Jeff Sachs at Huffpo:

[A]t every crucial opportunity, Obama has failed to stand up for the poor and middle class.
...Obama could have cut hundreds of billions of dollars in spending that has been wasted on America's disastrous wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen, but here too it's been all bait and switch. Obama is either afraid to stand up to the Pentagon or is part of the same neoconservative outlook as his predecessor. The real cause hardly matters since the outcome is the same: America is more militarily engaged under Obama than even under Bush.

[More...]

Yesterday, Jonathan Bernstein wrote a post titled The context of liberal surrender and Barack Obama’s choices:

It was never at all plausible after November 2, 2010 that Obama and the Democrats could get through this year and next without losing on several fronts compared to what they had in the very liberal 111th Congress. And yet liberals seemed to believe that if only Obama negotiated properly he could avoid those losses. It just wasn’t going to happen. So the proper way to see the current negotiations are in the context of watching both sides surrender.

I'm not seeing how agreeing to an all spending cuts deal constitutes surrender by the Republicans. Will it be all they asked for? No. But being effective negotiators, Republicans knew to ask for pie in the sky, and then just settle for pie on the ground. They can get the sky on the next go around.

But the more interesting aspect to Bernstein's analysis is his failure to connect the December deal to extend the Bush tax cuts to the current debt ceiling deal (and the coming budget negotiations.) When the President surrendered on the Bush tax cuts, he lost almost all of his bargaining leverage. (Indeed, the only leverage Democrats have now is that a substantial number of Republicans do not want to vote for a debt ceiling increase under any circumstances, thus Dem votes will be required.) When some of us were explaining this in December, others were arguing The December Deal was a victory. Here is a post where I discuss Yglesias making that claim:

We've gotten the "Grand Bargain" sideshow out of the way, so the question now is what will be the actual debt ceiling deal? Is it possible that the "clean" bill (with respect to spending cuts) McConnell option will be the end result? Absolutely not. The question is, as it has always been since last December, how much in spending cuts will the GOP extract in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. The talks resumed this morning:

Congressional leaders trooped to the White House for a Saturday morning meeting called by the president Friday night to discuss what options existed for moving forward with the negotiations. [. . .] To meet Republican demands for dollar-for-dollar cuts to correspond with any rise in the borrowing authority, Congressional aides said there were discussions about extending the debt ceiling for a period of months tied directly to cuts, with a second installment then subject to the McConnell process. Democrats and Mr. Obama were insistent that the increase be guaranteed to take the Treasury Department through 2012 without another fight.

[More...]

There have been many instances of historic legislation in our Nation's history. But unless the legislation led to constitutional amendments, the historic nature of such legislation could only be guaranteed by the results of subsequent elections. This is especially true when you are considering legislation regarding spending, taxes and "deficit reduction." Today, Jed Lewison reported President Obama "says he wants deficit reduction to focus on long-term spending, not short-term spending:"

The President previously discussed consummating a "historic" Grand Bargain on long term spending. I've repeatedly viewed this thinking as deluded. The reason why is:

The New York Times says President Obama and John Boehner are close to striking a deal on spending cuts and taxes. Democrats are reportedly very angry. According to the Times, it involves:

$3 trillion in savings that would be obtained through substantial spending cuts and future revenues produced through an overhaul of the tax code.

Fearful of leaks that stalled prior talks, both sides are clamming up. What that tells me: Someone's going to get thrown under the bus. [More...]

John Edwards can't seem to catch a break. Today, the FEC ordered his campaign to return $2.6 million in matching funds it had received after announcing he quit the 2004 presidential race.

The FEC determined that Edwards had received just over 2.1 million dollars in matching funds after the campaign was winding down and Edwards was no longer in the race. The commission decided that in total his campaign must pay back $2,278,315 in excess matching funds.

According to the FEC, "Presidential candidates receive federal government funds to pay for the valid expenses of their political campaigns in both the primary and general elections."

Sounds like Edwards had an inkling this would be the ruling. On June 30, 2011, the campaign had $2.6 million in cash-on-hand.

Jed Lewison:

Washington Post:

"A bipartisan effort in the Senate to allow President Obama to raise the federal debt ceiling in exchange for about $1.5 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years gained momentum Sunday, as leaders agreed they would have to act in the next two weeks to avert a potential default by the U.S. government.[...] The plan would also create a new congressional panel that would, by the end of the year, seek to come up with a way of reducing the deficit potentially by trillions more through cuts in entitlements and other new tax revenue."

Jed writes "[T]hat's not a balanced deal. In fact, like Ezra Klein, I can't imagine Republicans getting a better outcome. [. . .] Using the debt limit as a hostage to force sharp spending cuts without raising revenue is exactly what Republicans have been fighting for. And if this is the plan, they may well be close to getting it." Yes, but this was predictable it seems to me, because well, I predicted it. And yes, this goes back to The Deal in December.

Speaking for me only

A reporter from The Atlantic visiting his parents in Orange County, CA, home to one of 10 theaters across the country playing a new documentary about Sarah Palin, decided to go check it out and maybe interview some of those in attendance. Only no one showed up.

He watched it alone (except when two tourists walked in, not knowing the movie was about Palin, and they left after 20 minutes.):

"We looked online for the latest movie playing," Jessie added. "But all the Harry Potters were sold out, and then we saw 'The Undeafeated.' We don't even actually know what we're seeing."

Probably wasn't the action flick they were expecting. At the end, a couple came in to sit in the back row and make out, but they left too. So the reporter had no one to interview. [More...]

Kevin Drum writes:

Although we should be spending more now to get the economy back on track, this is why a long-term deficit deal with teeth is something that both liberals and conservatives ought to be willing to compromise to achieve.

A "long term deficit deal with teeth" can not exist. The reason is one Congress can not bind future Congresses.

Case in point - the US government ran fiscal surpluses of $236.2 billion from 1998 to 2000. Indeed, the CBO projected trillion dollar surpluses beyond that. Guess what happened next? The massive Bush Tax Cuts plus two trillion dollar wars. Goodbye surpluses.

Stupid statement from Drum.

Speaking for me only

Apparently, Obama and the Dems are trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory on the debt ceiling negotiation:

The Senate's top two officials are working on what one aide called a "hybrid," fail-safe solution to the debt ceiling debate that could garner enough political support to pass Congress.

The plan, which is being hatched by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), would ensure that over $1.5 trillion in cuts over ten years be passed into law. It would also grant President Obama the authority to extend the debt ceiling through the 2012 election season while requiring him to propose -- but allowing him to ultimately veto -- cuts beyond those initial $1.5 trillion.

WTF? McConnell offered to do a clean raise of the debt ceiling (with some pointless votes) and Dems say no to that? They INSIST on spending cuts? In the middle of a recession? They deserve to lose.

Speaking for me only

It really is a battle royale in the conclaves of the GOP. Here is Murdoch's Wall Street Journal defending McConnell's cave:

The hotter precincts of the blogosphere were calling this a sellout yesterday, though they might want to think before they shout. The debt ceiling is going to be increased one way or another, and the only question has been what if anything Republicans could get in return. If Mr. Obama insists on a tax increase, and Republicans won't vote for one, then what's the alternative to Mr. McConnell's maneuver?

I think the alternative is obvious - extracting as much in spending cuts as you can. Is the WSJ seriously afraid of negotiating with the Obama Administration? The obvious move was the one Boehner was executing - take the spending cuts being offered by Biden and call it a day until the next hostage situation. Frankly, McConnell's move is inexplicable, not the least of which is because I do not think it can get through the GOP House.

In any event, it is fun to watch the GOP make a mess of a political negotiation for once. However it turns out, this is good news for the President's political fortunes.

Speaking for me only

Via daily kos, Politico is reporting on a rumored proposal on the debt ceiling that would be a clean win for President Obama:

Desperate to get out of the political box they helped to create, Senate Republicans are actively pursuing a new plan under which the debt ceiling would grow in three increments over the remainder of this Congress unless lawmakers approve a veto-proof resolution of disapproval.

If this is the end result of the Debt Ceiling Kabuki, then President Obama will have won. Period. No cuts for the debt ceiling. A de facto clean raise of the debt ceiling. Moreover, Progressives and liberals would have won too, because cutting Medicare and Social Security would have proven to be utterly anathema, no matter what Obama wants to do.

I think the chance of this deal happening is zero. But, if it happens, then I will have been completely wrong about these negotiations. But I don't think I am, and I still think deep spending cuts will be the price the GOP extracts for raising the debt ceiling. But it would be great if I was wrong.

Speaking for me only