This is not a good deal. It looks like, walks like, talks like, and smells like a cave-in. The only question is whether the consequences of refusing it would be worse than the deal itself. I’m reserving judgment for now. I want to better understand the details, not just the overview. I want to know how the ‘super committee’ will be selected. I want to see the analysis of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Then I’ll decide. In the meantime, here’s an overview.
First, here is the complete description from the White House.
Bipartisan Debt Deal: A Win for the Economy and Budget Discipline
- Removes the cloud of uncertainty over our economy at this critical time, by ensuring that no one will be able to use the threat of the nation’s first default now, or in only a few months, for political gain;
- Locks in a down payment on significant deficit reduction, with savings from both domestic and Pentagon spending, and is designed to protect crucial investments like aid for college students;
- Establishes a bipartisan process to seek a balanced approach to larger deficit reduction through entitlement and tax reform;
- Deploys an enforcement mechanism that gives all sides an incentive to reach bipartisan compromise on historic deficit reduction, while protecting Social Security, Medicare beneficiaries and low-income programs;
- Stays true to the President’s commitment to shared sacrifice by preventing the middle class, seniors and those who are most vulnerable from shouldering the burden of deficit reduction. The President did not agree to any entitlement reforms outside of the context of a bipartisan committee process where tax reform will be on the table and the President will insist on shared sacrifice from the most well-off and those with the most indefensible tax breaks.
Mechanics of the Debt Deal
- Immediately enacted 10-year discretionary spending caps generating nearly $1 trillion in deficit reduction; balanced between defense and non-defense spending.
- President authorized to increase the debt limit by at least $2.1 trillion, eliminating the need for further increases until 2013.
- Bipartisan committee process tasked with identifying an additional $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction, including from entitlement and tax reform. Committee is required to report legislation by November 23, 2011, which receives fast-track protections. Congress is required to vote on Committee recommendations by December 23, 2011.
- Enforcement mechanism established to force all parties – Republican and Democrat – to agree to balanced deficit reduction. If Committee fails, enforcement mechanism will trigger spending reductions beginning in 2013 – split 50/50 between domestic and defense spending. Enforcement protects Social Security, Medicare beneficiaries, and low-income programs from any cuts.
1. REMOVING UNCERTAINTY TO SUPPORT THE AMERICAN ECONOMY
- Deal Removes Cloud of Uncertainty Until 2013, Eliminating Key Headwind on the Economy: Independent analysts, economists, and ratings agencies have all made clear that a short-term debt limit increase would create unacceptable economic uncertainty by risking default again within only a matter of months and as S&P stated, increase the chance of a downgrade. By ensuring a debt limit increase of at least $2.1 trillion, this deal removes the specter of default, providing important certainty to our economy at a fragile moment.
- Mechanism to Ensure Further Deficit Reduction is Designed to Phase-In Beginning in 2013 to Avoid Harming the Recovery: The deal includes a mechanism to ensure additional deficit reduction, consistent with the economic recovery. The enforcement mechanism would not be made effective until 2013, avoiding any immediate contraction that could harm the recovery. And savings from the down payment will be enacted over 10 years, consistent with supporting the economic recovery.
2. A DOWNPAYMENT ON DEFICIT REDUCTION BY LOCKING IN HISTORIC SPENDING DISCIPLINE – BALANCED BETWEEN DOMESTIC AND PENTAGON SPENDING
- More than $900 Billion in Savings over 10 Years By Capping Discretionary Spending: The deal includes caps on discretionary spending that will produce more than $900 billion in savings over the next 10 years compared to the CBO March baseline, even as it protects core investments from deep and economically damaging cuts.
- Includes Savings of $350 Billion from the Base Defense Budget – the First Defense Cut Since the 1990s: The deal puts us on track to cut $350 billion from the defense budget over 10 years. These reductions will be implemented based on the outcome of a review of our missions, roles, and capabilities that will reflect the President’s commitment to protecting our national security.
- Reduces Domestic Discretionary Spending to the Lowest Level Since Eisenhower: These discretionary caps will put us on track to reduce non-defense discretionary spending to its lowest level since Dwight Eisenhower was President.
- Includes Funding to Protect the President’s Historic Investment in Pell Grants: Since taking office, the President has increased the maximum Pell award by $819 to a maximum award $5,550, helping over 9 million students pay for college tuition bills. The deal provides specific protection in the discretionary budget to ensure that the there will be sufficient funding for the President’s historic investment in Pell Grants without undermining other critical investments.
