, but they still haven’t defunded Obamacare. They still haven’t gutted the Environmental Protection Agency or shut down the Education Department. Call me a bad loser, but it is well past time for these people to shut up all their talk and start winning." 

Even in his rant against big talk, the author still doesn't acknowledge that the policies don't have the support at the ballot box.

Short: Who gets punched in the nose?

Blather, blather, blather. Boehner claims that Putin is aggressive because Obama stinks as a president:

"When you look at this chaos that’s going on, does anybody think that Vladimir Putin would have gone into Crimea had George W. Bush been president of the United States? No! Even Putin is smart enough to know that Bush would have punched him in the nose in about 10 seconds." --John Boehner

But, but, but, as this commenter points out:

Well, ...  to be fair, when Putin invaded Georgia during the Bush administration, George did fly to Moscow and punch him in the nose. So, there's that.

Thanks, Mother Jones, for the laugh. It's been too long.

Place your bets.

Images: religiopoliticaltalk.com and daily,co,uk

Is this the worst Congressional leadership ever?

Criticizing the leadership of the other party is so common that it's almost a reflex. I don't want to bash Congressional leaders just because I hate their party, which is what so many do. However, I'm seriously wondering whether we have some of the worst leadership ever.

Clearly from my previous posts I'm not a fan of Nancy Pelosi. She ran the House very strictly, and the moderate Democratic strain withered, though it's possible it would have withered anyway. Pelosi's biggest mistake was to pass measures that were too liberal while pretending that they were compromises. Pelosi may make noises like she knows how to compromise, but the actions don't follow. By not moderating her chamber more, lots of her party lost their seats in 2010, but she took no responsibility for it.

I thought Reid was somewhat cannier, and he is. However, I think perhaps he's chosen a path that is also ultimately bad for his compatriots in the Senate. He's always been tricksy with the Senate rules. He seemed the major force behind the Senate blockade of Bush appointments in 2007-8, though he backed off from it. However, the atmosphere never changed, and p. Petty partisan advantage has been the operational environment for the entire Reid tenure. A few times it's abated somewhat, but it always roars back, either with Reid ramping it up himself or in response to GOP provocation. It's been destructive to nearly everyone in the Senate, but Reid hasn't rethought the tactics. He still keeps an iron hand on the bills being debated and the amendments being offered. His purpose is probably to protect his senators from embarrassing votes. He may have won that battle, but he and the vulnerable senators have lost nonetheless.

To me this is a lesson that leaders have to rise above the partisanship at least a little. If they always reach for the partisan advantage, they end up looking grubby and petty and that infects their conference.

The GOP in the Senate don't look any better. Under Mitch McConnell, they ramped up their tactics as the minority. They also appear to relish the chance to inflict even more pain if they gain the majority. They will almost definitely hold those embarrassing votes that have been blocked. Many partisans are hoping to end the filibuster so that the Senate can pass a conservative agenda and force Obama to veto it. I'm far from certain this will happen, but I'd put the likelihood at 60%. That will change the Senate from the deliberative chamber where good deals can arise to a highly partisan operation like the House. It would be a huge loss of the country, but too many partisans are pushing for it without a thought about the long-term damage.

I wonder whether Boehner is the least bad of the lot. Occasionally he makes his conference take those hard votes. He resisted the Tea Party strategy in 2013, eventually giving in and allowing them to shut down the government, just to show them that their strategy was doomed. He seems to be the only top Congressional leader who isn't making his conference more intolerant. Oy, if he's the best of the lot!

Collect the whole set (1 of 4)

Image: conservativedailynews.com

Extra. I started this post two months ago, but was inspired to finish by this news story of a Democratic senator wishing Harry Reid was gone.

Update 10/14/14. Here's a post about how awful Mitch McConnell is, and not because he's a RINO.

Update 10/29/14. Here's another way that Reid has hurt his caucus. By allowing so few votes, senators from more conservative areas haven't been able to separate themselves from Obama and the Democratic norm. They're likely to lose their seats because of it.

The House postpones its summer vacation

The House is too scared to recess for August vacation. Why? Because they haven't passed an emergency immigration bill in response to the immigration emergency.

In some ways, it surprises me that they didn't just walk away. It's not exactly their crisis since they put the blame on Obama's unilateral (executive) decision to end deportations of illegal immigrant minors. The GOP could say "you broke it, you fix it" to Obama.

