E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSPer the Washington Post, “President Obama and House Speaker John A. Boehner rushed Thursday to strike agreement on a far-reaching plan to reduce the national debt but faced a revolt from Democrats furious that the accord appeared to include no immediate provision to raise taxes… More savings would be generated through an overhaul of the tax code that would lower personal and corporate income tax rates while eliminating or reducing an array of popular tax breaks, such as the deduction for home mortgage interest. But the talks envisioned no specific tax increases as part of legislation to lift the debt limit, and the tax rewrite would be postponed until next year.”
The New York Times on the negotiations over a “trigger” that would ensure work on entitlement reform and tax reform: “The White House wants a trigger that would raise taxes on the wealthy; Mr. Boehner wants the potential penalty for inaction to include repeal of the Obama health care law’s mandate that all individuals purchase health insurance after 2014.”
The Baltimore Sun previews Obama's town hall in Maryland today. “About 1,000 people are expected to attend the hourlong event beginning at 11 a.m. at College Park, which will take place as congressional leaders continue to search for an agreement that will cut the budget deficit by trillions of dollars, raise the debt ceiling by Aug. 2 and eke out the best possible political position for their parties for the 2012 election.”
In his National Journal column, Ron Brownstein writes how important demography and an aging population are in the debt debate. “Too many Democrats resist the need to restrain entitlements, and even more Republicans refuse to admit the need for more revenue. Yet only by moving on both fronts -- beginning in the debt-ceiling standoff still convulsing the capital -- can the nation go gray without falling dangerously into the red.”
There’s an AFL-CIO print ad hitting the Gang of Six:
Leave a Comment:
Looks like Obama is going to be re-elected. By the GOP.
If there's anything else the GOP wants or needs, please contact whitehouse.gov so he can give them that too.
Up 'til now, it's all been about Speaker Boehner, and his difficulties in herding the Tea Party crowd.
This is the flip side of the coin.
Many Democrats will fight to the bitter end against the sort of spending cuts outlined in Bowles-Simpson.
It's about time someone covered this angle of the story.
President Obama has his work cut out for him.
For everyone's sake...I sure hope he's up to it.
Boehner spoke on the House floor with slurred words. Really? This early? We are about to default and the Speaker is having drinks with breakfast before speaking on the house floor. And this is the man that my president wants to negotiate with? Come on. Talk to Reid. Put a simple one paragraph "debt ceiling increase" and vote on it in the Senate and send it to the House. I think it will pass with both Republicans and Democrats. Reid can do this now. Doesn't need to wait. Boehner is too drunk to care!
Frosty: I'm really surprised that you , no jo, or spanky did not see the obvious headline available with this piece:
Republicans join with Obama on debt deal and find Congressional Democrats Revolting.
Obama: "The Congressional Democrats are revolting ?"
Boehner: "Yes, and disgusting too."
TGIF... :)
btw: AnaBannana: its easier to negotiate with Boehner after he's had a few instead of when he wants one.
Obama's (non) actions are starting to show. According to a new CNN survey (July 17-19, 2011), voters now believe that Obama's economic policies are making things worse. While only 34% feel they are making things better, 49% believe his policies are making things worse.
And key constituency groups on whom the president must rely agree with the view that his policies are hurting. Independents agree they are worsening the situation by 30-50. Voters under 35 agree by 28-45. All white voters agree by 26-58. If young people and Independents run out on Obama, he is finished.
Meanwhile, pessimism about the economy's future is intensifying. 58% of all voters think things are getting worse while only 26% see an improvement. One year ago, 52% said the economy was getting worse and 35% saw it improving.
Overall, Obama's job approval has inched down in the CNN poll steadily since his bin Laden high. On May 15-17 it stood at 55%. By June 5-7 it had dropped to 48%. On June 26-28, it was down to 46% and in the most recent poll on July 17-19, 2011 it had fallen to 45%.
And, according to other polls, Obama trials a generic Republican candidate and now only runs even with the strongest Republican alternative -- Mitt Romney -- at 45% apiece. Since the undecided vote always goes against the incumbent, this is truly a dismal showing.
Polls reflect a key message: Voters are waking up!
Did I hear some in his own party are jumping ship as several cabinet officers did?