3. ESTABLISHING A BIPARTISAN PROCESS TO ACHIEVE $1.5 TRILLION IN ADDITIONAL BALANCED DEFICIT REDUCTION BY THE END OF 2011
- The Deal Locks in a Process to Enact $1.5 Trillion in Additional Deficit Reduction Through a Bipartisan, Bicameral Congressional Committee: The deal creates a bipartisan, bicameral Congressional Committee that is charged with enacting $1.5 trillion in additional deficit reduction by the end of the year. This Committee will work without the looming specter of default, ensuring time to carefully consider essential reforms without the disruption and brinksmanship of the past few months.
- This Committee is Empowered Beyond Previous Bipartisan Attempts at Deficit Reduction: Any recommendation of the Committee would be given fast-track privilege in the House and Senate, assuring it of an up or down vote and preventing some from using procedural gimmicks to block action.
- To Meet This Target, the Committee Will Consider Responsible Entitlement and Tax Reform. This means putting all the priorities of both parties on the table – including both entitlement reform and revenue-raising tax reform.
4. A STRONG ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM TO MAKE ALL SIDES COME TOGETHER
- The Deal Includes An Automatic Sequester to Ensure That At Least $1.2 Trillion in Deficit Reduction Is Achieved By 2013 Beyond the Discretionary Caps: The deal includes an automatic sequester on certain spending programs to ensure that—between the Committee and the trigger—we at least put in place an additional $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction by 2013.
- Consistent With Past Practice, Sequester Would Be Divided Equally Between Defense and Non-Defense Programs and Exempt Social Security, Medicaid, and Low-Income Programs: Consistent with the bipartisan precedents established in the 1980s and 1990s, the sequester would be divided equally between defense and non-defense program, and it would exempt Social Security, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, programs for low-income families, and civilian and military retirement. Likewise, any cuts to Medicare would be capped and limited to the provider side.
- Sequester Would Provide a Strong Incentive for Both Sides to Come to the Table: If the fiscal committee took no action, the deal would automatically add nearly $500 billion in defense cuts on top of cuts already made, and, at the same time, it would cut critical programs like infrastructure or education. That outcome would be unacceptable to many Republicans and Democrats alike – creating pressure for a bipartisan agreement without requiring the threat of a default with unthinkable consequences for our economy.
5. A BALANCED DEAL CONSISTENT WITH THE PRESIDENT’S COMMITMENT TO SHARED SACRIFICE
- The Deal Sets the Stage for Balanced Deficit Reduction, Consistent with the President’s Values: The deal is designed to achieve balanced deficit reduction, consistent with the values the President articulated in his April Fiscal Framework. The discretionary savings are spread between both domestic and defense spending. And the President will demand that the Committee pursue a balanced deficit reduction package, where any entitlement reforms are coupled with revenue-raising tax reform that asks for the most fortunate Americans to sacrifice.
- The Enforcement Mechanism Complements the Forcing Event Already In Law – the Expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts – To Create Pressure for a Balanced Deal: The Bush tax cuts expire as of 1/1/2013, the same date that the spending sequester would go into effect. These two events together will force balanced deficit reduction. Absent a balanced deal, it would enable the President to use his veto pen to ensure nearly $1 trillion in additional deficit reduction by not extending the high-income tax cuts.
- In Securing this Bipartisan Deal, the President Rejected Proposals that Would Have Placed the Sole Burden of Deficit Reduction on Low-Income or Middle-Class Families: The President stood firmly against proposals that would have placed the sole burden of deficit reduction on lower-income and middle-class families. This includes not only proposals in the House Republican Budget that would have undermined the core commitments of Medicare to our seniors and forced tens of millions of low-income Americans to go without health insurance, but also enforcement mechanisms that would have forced automatic cuts to low-income programs. The enforcement mechanism in the deal exempts Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare benefits, unemployment insurance, programs for low-income families, and civilian and military retirement.
Inserted from <The White House>
Needless to say, the above description is very heavily spun, but it’s the most complete description of the nuts and bolts I could find.
Here is Obama’s description:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
I do have to say one thing in defense of the Democrats involved. Democrats will always be at a disadvantage in such negotiations. Democrats care enough about the well being of the American people that they recognize the need to protect us from the worst case scenario. Republicans have no such compunctions. They care only for the greed of millionaires, billionaires and corporate criminals and for the establishment of a permanent one-party corporate dictatorship.
