Let’s hope it doesn’t pass so Obama gets to take the gun away by changing his mind on the 14th Amendment thing. This stinks. If any of those net spending cuts happen before we get to decent growth (and I’m guessing that’s not happening before the election) Obama’s going to lose re-election and (most likely) hand the Presidency to the Republicans because of the still-crappy economy.
The requirement for a balanced budget amendment to be passed before any debt increases, wanting another vote before the 2012 elections, the cuts are across the board so defense spending would also be cut, again something the tea party didnt want. They didnt get every single thing they wanted and I am very happy the idiotic linking of a balanced budget amendment vote passing with future debt level increases didnt occur.
He isnt going to change his mind, its this or a default.
So wait: do I have this straight? The agreement requires Congress to vote on a balanced budget amendment, but it doesn’t make the (second) debt limit increase dependent on its passage? If so, then that part seems acceptable, at least. There’s not a chance in hell that it’s going to pass, so they might as well have not put it in there at all, but whatever.
Quaro
1846
Well:
Promising to hold a congressional vote on a poorly designed version of a Balanced Budget Amendment strikes me as the kind of thing that could be a much worse idea than it appears at first glance. The issue is that the BBA is a classic instance of a measure that everyone in politics wants someone else to block. You can tell that everybody knows it’s a bad idea from the fact that throughout the entire 2001-2008 period the Republican Party managed to completely forget about it. But the explanation of what’s bad about it is wonky and non-intuitive and the BBA polls very well. If you force people to vote on it, they just might vote “yes.” That’s especially true since they can always tell themselves that it’s meaningless. Nothing happens unless 75% of the states ratify it.
But then the problem just re-instantiates at the state level. Why take a tough “no” vote on the BBA when it won’t be ratified by enough states to be enacted anyway? Then next thing you know, we’re two states away from being saddled with a Balanced Budget Amendment.
http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/07/31/283869/balanced-budget-debt-ceiling/
That’s so they can have it on record to use in the next election cycle.
Every Tea Party rep I’ve seen interview seems to think that increasing the debt limit at all is some sort of huge compromise. No joke.
Next on the agenda: EPA. They’re they’re the reason we have no job growth. The far right always has a bugaboo, and now the environment gets to stand next to welfare mothers and trial lawyers as the source of all evil.
What a terrible deal. I’m calling my representative and senators and urging them to vote no.
F’ing Democrats. They vote mr hopey-changey into office instead of a real man, like Hillary Clinton, and this is what we get. We would have been better off with McCain (who I voted for - though its like admitting you voted for Kodos).
Indeed, from the sounds of it they caved on everything rather than growing a pair.
Thats exactly correct, just a vote is required, not passage.
So what was the point of the Democrats saying no all this time if they caved in to the similar things they said no to earlier?
Palin. Heartbeat away. Obama could be sacrificing babies on the White House lawn daily and he was still the right choice to lead the country.
H.
Yeah, McCain was for a BBA before he was against it. Or is that the other way around?
You always know what you get with McCain, but you have to keep up with the flip-flopping.
Lum
1854
Well, gays are still allowed to be married, Muslims aren’t in internment camps and the Departments of Energy, Transportation, Education and the Interior still technically exist. So there’s still plenty for them to do yet.
I knew that the middle class was going to be thrown under the bus. Guess I will start actively trying to immigrate. Additionally I will start campaigning against the Tea Bagger joke of a representative by going to the rural communities that have seen job loss and explain that their fat cat representative thought it was more important to screw them over in cuts than to ask his fellow fat cats to pay their share.
I’m not sure you understand how congress works, which is surprising after the past three weeks.
Yes, BBA is motherhood, applepie and rosy cheeked children frolicking in the snow with their trusty family dog. It will be a brave politician to vote it down
Of couse, govt accounts are not household accounts. Heck, if households had BBA’s they could never get mortgages. Because, you know, borrowing. But the nuances of capital vs operating budgets don’t seem to stick
Just to make sure people know:
Medicaid and SS are protected under the trigger, so are programs that affect the lower class. Also the Medicare cuts will only take up 3% (I think) and focus on providers. The biggest chunk comes from defense.
In terms of protecting the social safety net, this actually seems better than the Obama-Boehner deal
Details are trickling in, but seriously:
Because of the pending Tuesday deadline, Obama would have immediate authority to raise the debt ceiling by $400 billion, which will last through September, according to the White House document. For the other $500 billion of debt ceiling extension in the first stage, Congress can vote on resolutions of disapproval that, if passed, the president can then veto, the White House said.
In the second stage, a special joint committee of Congress will recommend further deficit reduction steps totaling $1.5 trillion or more by the end of November, with Congress obligated to vote on the panel’s proposals by the end of the year.
It’s a payday loan that will be thrashed for every political advantage possible. The raw uncertainty isn’t going away.
H.
JeffL
1860
So, Obama tried to make it look like something reasonable in his speech tonght, saying he had all along stated we needed a balanced approach of cuts and revenue increases. And he tried to make it sound like the “committee” that they will have (6 Dems, 6 GOPs) that will provide the places where the deficit cuts will come from (in the form of bills that the houses will vote on, straight up or down votes) will include tax increases.
But we know that no Republican on the committee is going to vote for a bill to go to a Congressional vote that includes any form of taxes, be it billionaires, oil companies subsidies, hedge fund manager income, etc. And even if they did, the House would vote it down. My understanding is that for something to come out of the committee for vote, they have to have 7 votes, or just one of the other party. And if the committee doesn’t come up with enough cuts that get passed, the “punitive” cuts automatically get enacted which “both party are motivated to avoid.” Gee - I’ll bet those automatic punitive actions include all kinds of spending cuts, but not a single tax modification.
I.e. we’re still going to have the playground assholes dictating the rules of the game.
I can’t predict anything wrt presidential nominees this far out (most predictions are usually wrong from this distance) but I could easily see Romney beating Obama in 2012. Obama’s only hope is that the Tea Party controls the primaries, and he ends up going against a Tea Party candidate.