They haven't done it because of a little lawsuit they've started which complains that the president is overreaching his authority beyond what is legal. It's hard to make that argument stick when Congress won't address issues and pass laws, which inevitably leaves the president to sort through the mess as well as he can. This will entail making unilateral decisions, seeing as the Congress hadn't passed the laws he'd need  as the guide. So it's important for appearances for the House to pass something.

There's no certainty that the House can pass any sort of emergency immigration bill. They can afford only about a dozen defectors, and there are at least that many angry Tea Partyers or assorted nutjobs. So it's going to be tight for the GOP leadership. I don't think they're going to succeed, even though it hands Democrats a talking point about the disorganized House that can't provide leadership even in a crisis.

A leopard can't change its spots, and the House can't pass anything controversial unless absolutely necessary. If it's not a necessary budget bill, it's not going to happen. Maybe I should start my August vacation by chortling at Congress while I lounge poolside with a martini. Yes, that's the ticket.

The House sorts it out and goes on vacation... soon... maybe...

Image: guzer.com

Update 8/1/14. I was wrrrooonnggg! The House GOP got it together and passed a bill. If the House can become functional, the Dems better watch out in 2016.

The Tea Party gears up to strike out, yet again

The Tea Party really, REALLY wants to crucify Obama, but they'll settle for impeachment. Boehner is trying to buy them off with a pansy-waist lawsuit, but some of them aren't taking it. Erick Erickson is howling for Congress to man up on impeachment. So is Sarah Palin.

• Not so fast, according to John Boehner and Bob Goodlatte, chair of the committee which would have to handle impeachment. 
• Not so fast, Erick Erickson changes his tune. 

Oddly, one day after Palin's rallying cry for impeachment, Erickson decided that impeachment won't work. He's sticking with his assessment that a lawsuit is a stunt, so that leaves the power of the purse--the shutdown and default strategy that didn't work last time.

Palin called for impeachment on July 8, and by July 9, she had that sinking ship pretty much to herself. On July 13, William Kristol declared that "No responsible Republican has called  for impeachment." I could say Palin had been hung out to dry, except that she's a gutless, witless, second-string toady who doesn't even realize how lame and stupid she is. She hangs herself out to dry just by opening her mouth and letting stale conservative talking points crawl out. Then, she doubles-down on her own stupidity, as in this insipid column on all the non-specific wrongs Obama has committed.

Today there's a poll showing that 35% of the country want Obama impeached. I'm betting on a far different number within six months, if there's any poll at all. The impeachment mania has peaked, and now it's going downhill. Should someone like Ted Cruz push for impeachment, they will get slapped in the face with a dead fish. They won't get ushered into the driver's seat, as happened last year.

I wonder how long before the majority of Tea Partyers realize this. How long before Palin realizes? What will they do when they do realize it? That might be interesting to observe. Usually, however, bad ideas end with a whimper, not a bang. That's probably what will happen here.

To be completely honest, I didn't realize how dead impeachment was when I started this post. But I figured it out, and much faster than Palin will.

Boehner's nuts ... or Palin's marbles?

Image: oops, lost the reference

Extras. Impeachment was so last February. A humorous summary of Palin's complaint.

Update 7/16/14. More Republicans say impeachment is unworkable. I guess Sarah missed the memo.

Update 1/2/16. Not much on the impeachment front in all of 2015. Some deluded people in a red state. A comical twist with the delusion here. Waves of mixed messages here.

Boehner spinning those wheels

Congress is deadlocked, and therefore has nothing to do (well, close to nothing). Boehner wants to present the semblance of activity and gravity, so he's decided to sue the president. He's got to do something, and it's better than some of the alternatives, like letting a committee research impeachment issues. What a circus that would be. So a lawsuit provides the veneer of activity and gravity, but it moves ever so slowly.

I thought I heard that the lawsuit was already filed! That would be huge news, but I was mistaken. No, Boehner has announced that it will center on one issue--just one! That's better than the kitchen sink approach, and it definitely prevents some jerk from throwing in questions about Obama's nationality. But it also feels like weak sauce.

Boehner still has to get the draft of the lawsuit done. I predict he'll stretch that out for a while. He's also going to offer a resolution for the House to vote on that directs the House to make the suit. That adds another gating device to slow things down a bit.

