Earlier today, White House press secretary Jay Carney said Congress should “quit pointing fingers” with regard to the supercommittee’s failure to reach an agreement on a $1.2 trillion deficit-reduction package. Translation: Republicans should stop blaming President Obama and his conspicuous detachment during the negotiations for said failure.
“Congress assigned itself a job, assigned 12 of its own members a task, a task that wasn’t really that difficult to acheive,” he said. “There wasn’t a seat at that table, as far as I’m aware, for a member of the administration.”
Hours later, President Obama took to his White House podium to deliver a partisan broadside, blaming Republicans for the supercommittee’s failure. “Despite broad agreement, too many Republicans in Congress have refused to listen to voices of reason and compromise coming from outside of Washington,” the president said in a brief statement; he left without taking any questions.
Additionally, Obama threatened to veto any effort do away with the $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts designed to served as a backstop in the event that the supercommittee failed. “There will be no easy off-ramps on this one, we need to keep the pressure up on a compromise,” he said.
Democrats, he assured us, had been “willing to put politics aside and committee to reasonable adjustments that would have reduced the costs of Medicare.” It was Republicans who “simply will not budge from their position” on tax increases, which he claimed was “the main stumbling block” to bipartisan compromise. “They continue to insist on protecting $100 billion worth of tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans at any cost,” he added. “Even if it means reducing the deficit with deep cuts to things like education and medical research. Even if it means deep cuts in Medicare.
A couple of thoughts. Here is Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.), a member of the supercommittee, describing the “reasonable adjustments” that Democrats had been willing to consider:
The fact is there were cuts, and incidentally, when you say ‘cuts,’ it was slowing the rate of growth. It was not a cut to a benefit; it was a slowing of the rate at which it is growing.
So the president is mistaken. Democrats have put forward no proposal that would have “reduced the costs of Medicare,” but rather they were merely proposing a reduction in the rate at which these costs are increasing. And they are increasing dramatically:
Considering that Medicare is the driving force behind the country’s long-term debt crisis, what the president calls “reasonable adjustments” to the program just aren’t going to cut it. Standard and Poor’s acknowledged this much back in August when explaining its decision to downgrade the United States’ AAA credit rating following the debt-ceiling negotiations.
The deal to come out of those negotiations, S&P wrote at the time, “envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.” Days later, President Obama signaled his support for “modest adjustments” to entitlement programs. And yet Republicans are the ones who “simply will not budge.”
UPDATE: Regarding entitlements and the deficit, there’s also this handy chart to consider, courtesy of Jim Pethokoukis at AEI:
Frightening. Of course, in the president’s mind, anyone who proposes meaningful reform to these programs is only serious unless they are willing to agree to a massive tax increase.
I'm glad this committee failed, any "deal" would have screwed our side since you can never bind a future Congress not to spend. Republicans wisely remembered their history. All we would have gotten was empty promises for a trillion dollar tax hike to just spend on worthless stimulus projects for Democrat donors.
This is more a testament to the failure in leadership of Obama than anything that it got to this point, and the more of a mess Washington looks the more poorly it reflects on the Party that controls the White House and Senate.
Also, let Obama make good on his promise, the GOP House should pass a bill restoring military funding and let him and his fellow Democrats kill it. Let's see what that does to his chances in Virginia and the pivotal Senate race that is also happening there.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou also cannot bind future Congresses to tax increases.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCommon sense should tell you that looking at history, tax rates are far more likely to stay consistent than budgets for government spending that only go one direction: up.
Even with a lopsided, Democrat-controlled Congress and Obama as President, the "Bush" tax rates stayed the same.
The end result of any phony deal from this committe would have been immediate tax increases that would have likely stayed the same over a decade, with future legislators restoring the spending a few months later.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat is the coolest use of a Reece's cup in governmental economics ever!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is rather hilarious that Republicans wish that Obama would have been more involved in negotiations. What would they expect him to do? Advocate for their positions?
Would Republicans have been willing to make more concessions had President Obama been more involved in the negotiations? Based on the fact that the super committee arose from the Republican refusal to compromise during the debt ceiling debacle when they were negotiating with President Obama himself, that seems far-fetched. But in the absence of real concessions by Republican politicians, this process isn't going anywhere.
There is an old saying. Roll around in the mud with pigs, and you are going to get dirty. President Obama took this saying to heart and wisely decided to avoid directly dealing with bad-faith proposals on the part of Republican politicians. He has, after all, been stung quite badly by Republican bad-faith once before.
Ridiculous. Instead of whining the President Obama wasn't there Congress should do its job. In this case, however, this super committee deserved to die. It had tainted origins as the spawn of Republican efforts to hold the full faith and credit of the United States hostage in a crass attempt at coercion.
I am glad the committee is dead. It will not be missed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnytime DW claims that Republicans "held...hostage" the financial stability of the country, I am moved to remind readers of two things.
1.) The Democratic-controlled House and Senate of 2010 deliberately delayed doing anything about the upcoming debt crisis until the midterm Congress was inaugurated, in a hamfisted attempted to split the tea partiers and establishment Republicans.
2.) Insisting that any increase in the debt ceiling be matched with spending cuts is not crass coercion; it is in fact utterly irresponsible to raise the debt ceiling and not do anything about the spending that fuels debt.
