I'm not certain how you are merging your title 'GOP Comeback 2014' and the your comment "The sequester's "deep" cuts?"

I'm not hearing that same sentiment from the GOP leadership in Washington that your comment is relaying. They are no less against these "deep" cuts than that the WH is, so what exactly are you using as a base by which to claim that a GOP 2014 comeback is in the works?

DailyKos:

So back in July of 2011, Boehner was sufficiently enthusiastic about the sequester that he was willing to push it to his House Republican colleagues. But now that it's about to kick in, he blames it all on President Obama. His latest effort at the blame game: writing a Wall Street Journal op-ed with the headline "The President Is Raging Against a Budget Crisis He Created" and blaming the president for having "invented" sequestration. Follow me below the fold to examine Boehner's latest installment of the blame game.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/20/1188514/-Boehner-pushed-the-sequester-that-he-now-blames-on-Obama

Great post, Pat and thanks for sharing! Boehner is the poster boy for all that is wrong with the GOP.

Comeback,

This is not like a Government shutdown … that comes on March 27^th.

These are across the board cuts to every department that will ALL go into effect immediately cutting $85 Billion between March 1^st and September 30^th.

Allen - "GOP Comeback 2014" is based on facts. The party in the White House has lost seats in Congress during mid term elections. Remember the a$$ whipping in the mid terms of 1994, 2006, & again in 2010. It appears, if Senators keep retiring, that there could be 40 Senate seats up for grabs in 2014. The Democrats think they are in the drivers seat, but the past says otherwise. There is plenty of waste and duplication in spending by Washington that could and should be cut immediately. Obama should stay in Washington and be a leader not a divider. GOP is exactly right that both parties try to scare the American people with deep cuts in vital services. How about we cut the President's travel expenses, the campaign is over, no need to travel all over the U.S. talking trash, you know the old saying, "a little here, a little there can be a lot when combined" (or something to that effect.") BTW, it is NOT the federal governments responsibility to provide for "1st Responders" unless they are Federal Employees.

Great Post Pat, and it was right after signing this agreement that John Boehner crowed he got 98% of what he wanted and was happy.

As I said yesterday, no one forced the Gop/Tp to sign the agreement. They were so sure that their plan to make the President a one term occupant of the WH would pan out, that what they signed wouldn't matter. All the time he was boxing them in to a position they don't like, and now cry "we've been had" Dumb and arrogant only barely begins to describe them, they cannot see the forest for the trees.

What do you all think will happen March 1st? Do you think that Congress will "kick the can" to allow themselves to appropriate cuts away from worthwhile programs and agencies? Or do you think that the cuts will go forward slashing everything at 10%?

Me, I am hopeful that everyone takes a look at Simpson Bowles 2.0. In many ways it is pretty close to what Obama is talking about, revenues throught tax reform (cutting out loopholes) but also involving spending cuts by way of entitlement reform - chained consumer priced index for SS and means testing.

Comments?

sfcret

Allen - "GOP Comeback 2014" is based on facts. The party in the White House has lost seats in Congress during mid term elections. Remember the a$$ whipping in the mid terms of 1994, 2006, & again in 2010. It appears, if Senators keep retiring, that there could be 40 Senate seats up for grabs in 2014. The Democrats think they are in the drivers seat, but the past says otherwise. There is plenty of waste and duplication in spending by Washington that could and should be cut immediately. Obama should stay in Washington and be a leader not a divider. GOP is exactly right that both parties try to scare the American people with deep cuts in vital services. How about we cut the President's travel expenses, the campaign is over, no need to travel all over the U.S. talking trash, you know the old saying, "a little here, a little there can be a lot when combined" (or something to that effect.") BTW, it is NOT the federal governments responsibility to provide for "1st Responders" unless they are Federal Employees.

====

I am well aware of the political landscape that is typical during midterms, so I'll kind of restate the intention of my original question:

Why do you use the term 'comeback' in a positive light, if it is simply the historical norm that the Party in the WH on average suffers losses at the Congressional level? By default then it simply moves back n forth because the Country has a 2 Party system. You present NOTHING that the GOP has done to earn the comeback and even your post declare "...that both parties try to scare the American people with deep cuts in vital services"

So in the end, I'm not certain why you're wasting your time dancing on your toes in hopes of a GOP comeback when by your own sentiment the only thing said about the Party is that they are basically going to d*ck you around no different then what you perceive the Democrat party is doing.

Yellowdog, I don't want any part of Simpson Bowles.

We are an advanced wealthy nation and should be able to get along without cutting important programs, jobs, etc.

Someone said last night, and I think it was Katrina van Heuvel - she said something about our priorities in this country being really horrific. That hit me like a ton of bricks.

Leave the poor and working and middle classes alone. They don't need cuts to anything. Cuts don't help at a time like this.

We need revenue. We need jobs.

Mark,

Congress will tie the Sequester in with the Government funding Continuing Resolution and attempt to resolve them both before March 27^th when the CR expires.

However I believe the resolution will be a kick the can and hope for a longer term solution along with the FY2014 budget which goes into effect on October 1^st, if they can pass one. If not it will be another can kicking and we will go through this again and again. Then let us not forget that we still must face another debt ceiling fight in a couple months.

Apparently when Boehner said he got "98% of what (he) wanted" that meant another opportunity to try to blame Democrats for the Republican insistence that we play chicken with the economy.

Given that all the way back into the 90's such tactics have consistently played our in favor of Democrats rather than the GOP that's the very definition of insanity on the part of Conservatives. By this point Americans well understand the Republican history not only of obstruction but of willingness to crash the government of We the People in order to satisfy their Oligarch masters.

Layton, the GOP has SOOOOOOO many poster boys for what is wrong with the party. How do you pick just one?

Congress writes the laws and passes legislation. They also can override any Presidential veto.

For more than 550 days, Congress has refused to take action on the sequester.

Anyone who doesn't understand this, should take a citizenship exam.

Hi Pat,

I believe in a balanced approach. We need revenues and we need spending cuts. Simpson Bowles 2.0 from what I understand is a better approach. We must compromise on some things, tweaks to the entitlements are the best way. Along with cuts to defense and some precision cuts to other agencies and programs. SB2 also asks for tax reform and closing loopholes a way to not just shrink growing percentages through spending cuts but actually increase revenue. We need both. If not we can truly see the sequester affect unemployment and GDP no one wants that.

Dennis - I could see that happening, but I think everyone is tired of kicking the can only to have them do it over and over again. I hope that we do get a passed budget this year vs. the continuing resolutions. Regarding the debt ceiling, the GOP needs to stop playing games and just raise it already and stop being unreasonable. With their recent shenanigans, filibustering Hagel because they want more info on Bengazhi, will the GOP hold the debt ceiling hostage to get more info on the "supposed" coverup?

Mark...I have only briefly read about Simpson-Bowles 2.0, but from what I've seen I like it. It definitely looks balanced with revenue increases as well as spending cuts. And given the magnitude of the deficit and debt, both are going to be needed. The article I read said that it would surely run into problems from the far left and the far right. Sounds perfect to me!! :-)

Seeking ...

Layton, the GOP has SOOOOOOO many poster boys for what is wrong with the party. How do you pick just one?

Ain't that the truth? You'd think they'd break the mold. No more are needed!

Mark,

The GOP must continue to play these games, regard of the economic cost, until the midterms are underway (around May 2014) because after that President truly becomes a lame duck and everything he wants that hasn’t been completed won’t get done. Keep everyone distracted with one financial crisis after another allowing less time for the President’s agenda.

I'm not far left but Simpson-Bowles 2.0 is a pathetic excuse of a plan. It shifts further to the right than the 1.0 version. In fact, it looks and reads more like a GOP plan rather than a bi-partisan one. It cut its initial revenue increases and increased its spending cuts, and deeply cuts programs for the poor and disabled (something 1.0 claimed it wanted to protect). Guess both those two men failed to notice who won the election in 2012, failed to notice that it was democratic policies that voters chose not GOP ones; that voters wanted more increased revenues not less as well as targeted spending cuts. Without the gerrymandered districts, democrats would have taken back the House--the democrats elected won more votes than did republicans--apparently Simpson-Bowles didn't notice that either.

Simpson-Bowles 1.0 at least had merit because it took a balanced approach, a serious look at both spending cuts and revenue increases. 2.0 looks mostly at spending cuts and entitlement cuts. I can see why both democrats and republicans rejected the initial plan. While there were parts that made sense, there were parts of it that were seriously flawed. For instance, if the goal was to reduce the deficit and the debt, then taxes for all should not have been lowered immediately as S-B recommended in 1.0. It made sense to eliminate the tax loopholes but not mortgage deductions which S-B recommended--maybe on second homes and vacation homes but most people have neither of those. It did not make sense to cut the top income tax bracket immediately both individual and business (we have businesses which pay 0% income tax already) which S-B recommended; they should have recommended raising taxes back to the Clinton levels at least for the wealthy at first, then when the economy started to hum along, raise taxes slightly on those making $100K-$450K. Once the debt was on decline, then look at lowering the overall tax rates for everyone.

If we are serious about the deficit, the debt, then revenues must be on the table as well as spending cuts. It cannot be lopsided or we risk austerity, recession, and a government unable to function because it has been starved.

Pat in Boston, I heard Kristina van Huevel and Johnathan Alter last night on Ed Schultz. They don't like Simpson-Bowles plan but they didn't offer an alternative.

Simpson Bowles = Bowles Simpson = BS.

Last night there was a very good segment on L O'D's Last Word, with (wonky but adorable) Ezra Klein & (as I recall) Robert Reich who gave a very good explanation of this BS.

They say that BS 2.0 is MUCH WORSE than BS 1.3, because the ratio of spending cuts to revenue has gone up to 3:1, which will pull too much $$$ out of the economy too quickly, while not increasing revenue enough to keep teachers & police employed, nevermind a Jobs program or infrastructure projects to reduce unemployment.

This whole deficit thing is a hoax by ReThuglicans to gut SS/M/M . . . we need JOBS in the short term, which will solve the deficit in the long term.

No surprise, but Boehner is lying again - he can call this the "president's sequester," but that doesn't make it so - at the time, Boehner bragged that he got "98% of what he wanted." And that was because he & the other ReThiglicans had been holding the debt ceiling hostage.

I agree with Mr Obama that these manufactured self-inflicted crises have got to end - this is no way to govern.

.

FORWARD! :-)

Hi Jody,

So what is your suggestion? It is all well and good and I'm happy that Obama won the election, however, I am talking about solving problems not about political gamesmanship. There is no solution for any problem where one side gets everything that they want. That is the meaning of compromise.

Their plan includes both revenues and spending cuts. Revenues by way of tax reform to the tune of $600 billion over 10 years, defense spending cuts of $600 billion over 10 years, $600 billion cuts over 10 years of non defense discretionary spending and $600 of savings to medicare, medicaid and social security via entitlement reform - total $2.4 trillion. This amounts to cutting 60 billion a year on those four areas. Again this is over 10 years.

The President has spoken about cuts and reforms to medicare, he has spoken about measures to make social security sustainable to the tune of about $400 billion. Yes the Simpson Bowles 2.0 may be greater than he is willing to go. However it could be a starting point. In reality we have to address these issues, they will not go away. Just as the population change is forcing the GOP to address immigration reform, the elderly population change will eventually force Congress into some sort of entitlement reform.

We can keep kicking the can or we can try to do something. Again, if nothing happens the sequester comes into play and indiscrimanate cuts are put into place in lieu of directing where those cuts can go.

Yellow Dog,

Excellent post! It's a shame that there is no real leadership at the top to truely implement the reforms from this committee. Noone (on both sides) wants to face the reality of not acting only makes the problem more difficult to solve down the road. Republicans don't want to give up their darlings the same way that the Democrats don't want to touch theirs. Again, it's too bad that we don't have the needed leadership to confront these challenges.

Now Jody---don't begrudge those Congress people their vacation---they've worked hard in 2013, logging in 15 days.

No doubt the radical Conservative Republicans in Congress have painted themselves into a corner.

Never mind that, they'll just continue trying to find better ways to sell failed policies rather than get better policies.

SF, I know, must have had a cup of "cynicism" this morning by mistake.

John B, yes, they have. It is beyond me how time after time, the GOP comes with paint buckets, President Obama hands them the brushes and they proceed to paint themselves into a corner--then they complain that it's all President Obama's fault.

I'm not sure why the Democrats are STILL going after more taxes...they just got what they wanted two months ago, and now they want to increase taxes even further, without bringing any entitlement reforms to the table? Sounds like they are the ones negotiating in bad faith.

Except of course that Democrats have already signed on to considerably more spending reduction than increased revenue. Both spending cuts and revenue increases must be brought about to eventually balance the budget. Pretending Democrats haven't agreed to any spending cuts is disingenuous. Pretending you can balance the budget with tax cuts as the Republicans do is just plain lying.

Gee, is that sarcasm?

Or are you looking to belly up to the bar this Friday with the "cool kids"?

( I see many more votes in your future)

Dangerfield, Sarcasm is the body's natural defense against stupid. ;)

I can care less about the cool kids though...or in reality, the bullies.