The House was supposed to have hearings on Benghazi, but I haven't heard anything else about them. I thought it was supposed to be this summer. Is that not going to happen after all? It's hard to tell. Maybe Boehner thinks it's a vote-getter, so he's saving it for the fall campaign season. Or maybe he thinks it's a loser, so it's been quietly buried. I can't tell, but I'd put better odds on the burial.

The Democrats in Congress don't have anything to do either, but they're quieter in that mode. Republicans should learn the lesson.

Image: rumproast.com

Day6: Thin strands of hope...

... but probably not. Perhaps Boehner shifted today toward a fiscal settlement rather than insisting on emasculating Obamacare. But on closer inspection, it looks like Obamacare is still a central focus. Ted Cruz is saying that they need to mitigate the damage of Obamacare. Boehner is saying "It is time for us to stand and fight."

Somewhere I read that the GOP will stand firm until midnight of the Oct. 16, one whole day before the debt default. So in the final 24 hours, we may have another day of mad scampering, proposals launched willy-nilly, and Ted Cruz thundering with unblinking, blood-shot eyes all day. My guess is that if we get to the Oct. 16 without some bargaining, nothing on Oct. 17 will be enough to end the impasse.

Image: politico.com

Day2 roundup: GOP plan, maybe. Tea Party plan, no.

So two days into the government shutdown, where are we? The GOP still seems to be scrambling around for a plan, but perhaps there are glimmers of one. Robert Costa, reporter for National Review, seems to have the best inside information. I've been reading his tweets since about 10pm on 9/30/13, and it's interesting. He seemed to learn very quickly what the House leadership's next move would be, like the ridiculous call for a conference committee to work out a deal in, oh, 1 hour.

So this morning, Costa tweets that Paul Ryan is going to try for a combo dealing covering both funding and debt limit, that will be "fiscal." What does that mean? My guess is that negotiations will focus on budget issues, particularly spending cuts to lower the deficit. Delaying or defunding Obamacare won't be the focus.

But wait. Early this afternoon, Costa tweets that the leadership will follow the Cruz strategy of funding everything piecemeal--probably everything except Obamacare and the EPA.

Nope, that didn't last. Mid-afternoon, Costa is tweeting again about Ryan being the lead bargainer on a grand deal. Again, there's nothing about Obamacare in this.

Does the conservative press know about this? I checked HotAir. They're referring to Costa and Politico, and speculating that maybe Ryan can pressure the Dems on Obamacare, or maybe he'll go for a more "traditional" fiscal deal. Meaning--like the sequester, which didn't touch Obamacare.

At Breitbart, a no-name columnist wants to keep the Cruz plan, but it's not a forward-looking column about what could or will happen in the next few weeks--so no plan there. TownHall, NewsMax, nothing on the Tea Party plan. Only at RedState, Erickson wants go back to defunding Obamacare and threatening any non-compliant Republicans with oblivion. It will work!!!!!!

What are the Dems doing? Waiting for the Republicans to sew themselves together into a semblance of a political force and make their next proposal, which hopefully will make more sense and last longer than the three four throw-away GOP proposals of Shutdown Eve.

Image: huffingtonpost.com

Extra. Belatedly in honor of Ted Cruz:

Image:  hyenacart.com

Tea Party to GOP: Fight this one!

There is somewhat of an internal GOP struggle over how the GOP in Congress should handle the next fiscal crisis point, which is March 27 when the most recent appropriations bills time out. Many in the Tea Party are urging the GOP leadership to demand additional spending cuts and especially reforms of Social Security and Medicare as the price for passing a Continuing Resolution.

The GOP leadership seems to be trying to avoid blame. It doesn't want the blame for shutting down government operations, which is what would happen if the GOP makes any new demands. But they also don't want to face primary challenges from Tea Party-backed candidates, so they have to look tough.

Boehner is walking a tight rope on this issue, and many will be watching and wondering whether he'll make it to the other platform or whether he'll plunge off the line and into either an abyss or a safety net. I'm predicting that he gets to the other side, much to the chagrin of the Tea Party. The other side is the totally predictable status quo appropriation--no cuts, no revenue increases.

Perhaps the more interesting show will be what the Tea Party does this month and during the next year. They've been agitating for spending cuts and entitlement reform, but their only success was the mixed blessing of the sequester. After its losses in the election, does the Tea Party have any strength left to effect fiscal changes, or only to scare GOP congressmen? I'm betting they spent their influence for too little fiscal restraint, but they'll still be the most frightening boogeymen to GOP pols for a while yet.