To say the least, I have a very different idea about which actors in the debt ceiling debacle crass than DW does.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am happy to let it die as well. It was a charade from the beginning with not a single democrat willing to consider anything other than a significant tax RATE increase - hopefully on the rich - for the purposes of developing a campaign message. Even when given an opportunity to increase revenues the democrats wouldn't take it.
They also wanted to add more spending on top of the huge tax increase. Son of stimulus!!That is the strategy and it is all about rescuing the president who has absolutely nothing to run on, and is threatening to pull the entire party down with him.
They will take the only positive polling data they have - a desire to see the "rich" pay a little bit more in taxes (and everyone will enjoy what the definition of rich becomes!!) - and try to drive a wedge through the electorate.
But when you have given up the desire to actually govern, and only wish to exploit powerful circumstances to enrich yourself (which seems a very significant impulse of every politician, regardless of party) what would we expect.
The important part to remember is this - the GOP can say it tried to raise revenues but the dems wouldn't take it, the independents will notice the truth of this, and realizing the dems are not serious about the country's finances, vote more of them out of office. Fitch is now looking at the rating of the US. Who agreed to more revenue and who refused to cut spending?
The continuing problem in Europe, with the Spanish now turning out the leftists, will just keep the reality in front of the voters who are at least mildly awake. Every leftwing party in the world wants to take as much of your money as possible, spend your country into near or actual bankruptcy, regulate the curve of your banana, siphon money off the top for themselves and use the govt largess to live the highlife. Remember, all animals are equal, some are just more equal than others.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree! Obama has proven once again that he is an empty suit.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe real issue is that the country is divided on how to proceed. And I think it is a misreading by the MSM (big surprise that!) on what 2008 and 2010 meant. 2008 was everything anti Bush and anti Iraq, plus disaffected conservatives angry with McCain as a nominee as well as Bush II's spending patterns, especially in his first term.
2010 was a cry againsta terrible health care bill and a crazy stimulus that was nothing more than a democrat payoff to the public sector. So you have the anxiety of the tea party about spending and govt control that is tempered by the fear of what is to become of Medicare and SS, programs they have paid into all their life (not really, but we all know what the visual has always been). On the left we have a fear of the end of the union gravy train that funds and elects the ruling liberal elite from the big states and so, with media help, allows the left to have more influence that their numerical following would suggest.
And this tension allows for all sorts of silly pronouncements - I'm conservative and will vote for Obama before Mitt, or I won't vote. I'm liberal and there is still plenty of money for more govt spending. Neither of these pronouncements suggest much rational thought.
So 2012 is kind of a big deal, what kind of country do we want. A bankrupt, western European socialist state, or a vibrant capitalist one with some safety nets to protect around the edges.
This is why the committee was a disaster and why it was going to be. All of them are politicians and are worried about the next elections. That is what they do. But one side wasn't worried about anything else. I think in the end that will be their undoing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs luck would have it, we're already divided into 50 states. Republicans will never control California again - forget about it. If free market Americans don't want to lose the entire country, red states need to stand their ground.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am stunned that Kerry admitted that a "cut" is Washington speak for, "A reduction in the rate of spending increase". I wish that the MSM to include NPR would report this reality.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEven the Russians are honouring the 'One'
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Democrat-controlled congress of 2008-2009 had every opportunity to do something about the deficit, so they raised it. They still had time to reduce it, so they passed the health-care bill (remember, you had to pass it so you'd know what was in it!). Now they're whining about those nasty Republicans.
And another thing: It is patently disingenuous, if not outright demagogery for Obama and Dems to kvetch about "inheriting" a bad economy. Obama asked for the presidency, including the recession, and he got it. He's the one who raised the deficit.So what's to inherit, already?
On more, while I'm at it. If gummint spending is the way to prevent recessions, why didn't all of W's deficit spending prevent a recession?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFirst, I think it's disingenious for GOP to suggest failure because of Obama's lack of engagement. His "engagement" during the recent debt ceiling debate derailed and stymied the entire process. This WAS Congress' creation. It was mutually agreed by both parties at that time. But again, as happens every other time, the GOP was out thought, out played, out politicked, and out maneuvered. This is NOT to say they were the reason for the failure. They weren't.
THAT honor befalls the Democrats who refused moderate GOP offers (Toomey) for some tax increase/ tax modification - but then lamely said, "not enough" and that they just couldn't see fit to cut anything. And THIS in an organized effort intended to cut spending!
Fact is nobody in DC has the leadership capability nor all the answers nor the political support to take much action. We, the People, have a Republican House, a Democratic Senate and WH. THAT is NOT a recipe for success. Perhaps with true leadership in the WH it could be. Pres. Bush showed that with quite a few programs wherein Democrats voted in support (Medicaid Part B, No Child Left Behind, Iraq). Name me anything Obama has reached across the aisle in compromise to work with the GOP on - anything!
For now, things will simmer for a while until the big fight forthcoming with the 2012 budget debate. At that point, the GOP (if anyone can figure it out), will seize THAT issue to pund Senate Democrats with since they have been unable to pass/ approve a budget in over 3 years (or basically ever since Obama was elected). This simple fact should be pounded away with voters, especially in states with Democratic Senators up for re-election.
Ultimately, We the People have set ourselves up for failure and WE need to fix it. Nov. 2012 affords us the opportunity to do so. If we don't then we, like Pogo, should just look in the mirror and acknowledge that "we have seen th enemy, and it is US".
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse