The Will to Fight in Debt Ceiling Drama
The debt-ceiling drama is getting very tedious, and some of the op-eds penned by writers such as Eugene Robinson are especially annoying. Matt Browner Hamlin debunks him pretty easily in his post, “That’s not a compromise.” The bipartisan fetish in the D.C. Beltway is getting worse by the minute. They are panicking more than Wall Street, so even Robinson starts writing garbage. Why do the Villagers allow Republicans to get away with the negotiating practice of “it’s either my way or the highway” tactics? Paul Krugman simply writes: So, here’s where we are on the debt limit discussions : Democrats have agreed to large spending cuts, but are holding out for doing something about a rule that lets businesses value their inventory at less than they bought it for in order to lower their tax burden, a loophole that lets hedge-fund managers count their income as capital gains and pay a 15 percent marginal tax rate, the tax treatment of private jets, oil and gas subsidies, and a limit on itemized deductions for the wealthy. And Republicans walked out. Think about it. There’s a significant chance that failing to raise the debt limit could provoke a renewed financial crisis — and Republicans would rather take that chance than allow a reduction in tax breaks on corporate jets. What this says to me is that Obama cannot, must not, concede here. If he does, he’s signaling that the GOP can extract even the most outrageous demands; he’s setting himself up for endless blackmail. A line has to be drawn somewhere; it should have been drawn last fall; but to concede now would effectively mean the end of the presidency. After the debt ceiling there’s the 2012 budget talks coming. What will the Democrats give up next if they allow Republicans to carve them up on the debt ceiling when they know it must be raised, or if it’s not, then unconscionable harm will come to the economy of the U.S.? I thought this article was a joke, but maybe not : For their part, Obama and Reid appear prepared to reach much higher, putting substantial Medicare savings on the table if Republicans would accept added revenues. With the House GOP leadership in New York, all of Monday’s White House maneuvering was Senate-centric. But Obama’s hope is that Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), with whom he met privately last week, will be intrigued by a bolder package that might also help neutralize the Medicare issue now hurting the GOP among elderly voters Why would the Dems even consider giving Republicans cover on the Medicare issue? mcjoan writes: Maybe Reid has already decided they can’t defend the Dem Senate majority, so what the hell, give in now and maybe get something in return down the road from Republicans. Because that has already worked out so well for him. It’s hard to say what Obama is thinking. But “substantial Medicare savings,” beyond what we know is already on the table, can only mean benefit and provider cuts. Which is giving up not just a big chunk of this critical program for seniors and the disabled, but all of the ground gained against House Republicans for voting for Ryan’s disastrous budget. Nobody knows what they are thinking, but unless the unemployment rate drops significantly, Obama will have a tough time selling himself to the American people if they give up on seniors by cutting benefits to either medicaid, Medicare or Social Security even if Michele Bachmann is the GOP candidate. Democrats not standing up and fighting for longstanding Democratic positions on our social safety net will only lead to ruin.
The Will to Fight in Debt Ceiling Drama
Posted by
on June 28, 2011. Filed under