« Weekend (and End of Year) Open Thread | Main | Schedule of Upcoming Artificial Crises/Extortion Moments, 2013 Q1 »

January 01, 2013

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Sir Charles

l-tc,

Happy New Year. I am trying to get a handle on what exactly the deal does. My initial reaction sort of mirrors that of Yglesias. Not the worst deal in the world. Taxes go up on income over $400,000 rather than $250,000, capital gains rates go up from 15% to 20%, an extension of unemployment benefits, and there are no entitlement cuts of any kind. This is not bad for a deal garnering 89 votes in this Senate.

But like you I am not too happy about not getting the debt ceiling done at the same time.

What is your thinking on the sequester issue? I was thinking that it actually gave the Democrats leverage since so many of the cuts come from defense. (The one place where the Republicans are all Keynesians.) Won't that potentially help in the debt ceiling talks?

I am not as upset about the giveaway of the $250,000 limit (and not just out of self interest). I think that it is potentially useful to have a higher attachment point for the higher rates -- it surely kills any notion that you are punishing "small business." In the end, I think rates are going to have to go up for everybody at some point and as we have discussed here before, I would like to see additional rates added for those in the really high income brackets -- those earning over $500,000, $1 million, $5 million etc. I also think that capital gains rates will need to be increased further to a 25 or 28% rate to generate the kind of revenue we will need.

The other question I have is whether the House will go for this. I have my doubts.

kathy a.

assuming the house passes it -- this avoids all kinds of chaos and hardship, in my opinion. cuts to SS, medicare, medicaid were entirely avoided. rise in income taxes for people of modest means = also avoided. unemployment benefits are extended.

i do not think those jokers are going to be permitted to sit around for 2 months, and then run the clock. this has got to be congress' full-time job for now. the debt ceiling first; that is a complete no-brainer. and i tend to agree that the sequestration's deep military cuts are an important bargaining chip.

kathy a.

i think the house will be under substantial pressure to put this out for a vote and approve it, with the overwhelming vote in the senate. the rumble yesterday was that pelosi had enough votes (although the deal was not done yet).

boehner's going to have to either abandon the tactic of not bringing a vote if the majority of his party opposes it; or else very publicly be the villian (blamed for causing the aforementioned chaos and hardships). he's probably not having a happy new year.

low-tech cyclist

Re the debt ceiling: I agree that Obama and the Democrats should treat that as a totally separate issue. The House should pass a clean extension, or nothing. And if the GOP wants to pass something different, then let them put their cards on the table and pass an extension that includes a price tag, so the world will know who's responsible for the cuts they want.

I think Obama has a strong hand as long as he says, "I want a clean extension. But until the House passes a bill, we've got nothing to talk about."

The sequester, OTOH, is another matter. Yeah, the defense budget gets cut and all, but the Teabaggers want government to be cut, period. On the whole, the Dems are going to want a deal a lot more than the GOP, because the $55 billion of non-defense discretionary cuts will cut deep: the fat's long gone from that sector of the budget. The defense cuts are a price the GOP voting base is willing to pay in order to hack into the muscle and bone of the government, and the money base doesn't hold the whip hand the way it used to.

To quote Dr. Seuss, "I do not like this, not one little bit."

kathy a.

here's the thing, though. when it comes to specific cuts that hurt actual humans -- people do not like that. i believe the GOP wants it all bundled up in a "we cut big government" bow, no peeking. they must know the cuts they are after are not going to be popular. that has to be a big reason they backed off of SS, medicare, medicaid, and why they would not propose a package of cuts.

and i think obama's strategy (to the extent this is possible) is to hold each thing up to the public light, so people can see how it affects them and their neighbors. his press thing with all the "ordinary americans" was criticized for being tacky and all, but i think it was meant to illustrate his point -- the budget is not just numbers, it is about the people affected.

i think the GOP has about played out the "give us a proposal that we'll like" strategy. losers. a lot of them don't give a shit about unemployment benefits or food stamps, because nobody they know needs them. they prefer to say, "we saved gazillions" rather than "we decided to cut violence prevention efforts because it was costing our rich friends too much"; or to yell about the deficit when their kind put our glorious wars on credit, and told the country to support the war effort by buying more stuff, while de-regulating so that when people bought too much stuff on bad terms, all of a sudden there was an economic crisis. and so on.

obama keeps circling back to the obligation of government to care for its people -- all of its people. and to do so fairly.

low-tech cyclist

here's the thing, though. when it comes to specific cuts that hurt actual humans -- people do not like that. i believe the GOP wants it all bundled up in a "we cut big government" bow, no peeking. they must know the cuts they are after are not going to be popular. that has to be a big reason they backed off of SS, medicare, medicaid, and why they would not propose a package of cuts.

kathy - This works for the debt ceiling, fortunately.

But that's why the sequester is so great from the GOP point of view. It's already wrapped up in a nice package that the Dems have already helped wrap, all they have to do is not agree to anything unless the Dems make them an offer they like even more.

And it would have to be the Dems making that offer, and just enough Republicans to pass it with mostly Dem votes could reluctantly go along with it for the good of the country, then the GOP could run against whatever was in that offer.

Nice corner we've painted ourselves into.

kathy a.

ok, this is the last day i can play for a while. but go see maddowblog on the cliff, with updates -- including the several scenarios, and pelosi claiming lotsa votes if the dudes-in-charge deign to hold an up/down vote.

and, let's celebrate Emancipation Day, because 150 years ago, lincoln declared slaves free. and that was a good start on equality and justice, no?

kathy a.

and, fergodsakes, the WSJ, which does not appear happy about this development.

If the House votes down the bill, or amends it and the amended version doesn't pass the Senate before the 112th Congress ends, the legislative process will have to restart with the new Congress.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D., Ill.) said he was stunned by Mr. Boehner's refusal to back the compromise, which was supported by nearly all Senate Republicans, including some of the most conservative members, such as Sens. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

"That's just madness,'' he said. "We had a strong vote in the Senate. How much stronger can we make it?''
***
House Democrats were poised to support the bill in significant numbers, after a closed-door session with Vice President Joe Biden, who came to the Capitol twice in 24 hours to sell the package he negotiated with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) Mr. Biden's major mission was to calm liberals who groused that Mr. Obama gave too much ground.

nancy

Eddie Haskell as Speaker of the House -- that would sure be terrifyingly silly and destructive. A Speaker Cantor and his feral House children. It really could come to that? Welcome 2013. Some honeymoon.

kathy a.

reportedly, the damned house is going to do an up or down vote, which is expected to pass. i cannnnnoooot think about an eddie kaskell speaker tonight.

paula

GOP to NY/NJ and entire NE: Drop dead! Reported on Twitter and Politico minutes ago.

low-tech cyclist

I see the fiscal cliff bill passed the House, so that's that. I hope I'm wrong about the sequester.

I still don't see why Cantor would want to be Speaker right now. Whoever is in the job is going to get whipsawed between the need to look reasonable enough to maintain MSM cred, and the need to be unreasonable enough to maintain Teahadist cred.

I'd rather have Cantor than Boehner as Speaker. Let's get this fucked-up nonsense out in the open. But I think Cantor's already in the perfect position for him: he's the real power in the party, but with none of the responsibility. If you're fundamentally an arsonist, it doesn't get any better than that.

geography tuition singapore

back the compromise, which was supported by nearly all Senate Republicans, including some of the most conservative members, such as Sens. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

oddjob

I think Cantor's already in the perfect position for him: he's the real power in the party, but with none of the responsibility. If you're fundamentally an arsonist, it doesn't get any better than that.

I also don't think Cantor's going to be Speaker any time soon, and for the same reason.

oddjob

Tom DeLay did the same thing. He ran the House, but not from the Speaker's position. I don't think Cantor's running the House, but where he is now he gets to be the standard bearer of the nutjobs who elect him without having to do any of the heavy lifting real leadership requires.

oddjob

Dem. senators Bennet (CO), Carper (DE), and Harkin (IA) voted no. I'm guessing Harkin voted no because the compromise wasn't liberal enough, but I have no idea why the other two did not. IIRC Carper's a pretty pro-business Democrat (he was governor of Delaware during the six months of 1993 that I lived in Delaware and I remember him being that way then), but I know little of Bennet and have no idea why he didn't like the final bill.

low-tech cyclist

Anyone understand Steve Benen's chart of which side got what in the fiscal cliff deal?

It's got stuff in it that's completely inaccurate (e.g. he says the GOP got the Medicare and Social Security cuts it wanted, but there were no Medicare or Social Security cuts in the deal, thank FSM) and he makes the deal look far more lopsided in favor of the GOP than it actually was. I'm scratching my head here.

oddjob

I've now checked. Both Carper and Bennet voted against the bill because it didn't contain spending reductions.

low-tech cyclist

I've now checked. Both Carper and Bennet voted against the bill because it didn't contain spending reductions.

With friends like these...

kathy a.

i don't understand benen's chart, either. he seems to be of the "worst deal ever" camp, but one ought to stick to the facts, no? it is supposed to be based on someone else's summary, but that summary does not mention SS at all, and the mention of medicare is that doctor reimbursements will NOT be cut for a year.

the house will not hold a vote on hurricane sandy aid. being such responsible americans and all. so, the bill passed by the senate has to start all over again.

low-tech cyclist

kathy - that's pretty disgusting about the House GOP and Sandy. Too bad the national press will be too caught up in the fiscal cliff stuff to notice the "GOP to NY/NJ: Drop Dead" message.

paula

Thank you, l-tc.

paula

Big loss for the Daily Beast. RT @sullydish: The Dish is parting with the Beast and going independent: http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2013/01/a-declaration-of-independence.html

kathy a.

grr, lost comment.

on sandy, i think this story has gone fairly mainstream. with sharp criticism for the buffoons who think the house is somehow doing their job by walking away from relief to hurricane victims.

oddjob

With friends like these...

Here again you bump into the reality that they represent states where appealing to fiscal conservatives helps win them eletion votes that keep the Dems. in charge of the Senate.

oddjob

on sandy, i think this story has gone fairly mainstream. with sharp criticism for the buffoons who think the house is somehow doing their job by walking away from relief to hurricane victims.

:)


You can hate on metro NYC all you like, but you can't get away from its media clout.

paula

>>You can hate on metro NYC all you like, but you can't get away from its media clout.

Or the fact that NJ, CT and NY are three of the biggest funders the US Treasury has, getting back 61-69-79 cents, respectively, in benefits and programs for every tax dollar they send down to DC (based on 2005 data). Plus, some of their residents are certainly among those who will be hit hard by the new tax rates. (Real) middle-lower-income people live in many of the sections of NJ, LI and NYC hit the hardest. Thousands also lost their local shopping areas, schools and, even, jobs. I understand at least 10,0000 jobs disappeared (some permanently) in lower Manhattan alone, where you would expect people to be able to afford a quick recovery. Not the same thing is true in Long Beach or Lindenhurst LI or even Toms River NJ. According to NJ Needs and Jersey Cares, there still are many homeless Sandy survivors living off the charity of generous individuals and fundraisers. See their FB pages for details.

kathy a.

more juiciness on hurricane sandy relief.

darrell issa complains of pork in the bill. this guy -- what is up with him? he is either #1 or 2 on the wealthiest congresscritter scale, so that explains his position on not raising taxes for the super-rich.

oddjob

"Let's be blunt and acknowledge the biggest threat to the world's biggest economy are the cranks and crazies that have taken over the Republican Party,"
- Australian Treasurer Wayne Swan, in a speech given last September in Sydney

kathy a.

in other bidness, the house GOP blocked a vote on the violence against women act, on accounta "the bill is too supportive of immigrants, the LGBT community, and Native Americans." keepin' it classy.

Back in April, the Senate approved VAWA reauthorization fairly easily, with a 68 to 31 vote. The bill was co-written by a liberal Democrat (Vermont's Pat Leahy) and a conservative Republican (Idaho's Mike Crapo), and seemed on track to be reauthorized without much of a fuss, just as it was in 2000 and 2005.

so, now there is no such thing as the VAWA: poof.

kathy a.

team boehner/cantor sez: oh, hey. we been busy. we'll get around to hurricane sandy, pinky swear.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment