Boehner greeted the New Year with Nancy Pelosi pulling his wine-marinated fat out of the fire regarding the debt ceiling and avoided a serious challenge for his Speakership, largely because no one else seriously wanted the job. He's got until March 1st to avoid the sequester because Obama finagled him a reprieve, but he'd rather talk shit about how Obama started the budget crisis when we all know who kicked up dirt instead of passing a debt ceiling increase then, originally, and whose Golden Lad came up with a budget that in the end, wouldn't do the trick.
I don't know if Boehner was ever in the AV Club, but he's been projecting like mad. He's especially wrong if he thinks that Obama should be obliged to come up with (additional) budget cuts--that will be acceptable to Republicans. Why couldn't they come up with cuts of their own, if they are so keen on them? And there will be plenty of cuts in the sequester--so why would Boehner have a problem with it, if cutting government to cut the debt was his goal? Unless cutting the debt does actually have less importance than funding at least some government services. Unless they know well and good that the economy will suffer--and who will take the blame. Unless the ideological pose of the GOP with respect to budgeting were actually bogus.
But as it happens, the congressfolks who Boehner speaks for are currently on vacation, and not at all working on a plan to avoid the sequester, whilst lobbing shade at Obama for taking a three-day Presidents' Day Weekend and enjoying a little golf. Perhaps the President enjoys practicing smacking little white balls around a bit much. I dunno. What I do know is, that instead of carping about what Obama is not doing, if he actually had leadership skills, Boehner could maybe be trying to make a deal or get his folks to accept what is already on the table. Unfortunately, the current incarnation of the GOP wing of the House seems to feel that being compelled to do their job is bullying.
Why is President Obama making them hit themselves?
Maybe, if they were really concerned about the budget as such, they'd think about closing tax loopholes and accept a little less in defense spending in exchange for, maybe, not looking like they're the problem. Since they in no way have the upper hand. Otherwise, complaining that Obama is shoving budget cuts down their throats is hardly effective for their overall narrative.
7 comments:
but he'd rather talk shit about how Obama started the budget crisis when we all know who kicked up dirt instead of passing a debt ceiling increase then, originally, and whose Golden Lad came up with a budget that in the end, wouldn't do the trick
Funny, for a bunch that claims to interpret the Constitution in strict fashion, they sure are ignorant about who actually holds the purse strings.
He's especially wrong if he thinks that Obama should be obliged to come up with (additional) budget cuts--that will be acceptable to Republicans. Why couldn't they come up with cuts of their own, if they are so keen on them? And there will be plenty of cuts in the sequester--so why would Boehner have a problem with it, if cutting government to cut the debt was his goal? Unless cutting the debt does actually have less importance than funding at least some government services.
That's the funny part- they really don't want to leave a paper trail, they just want something that will stick to that wily Kenyan.
Perhaps the President enjoys practicing smacking little white balls around a bit much.
Heh... smacking little white balls around helps him deal with GOP congresscritters.
Sequester History
1) Obama said, if you don't agree to this Grand Bargain, I'll drive the car over a cliff!
2) GOP said, eff you and your Grand Bargain, lolololol!
3) Here we are.
So while the GOP sux, so did Obama's fucking attempt to cut Social Security via the Grand Bargain.
And for Tbogg and all the eleventy-dimensional chess fantasists out there, the constant stream of chips being earned for the plutocracy via this triangulation ought to be a wake-up call. ("I got 98% of what I wanted.")
~
I've never been sure how serious Obama is when "putting things on the table"--including Soc Sec. While I try not to be one of those 11ty-dimensional chess Obots, there really is a part of me that sees these grifters as wanting to have their ideology reinforced so badly, that they are waiting to be taken. It isn't 11ty-dimensional chess. It isn't even checkers. I think he's playing three-card monte and these marks don't understand that the pea just keeps moving. I don't have faith in him, per se--as faith in the indomitable greed of the mark (House GOP). They want more, and won't settle for anything until they've lost everything. That 98% comment was Boehner thinking he'd get his shit together tomorrow.
Tomorrow isn't coming. They still want to dismantle government as we know it--Obama wants them on record saying so. 2014 elections will be...interesting. Entitlement used to be called the 3rd rail. There's a reason for that.
But we are the losers in this 3 card monte, V.S.
Please compare what Obama has done for the banks over the past 4 years with what he's done for the rest of us.
Consider that unemployment is 7.9%, and our political debate consists of how much to cut.
You're presuming that when Obama wins, so do we. What do you think is going to happen when the next recession shows up (and it will) with unemployment starting this high?
~
My point of view is a little more negative: I think we win when the GOP loses.
Our present situation didn't happen all at once; we have some deeply screwed up priorities in Washington, and but Obama didn't invent this debate; he just has to figure out a way to work with it. We have people who will get in front of a tv camera and with a straight face, claim tax cuts for the rich creates jobs. It's considered conventional wisdom that "Something has to be done with Soc Sec" or, again with a straight face, allege it's a Ponzi scheme. And the reason they say these things, deeply wrong as they are, is because they believe them. Politicians, lobbyists, media talking heads. They haven't the least clue or care for fixing income inequality; there some of them who will tell you we don't need a minimum wage, or that hungry kids should just work instead of getting school lunches.
So he can propose whatever stimulus or jobs plan or infrastructure development to put things right--but the Congress has to pass that. I do believe in the beginning he thought he was dealing with people who took these extreme positions without really believing them, but they do. So what we're seeing is what your Beltway cynics might call "the art of the possible".
I'm not even touching what will happen when the recession double-dips. I was hoping the supply-siders would have got shoulder-checked by economic reality by now. But if this situation is f'd, it was f'd before Obama.
It's almost like Russian roulette monte, with 6 cards and a pea under 5 of them, and O always maneuvers them into choosing the empty cup, the deal is always better (not just less bad) than it seemed. And the discourse really is changing.
Post a Comment