Political Animal
Blog
President Obama is obviously aware of the fact that congressional Republicans are demanding a massive debt-reduction plan, but expect the deal not to bring in an additional penny in revenue.
At a White House press conference this morning, the president did a very effective job at putting Republicans in a box. Either policymakers accept a balance approach, Obama argued, or the GOP will be exposed as deficit frauds who care about protecting the rich at the expense of everyone else. Greg Sargent ran this transcript from the event:
“If we choose to keep those tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, if we keep the tax break for corporate jet owners, if we choose to keep tax breaks for oil and gas companies that are making hundreds of billions of dollars, then that means we’ve got to cut some kids off from getting a college scholarship. That means we have to stop funding certain grants for medical research. That means that food safety may be compromised. That means that Medicare has to bear a greater part of the burden. These are the choices we have to make….
“The Republicans say they want to reduce the deficit. Every single observer who’s not an elected official or politician says we can’t reduce our deficit in the scale and scope we need to without having a balanced approach that looks at everything. Democrats have to accept some painful spending cuts that hurt some of our constituencies that we may not like. And we’ve shown a willingness to do that for the greater good….
“If you are a wealthy CEO or hedge fund manager in America right now, your taxes are lower than they’ve ever been. They’re lower than they’ve been since the 1950s. And you can afford it. You’ll still be able to ride on your corporate jet. You’ll just have to pay a little more…. My belief is that the Republican leadership in Congress will hopefully sooner rather than later come to the conclusion that they need to make the right decisions for the country, that everybody else has been willing to move off their maximalist position. They need to do the same. My expectation is that they’ll do the responsible thing.”
The White House message is obviously taking shape. Obama and his team want the public to know the administration is committed to debt reduction and tough choices, which will include calling on broad sacrifice, but which will protect key investments in education and health care. Republicans, on the other hand, aren’t really committed to debt reduction if they’re only willing to look at one side of the budget ledger, aren’t especially concerned about education and health care, and will fight to the death to ensure the wealthy don’t have to sacrifice at all.
The phrase of the morning is “corporate-jet owner.” I started keeping count of how many times the president used the phrase, and I think I noticed four separate instances. The point was to highlight a $3 billion perk available to those who buy these jets — a perk Republicans won’t touch because it would count as a (cue scary music) tax increase.
As the process continues, the White House message to the public will be pretty straightforward: we can have a major debt-reduction deal if only Republicans weren’t fighting so hard to protect corporate-jet owners. Why, the argument will go, won’t the GOP look out for students and seniors the way it looks out for the fat cats in the Cessna?
Facebook
Twitter
Chris on June 29, 2011 2:06 PM:
President Obama: "That means we have to stop funding certain grants for medical research. That means that food safety may be compromised. That means that Medicare has to bear a greater part of the burden. These are the choices we have to make."
A greater part? What does he mean by a greater part? Is he referring to cuts made to Medicare under the Affordable Care Act, or has he agreed to additional Medicare cuts as part of this deal?
That "Medicare has to bear a greater part of the burden" worries me.
wordtypist on June 29, 2011 2:12 PM:
And here I thought that John Boehner was Speaker of the House and Mitch McConnell was the Senate Minority Leader. Yet they both take their marching orders from Grover Norquist, a man who has never had an elective office anywhere yet wields more power in Congress than any one of the elected members. If he says "jump" they say "how high" and of course jump to the right.
Grover
stevio on June 29, 2011 2:12 PM:
Bah! He should take the frigid' gloves off. Corporate jets are one aspect. Obstructionism is the goal of the GOP. A story teller like Obama could have brought this into the discourse. Something to the effect:
"if they are serious about debt reduction, they should also be serious about job creation and try to come up with ideas that are hugely different then the ones that caused this mess: Tax breaks for the rich!"
I see it as three fold:
Overt obstructionism to tank the economy
No ideas from the OP to create jobs
Make Obama a term POTUS at all costs including a total destruction of the middle class
Nauseating...
Linkmeister on June 29, 2011 2:13 PM:
Gulfstream. Cessna implies the little two-seater prop plane you fly when you're taking lessons. Gulfstreams are the jets.
bleh on June 29, 2011 2:14 PM:
What Linkmeister said
grape_crush on June 29, 2011 2:16 PM:
If we choose to keep those tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires...then that means we've got to cut [X,Y, and Z that are so popular that they're taken for granted)"
'Bout damn time he started framing the issue like that. Needs to be repeated every day up and through the 2012 elections.
Schtick on June 29, 2011 2:18 PM:
I have medicare and if anything, I've ended up with more benefits with ACA. I don't see any cuts to medicare. Where were the cuts made? I haven't seen it in my coverage.
And the quotes you took from his speech were made in reference to if the tax breaks given to millionaires and big business by the repubs were kept in the budget like the repubs want.
crapcha....traffic thonar....you know it!
stormskies on June 29, 2011 2:22 PM:
When of the best parts of his press conference was the fact that he totally ignored CBS news in the form of Chip "I am not a corporate/repiglican cum slut' Reid, and Tapper in the form of ABC news.
edb on June 29, 2011 2:23 PM:
He didn't mention the fat cats in their Ford Fiesta limos. I guess that isn't such a big deal - I'll cut the rich a break on that one.
Republicans are setting the house on fire and Obama tells us that certain types of heat-related activities might be hazardous but he's sure the arsonists will do the right thing.
Obama might have made a good judge. President is the wrong job for this guy.
RZ0 on June 29, 2011 2:24 PM:
You're way too hopeful, Steve. It looks like Obama's starting position is 5 parts cutback for 1 part tax increase. So it'll end up being more like 10:1.
Score another one for the rich.
TCinLA on June 29, 2011 2:25 PM:
My expectation is that they’ll do the responsible thing.
And if wishes were horses, we'd all be riding. Expectations are only slightly worse than assumptions ("assume makes an ass of u and me").
Ladyhawke on June 29, 2011 2:26 PM:
TWO WEEKS ON, ONE WEEK OFF IN SHORTER 2011 HOUSE SCHEDULE
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/132629-house-gop-releases-schedule-with-fewer-weeks-of-work
House Republicans on Wednesday unveiled a 2011 schedule that will keep lawmakers in the nation’s capital for shorter periods of time, allowing them to travel home more frequently.
The schedule represents a major change from how Democrats have run the lower chamber over the last four years.
Under the new calendar, House members will have a cycle of being in session for two weeks in Washington and then spending the following week in their home districts.
Incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said the new schedule would create “certainty” for members.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/132629-house-gop-releases-schedule-with-fewer-weeks-of-work
amThe lazy congress members need to do their jobs. The Republican majority in the House a very limited work schedule. They have introduced ZERO JOBS BILLS in the last six months.
Two weeks on, one week off in shorter 2011 House schedule
king buzzo on June 29, 2011 2:26 PM:
Yes, a "balanced approach" wherein spending cuts are five times greater than tax increases sure is some "box."
"The White House message is obviously taking shape."
And just in time too! Right at the end of the negotiations when the Dems have already given away 80% of the store to appease Wall Street and the deficit fetishists at the expense of an actual economic recovery for the rest of us.
I know, I know: clap louder.
Vince on June 29, 2011 2:27 PM:
I'm sorry, but members of the Obama fan club, starting with SB, are off your collective rockers. He's boxed the dastardly Republicans into a corner? On what planet is 17% tax increases as opposed to 83% spending cuts at a time of 9.1% unemployment considered "balanced"?!?
Just look at the mealy mouthed language he uses to justify increasing (slightly) the costs of flying in your private jet. He obviously doesn't want to offend the delicate sensibilities of the masters of the universe. Why, where would he get the $1 billion he's going to need to run for reelection?
Boxed in a corner?!? Jeebus, get real, SB.
Sparko on June 29, 2011 2:31 PM:
About damned time. The Republicans are asking either for slower failure or immediate catastrophe. They literally don't think their sabotage will have grave consequences in their echo chamber. Louis XVI was more realistic. This must be called a crisis, and Congress sent back to work every day until they stop parroting idiots, loons and traitors. I should mention that any further cuts to spending will not help the country in any way unless there is an equal American investment coming from the "job creators" who seem to do that only overseas. No cuts without the business community contributing twice as much investment at home.
han's snark solo on June 29, 2011 2:31 PM:
"I don't see any cuts to medicare. Where were the cuts made?"
The cuts were to Medicare Advantage.
walt on June 29, 2011 2:34 PM:
I agree with Vince. Obama has already bought most of the Republican framing on deficits. All we're doing now is arguing about a few crumbs left on the table. It would help if Obama or his surrogates were out there explaining what rape is to a nation habituated to fantasy TV shows and fast food. Something needs to wake up middle America because the future Republicans are planning for them is going to be brutish, nasty and short.
Tom Allen on June 29, 2011 2:35 PM:
"That means that Medicare has to bear a GREATER part of the burden."
Yep, I heard that too. It's part of the debt limit/deficit talks. Via Politico: "For their part, Obama and Reid appear prepared to reach much higher, putting substantial Medicare savings on the table if Republicans would accept added revenues."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57890.html
But, but. I was told on this site just a couple days ago that Medicare was off the table and I was being alarmist -- only Medicaid was going to be slashed. Silly leftist me.
zeitgeist on June 29, 2011 2:48 PM:
if Obama and Reid give up anything on Medicare and Medicaid (from which my disabled daughter benefits) in at-gunpoint negotiations they will have thrown away the single best political level they have in the 2012 elections by partnering with the Republicans on Paul Ryan's objectives.
and if they are going to throw away their best political weapons, its hard to see why I should contribute to their campaigns. so DSCC and Obama 2012 may be about to make my 2011-2012 much less expensive.
Vince on June 29, 2011 2:49 PM:
Oh, and "we've (Democrats) accepted (those cuts) for the greater good"? Way to reinforce the completely bogus narrative for the need for deficit reduction in the face of a stagnant economy and 9.1% unemployment.
SB, when you wonder how the majority of Americans think that reducing the deficit is more important for economic recovery than government spending look no further than Obama.
Obama does want to get reelected, doesn't he? I ask, because he is doing everything he can to aid the Republicans in sabotaging the economy, which will make it difficult to get 4 more years in the White House. At a minimum, he's making it very difficult to say that he would have done things very differently, but that the Republicans prevented him from doing so. I guess he's hoping that the Republican nominee is a complete nut job.
Roger the Cabin Boy on June 29, 2011 2:56 PM:
Here's another talking point, although it's considered impolite to mention it, but this same crew who suddenly discovered "deficit and debt reduction" and "fiscal responsibility" when a Democrat was elected to the WH was also instrumental during the first eight years of the century in blowing a $500 billion surplus (at that rate of annual surplus our debt would be paid off by now) by giving massive tax cuts to rich people, invading two countries (one for no real reason whatsoever), and giving big pharma a nice hummer while not paying for ANY of it through offsetting cuts or new revenue. In fact, the wars didn't even appear in the budget until Obama put them there. All of this was piled on the debt, part of the shit sandwich that W left on the president's desk in January '09. That this isn't brought up by some Democrat on a daily basis is beyond me, yes some Democrats went along with it but it was overwhelmingly a republican initiative and this can't be mentioned often enough. Probably too late now, but WHY can't Democrats pick a message (like this) and simply repeat it day in and day out?
R. Porrofatto on June 29, 2011 2:58 PM:
The problem is that the millionaires and billionaires are the corporate jet owners who own and run the cable and broadcast networks Obama needs to get his message out.
Josef K on June 29, 2011 3:02 PM:
The next sound you hear is the debt ceiling being hit...and the US economy going off the rails becuase we couldn't get past it.
While its nice the President finally started drawing some clearer lines, I'm afraid the GOP is simply too wedded to its anti-government rhetoric to get an actual agreement in place before August 2nd. Even if one could be negotiated, I've no confidence Boehner, Cantor, and McConnell can ensure their caucus votes for it; too many 'true believers' who actually think this is good a good thing for the country.
This is no way to run a government.
Rugosa on June 29, 2011 3:07 PM:
Good point, Roger. I'd like to hear Dems saying "Bush cut taxes to return the surplus to the people. It's been returned many times over. We need to restore Clinton-era taxation."
kevo on June 29, 2011 3:10 PM:
Well, I did not witness the presser, but from the above comments, Obama is still the smartest person on this thread!
Look, no one won anything overestimating the ability of the average American to correctly discern who's doing what to whom politically, and for what reason, here in America.
President Obama knows this, and is projecting a cool, calm, collected and unperturbed persona as a way to engage the hysteria laden rhetoric of his opponents (if they are yelling shit to see if it sticks, President Obama must give a reasonable response to show the unassuming electorate the difference between himself and the OrangeTurtleHeadedCongressionalLeadershipMonster he is up against!).
Yet, Mr. Benen, artful and skilled politicians can't be cornered in the sea of politics, and this current set of Republicans are not so much painters painting in the corner direction, than they are free swimming lamprey, slime and all, slithering their way through the waters of Voter Naivete! -Kevo
joan on June 29, 2011 3:12 PM:
When cry baby Cantor walked off the debt reduction commission talks, he said that it would now be up to Boehner & the President to make the deal, my question - what happened to Boehner? Has he run away because he was backed into a corner?
Danny on June 29, 2011 3:38 PM:
Reading Sargents writeup on this is sad, and shows the worst pathology of the Nutroots and their magical thinking in stark contrast.
Here now is a textbook example where the President extremely skillfully uses the "bully pulpit" to reframe a national discourse that has been stuck in the wrong place - not just the last years, but the last 30 years. E.g. he did exactly what the Nutroots have been demanding.
Only, he did it the smart way, letting the Republicans box themselves in and then went for offense right when the clock starts to run out, thereby getting leverage.
Now, if progressive infrastructure was healthy, this would be the time for any surrogate to chime in in order to multiply this message. It should be a no-brainer for all the bloggers that have been demanding that the prez do what he just did. This is the time to flack a unified message to the public.
But when the big opportunity arrives, the nutroot champions get stage fright. They revert to commentary, to the meta-story. When the President makes a strong case for tax increases as part of the deal, Greg Sargent spends his time writing a meta-analysis of what the president is trying to do.
Why? What the fuck is wrong with you guys of the professional left? Have you learned freaking nothing from movement conservatism? Do you know freaking nothing about getting things done?
Unbelievable.
Michael on June 29, 2011 3:50 PM:
Do you realize dental care was eliminated from medicare?Three thousand seven hundred dollars for a few cavities and a few crowns, no more.This for a friend who gets 850 A monnth from disability and ssi.On top of her 500 a month credit card debt payment incurred getting needed household items and life.There have been cuts to medicare already, and its getting worse with , for instance, the california budget cuts for disability and welfare services.
Danny on June 29, 2011 3:58 PM:
@Michael
AFAIK, medicare never covered dental care:
https://questions.medicare.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/899/~/why-doesn%E2%80%99t-medicare-pay-for-dental-care,-hearing-aids,-and-eyeglasses%3F
Unfortunately, the Medicare program does not cover routine dental care, hearing aids or eyeglasses for they are statutorily excluded from coverage. It would take an act of Congress to change the national coverage decision to not cover dental care, hearing aids, and eyeglasses.
Published 01/18/2002 09:18 AM | Updated 04/08/2009 05:31 PM
You should do some research before making claims that muddies the water about what changes were made in recent history, Such claims have political implications, you see,,,,
Ron Byers on June 29, 2011 4:29 PM:
What does the world bank always prescribe when little countries are in a financial crisis. Why, they prescribe dramatic cuts in government services and tax increases.
Folks we keep blaming Obama for buying the Republican frame, but I have to wonder if he hasn't instead bought the world bank point of view.
Rick Taylor on June 29, 2011 4:38 PM:
"President Obama is obviously aware of the fact that congressional Republicans are demanding a massive debt-reduction plan, but expect the deal not to bring in an additional penny in revenue."
Actually they're demanding even more than that. They're demanding the President embrace the deal, so Republicans will be insulated from the unpopularity of the positions they've taken as Democrats join them. In fact, they'd prefer as few Republicans as possible end up having to voting for the deal that gives them everything they want. In the Senate, some of them are trying to avoid a filibuster, so the deal can pass with no Republican votes in support.
Schtick on June 29, 2011 5:24 PM:
So sorry, but I'm still not seeing how my medicare has been cut. I ended up getting more benefits and less co-pay. The only time I ever seen a big difference is when dumya came up with his brillant idea of part D. My co-pay went up and my benefits went down.
Of course, maybe in NY the coverage is different, but even the pharmacy I use told me I'm eligible to get free medical items I had to pay for in the past. Or maybe I'm just extremely lucky.
I'm not trying to stick up for Obama because I think he sold us out shortly after taking office and I think he's still selling us out.
crapcha....hersolli imagine....I do!
Maggy on June 29, 2011 6:06 PM:
GUESS WHAT Schtick: He aint selling you out!!! Just use your experience, and your head.
Read Danny above. He is the real deal. Just like the Prez.
Old Uncle Dave on June 29, 2011 8:07 PM:
Those corporate jets should be called what they are, Welfare Gulfstreams.
bardgal on June 29, 2011 8:21 PM:
@Danny - true. Thank you. Marry me.
People on Medicare are also getting the silly Medicare D gap/doughnut hole closed, and got a rebate check THIS YEAR if they hit it.
@han's snark solo - Medicare Advantage was a type of INSURANCE SUPPLEMENT sold by companies like Anthem and Aetna, etc. NOT ACTUAL MEDICARE parts A or B from the government.
square1 on June 29, 2011 8:59 PM:
Bardgal: You are confusing Medigap plans with Medicare Advantage.
Medicare Advantage is an alternative to parts A & B, so, yes, some people who elected Advantage plans got cuts...although fully justified in my opinion as Advantage plans can be a waste.
Schtick on June 29, 2011 9:03 PM:
Michael, your friend gets more than I do on SSI and disability, and I've NEVER gotten dental coverage. I also can't get any kind of coverage for a podiatrist and I'm diabetic. Only if I don't have a pulse in my foot/feet will medicare cover it. doh.
And Maggy, I'm not trying to imply Obama sold us out on medicare or medical benefits. I like what he tried to do and as little as I think it was, I'm so glad he got that much accomplished. I'm thinking, in my opinion, he sold us out with the drug companies and he still is with the oil companies or they wouldn't be drilling in the gulf right now, especially BP, without drastic changes. Even tho IMO I think he's selling us out, he's a thousand times better than anyone the repubs can put up.
crapcha....emestu 177....I bet you do.
king buzzo on June 29, 2011 9:12 PM:
@Danny
Here's that famous member of the "Nutroots" David Frum on Dear Leader's strategerizing:
"1) The stuff about corporate jets is just crapola really. It's the Democratic equivalent of Republicans pretending that the deficit can be closed by cutting PBS and the National Endowment for the Arts. If Obama, the supposed grownup in the room, wants to make the case for revenue measures, let him make the case for relevant revenue measures.
2) 30 or so days before a forced default on the financial obligations of the United States seems a poor choice of a time for negotiations over budget measures. Why is Obama allowing himself to be engaged in this way?
3) Why for that matter is Obama surrendering to the demand to change the subject from jobs to deficits? Surely Obama believes that rapid budget-cutting will be deflationary? And therefore irresponsible in the context of 10% unemployment, near-zero inflation, and 1% interest rates on federal debt? Why has he allowed himself to be pushed into measures he regards as irresponsible?"
So please feel free to wear out your arms polishing this turd but even ostensible concern trolls like Frum get exactly how feckless Obama is here.
