Another Example of Boehner Leadership

Thanks to CBS News Capitol Hill producer, Jill Jackson:



This was John Boehner immediately after giving his rebuttal to President Obama's address on the continuing debate and negotiations of raising the debt ceiling. I'll say it again: John Boehner has proven time and again that he doesn't have what it takes to lead. He won't stand up to Tea Party extremists in his own chamber of Congress. He seeks permission from GOP Leader Rush Limbaugh before showing a plan to his caucus. And now he walks away from a speech he insisted to give after the President spoke, shellshocked and shaking his head about how horrible his whiny, petulant little rant went.

John Boehner? Go "mano-a-mano" with President Obama? You'd have to be willing to lead first. And he's shown he's not willing.

People Aren't Stupid

At least those who read the Washington Post aren't. Here's an online poll and the results as of 11am EDT.



House Speaker John Boehner walked out on debt ceiling negotiations stating President Obama moved the goal posts with pursuing an extra $400 billion in revenue increases. But he mentioned nothing about wanting a trigger to eliminate the individual mandate on purchasing health insurance enacted in the Affordable Care Act that took 18 months to debate and pass. And what was that trigger, you may ask? Not agreeing to the final elements of debt reduction. Yes, seriously.

This arrangement would have given Republicans every incentive not to reach a final deal: Oh, no, if we don’t agree, then we’ll get to torpedo health-care reform. Yippee! It was far more laughable than Obama’s lunge for an extra $400 billion — especially since, according to White House officials, the president had made clear he had other potential cuts up his sleeve if the extra tax revenue wouldn’t fly. He was waiting to deal.

Sounds like a sweet deal, doesn't it?

Compromise is getting harder and harder to come by. There's got to be give and take - and sometimes you're going to be on the short end of the take. But to think that outrageous demands like gutting the one thing that solidifies the legislation that took a year and a half to complete is a reasonable request, is just outright insanity. And judging by the above poll, the American people can see it and know the deal.

President Obama's Press Conference - July 22, 2011

If You Want to be a Leader, Then You Got to Lead

Will Everyone Please Calm Down?

I was out of earshot of the televisions and the cable "news" outlets today (thankfully) and therefore out of earshot when the hair on fire freakout happened with a story based on those famous "anonymous sources" leaked that President Obama was ready to sign off on a $3 Trillion debt reduction deal with no increases in revenue. IEEEEE!!! Run into the streets with torches and pitchforks! Obama is selling out the poor! We knew it! He's not going to raise taxes! IEEEE!...

I found out when one of my faithful readers sent me an email with a link taking me to the Washington Post article and it's ridiculous first paragraph (emphasis mine):

President Obama and top House Republicans are deep in negotiations over a far-reaching plan to save $3 trillion over the next decade through sharp cuts in agency spending and politically painful changes to popular health and retirement programs, but without any immediate increase in taxes, Democratic congressional leaders reported Thursday.

Step away from the keyboard and take a breath. And think logically.

Why on earth would President Obama, while in a position of negotiating power as can be proven by poll after poll, just decide to give up on tax revenue increases when he and the administration have stated unequivocally that any part of a "grand bargain" would have to include tax revenues?

After reading the article, it sounds like a fake story designed to sabotage talks and put President Obama on the defensive since he's been getting favorable poll numbers on this issue. No one is being quoted, no one is taking ownership of these rumors, yet everyone is asking about it. Funny that.

According to my reader, he heard Oregon Congressman Pete DeFazio on the Thom Hartmann Show today tell Hartmann that Jared Bernstein had said the White House is catering to the independent voters who are worried mostly about the deficit, so there will be some cuts to "The Big Three," namely Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security "because Obama doesn't care where the money comes from." Of course, DeFazio wasn't at that meeting, and frankly, though I like DeFazio, that story sounds like a bowl full of shit to me.

News to DeFazio and anyone else not paying attention: the White House already has the independent vote. Independents don't trust the GOP led House in Congress.

Since the beginning of these talks, there has never been a time when the President or any of the White House spokesmen have ever denied that a grand bargain would include looking at restructuring Medicare and Social Security to strengthen them for future generations without making cuts to benefits. How this is interpreted at cuts is beyond me. Does cutting money to Medicare (like the ACA did by $500 billion in terms of fraud and abuse) equal automatic cuts in benefits?

From teabaggers to firebaggers, how does anyone know that this is the super secret "Obama wants to be Reagan" position without details? And how do you assume that position when everything you've heard from the White House is contrary to that line of thinking? When the fact that anything that would resemble trying to pass $3 Trillion in cuts with no revenue increases would never, ever pass in Congress?

But hey, this story did the job that it was supposed to. It filled another news cycle on a stalled story and caused the collective freakout of the MSM, the professional left, the Democratic politicians in Congress and the Twitterverse. It took the beltway insiders by storm. It caused President Obama to call a meeting of Democratic leaders of Congress - all based on a rumor.

Lawrence O'Donnell Gets It

Here's Lawrence O'Donnell, one of the few lead pundits that has actually worked in government, explaining the Obama strategy when it comes to negotiating the debt ceiling increase with a Republican Party that has painted itself into a"If Obama's for it, we're against it" corner on pretty much everything.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Some still don't get it. Like Ed Schultz. Rachel Maddow, while literally raising the white flag in her mocking of the GOP collapse, never mentioned that part of that collapse has to do with the Obama strategy of calling their bluff. But that's okay. They'll catch up eventually.

Republican Leadership! HUZZAH!

You gotta hand it to the so-called leaders of the Republican Party. If they don't get everything they want, they sure know how to take their ball and go home.

TPM: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has proposed creating an escape hatch for Congressional Republicans, who have put themselves in a box by threatening not to raise the national debt limit if Democrats don't agree to trillions of dollars in cuts to popular social programs.

Yes, after all the yelling and screaming that the debt ceiling sky is falling, and digging in their heels saying they wouldn't approve a raise in the debt ceiling unless substantial spending cuts were taken to offset the raise considering one cent in revenue increases unacceptable, all at the expense of US defaulting on its loans and a possible domino effect short circuiting the global economy - tantamount to blackmail, something they do so well - little Mitch McConnell is taking his ball and going home, dragging little Johnny Boehner by the hand with him.

JM Ashby over at Bob Cesca's blog does a great job summing up McConnell's toothless legislation proposal:

If the legislation proposed by McConnell is passed, President Obama can raise the national debt limit without a single cut to spending. Congress will then have the opportunity to pass a series of symbolic resolutions condemning the president for doing so. And in a worst case scenario, President Obama would have to propose entirely hypothetical and imaginary spending cuts he would make if it were up to him.

Considering how crafty and elusive the administration can be when it wants to, the threat of requiring phantom spending-cut proposals and the passage of ineffectual congressional resolutions condemning the debt ceiling seems completely impotent. What will stop the administration from including tax-hikes and long-term cuts to defense spending in every proposal? It’s all hypothetical!

All this in the name of protecting tax loopholes for the rich, continuing to subsidize big oil companies despite record breaking profits year after year, and helping corporations continue to avoid paying little to no federal income tax with offshore tax havens.

So let's review. House Speaker John Boehner and the GOP were adamant about not raising the debt ceiling at the risk of US default unless it included spending cuts equaling or exceeding the amount of the debt ceiling raise, particularly cuts in the form of popular social programs like Medicare and Social Security. The Republican Party was looking at somewhere in the neighborhood of a $2 trillion worth of spending cuts without any increase in revenue - even on the backs of the poor millionaires and billionaires' tax loopholes. President Obama called their bluff and said 'if you're actually serious about debt reduction, let's look at a $4 trillion cut. Let's look at Social Security and Medicare. But it's not going to come at the expense of the middle and working classes. Let's look at tax reform, loopholes, and having the top 2% actually pay what you think they're paying.'  Eric Cantor walked away from the table. Boehner blinked and walked away from the table. Mitch McConnell is now walking away from the table for political cover. And President Obama knows it.

President Obama did not walk away from the table or the American people when it came to defaulting on the US debts. It was the perfect move. And now with McConnell's proposal, President Obama, the only adult in the room, is getting what he wanted in the first place, a no strings attached debt ceiling increase.

ADDING... I have unsubscribed from several "progressive" organizations after receiving emails trashing President Obama for selling out the middle and working classes by putting "Social Security and Medicare cuts" on the table, something he NEVER said he'd do, and asking for donations in the process.

From the beginning of these negotiations, the "professional left" freak out has pissed me off to no end. Instead of attacking the party threatening to default on country's debt and using it as a hostage tool, their default position was to attack the President for trying to get a deal for ALL Americans. There is no longer any reason to consider these organizations the "base." Anyone thinking or suggesting that a primary challenge to President Obama is a good idea should in no way be considered, "the base." The base should be considered the base because they are the core support for the party leader. If you don't support the President more than 50% of the time (and that's being generous) you're not the base. If you don't support President Obama but still consider yourself the base, do yourself a favor and don't come back here. You won't like what you read. Or come back and make your points in the comments section. The real "base" welcomes the debate.

Not Even Gonna Vote

POSTED BY JHW22

The House Democrats won't even bring Obama's tax compromise to the floor for a vote. Talk about chicken shit.

Here's my message to Republicans, oops, I mean angry Democrats:

So what's the plan? How are we going to get all or more of what Obama got us? What's the plan? And how realistic is the plan? How non-naive is the plan? What are WE going to give up to get the Republicans to give up something? Remember who the Republicans are, what their goal is and tell me what the damn plan is to get ALL of what WE want. You showed you have balls. So how are you going to keep them from getting chopped off and fed to us? WHAT'S THE PLAN!?

And what will YOU DO if we lose even one fraction of what Obama got us? If we lose the child tax credit increase? If we lose the payroll tax deduction? If we lose even one month of unemployment extension? What THEN? What if you don't get us anything else? WHAT THEN?

I sure as hell hope you guys succeed -- for America's sake. But if you lose one ounce of what Obama got us, this will be ON YOU and all the people who supported this.

You sure as hell better get this done! And equal to or better than what Obama got us. GET IT DONE!

And keep in mind angry Dems, if this practice in pissy negotiation fails, there's NO GOING BACK to Obama's plan. The Republicans will not go back. So if this is having "balls" tell me how balls are going to put food on a family's table. Are we going to eat your balls when they get chopped off?

This is utter bull fucking shit!

(Oh, and in the meantime, tell me how we get DADT and the Dream Act now!?!?!)