Isn’t there some scientific principle where the stability of one object leads to greater instability in another object?
The more President Obama and Harry Reid assert their simple strategy–we won’t negotiate under these conditions; pass a clean budget patch and debt ceiling bill and then we’ll talk–the wilder the House R’s are getting.
I just read this Politico piece suggesting that now a bunch of the Republican leaders want to revert to a “grand bargain”–a big budget deal wherein R’s get entitlement cuts and D’s and the WH get new tax revenues.
They (the R’s) couldn’t close a grand bargain for years, but now they can somehow pull it off in a few days? With revenues? Having nothing to do with Obamacare?
And what are they saying here–that they’d accept clean budget patch and debt ceiling bills on the condition that there’s then a grand bargain? Maybe they’d like a supercommittee??
Or are they saying that only after a grand bargain will they accept clean bills? Because if that’s where they are, it’s deeply inconsistent with WH/Reid position.
See for yourself, but that Politico piece read like Mandarin Chinese to me. The ad hockery among the R’s right now is, if not remarkable, then alarming. They’re flailing about.
Tea Partier Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN) sums their position up nicely, I think: “We’re not going to be disrespected, We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is.”
Word to that.
Actually, a grand bargain could be feasible if the republicans are willing to give (a lot) on revenues. They need a face saving out, which means they have to get something, but they have to give something up too; the WH can’t count a clean CR or a debt ceiling bill as concessions
Hostage negotiators know that when ever you negotiate with a hostage taker(GOP) you have to give them a face saving out. Otherwise they commit suicide. In this case it is political.
I say let them destroy themselves.
There are two versions of the grand bargain.
One is Obama’s preferred version, which now seems to be eliminate some loopholes and cut Social Security and Medicare (in yesterday’s interview with Harwood he seemed to disavow raising rates). I fear cuts to Social Security and Medicare would be longer lasting than anything relating to revenue or other spending.
The other is the current GOP version, which is not entirely clear. Most stories I’ve seen say a grand bargain means give them everything they want and they’ll fund the government and raise the debt limit. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner is good source of current info on the Rs.
Does this sound like a group willing to increase taxes:
“Rank-and-file members want Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to return to the so-called “Boehner Rule,” which they say means any debt limit hike must be matched by an equal amount of spending cuts. …
“Now, as it looks increasingly like the government shutdown fight will be paired with raising the debt ceiling, Republicans are pushing hard for a strong opening bid and are adamant that changes to entitlement programs be included in any final deal. …
“Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.). “I want three dollars’ worth of cuts for any dollar [of debt limit increase.]””
1. Restore sequester cuts
2. Pass Senate Democratic budget
3. Axe the Social Security cap
Time for Boehner to resign, if he cannot actually represent the interests of his caucus.
I don’t think he’s as much the problem as the fact of his position provides the fig leaf for this sort of nonsense.
Yes, normally resignations follow elections where your party loses. But the Tea Party doesn’t seem very interested in time-tested ways of conducting business.
From Politico article:
The canceled trip to Asia is a pretty big deal. The Philippines (the country I’m most familiar with) is always unstable and Aquino has stuck his neck out over alot of opposition. There’s no way to spin this in Asia, it looks like the U.S. can’t be relied on.