Sometimes failure isn't actually 7-dimensional chess that only Danny can explain to all these ungrateful apostate "nutroots" -- what with their endless, tiresome carping about 10% unemployment. Sometimes it's just failure.
Doug on June 29, 2011 10:18 PM:
To Chris and anyone else worried about the cuts made to Medicare I would suggest refresher courses in logic and political rhetoric. The entire paragraph (as quoted) is an example of "if/then" hypothesis. IF we do X, then, AS A RESULT OF DOING X, we will have to do Y.
To stevio, edb, RZ0, king buzzo, Vince, and walt and anyone else disgusted at yet another "failure" by President Obama, I have a question: when was the last time ANY politician stood in front of a group of reporters and flatly stated that the voters of the US have a choice between increasing government revenues or cutting programs such as Medicare or food inspection? Mr. Obama is just doing what the MSM refuses to do, inform and educate the public. And this country needs all the informed and educated voters it can get.
That they tend to vote Democratic is just a side benefit...
a on June 30, 2011 3:42 AM:
hm, let's see. The country is $14T in the hole and is merrily barreling toward $140T. And the President rabbits on and on about a tax break (which was part of his stimulus btw) which costs $0.003T/year.
I'm glad we have such a smart President. Otherwise one might think that he is rather stupid.
Danny on June 30, 2011 5:41 AM:
@king buzzo
David Frum is of course a former Dubya speech writer, and even though he's gone off the conservative reservation he's not someone I believe considers himself a progressive or part of the net roots. So way to miss the point. The netroots have been demanding usage of Bully Pulpit and when it's delivered in a smart, useful way they themselves fail to step up. What a former George W Bush conservative thinks about that isn't relevant.
However, just off the bat.
1) The stuff about corporate jets is effective rethorics. It's picking a tax/revenue increase that most people can support and using that to represent tax/revenue increases in general. But you knew that, right? It's not Obama's fault that republicans want to keep that subsidy and others.
2) What do you even mean? There are ongoing negotiations on a deal and part of those negotiations is pitches to the public to try to define the public debate and thereby get leverage. That's why McConnell is running around laying down markers, and that's why Cantor walked out on the negotiations. And that's why Obama did that nice ju-jutsu and started beating them over the head at the presser. And thats why Sargent, Drum, Hamsher and Moulitsas should be busy flacking the presidents message verbatim if they knew how to perform their freaking jobs.
3) Because we lost the midterms -70 in the house and -7 in the Senate. Winning elections means you get to set the agenda for a while. Austerity was the schtick of the tea party movement and teabaggers were the story of '10. If you dont like your enemies getting to set the agenda learn how to set it yourself (infrastructure, grassroots work and winning elections works for movement conservatism and will work for us as well). Vote - in every election - and make sure you get others to do that as well.
But of course running to Daddy crying that is all his fault and he got to fix it using some undefined magic strategy is so much easier. And it gets attention when "Daddy" is POTUS and your ally. Pathetic.
king buzzo on July 04, 2011 4:16 PM:
"Winning elections means you get to set the agenda for a while."
Well we won in 2008 and we kept the Senate in 2010. Still, it's all austerity from this administration for as far as the eye can see. So your point about setting the agenda by winning elections is just incoherent.
No one is running to daddy but it's interesting that you're resorting to ad hominem in suggesting so. Why aren't you arguing for Obama using the bully pulpit to push through stimulus measures to drive down 10% unemployment?
That is the key failure here on Obama's part: it is accepting the terms of the debate set by the Republicans. The Republicans never ever ever make that error leaving one of two conclusions:
Obama is incapable of governing effectively *or* he agrees with the basic thrust of the Republican position on the economy -- i.e. placate the bond traders and confidence fairy in the absence of any significant inflation, record profits in the financial sector, and persistent 10% unemployment.
Your carping about people not getting behind the presdient's fundamentally anti-progressive direction is condescending to the extreme: progressives vote for politicians to deliver progressive policies. If you're not a progressive, fine. But don't act like you get to decide what progressivism means to the rest of us.