16 Responses to “Deal: It Looks Like Spelunking to Me”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I hear deficit reductions but if done dollar for dollar what does that do to reduce the national DEBT? All he talked about was deficit not debt. Have they agreed to now carry year over year 17 trillion in DEBT? Or don’t any of these out of touch millionaires (except for Joe Walsh who is an out of touch dead beat dad) understand the difference between deficit and debt or do they think we are to stupid to know the difference?
Entitlements are on the table so what the fuck does that mean? Grannie’s SS no longer gets a real COLA and her Medicare will begin to cost her $2000 a month instead of $100 and her copay’s go from 20% to 50%.
Being the owner of two different size dogs I can say without equivocation that no matter the size, if it looks like shit, it smells like shit, then it is shit and this piece of crap is Santorum to the max. This is giving them maneuvering room to give the minority of lawmakers the biggest voice and that may work in a parliamentary system of government but not a democracy or republic.
You know Tom being an apologist for the democrat party is cool and all but to be honest there is (at least in the above explanation) no democrat ideals expressed SPECIFICALLY in there that I saw. I FEEL more upward transfer of wealth.
This republican president should have let the legislature remain tied up, the play for him so far was to let the three branches of government operate as they would. His job is to administer what he signs into law and to be honest I’d rather default that lose the Keynesian economic theory for the rest of time. We need spending in massive amounts to put people back to work and to even out the playing field those states that receive more than they pay back from the federal government Alaska for example should no longer receive most favored state status.
So in the end it looks to me like granny got it up the poop shoot and some, SOME mind you younger folks got a small raise in PELL grants while the republicans got everything they wanted except for the one thing that was a red herring in the first place, a balanced budget amendment. Which we have in MI and by the by it helped move our unemployment from 6% to 11%.
Mark, he blew it.
It’s going to be very hard for the “leaders” to convince their caucuses to vote for it.
Not that hard.
There is no negotiation – this so pisses me off, I sort of feel like I’m just going to step out of elections from now on – it’s futile – and such waste of my emotional well-being to see the dems bend over on every occasion – makes me retire – bow-legged and ball-less! Maybe I’m having a temper tantrum, but right now – it’s no go in 2012 – I don’t even think I’m biting my nose off —— I don’t have face left to spite!!!! WTF – I feel like I spent 100 hrs and $200 investing in a party of crap – just to take an enema so my next fuck might be cleaner!!!
Please convince me that I should ever vote again and waste my time trying to salvage a country that’s marching on to fascist idealism!! 😡
While I share your frustration, I can think of four reasons off the top of my head while I’ll at least be voting next November:
Scalia, Thomas, Roberts & Alito!
Nameless neat me to my reply, but I would add Kennedy/
It appears the deal exchanges an immediate and long-term economic catastrophe for just the long-term catastrophe
It shows that the overt extortion by Teabaggers worked
The Hope & Change I’d like to see: I hope Obama changes and grows a pair
If Obama doesn’t veto the likely bill to extend the Bush(/Obama) tax cuts when they expire 12/31/2012 …
I think Obama will veto it, but he would not were the vote on 10/31/2012
I do not understand the details of this yet, so I cannot make a good comment until I understand all the ramifications–At this time it seems to me opinion depends on what bias is held—since I am very biased- lol I do need to wait and read it better– I do appreciate your summary Tom– a very good start to understanding this mess–
It has not been accepted yet—
It will pass the senate and be signed. It is a cave-in, pure and simple.
This is surrender, not compromise. It will be spun a million different ways, but in the end, the very wealthiest still haven’t had their taxes raised or their loopholes closed. The burden for this awful action will fall on the poor, working, and middle classes. The Tea Party must NOT capture the White House next year, or their coup d’etat will be completely successful.
I do find it very troublesome that “the very wealthiest still haven’t had their taxes raised or their loopholes closed”. This fact alone makes me lean more towards capitulation than compromise. I guess those political contributions have paid off in a big way. All the more reason that elections should be publicly financed rather than privately financed.
As long as Obama insisted on Revenue, he had them in a corner.
This is all about Obama winning the next election. Typical for a politician, and not helpful to Americans.
Tom, I think that’s his motivation, but fear that it’s going to backfire.