House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) offered his side of the story Friday evening, echoing the tone of his letter to House Republicans. He said negotiations with the White House broke down for two reasons: 1) President Obama’s insistence on raising taxes, and 2) Obama’s “refusal to get serious” about spending cuts and meaningful entitlement reform.
Boehner said “an agreement had been reached” earlier in the week that included about $800 billion in new revenue (but not through raising increases). However, the White House on Thursday “moved the goal post” by insisting on an additional $400 billion in tax increases, which Boehner refused to accept. “I take the same oath of office as the president…to do what is in the best interest of our country,” Boehner said. “And it’s not in the best interest of our country to raise taxes in this economy.”
The Republican position has been clear and consistent, Boehner argued. They would only agree to raise the debt ceiling if it included spending cuts that exceed the amount of the debt increase and no tax increases. “We’ve put plan after plan on the table,” he said, pointing to the House budget resolution authored by Paul Ryan, and the recently passed “Cut, Cap and Balance” legislation, which the Senate voted to block Friday morning. “Never once did the president come to the table with a plan.”
When the president demanded the $400 billion in additional revenue through tax increases, Boehner said he had to “back away from the tree and take a look at the forest.” After consulting with his Republican colleagues all day, he decided to pull out of the talks.
The administration had made “every effort in the world,” he said, to avoid serious consideration of “real spending cuts” and entitlement reform, which is essential to getting the country back on a secure fiscal footing and to preserving entitlement programs for future generations.
The speaker repeated his previous assessment that “dealing with the White House is like dealing with a bowl of Jell-O,” but declined to stoop to the “partisan sniping that we heard earlier,” alluding to testy tone of the president’s press conference moments earlier. “Every step of this process was difficult,” Boehner said. “There’s a reason why we have two political parties.”
In spite of the abrupt end to the talks, however, Boehner said he still trusted Obama as a negotiator and did not believe their relationship had been permanently damaged.
HE said that beginning this evening, congressional leaders will work together to try to come up with “a responsible path forward” ahead of an 11 a.m. summit at the White House tomorrow morning. “If the White House won’t get serious, we will,” he said. The speaker expressed confidence that an agreement could be reached “next week” to raise the debt ceiling and avoid a downgrade to the country’s credit rating, that would also meet the principles laid out by Republicans in the negotiations. “No one wants to default,” he said. “I’m convinced that we will not.”
Amend CCB in the Senate to remove the Balanced Budget Amendment requirement.
Find four Democratic Senators to agree.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe BBA is the most popular government initiative since the Prescription Drug Plan. Most polls show it with a 70% favorability, and some polls it's as high as 80%. Why would the GOP excise the most popular element of that bill?
The GOP has to somehow force an up or down vote on that Amendment, and then make the purple/red state Dems defend that vote, presuming of course they vote against it, which I'm not sure is a certainty. This is why Reid refuses to let it come to the floor for a real vote.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhere's my bumper sticker "JELL-O" with the trademarked Obama "O"? Seriously, I believe there's a bipartisan market for that item.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe 800 billion of revenue wasn't actually new revenue. It was simply revenue that would already come about when the Bush tax cuts expire. (Either Republicans would extend the other 3.2 trillion on people below 250k and let the other 800 billion expire, or they would refuse and let the entire 4 trillion expire. Either way, the 800 billion of new revenue would have come in even if there was no deal.)
So this is all over Republicans expecting Democrats to give up the store, while not themselves having to give up a measly 400 billion of actual new revenue.
I don't think this matters for public opinion -- I think the Republicans will quickly cave shortly after SS checks stop going out regardless of the details. But the details are still interesting.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEric, you're right. Obama will play the standard municipal gov't game: When the citizens demand a budget cut, the mayor always says they'll have to lay off police and firemen, because he knows that will hurt the most. He never says the rec dept will be shutdown. Obama won't send the checks to granny, but he'll keep useless monoliths like the Dept of Education humming along.
At least it will finally, once and for all, expose Social Security for the Ponzi scheme it has always been.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEither that, or Republican vision will be exposed (finally) and the public will decide whether they like that vision or not. The latter seems more likely.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI look forward to Obama having to explain to Grandma and Grandpa why they didn't get their Social Security checks when bureaucrats at the EPA, IRS, etc., and elsewhere all over the federal government did. Gosh, I hope they don't conclude it was for political reasons.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour dog and pony show about social security checks is getting a bit tiresome.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou might think it is a "dog and pony show." That doesn't mean it isn't entirely accurate. Republicans caved in 1995 for the same reason.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs I, and others, explained to you yesterday, there will be plenty of funds in August to pay social security recipients. If Obama chooses not to, he will have made a conscious, crass, political decision to withhold the checks. Woe to him when he tries explaining his reasoning to all those seniors.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have to agree with REB. You were kind of interested when you started posting your whole "Republicans are doomed" thing earlier in the week, but its kind of a broken record at this point.
And as far as old people are concerned, if their checks are later, they might blame the mean Republicans or they might blame the aloof tempermental black man with the foreign name who signed the law that cut their medicare by $500 billion and who has the panels that will decide if their cancer gets treated or not - especially when they hear that there actually IS plenty of money to pay their checks, but he told his tax cheating treasurer not to write them. And they will hear that.
Old people can be a little unreasonable in their decision-making sometimes, basing them on incomplete information and lifelong prejudices - unlike cool, sober people like you and me.
Either way, have a nice evening.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"We’ve put plan after plan on the table,” he said, pointing to the House budget resolution authored by Paul Ryan, and the recently passed “Cut, Cap and Balance” legislation"
But those plans both failed to pass a Democratic Senate. One included the privatization of Medicare, the other a Constitutional amendment! Do the House Republicans know how bills get passed? Do they even realize they control only one half of Congress? Does anyone here know how to play this game?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI wasn't aware the Senate had voted on cut, cap and balance. Or does "fail to pass" mean Harry Reid simply didn't do his job, like he hasn't done for the last 800 days?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's obvious who the obstructionists are here, and it's not the House.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI would agree. The Senate Democrats have obstructed the privatization of Medicare and an ill advised amendment to the Constitution.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Senate is supposed to come up with their alternative plan-where is it? I would be willing for the House to trade some tax increases (revenue enhancements, in your lingo), for the Senate to agree to the BBA. Would you?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAdd repeal of Obamacare into that mix and I'd do increase taxes for the increase in debt limit.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAlert, alert. Privatize medicare is code for "I am really stupid and don't even know it."
Give it a break - nothing else you say will be listened to no matter how profound when you insist on demonstrating ignorance on that scale. If you insist I will have to use that subtle but accurate description hurled toward our clothless emperor during his congressional address.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat the Senate passed? What plan has the President proposed?
Don't the Democrats know how to play?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThank you, Speaker Boehner and GOP.
I do not understand how anyone with a brain cannot figure out increased debt without cuts is increased debt. Smaller government, less taxes. Less debt, less ties to China. Has any Democrat in Congress balanced a checkbook? Paid off debt? Had a personal budget?
God, help us.
I know, I know, the Obama voting bloc think there is a magical "stash" out there to pay their rent and gas. I know. It still is amazing, the stupidity of these same people, 30% or so, who he caters to who don't pay taxes. I am very, very tired of this Robin Hood in the White House, who would increase food stamps before paying the defense budget.
I repeat, why cut Medicare or Social Security and not cut Medicaid? Oh, yeah, "seniors" are the disposable voting bloc.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse