President Obama’s 2011 budget called for a spending increase of $40 billion. Tonight, he touted a bipartisan agreement on “the largest annual spending cut in our history” — some $38.5 billion [emphasis added]. All told, he got $78.5 billion less than he originally requested.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) didn’t want to cut anything at first. But bowing to political reality, eventually ponied up a measly $4.7 billion in cuts. He ended up with $33.8 billion less spending than he wanted. And he called it an “historic” accomplishment. (Not surprisingly, the left is appalled).
House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio), on the other hand, initially proposed $32 billion in spending cuts. House Republicans, led by an undaunted freshman class, bumped that number up to $61 billion ($100 billion off the president’s budget), before settling on $38.5 billion.
That’s $6.5 billion more than Boehner asked for to begin with, and $5.5 billion more than the $33 billion that Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Democrats claimed had been agreed to less than two weeks ago. It remains to be seen how much of that will be “real” cuts to discretionary spending, but all told, it appears that we’'ll see a substantial reduction in baseline spending that will yield hundreds of billions in savings over the next decade.
But unlike Obama and Reid, the speaker didn’t quite feel the need to pat himself on the back over it. As he has said all along, “Our goal is to cut spending and keep the government open.” He did exactly that. In a brief statement to reporters after the deal was announced, Boehner said simply: “We fought to keep government spending down.” And they’ll keep fighting, because the biggest battles — over the debt limit and the 2012 budget — are still to come. Given the sheer magnitude of our debt and deficit problems, a victory lap would have been ill-advised, and perhaps ill-deserved.
As Boehner himself repeated throughout this debate, “Republicans control just one-half of one-third of the federal government.” And yet look out the outcome. Democrats, the bigger two-thirds of the government, consistently reneged on their position, agreeing to more and more cuts. Perhaps more significant than the $38.5 billion in cuts, which Boehner told members was “the best deal we could get,” are the political implications as both sides prepare to tackle the bigger spending issues. “We’ve changed the conversation,” said freshman Rep. Tim Griffin (R., Ark.). “This year we’re talking about how much we’re going to reduce — cut — and that’s a major cultural shift in a matter of months.”
Indeed, Harry’s Reid dramatic shift on spending cuts — from denouncing the initial GOP offer ($32 billion) as “draconian” and “unworkable,” to celebrating a $38.5 billion spending cut as “historic” — is remarkable in and of itself. Also telling is the way that Democrats misleadingly inflated the amount of cuts being offered. All indications to the contrary, they seem to realize deep down that the American public wants to see fiscal restraint in Washington.
Of course, not all conservatives are pleased with the outcome. Rep. Jim Jordan (R., Ohio), told NRO that he would vote against the deal and predicted a “significant number of no votes” from conservative and freshman members of the Republican Study Committee, which he chairs. Reps. Michele Bachmann (R., Minn.) and Jeff Flake (R., Ariz.) both said they were “disappointed” by with the final deal (both are also seeking higher office).
Boehner might need a few Democratic votes to pass the deal — that was always a likely outcome. But the narrative constantly pushed by Democrats and the media — that “extreme” Tea Party members would force him to shut down the government — never materialized. As a result, not only does it look like Boehner got the best deal in terms of spending cuts, but he also comes off as the most reasonable actor in the debate, the one who worked the hardest to reach a compromise.
Republicans should feel plenty confident heading into the upcoming debates over the debt ceiling and the 2012 budget, Paul Ryan’s daring proposal to cut the deficit by $6 trillion. This deal, thanks to Boehner’s robust leadership, was a good start — much less for the size of the spending cuts it yielded than for the political dynamic it revealed. They will need all the political capital they can muster going forward, because it’s only the beginning.
This post has been updated since first posting.
Nice spin- but this is a win for Obama's re-election campaign.
The only people who care about the figures behind the negotiations and the who got what out of this deal are the political junkies.
The average american's take away from all this will be Obama's address where he noted "the largest annual spending cut in our history".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm saddened that many of the politically astute conservative commentators who should know better have no idea of the financial crisis America is facing. This bragging about about how Boehner won big is nonsense. After all the hoopla and political melodrama, here's what he won: a reduction of .0325 percent in this year's federal deficit.
39 billion in budget cuts out of a 2011 federal budget that has a deficit of about 1.2 trillion dollars isn't even a blip on the radar screen. America is on the track to financial armageddon and our Congressional leaders are still arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Just as a symbolic gesture and to keep 2010 Tea Party campaign promises, Speaker Boehner should have held out for the 61 billion in cuts or let the government shutdown. By cutting a deal with the Democrats over .0325% of this year's deficit, the Republicans threw away any real leverage they had to scare the Dems into conceding significant budget cuts.
Lewis Forro
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseVirginia Beach, VA
The negotiations ended up at the D starting number, not the R starting number. That means D wins this absurd little battle, not that it matters anyway.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFor the conservatives that think this is a loss. Don't forget that fixing our financial and government spending problems is a war and this was one battle. The Republicans don't run the Senate having the government shut down over a few billion is not worth it. Boehner did a great job and we should all commend him for putting together this deal.
Beside the spending cuts, the best part is the Senate having to vote on the health care law and planned parenthood funding. Having Democrats vote on health care again is going to be fun to watch. The repercussions will result in huge wins for Republicans going into 2012.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHey ExpatAsia. This cut is going to pail in comparison to the 2012 reductions. Obama's historic event will only be historic for a short time and nothing to hand his hat on.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell sure, those bullies Obama, Reid & the media kicked sand in our face this time, but next time, you just wait, we're REALLY gonna take it to 'em. Next time, we'll stand up to 'em and be tough. Next time...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe reality of our system is that this is the best Boehner could get, and it saddening that it does not even put a dent to this years debt. And in a few months when the 2012 budget is presented, again, little will be done to our massive debt while the Dems control the Senate and White House. Most certainly 2012 will be our nations do-or-die election, if we can make it that far.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is better than absolutely nothing--but this "one half of one third" stuff is getting very Eyore-like. It sounds like we should consider anything that exceeds 17% of what we hoped for to be a win. The House CR had $61 billion in cuts and 4 big riders. The end result is $38 billion in cuts and no riders. This may not have been a disaster, but it is definitely not a big win.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGentlemen,
You two posters are nice people, and you are 10,000,000% wrong. And it is a common mistake among us conservatives.
The real cutting of spending now can begin, by committees hacking through decades of democrat-sponsored and nurtured spending programs and wasteful government bureaucracy that is killing the country. Killing it by stifling what people can do, and killing through an onerous debt on the non-discretionary side. And also killing it by choking us to death with social policy.
So many conservatives want everything now. Well, we can't get everything now, we didn't win enough seats in the Senate in the 2010 elections, and we lost the presidency in 2008. But this deal is real hope that finally conservatives can start to change what has taken decades to build up, IF big chunks of the political right, including the tea party people, don't misread the tea leaves, and start to leave the Republicans, or join a 3rd party.
Now is the time to celebrate, and get ready for the 2012 election. For real change to happen we need to win four Senate seats and the White House, at least.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe political reality according to John Boehner is that the GOP controls one half of one third of the federal government. Could the Republicans have done better? Possibly. There is no way to know how the political winds would have shifted if the government had shut down. Keep in the mind that narrative would have been controlled by a media that is completely in the tank with the Democrats although I think a vast majority of Americans are beginning to realize that. However, why take the chance. The bottomline is that out of control spending is now going in the right direction and with serious people like Paul Ryan putting forth solid proposals (not perfect)the ship of state is starting to turn. It will not be a quick fix but with patience and the right decisions we will get there. After all, we're Americans!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo this is Obama's insincere "The era of big government is over!" moment.
I looked at the Ezra Klein blog piece. He and most of the commentators are saying these spending cuts will slow the economy and hurt the poor. Will any of them ever explain how leaving 38.5 billion IN THE ECONOMY will somehow manage to slow the economy? Or is a key ingredient to our recovery making sure wealth is redistributed to government employees who spend a lot of time surfing the internet? I'm a former government employee and I know what I'm talking about.
It seems to me we just sent our first signal to China and others who have been buying our debt that we can and will get our finances in order. This should reassure them and strengthen the dollar's standing. Mr. Klein, what do you suppose THAT will do to the economy?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt remains to be seen. If the GOP is seen by Reid, Schummer and company to have "rolled-over", the debt limit and 2012 budget negotiations will be extremely difficult. Judging by the extreme vitriol of the Left over a piddling $40 Billion, I find it dificult to imagine the violent rhetoric that should now be expected from the 2012 bugdet proposed by Paul Ryan.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThose who complain over the insignificance of the $38.5billion in the grand scheme of things have a point, but $60 or $100 billion is not so great either. When we start to deal with entitlements, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid that is where the money is, and that is where we need to start raising retire ages and things like that and that is where you'll find saving big enough to take a bite out of the deficit. So it is good we have this behind us, now lets start talking about the stuff that really matters.
Also the new thing is much better than those CAPCHA things. Thanks for changing it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"But the narrative constantly pushed by Democrats and the media — that “extreme” Tea Party members would force him to shut down the government — never materialized."
Wow, this has got to be the most ignorant and cowardly sentence ever written. Is this guy even a Republican?
If avoiding the media's narative is our primary goal and a good thing, why stop at the Tea Party narrative? I would suggest that we support the funding of all abortions through the federal government. No woman would ever have to pay for an abortion again. That would really undermine the Democrat and media's narrative. The media would no longer be able to say that Republicans are against a woman's right to chose or we are aginst Women health issues. Think of it! The media could no longer say that the Republicans were controlled by the Religious Right.
Yep, I see alot of potential in this srategy to avoid the media's narrative. We could all become Democrats. That would really mess with their minds.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think its way too early for anyone to be declaring victory. No one outside of the core negotiators have seen the actual package. How do we know the $39 billion isn't loaded with budget gimmickry (ie mandatory cuts that do not impact the ten year spending base and are simply restored in the outyears)?
The simple fact that a "deal" was made with Harry Reid and Obama makes me suspicious. Add to that the fact that Boehner's chief negotiator is his Chief of Staff Barry Jackson--ie Karl Rove's Deputy, ie the "architect" of Bush's comprehensive immigration reform and many other "take-a-bad-deal-and-declare-victory" debacles, makes me very suspect.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Republicans got nothing. They should have shut down the government. We won the last election big and they AGAIN "negotiated" to get drivel??? We're still funding Planned ParentHood even though we now own Congress? The Republican party needs to be replaced and we tannedd do nothings like Boener and Mitchell have to go... Tell me, are we still funding our left wing friends over at NPR? I haven't been able to find if that's still so....A disgrace that National Review considers this a "win"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThanks Mr. Stiles.
Boehner wins big???!!! For who???!!! Certainly not for those who pay the bills today nor our children who will pay the bills in the future!!!
The lib-progressive Democrats, led by President Castrati, are "redistibute the wealth" thiefs!!! Who gives a rats a*** about billions!!!
The lib-progressives don't care about the latest news flash and apparently the RINOs have not heard the latest news flash...WE ARE TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN DEBT!!!
GOOD GRIEF!!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBoehner did a masterful job of extracting the most concessions he possibly could from the Democrats and averted the government shutdown that would have damaged the GOP and, more importantly, their ability to make real long term fiscal reform during the coming year. Bravo Mr. Speaker, Bravo.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCan we please have a less annoying replacement for CAPCHA? This ad for Windows Phone, with its puerile pun on an act of intimate intercourse, takes the process to a new low. And the technology censored out my use of the adjective "se-ual"--what gives? We're adults here, not 15 year-olds.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy, upon reading this short article/commentary, am I reminded of Orwell's "1984" News Ministry reporting that "chocolate rations have been increased to 20 grams"?!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse