It’s official. The Super Committee has failed. Democrats put blood on the table, too much in my view. But meeting Republicans well more that half way was not enough. The best offer from Republicans offered 5% of budget savings from revenue enhancements, but also cut the top marginal tax rate for millionaires and billionaires from 35% to 28%. Republicans refused to negotiate. That is why the Super Committee failed. In the process, they may not know it, but they have given Barack Obama a major victory.
A special debt-reduction committee in the U.S. Congress failed to reach agreement, extending partisan gridlock into the 2012 election year and setting the stage for $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts.
President Barack Obama blamed Republicans, saying in remarks at the White House they "refused to listen to the voices of reason and compromise." The president said he would veto any move to avoid the automatic spending cuts that are supposed to start in 2013 as a result of panel’s failure.
Committee co-chairmen Representative Jeb Hensarling of Texas, a Republican, and Senator Patty Murray of Washington, a Democrat, said in an e-mailed statement that "after months of hard work and intense deliberations, we have come to the conclusion today that it will not be possible to make any bipartisan agreement available to the public before the committee’s deadline."
Murray told reporters she would keep working toward a "fair and balanced" deal that could forestall the automatic cuts. "We have a responsibility to find that solution, and I’m going to keep working each and every day until we get there."
Standard & Poor’s said it would keep the U.S. government’s credit rating at AA+ after the Hensarling and Murray announcement. S&P, which stripped the U.S. of its top AAA grade on Aug. 5, said it decided that the failure by the committee didn’t merit another downgrade. Moody’s Investors Service today affirmed its Aaa credit rating of the U.S. while maintaining a negative outlook… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <San Francisco Chronicle>
What the Super Committee should have done is clear. Bernie Sanders described it well before the failure.
Here is why this is a victory for Obama. Democrats did not cave-in. The automatic cuts that take place in 2013 not only puts him past the 2012 elections, but also include no cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Obama just walked out of the GOP minefield unharmed. I have long said that he intended to use Republicans’ unwillingness to raise taxes on millionaires, billionaires and criminal corporations to protect these core programs, and that is exactly what he did. Here’s Bernie after the failure in an interview by Ed Schultz.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Bernie leaves no doubt about who caused the failure.
The best explanation I have seen of this comes from Lawrence O’Donnell.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
If nothing else happens, the worst thing I will suffer from this is a 50% tax increase. That’s OK with me. I will pay the cost of a muffler more, but the super rich will pay the cost of a Mercedes more. As little as I can afford it, it’s worth it to protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid for younger workers. Plus Republicans have painted themselves into a corner. They have proven that they govern exclusively for the benefit of millionaires, billionaires and corporate criminals. They do NOT represent YOU!
26 Responses to “Republican Intransigence Kills Super Committee”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Glad you’re feeling better Tom. I was getting worried. Now take it easier OK?
No one represents me, I have decided that I am the 1/350,000,000th. Even Obama whom I will vote for again does not represent the middle class, he showed up at the table at the appropriate time but he has already made the offer of cuts in programs people have paid for their entire working lives. I doubt that in the next year as they haggle and bargain and do everything that can be done to save the military/industrial complex that he will not again put those benefits back on the table. And there is still the back door deal with big Pharmaceuticals he pulled off a year ago which was the first insight into his character which may be better than say McConnell, but political gaming none the less and if he could have kept that one a secret he would have and now I have to wonder how much more is there out there that he has not been transparent about. Like why is Goldman-Sachs still running the government if it’s nto for him to amass campaign cash to ensure his second term? Nope said it before, 2012 is again simply going to be the same old samd old voting for the lesser of two evils. If MI wasn’t such a close run in the polls right now i would waste my vote and write in Bernie Sanders.
Mark I agree with most of what you said. However, I said at the time he put the big three on the table that he knew Republicans would not take the deal, because he tied it to tax increases for the 1%. Time has proven my analysis correct on that. I agree he was wrong to cut a deal with Big Pharma, but had he not, he would have gotten no HCR at all. AS for Goldman Sacks, they have far more to Republicans.
Then in good faith get rid of Giethner and everyone else in the administration, especially the Treasury and The Fed that ever even walked the the Goldman-Sachs lobby. They are THE bank that started the derivative and CDO, Credit Default Swap market and nearly wiped out AIG. Sorry budddy but GS owns Obama to, nothing says they can’t have more than one horse in the race and cover every option on every bet because after all…it’s your money they are running their political slaves with.