Does it sound as if this leader will be the last one on theU.S.S. Progressive as it sinks?
Bill Thomas: I read this into the polls (at this point in the election cycle) The Republican party has to find a candidate that can be nominated to their party and defeat President Obama. The polls say that a "generic Republican candidate" can defeat Obama. Unfortunately, their is no such thing. The closest the Republicans have to a generic candidate is Jon Huntsman (he's as generic as they get, without being invisible) and he won't get the nomination.
Next best is Mitt Romney, and the Teavangelist's don't like him. He's a liberal, and definitely not their brand of Christian.
More likely than not, the evangelical ultra-conservative christian wing of the party will support Rick Perry in Iowa, Romney will take New Hampshire, it will be a toss up in SC and then people like Gingrich will finally drop out. Because the Tea Party still has an out sized sway to the party, more likely Rick Perry will get the nomination. If so, Barack Obama will be reelected President. Not because people like him, they just don't want another ultra-conservative nut job governor from Texas ruining the country.
drip101,
I will agree with you that Huntsman is as invisible as they come. The Newt has had his time and should announce he is toast.
A number of people will look at Perry, for what he has accomplished in TX during a time of severe economic disadvantage. Sure, many won't like his pland and policies, but the majority have worked. That's more than can be said about the programs from this administration. Perry works for his taxpayers, an important factor for the next president.
I'm also amazed on this obsession the media and liberals have about the tea party. Wow, I guess several of the conservative Dems I know would be upset to learn they are considered idiots from the wrong party. But I do laugh at the connection. As one poster is always -commenting, should I connect the dots to learn of the hypocrisy of these Tea Party comments?
Time will tell just which Republican candidate will be the one to combat the current POTUS. With his record of spending, no return on the stimulus investments made (Chrysler cost US Taxpayers $1.3B in losses that will not be recovered); his record of indecision on growth policies; and his inability to move this country forward will be deciding factors for reelecting him.
Sure, he inherited from the previous administration, but doesn't every incoming President have baggage to correct? The true measure of a President is the action plans used to rebuild the problems. Where are the action plans for Obama? Excessive spending with record losses in financial strength of the country? Record levels of unemployment? Record levels of debt. Record levels of cost increases in the CPI?
Nope, the liberal press will have a tough time attempting to sell Barry as they did during the last election.
hunky: I ain't from Texas, but from what I have seen, most of the people in Texas would be glad to be rid of Rick Perry. Gotta wonder about a guy who was 2nd choice to be governor to George W. Bush.
As to his "accomplishments" which ones, claiming to reject the stimulous, then using it to balance the budget ? Deriding federal interference in state's activities, then complaining about the federal government not responding to Texas drought and fire problems, inferring that Texas should cecede from the Union, but deciding he wants to run the Union ? Job growth in Texas based on one of the largest natural resource finds in the last 100 years ? Or the largest increase in a deficit for any state ?
Hunky:
Did you send a thank you note to Washington for their generous assistance to your Governor?
http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/23/news/economy/texas_perry_budget_stimulus/index.htm
Before the Repub start their posts of "See Obama is losing the Dem support", I say , You misunderstand.
Some Democratis in the Senate and House are upset about maybe no new revenue but maybe a beginning to change tax code. Maybe, maybe, we still don't know what deal will finally be made.
Democractic party is a big party ,some will not be happy. That's the way we have been for decades. But at the end of the day the Dem will help get this thing passed.
Remember we are the party that does not need to sign silly pledges to be passionate about making sure government works for middle class and working families. We know how to compromise when we have a divided government.
Northstar:
Compromise? Fine. But capitulate?
From the reports this morning, I don't see that Obama got ANYTHING at all in return for giving the GOPTeaParty EVERYTHING it wants. That is NOT compromise.
"Democractic party is a big party ,some will not be happy. That's the way we have been for decades. But at the end of the day the Dem will help get this thing passed."
but what is getting passed? a give away to the right?
Whether it gives the rightie posters on here reason to snark or not, I can't support someone that is willing to give away the social safety net.
Bilweeler, Rick, I hear your very real concerns.I share them. But until a deal is made we are speculating.
Based on my recent experience in MN budget deal, Dayton like Obama fought for the safety net features and won. It was the financing part that was not what our governor wanted. but our GOP house now owns that part.they will have to run on that in 2012.
In Washington, if a deal is done on deficit, it is the "tax code" part that will be the part to watch.
Indeed we are just speculating.
And let's hope the president does a better job of negotiating this plan than he did with the health care bill (not even starting from single payer or strong public option?! ...water under the bridge, though).
I'm just saying that this would be a final straw if he caves to the right and significantly alters SS, Medicare or Medicaid.
He will still have my vote, just not my time or money.
Yep... Democrats are the party of spend spend spend... but absolutely no solutions unless they are drug to the table by resilent Republicans who truly are offerring spending reduction solutions to this country's debt! Pelosi and Reid have formally been made competely irrelevant to everything.... That is a good thing for the Country! Can you imagine just how much in debt we would be now if the Democrats had continued to have the majoirty in the House after the last election? Can you imagine the spending spree that Pelsoi and Reid would have had us on? Wake up America, 2012 is coming and we need to finish what we started in 2010!
Fed up Senior.. you are hilarious. Thanks for the Friday chuckle.
Can you imagine just how much in debt we would be now if the Democrats had continued to have the majority in the House after the last election?
No, Fed up, but I can imagine how much better off we would have been if Bush hadn't given the Clinton 'surplus' away - tax cuts, unfunded wars and all that...
If POTUS has previously voted against raising the debt ceiling, and has asked for large reductions, why does he need to raise taxes?
I can see reducing big government, reduce taxes, and removing ObamaCare from law. But what is his intention: reduce the deficit or increase it with his spending?
Has there been anything published about where the spending will go and the why it is necessary?
Northstar, well said.
Democrats revolting does not concern me, they have always been vocal about disagreeing within their own party and the media helps them sound in disarray. I'd rather have democrats speaking their individual minds than the lockstep words from the GOP because it shows the democrats are thinking for themselves.
There is no deal and as such, both sides are making a lot of noise.
hunky,
If the point is to get the deficit/debt down (I get the 2 confused sometimes) down, then the best way is with a decrease in spending and an increase in revenue. Now, the spending cuts cannot come from those that need it most - the elderly, the sick, the poor... Nor should the tax increases come from those who can least afford it.
If the point is to shrink government down to a size that it can be drowned in a bathtub...? Then, yeah, slash whatever spending you want and, while you are at it, cut some taxes for the wealthier among us.
Tell us what your goal is, hunky
The Tea Publicans have, via Grover Norquist, stated exactly what you said, rick.
Unfortunately, these unthinking idiots fail to realize that when you remove government, you get chaos. If you think Shea's rebellion was bad, try dismantling the US government and leaving people with real guns running around.
yep, that's where I got it.
you're so right
So, hunk, what is it? do you really care about the deficit or not?
OK Rick in Savannah, reducing government will not create chaos. Reorganizing departments, reducing staff overhead and removing wasteful expense isn't an issue. Why do we need more than one department rule or provide regulations? Are you aware of the number of agencies that basically accomplish the same government function?
I feel we need to remove ourselves as the lender of choice for all of these nations of the world. Time to rein in the spending here and ask for repayment of the loans outstanding.
Have the IRS move on the corporate tax offenders, even those who own the taxpayers outstanding tax debt. No government contracts without a clean tax record.
How about a simple tax code where EVERYONE PAYS their "fair share" of taxes? sound good so far? And on the tax code, no deductions for anything: home mortgage, business expenses, etc.
How about a simple movement to have the Congress be on the same health care and retirement plans as the rest of us that are not a part of the ruling establishment? Now that will create an action plan when these elite have to work and invest as the rest of us.
How about a balanced budget law? No pay or benefits for any member of Congress or better yet, any person working for the Federal government. You may see positive action.
And my personal favorite, a tax on government for each piece of paper produced. Perhaps we should also include that all legislation should be in plain english language and not the legal language used today. Then we won't have the opportunity for any lack of knowledge on a bill.
Someone should remind the President that 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' does not refer to his efforts in the debt crisis he helped create!
What crisis? The manufactured crisis that Faux News is selling these days? If that is indeed what you are referring to, i say Bush has more to do with that than President Obama.
BenSnead. 1) Exactly what has Speaker Boehner told about the efforts? 2) President Obama did not create the unnecessary debt ceiling crisis, the GOPTP did. Not a peep from the GOP as they raised the debt limit 7 times under Bush 43 or any other time. The crisis was made by them.
Obama is banking on tax reform in an election year or thereafter after he and the Democrats may or may not control anything? I'd be a lot happier if he pulled the troops and navy out of Gitmo and surrendered the position to Cuba.
President Obama would have been happy to close Gitmo except CONGRESS would not allow it. You do realize Congress controls the purse strings, no money means it remains open. Don't blame Obama for something both parties in Congress caused because they bowed to self-manufactured fear mongoring.
Mr. President why are you negotiating with Boehner alone? You have the Senate and the Presidency. That means you have the power. Start using it wisely. You are giving this guy, who can't get a simple vote count done, too much credit. Speaker Boehner can't sell anything. Maybe tanning oil. His group of misfits will bring your presidency down. Which is what they want. Negotiate with the Senate and drive it down Boehner's throat. That is what a Republican Senate and House would do to you if they had two of three chambers like you do now. Stand firm! Don't make the poor pay anything more to the rich. The rich have gained much money and the poor and middle class? NOTHING! Don't give anything away. Push the 14th if necessary but don't give in to less revenue. If the Bush tax cuts alone expire at the end of 2012 with you doing nothing, our economy thrives. You know this. You have all the cards to play. Boehner has none. You are giving him too much credit. Stop it!
AnaB. The more people in a room to negotiate or on a committee, the less it is likely agreements are reached or work gets done. That is true whether it is Congress and the WH or organizing local July 4th events. Cantor is impossible, Boehner is the Speaker of the House and the reasonable one.
Please use every advantage you have, Mr. President. How could you even THINK of further afflicting the afflicted while comforting the comfortable? If you pull the rug out from under your biggest group of constituents, you probably won't get a second term. Think of all the homeless people these cuts will create..you can't vote if you don't have an address, for one thing. Combine that with the draconian voter registration laws moving through at least 33 state legislatures and accounting for those who feel too demoralized and depressed to vote because they figure hey, what's the difference? It seems the poor, elderly, and disabled end up road kill no matter WHO is in the Oval Office, it's just a matter of who is meaner, those Democrats who are corporately owned, or the Ayn-Rand-for-lunch-bunch. Small "d" democracy somehow got lost in the shuffle. The most vulnerable among us are truly FDR's "forgotten" people. How sad. Hail to the Project for the New Amerikan Century!!
Those of us who work for a livingshould not have to pay more taxes. Make those on welfare do mandatory community service to get something back from our hard earned money and also drug test everyone on welfare. If we could get back all the money spent on Colt 45, blunts,Newport cigarettes and marijuana we wouldn't have half the money problems we have now.
bfmc:
I love that "drug test everyone on welfare" stuff.
The cost of drug testing everyone on welfare would far exceed any savings generated by positive tests. How many people do you want to hire to do the testing? How many test facilities will you need? How many labs will it take to process the tests?
And don't you think that at least some of the welfare recipients who use drugs will take evasive actions because they KNOW they will be tested (as opposed to surprise random tests)?
Oh. And how many drug users do you think you'll find? 100%? 80%? 50%? Guess again. The military/Department of Defense does random drug testing. They get 1-2% positive results.
The cost of testing all welfare recipients would be prohibitively high. Oh. And I've heard we're broke.
If you, bfmc, have some way to finance your drug testing program (and don't tell me you can do it with the money saved by finding drug users), please let me know.
I'll wait patiently for your response....
Bilweeler,
While I'm not in favor of drug testing the recipients, I am in favor of requiring something in return for the payments they're receiving. Obviously, if the recipient is disabled, they would be less likely to be required to provide service, but if they are in good health, put them on the public service roles, much as they do with indigent folks that get speeding tickets. Community service in return for welfare checks. By the way, it would seem that paying for drug testing might be cheaper than paying the welfare costs. What does a drug test cost, $50? What's the average welfare payment $800 per month? If that's all, then a 10% failure rate would more than pay for the cost of the testing. Again, I'm not in favor of the testing, but your concern about the cost would seem to be misguided if my estimates are correct, and yes, they are estimates.
