Posted on 07/24/2011 7:10:36 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
This debt debate comes down to negotiables and non-negotiables for each side. Negotiables are things they are willing to put in play to achieve their goals. Non-negotiables are things they need to keep of the table at all costs. Both sides, not surprisingly have non-negotiables that involve keeping their chances alive for next year’s elections. Let’s start with those.
For their part, House Republicans refuse to raise taxes. That’s their non-negotiable and has been all along. Many of these folks were elected in a Tea Party wave that was all about limited government. Many of them made an explicit pledge not to vote for a tax increase. They simply can not raise taxes and expect to survive. Tax increases are off the table.
Meanwhile, President Obama has refused any short term deal which would force him to face this issue again next year. He knows he can’t negotiate with his re-election on the line, so he wants this off the table for 2012. Last week, Jake Tapper did a fine job of pointing out how transparently political this demand was. But the President repeated this demand again yesterday. Election year debt negotiations are off the table.
So those are the non-negotiables on each side. Here’s the difference. Speaker Boehner isn’t asking for a short term deal. In fact, he was asked this question yesterday and explicitly said he was not interested in one. In other words, he is not pushing the President on his non-negotiable.
Meanwhile, on Thursday the President demanded $400 billion in additional revenues which Speaker Boehner says would come from tax increases. The President does not deny that he asked for the additional revenue at the last moment. When asked a sharp question about moving the goalposts by Norah O’Donnell the President’s reply was halting:
What this came down to was…there doesn’t seem to be a capacity for them to say yes.
Well, when you’re asking people to negotiate their non-negotiables after you’ve already agreed to something else, they do tend to balk. And in case you’re wondering, there is no doubt the President knows just how non-negotiable this is for GOP House members. In fact, he talked about the tax pledge many of them had signed yesterday, saying this left them “boxed in.” Boxed in is just another way to say they made tax increases a non-negotiable.
And yet the President seems to think House GOP members should violate a pledge they made to their constituents, one which a) they believe in as a matter of principle and which b) helped get them elected. He just expects them to “say yes” anyway.
Here’s the most frustrating part. Obama has a pledge of his own in this debate, something he promised more than two years ago. Obama pledged to reform Social Security and Medicare from the earliest days of his administration:
President-elect Barack Obama pledged yesterday to shape a new Social Security and Medicare “bargain” with the American people, saying that the nation’s long-term economic recovery cannot be attained unless the government finally gets control over its most costly entitlement programs.
So while Paul Krugman and others on the far left may not like it, Obama will certainly claim the reforms that the GOP are demanding from him are a promise kept, not one he has broken. Entitlement reform isn’t a concession for him, it was a goal!
That’s where things stand. President Obama is demanding the GOP violate their non-negotiable pledge on taxes so that he can fulfill his pledge to reform entitlements. The President repeatedly called this a “fair deal” yesterday. Well, it certainly is fair to him.
Good article - thanks for posting
Pubbies, stand firm!!! Give “traitor” POTUS Obama and his Democrat “America Destroyers” nothing but CCB!!!
For their part, House Republicans refuse to raise taxes. That's their non-negotiable and has been all along... [Zero] has refused any short term deal which would force him to face this issue again next year. He knows he can't negotiate with his re-election on the line, so he wants this off the table for 2012. Last week, Jake Tapper did a fine job of pointing out how transparently political this demand was. But [Zero] repeated this demand again yesterday. Election year debt negotiations are off the table... Speaker Boehner isn't asking for a short term deal. In fact, he was asked this question yesterday and explicitly said he was not interested in one. In other words, he is not pushing the [Zero] on his non-negotiable. Meanwhile, on Thursday [Zero] demanded $400 billion in additional revenues... does not deny that he asked for the additional revenue at the last moment. When asked a sharp question about moving the goalposts by Norah O'Donnell the President's reply was halting... when you're asking people to negotiate their non-negotiables after you've already agreed to something else, they do tend to balk.
I think you got it! Regardless of what is done about the debt ceiling, Zero needs bucks (known as increased revenue or taxes to everyone else) to buy votes. It costs money to get those illegals, welfare queens, dead people, etc. to vote the right way, one or more times.
To raise taxes would be, not just a violation of the pledge, but IT WOULD BE TO CONDONE (as well as underwrite) THE 'RATS REPREHENSIBLE, UNCONSCIONABLE, TOTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE AND EXTREMELY DANGEROUS LEVEL OF SPENDING (and would thereby make the GOP a party to it or, should I say, co-conspirators) !!!!
Office of the Speaker
H-232 The Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-0600
Fax: (202) 225-5117
U.S. Capitol Switchboard, (202) 224-3121
Smart reporting. Thank you so much for posting.
If they are at a stalemate, and 0bambi wants to move the goal posts, Boehner ought to respond in kind. His new proposal should be along the lines of: 1) repeal DeathCare, 2) MINIMUM of $750 Billion in real cuts for 2011 and the same next year; and 3) CCB. Might as well go for the farm; the debt limit ain’t going anywhere.
If they are at a stalemate, and 0bambi wants to move the goal posts, Boehner ought to respond in kind. His new proposal should be along the lines of: 1) repeal DeathCare, 2) MINIMUM of $750 Billion in real cuts for 2011 and the same next year; and 3) CCB. Might as well go for the farm; the debt limit ain’t going anywhere.
It’s enough to just abundantly clear that Zero was and is the problem in the negotiations.
Thank you for posting that; I used the numbers. Now would you happen to have 534 other FAX numbers handy?
President-elect Barack Obama pledged yesterday to shape a new Social Security and Medicare “bargain” with the American people, saying that the nation’s long-term economic recovery cannot be attained unless the government finally gets control over its most costly entitlement programs.
Entitled? Who is "entitled" to these SOCIALIST schemes built on the backs of dead Americans? Give the money back to the people who were FORCED to pay for this SOCIALISM. Only they are "entitled". Shut them down. They do not work.
So while Paul Krugman and others on the far left may not like it...
"Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it." - The Law - Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850
DEFUND socialist collectives, foreign and domestic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.