 Boehner and Tea Party friend

Image: dailymail.co.uk

Countdown to sequester

Despite the [hollow] protests on each political side, the sequester is very likely to occur. That's because the sequester isn't going to be that painful, and there's no better deal on the horizon that can pass the House and Senate.

The GOP may complain about the deep cuts to defense, but they're on the record for wanting even deeper spending cuts. If all those cuts came out of entitlement programs, the GOP would actually be in more trouble. A lot of seniors would be furious over cuts in Social Security and Medicare that became noticeable, maybe even painful. Having a balanced sequester, for all the GOP bluster, is a boon to the GOP.

The Dems also complain, but about the broader effect of the cuts. It's bad for defense, they say (but most liberals are happy to give defense a good trim), but look at what it will do to food inspectors and air traffic controllers and first responders! Excuse me, but I think almost all first responders are paid for at the state and local level, so a 2.3%, 4%, 7% or whatever reduction at the federal level is minimal. But we do like all those spiffy uniforms at our press events.

Dems are pressing for more tax increases, but the GOP isn't going to give them that. So the Dem proposal is dead on arrival. The GOP wants to cut everything but defense, but that's dead on arrival for non-blue-dog Dems.

One thing to remember is that this sequester was the best deal available, in that each side got what it really wanted back when it was negotiated in August 2011. The GOP got no tax increases. That is still the top priority for them, so that leaves little room for them to strike a new deal. The Dems caved on no new revenue (and just had to be patient for the Bush tax cuts to expire), but they got to direct where the cuts occurred. To Dems, it's still the best mix of cuts. They have no incentive to let the GOP change that mix.

By the way, the sequester doesn't even cut spending. It just slows the increase in spending. Per the CBO, the spending for 2012 was $3.538 trillion. For 2013, it's projected to be $3.553 trillion with the effect of the sequester. So if we're cutting the budget in some places, it must be growing like weeds somewhere else. Maybe that indicates we have a big job to do on that "somewhere else." That's sure to be fun with this Congress.

Image: themoderatevoice.com

Extras.

A nascent thought - the one-day-a-week furlough for civilian defense workers will keep those workers off the unemployment rolls. That's a good move now, but will it establish a 4-day work week for federal workers?

A funny twist on the serenity prayer: "...politicians are finding the strength to accept the things they cannot change, and change the things they cannot accept. That means accepting the sequester but changing who gets blamed for it." --Atlantic Wire writer Elspeth Reeve

GOP disarray over the sequester:

• Boehner - It's all Obama's faaaauuullltttt!
• Reaction to Boehner - what a whiner and idiot.
• Plain blog - those incoherent GOP arguments.
• RedState - yes, the cuts are unbalanced, but let's cut anyway. Plus, Obama's on the run!

Up Next: Look for a post soon on the next crisis point - the next Continuing Resolution, which we need by April 1 March 27.

 Image: cagle.com

Leader of the opposition

Ed Morrissey of HotAir writes a couple of interesting columns on who will be the de facto leader of the Republicans. He correctly points out that Boehner and McConnell will be too busy and too tainted with deal-making, so he offers these names:

1. Rand Paul
2. Bobby Jindal
3. Rick Perry
4. Marco Rubio
5. Chris Christie

These are mostly good picks in that they're likely to be visible leaders, if not the leader. (It makes me wonder who was the leader from 2009 to 2011 when the primaries started. Critics say it was Rush Limbaugh, and maybe it was. Luckily not anymore.)

Rand Paul is certainly going to be the leader of the small-government libertarian pack. He has stayed almost constantly true to those principles. However, the libertarians aren't the dominant force in the GOP, so he couldn't be the dominant leader. His small-military views just aren't popular with most of the GOP, and they can't overlook that.

Bobby Jindal bucked a fair amount of the 2012 losing rhetoric, so it seemed that he was trying to make a name for himself as an intelligent reformer of the GOP. As a moderate, I like that, but I don't know if enough Republicans feel that way. Certainly the noisy ones don't. Nonetheless, he deserves to be on this list right now, but he could easily fall off by going too far or not far enough.

Rick Perry doesn't deserve to be on this list. He was a laughable candidate in 2011. Maybe the pain meds have worn off, but you can't fix stupid. He gives every indication of having been briefed on all of his opinions, rather than mulling them over and developing his own ideas. I think he's someone's marionette. If he can become a national leader, then I don't know anything about American politics.

Marco Rubio is certainly running for leader and running for president. However, Romney's campaign showed the weakness of choosing someone who is constantly running for office instead of being engaged in actual governing and problem-solving. Rubio is flash but no substance at this point. I don't think the GOP will go for a lightweight again.

Chris Christie has lately been reviled among many Republicans, so it's hard to imagine him rising above that to be a spokesman and leader of a large enough slice of the GOP. He's certainly got the verbal talent and a can-do record, but too many Republicans hate him right now, and that's not going to be easy to change.

Something missing from this list is the conservative-pragmatic governor archetype. I'm thinking Mitch Daniels, Scott Walker, John Kasich, and Rick Snyder. They've all dealt (cleaned up/reformed) at the state level with the kinds of problems the federal government faces--how to trim spending and reduce benefits for government workers without massive service cuts. Also important, they haven't tainted themselves with culture war rhetoric on abortion and contraception as Virginia governor Bob McDonnell has.

These governors are the solid, working leaders in each of their states, but who speaks for them nationally? If they did have a national champion, that would be a formidable leader. I'm going to be curious to see how this develops. The next few months will be worth watching.

 

Image: qctimes.com

Extra. Will we have new leaders in punditry? It's less important, but it would be such a relief.

Update 6/21/13. According to this column, Jindal has trotted out the typical GOP fallback position of bashing liberals. It looks like Jindal will put on any stance when it is expedient, including clear-eyed reformer. Too bad it was just an act.

Short: Inside the failed House revolt

Breitbart.com was buzzing with rumors of an insurrection against Boehner before the vote on 1/2/13 that reinstated him as Speaker of the House. Here's a longer story about the planning the coup that didn't happen.

Negotiation box score update - more FAIL

Well, this isn't as much fun as I hoped it would be. The GOP is hopelessly mired in the idea that they can get a lot by giving a tiny bit.

_______________________________________________________
Boehner's offer circa 12/16/12

• Tax increases on those with incomes $1 million and over. 
• Increased revenues of $1 trillion if there are spending cuts of $1 trillion. 
• GOP keeps the leverage of further negotiations on the debt ceiling. (source)

______________________________________________________
Obama's offer circa 12/17/12

• Tax increases on those with incomes over $400,000. 
• Increased revenues of $1.2 trillion. 
• Certain savings in the big entitlement programs, but not a particular numerical promise. 
• Automatic debt ceiling increases based on this deal for 2 years. (source)

______________________________________________________

Both are bad deals, asking for too much while offering much less. So Boehner is turning to Plan B, writing a bill that will extend  most of the Bush tax cuts for non-millionaires. This bill may pass the House, but then go nowhere, except perhaps as butt-covering for House members. Sigh.

Image:  epic-fail.blogspot.com

Previous offers:

_______________________________________________________
Boehner/Ryan 11/14/12

• New revenue only through GDP growth.
• All the spending cuts in the Ryan 2012 budget. (source)

_______________________________________________________
Boehner 11/15/12

• Ok, maybe some new revenue.
• All the spending cuts in the Ryan 2012 budget. (source)

______________________________________________________
Obama 11/29/12

• $400 billion in entitlement cuts.
• $1.6 trillion in tax revenue.
• $50 billion stimulus program. (source)

______________________________________________________
Boehner 12/3/12

• $800 billion in tax revenue.
• $600 billion in Medicare and Medicaid cuts.
• $300 billion in savings from programs like farm subsidies.
• $200 billion to slow growth of government, including Social Security.
• $300 billion cut to federal agency budgets. (source)

______________________________________________________

Breaking: Major fissures in the conservative world

Is the US conservative universe collapsing? There are certainly a lot of odd tremors:

• A major leak from Fox News--a high-level Fox contributor visited David Petraeus in Afghanistan with a message from Roger Ailes advising Petraeus on how to deal with his boss (otherwise known as the president). We lowly peons can listen because someone made a digital recording which has been leaked to Bob Woodward. I wonder what other vile secrets will be escaping the Fox vaults next.
• Fox has exiled Karl Rove and Dick Morris from their Fox News pulpits, at least temporarily. Another interesting Fox leak.
• A group of fiery no-compromise congressmen have been removed from their committee posts. This is a message to Tea Partiers and Ron Paul supporters that compromise will happen, so get out of the path of the speeding bus.
• Key senators aren't backing Boehner's inadequate but significant offers to raise taxes. DeMint is icy, McConnell is non-committal.

I'm not predicting the end of US conservative or any such nonsense, but there appears to be increased seismic activity. I expect a major shake-up, and I can't see the hard-liners, no-compromise guys winning. However, they may put on one hell of a show while they're going down.

Image: hshdude@flickr

Extra: More great images here, but too much for this post.

Same day update. Oops, I forgot about Dick Armey leaving FreedomWorks in a huff. FreedomWorks had a major role in training conservatives in grassroots organizing, though it wasn't in on the very beginning of the Tea Party.

Update 12/6/12. Jim DeMint is leaving the Senate and going to the Heritage Foundation where he hopes to be more successful at conservative messaging. Or maybe he's tired of being in the minority and all that blasted compromising that has to be done.

Negotiation box scores

The Atlantic Wire had a neat summary of the negotiation offers, and I think I'll steal the idea. It'll be fascinating to see the evolution of the offers through these summaries. Here goes:

_______________________________________________________
Boehner/Ryan 11/14/12

• New revenue only through GDP growth.
• All the spending cuts in the Ryan 2012 budget. (source)

_______________________________________________________
Boehner 11/15/12

• Ok, maybe some new revenue.
• All the spending cuts in the Ryan 2012 budget. (source)

______________________________________________________
Obama 11/29/12

• $400 billion in entitlement cuts.
• $1.6 trillion in tax revenue.
• $50 billion stimulus program. (source)

______________________________________________________
Boehner 12/3/12

• $800 billion in tax revenue.
• $600 billion in Medicare and Medicaid cuts.
• $300 billion in savings from programs like farm subsidies.
• $200 billion to slow growth of government, including Social Security.
• $300 billion cut to federal agency budgets. (source)

______________________________________________________

The first partially serious offer is Boehner's on 12/3. By the way, Boehner's new revenue would come only from high earners, according to the Washington Post. Look for more box score updates!

Image: businessinsider.com

Negotiations at the edge of the fiscal cliff

This will be an unsourced piece, and unfortunately, that means I'll be doing that reviled job called punditry. But I've actually been pretty pleased with some bits of my own punditry, so here goes.

Congress and President Obama have 7-9 weeks to work out a deal prior to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. When these tax cuts end, almost all the paycheck earners in America will have some nasty news, hence there is HUGE incentive for both parties to strike a deal. (For those who need a review: The GOP wants to keep all the tax cuts. The Dems want to end the tax cuts for the highest earners.)

Obama has issued a veto threat, but he won't have to veto anything. The Senate won't be passing anything the prez can't sign. Boehner is pretending he won't budge, but he surely will due to the huge incentive I mentioned above. There is also the recent history, which includes Dems and GOP negotiating the August 2011 debt deal and the GOP caving on the Social Security tax cut extension.

So there will be a deal, either before the end of the year or early in January. It might be a deal to extend the tax cuts a few months as serious negotiations take place, but there will be something. The exact form of the deal I can't predict. However, I definitely predict that Dems will include sunset provisions or other provisions that don't take effect yet, but require additional votes. This will provide Dems with leverage that is so valuable. The Dems will also try to reduce GOP leverage by including automatic debt ceiling increases without a vote.

I predict some very disappointed Republicans/conservatives. This is an easy prediction because the Dems have a lot of leverage, and the GOP is in a very weak position.

Elections have consequences

Image: dailykos.com

By the way, the sequester issue is not nearly as major because Obama has a fair amount of control over the timetable for parceling out the sequester cuts. He can make them tougher or gentler as he needs for his negotiating position. He's already announced that they will start off gentle, especially on defense contractors. Again, this is a leverage advantage for the Dems.

Update 11/17/12. There are so many angles on this, that I forgot a few that I wanted to mention. The deal will come out of the Senate, and the House will reluctantly pass amid much gnashing of teeth and perhaps some vomiting. In this way, the House will continue its tradition of NO COMPROMISE, that  is, passing dozens of grandstanding bills before caving to the deals worked by some senators. Sigh. I'm tired of these children--maybe we should abolish the House.