Mark, I’ve been calling for Geithner’s removal since the day he was appointed. I wish he had kept his own economic team instead of adopting Hilliary’s.
They were doomed to fail from the start. I don’t mind that though. The Bush tax cuts will expire.
Do they do any work in Congress?
No
With 17 weeks of paid vacation + Holidays they have no time for work
That explains my No. 😉
Love me some Bernie Sanders. Wish he would run for Prez but that ain’t gonna happen. I am glad it failed! I don’t think it really sinks into the GOP brain cell (yes, they only have one and they share it with each other) up there in Congress just what kind of victory they handed to President Obama! They don’t get it. I LOVE it. I will love it even more if he doesn’t cave in to their bills they will inevitably send to him in the next year to save their precious war machine which is vastly over bloated with contractors and wonderful unneeded toys. What scares me though is they will use the troops and their benefits as hostages and get what they want from Obama. I hope he doesn’t cave to them yet again. I hope his new backbone stays in place and he vetoes every single bill they present that protects their corporate masters in the coming year!
TWM — I fully commiserate with you, Obama is the lesser of two evils and I will also be voting for him again. This time without hope for any change. That way, I won’t be so damn disappointed this time around.
I’m never without hope. In a second term he may well be less vulnerable to Clintonista advisers telling him what he has to do to be reelected,
I think– President Obama got the best of this deal– the GOP fully exposed themselves— but the games are not over—
Not by a long shot.
“They have proven that they govern exclusively for the benefit of millionaires, billionaires and corporate criminals. They do NOT represent YOU!”
This is nothing new. The Republicans have always represented the rich. Since Ronald Reagan the American peoples support for Republicans (and their policies) has grown, even in the face of their policies being detrimental to the people who vote Republican. Many Americans don’t see the good of the safety net programs, and only (correctly) agree with cutting the size of government. Certainly eliminating all safety net programs would shrink the government and save hundreds of billions of dollars. I don’t want to live in a society that ignores peoples health and safety, apparently they find that kind of society acceptable.
“Here is why this is a victory for Obama. Democrats did not cave-in. The automatic cuts that take place in 2013 not only puts him past the 2012 elections”
True, but my opinion is: That is a lack of leadership. Not facing the issue, pushing it off, and making getting reelected more important than facing the hard decisions of a suffering country. Leadership is not waiting for the group to change their minds, it is convincing them for the need to change.
If the American people agreed with your assessment of the Presidents strategy, one wonders why his approval ratings are not higher. I don’t see the President being the BIG winner here. He’s not fighting for liberal values, or standing up for suffering Americans when he allows the Bush tax cuts to be extended. That only increased our debt, and he knows that.
My problem is that my Democratic President is way to conservative for me, but then so are the American people who have voted for Republican majorities many times in the last 30 years. I have not moved to the right like most Americans, and I reject any party, or party activists that attack me with hate because I MILDLY criticize my President. I have not left the Democratic party, it has left me. I will not vote for Obama because he is the lesser of two evils.
Tom, you’re not being realistic. Since he assumed the Presidency the hundreds of good things he proposed and passed in the House during the first two years were blocked by the Republican minority aided by a half dozen DINOs at most. He was wrong to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich, but his rationale was ti save them for the 99% and extend unemployment benefits. I understand his choice, although I disagree.
Whatever attacks you may have endured are irrelevant to this discussion. I have never attacked you, nor have you been attacked here. Politics Plus is not the venue to deal with your personal combat with others. Leave it at the door, please.
In an election where are only two viable choices, failure to vote for the lesser evil gives support to the greater evil.
The point isn’t to deal with the attacks here. The point is to show how intolerant the left is to any criticism. Worse than the right in my view. I think that is a point of concern for the Democratic party, especially if they don’t want to be considered like the Republicans. It’s a valid point of party character. If I wanted to bring the attacks to your blog, I would, only because one of my attackers is a long time reader and commenter on your blog. So I could ask, but have not because I don’t hold you responsible for some other persons actions, why you would even want to have a relationship with someone who spreads such hate.