Drug testing before aid does what exactly? Put money in Florida's Snyder pockets. People will find a way to eat even if they have to steal food to do so. What happens next? You have people rotting in jail at a cost of $100,000 each year to each tax payer when some aid would have cost much less to keep food on the table. Even drug counseling costs less per person than the prison does. So going forward please quit listening to the private prison lobby and the crazy Snyder investor types who invested in his drug testing company and lets move our country forward not backwards. Remember Portugal. Their experiment with legalizing drugs has worked marvelously. We have lots to learn from them on the drug war.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html
It amazes me that people are so outraged by the thought of welfare queens and men sitting on the stoop drinking out a paper bags, but are not outraged by a defense budget and pointless wars, and the affluent and banks who game the system to their advantage. You fear the guy who breaks into your garage and steals the snow blower, but ignore the guy who in the full light of day crashes your retirement savings. Please try to ignore your moral outrage of the fat, lazy and stupid - it's the smart guys that are stealing from you.
Wm-375815,
Good point except you can't slur "no". No matter how drunk you are.
Oops! Above is on wrong post. Sorry for the confuseion. Please ignore! Happy Friday everyone!
Wow! "Confuseion?" I must need that drink Boehner had this am.
98% get screwed again! removal of mortgage interest? wow, do you know that's a tax on the 98%?
you think people won't be walking away from their homes?
vote yes for this plan and lose at the polls.
no more special rules for the top 2%. it's time they, and they alone pay their fair share.
Well, there's no need for a Tea Party primary. They already have a tea party president.
Now I know how the Trojans felt when the "gift" for the Greeks turned out to be a lie. All this time we thought obama was a progressive turns out he was a tea party neocon
c'mon JIm, while he's not a leftist progressive like I would have preferred (never thought he would be, but one can dream...) to call him a 'tea party neocon', is a bit much.
also, while I have never really been terribly clear on what a 'neocon' was, I've got an idea that there is a difference between them and the 'tea party'
Hilary for Pres.
The stories that there was a deal... were planted by the teabaggers !To create a rift between the pres and his base !
Plausible but highly unlikely. They would be more in favor of portraying the persident as they have portrayed themselves - obstructionist.
Clean up America. Vote the Tea Baggers out.
If the AFL-CIO hates it, it must be good for America. At least the President and Boehner appear to have made an agreement. Pelosi, Reid and their majority had 2 years to come up with something.I think Obama got sick of the all posture and no action so he went at it without them. For once, good for you, mr. President.
Pres. Oblabla has his own Muslim agenda that doesn't include allegiance to Americans, nothing in the way of jobs, seniors, active members of the military and veterans benefits, education has gone to the elitists and illegals, nor does he have any respect of any kind to taxpayers, he furthers the cause of foreign illegal immigrants vigorously, watch out for his Dream Act, very distructive for citizens! Let's roll him out of office before he destroys and bankrupts anyone further before he walks out proudly in 2012, he has continually aligned himself with self serving fascists, socialists and financially corrupted elites, he continues to minimize the 9/11 criminals and has not proven one good honest decision made for any good changes to our country, instead he changes the laws and acts as a dictator, that's the big change everyone has seen. Why permit any President to blame inadequacies and ignorance on other past presidents? It's all a blinding game folks and we are being laughed at and used, indifference will cost us plenty in the end which is not that far off! Why allow him to continue tauting America as a "country without borders" he has declared this many time in speeches? Why allow him to boast of his years of blatant thievery? Who is shielding him while he doles 75 billion dollars a clip to his pals in Indonesia and Pakistan, he bows to the UN and the Saudi's? He turns a blind eye to gun running into Mexico that caused at least one border guards murder, there were two others shot dead in their vehicles when they were ambushed in a set up just weeks prior to that one. Its far wiser to spend good money and root out the bad guys in order to find the leaders then it is to pray for a miracle, not that I don't believe in miracles, however, our country's history and background is written by the people to solve any problematic situation as a united people.
Lorida,
I have no clue what you said in all of that. It may have been an insightful, instructive piece that would have turned my world around.
But, I read your first six words and thought "geez, what an idiot."
Damn crazy crackers... still thinking obama is a mulsim...