I suggest "Apple Jacks" for the bullies, as;

http://www.tvadsongs.com/Apple_Jacks_-_New_-_A_Bowl_a_Day_Keeps_the_Bullies_Away.html

"A bowl a day keeps the BULLIES away..."

i prefer fighting fire with greek fire

Hmmm, from cocktails to asstails ... I'll see what's lurking under the bar that fits in a glass. Should keep me busy for a bit. Twist of peel or twist of the knife .... ?

[i prefer fighting fire with greek fire]

Gyro's? And here I thought the Roman Asshat liked stuffed doormice and fruit salad.

hey DF what did you say about dualism and decartes?

... and now for a comedic dissertation on The Matrix and further thoughts as to the space formally occupied between ears.

Mark,

How about an article on how and why MSNBC selectively edited the Paul Ryan interview to reflect untrue results?

Why should the general public believe your reporting?

I noticed the makeup of the crowd as well. Frightening that people can not learn to adapt and are so unwelcoming and resistant to change. Change for the better.

From the other threads concerning Rubio and McCain I have mixed feelings on them on many, many issues. However, I will take their current "apparently" reasonable attempts at immigration reform because it can not pass with out them. I hope that McCain and Rubio can withstand the vitriol and hatred that are spewed at them. I find it a bit more comforting that Rubio walked back from the ledge about Obama's immigration plan.

It is a difficult dance for these guys, but so much more so for the president. The right scream that Obama doesn't have a plan, is aloof and doesn't get involved. The minute he gets invovled they whine that he is destroying bipartisan talks and taking over. The GOP punditry can't have it both ways.

I wish the bipartisan group luck.

Hi Yellowdog, very nice post.

One day the President as you wrote is accused of being aloof, one day he is a socialist, one day he is a dictator.

I right now have no confidence in the Republican Party. I wish they would spend more time really really working with the other side of the aisle as well as President Obama.

That is the only path to them winning national elections. They could find a leader or two to lead on all the policies that are coming up. No one has emerged at all that can be considered trustworthy; someone who won't ultimately cave to the right or lobbyists.

They have a tendency to meet Democrats halfway but then always back off and demand outrageous changes.

It's a very bad habit and ultimately will lead further and further to their demise.

The ball is in their court, if someone would just freakin' pick it up.

I do agree with you PatBoston, we do need immigration reform for those legal aliens who have been waiting in line for citizenship.

But are you suggesting those who are not legal should have the same rights as those already in line?

Amy---the GOP understands that a second-term President has the first 18 months of that term to get big things done. So they are doing everything they can to stall, delay and obstruct so that the President's agenda is not implemented. And if they can tank the economy while they're at it, a bonus for them.

This is how we got the Sequester in place. More of the same for the GOP. Stall and whine, while the enemy is at the gate.

So they are doing everything they can to stall, delay and obstruct so that the President's agenda is not implemented

A good reason to make sure alot of them are not around for the last two years of his Presidency. Honestly, what kind of voters would reward this kind of behavior from Republicans?

Holly Crap are you serious Amy? The only reason you hear any republican is because Obama is out there campaigning and spreading lies. Such as...

“Are you willing to see a bunch of first responders lose their jobs because you want to protect a special interest tax loophole? Are you willing to have teachers laid off or kids not have access to Head Start? Or deeper cuts in student loan programs?” he asked, appearing in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building with a group of first responders lined up behind him.

It’s “troubling that just 10 days from now, Congress just might allow a series of automatic, severe budget cuts to take place,” Obama said. “This is not an abstraction: people will lose their jobs.”

The sequester cuts, totaling $1.2 trillion over the course of a decade, were agreed to in the summer of 2011 in a deal to raise the debt ceiling and were intended to be so unpalatable that the White House and Congress would find a way to avert them by developing an alternate long-term deficit reduction plan. Half the cuts would be to non-combat military spending while the other half would be to domestic discretionary spending.

Then he said this last year...

"Already some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts. My message to them is simple: No," President Obama said from the White House briefing room Monday evening. "I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending."

"There will be no easy off ramps on this one.," he added...

It's a lie to suggest that massive, immediate cuts won't result in a reduction in employment and services?

In what possible scenario would that NOT happen?

With a name like "Chick Binder" what did I expect you to post? When you have NO MONEY I'm ok with the so called "Do-Nothings".

All kabuki theater. Of the two bills one had no details, the other dismantled the social safety net.

Republicans will get the blame for the sequester. That ship sailed, get used to it.