Why am I nor realistic? You even agree with some of my complaints about his decisions. Part of leadership is keeping the party members in line to get the votes needed to pass, or not pass legislation. A trait Republicans have in control. Evidenced by their block votes. It is a failure on Obama’s part (and the Congressional Democratic leaders) to not get enough Democrat votes with the Congress to get things done.
I vote on my convictions, not on whether or not not the candidate has a chance of winning. As I wrote on your blog before, I voted for Ron Paul for President in the 1980’s because I could not vote for either the Republican, or the Democrat. I wish more people would vote on their personal convictions instead of party loyalty. Maybe our politics would not be in such a mess.
Correct me, if I’m wrong, but the last time I checked, Ron Paul was a Republican.
Ron Paul was the Libertarian candidate when he ran for President in the 1980’s.The Republican candidate was Ronald Reagan.
I never said you attacked me, you never have, and I’m not sure how you thought I said so just because I mention I have been attacked by others. I have a problem with those kind of tactics, which are practiced by more than the two Obamamaniacs in question.You seem to be well informed, so I am surprised you think only these two lefties (who are attacking my blog) are the only two Obamamaniacs in the country showing intolerance and hate for those, like me, that criticize the President. They are not. It is a talking point trend for Obamamaniacs.
If a political leader cannot hold his members together for majority vote (especially when they have majority) that is a failure of leadership.
I was attacked by the right wing, which is why I’m so disappointed getting the same treatment by the left. I thought they were better. I was wrong.To copy right wing intolerance is a losing strategy.
I wrote on your comment section not long ago that Obama was prosecuting the war well, and I have commented on other things he has done well. When I think he is wrong, I say so, which does not mean I start from an assumption he can do nothing right. It’s not so black and white, but you know that.
While he may have been the libertarian candidate (thanks for the correction), wasn’t he still in the House as (R-TX)?
I never thought so Tom, because your comment painted all lefties with the same brush, I was merely pointing out that not all of us have attacked you, because we both know I never have.
When Bush was President, it was always the House and Senate leadership that kept Republicans goose stepping together using threats, never the President. When LBJ was Majority Leader, he was a master arm twister with his party, but when he became President, he left the Senate to the Senators. Whipping the vote has never been the President’s job.
When I criticize Obama, as I often do, Obamaphiles may disagree with me, but they have never attacked me.
You are correct. It has just seemed of late that you go out of your way to slam him.
Have to disagree with you about LBJ. He was an arm twister as President. and we have the audio recordings to hear LBJ arm twisting and threatening Senators to vote on certain bills.
You could be right. It was a long time ago, but as President, I only remember him arm, twisting a few southern governors.
Tom, I think that painting the entire left with your assertions about a couple of individuals is not reasonable. I have certainly never attacked you, and remember many occasions in the past when you complained of personal attacks during your forays into the right wing blogosphere.
I said you were not being realistic because you seemed to expect Obama to solve problems single-handedly. He did face the difficult decisions, but could make no progress due to Republican obstruction. You seem to start from the assumption that he can do no right. When I think he’s wrong, I say so.
TomCat,
You, O’Donnell, Schultz, and Sanders all nailed it. But how dense is Wolf Blitzer anyway? Why did he keep pestering Sanders with stupid questions about what the Republicans might think )as if they even mattered with their crazy ideas) and whether or not Sanders would campaign for Obama next year? Who the hell cares? Blitzer is just a huge wuss who doesn’t have a clue as to what this country wants or really needs now. What a prissy little milquetoast!
I wish Sanders were 30 years younger. He would be the perfect running mate for Elizabeth Warren in 2016!
Thanks Jack. I lost anything resembling respect for Blitzer long ago,
Edward Scissorhands is alive and well living in DC as a Republican Representative, but retiring.
Lawrence O’Donnell did a great job of outlining the results of the failure of The Super Committee as a win for Mr Obama. I think what Mr Obama did was to out fox the Republican/Teabagger foxes. He has managed to put in place large cuts to defense spending, a Republican/Teabagger sacred cow, and salvage social security, medicare and medicaid from Edward Scissorhands. Do I think it was a bit of a gamble, yes. Putting sacred cows on the block is a risk. But I think he has understood the Republican/Teabagger speak and knew they would not cave to their ‘no tax increase’ mantra. I also think that the Republican/Teabaggers are so caught up in the ‘Obama a one term president’ idea, so fixated on it, that they didn’t watch what he was really doing.
An excellent analogy.