Indefinite Detention? But I Have Soccer Practice at 4: U.S. Politics 2012

Matt Bai's NYT magazine story on Obama and Boehner's so-called Grand Bargain. The crux of the deal:

They had agreed to reduce discretionary spending — meaning both the defense budget and money used to finance the rest of the government — by about $1.2 trillion over 10 years; it would be up to Congress to figure out how. They also agreed to a list of programs from which they could cut at least $200 billion more in the coming decade. These included an estimated $44 billion from pensions for civilian and military employees of the government; $30 billion from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; $33 billion from farm subsidies and conservation programs; and $16 billion from reforming the Postal Service.

On entitlements too they had moved closer to a final deal. The White House agreed to cut at least $250 billion from Medicare in the next 10 years and another $800 billion in the decade after that, in part by raising the eligibility age. The administration had endorsed another $110 billion or so in cuts to Medicaid and other health care programs, with $250 billion more in the second decade. And in a move certain to provoke rebellion in the Democratic ranks, Obama was willing to apply a new, less generous formula for calculating Social Security benefits, which would start in 2015. (The White House had rejected Boehner’s bid to raise the retirement age.) This wasn’t quite enough for Boehner, nor was it as extensive as what the Gang of Six had proposed. But the speaker’s team didn’t consider the differences to be insurmountable, assuming the two sides could also settle on a revenue number.

This wasn’t quite enough for Boehner,

loser

I omitted nuance from the quote: Bai charges that the Obama team tried to change the deal after Obama and Boehnertone had agreed on one. Also: the article validates your take on Boehner, Shakes.

Obama apparently did try to change the deal because his bargain included way less tax revenue than the Gang of 6 one, and he knew that he would therefore get even more grief from the Congressional Dems.

Yes Boehner couldn't get his caucus in line and was naive to think so, but Obama in being willing to agree to less tax revenue than even the blue-dog gang of 6 plan and to be willing to make cuts in Social Security scares me.

The Washington Post article suggested that Obama changed his tax revenue figure after he heard about the Gang of 6 deal (that was then rejected after it got publicized and the Republican in the Gang of 6 backed off from their deal with the Blue Dog Dems).

Republicans

Today, Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget will come up for a vote in the House. It’s expected to pass on a party-line vote. Insofar as any trouble is foreseen, the difficulty is that many conservatives consider Ryan’s budget too compromised and incrementalist. I’ll repeat that: They consider Paul Ryan’s budget — which is an undeniably radical, transformational document as compared to the major budget proposals of, oh, the last 50 years — too compromised and incrementalist. When that’s the ideological temperature of one of the two parties, it’s not obvious that any amount of leadership from the top can lead to a reasonable deal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wonkbook-house-reaches-bipartisan-deal-to-reject-simpson-bowles/2012/03/29/gIQAfucdiS_blog.html#excerpt

More from Ezra Klein talking about that Obama/Boehner article and discussion and the current Ryan budget proposal and the vote the other day on Simpson/Bowles

I wonder if Democrats would have been so accomodating if Obama had actually released the full details on what he was negotiating with Boehner. Once they got an actual look at what they were giving away, and what they were getting in return, they might have balked. But the bottom line is the votes, particularly on the Republican side of the aisle, just weren't there for a major compromise. And, as Wednesday’s vote on Simpson-Bowles showed, they're still not there. They're only there for a not-compromise. Preferably a hardcore not-compromise.

HARDCORE

harDCore (that's how we used to describe DC punk, now its House Republicans)

can we get a shop of Boehner at a harDCore show or something

Not at a show but I got this image stuck in my head earlier:

http://i.imgur.com/yHp2p.jpg

you tell me that I make no difference
WELL THATS. THE. FUCKING. POOOOOOINT!
what the fuck have you done?
*snare blast*

Ha. Awesome

hahhahahahaa

House vote on the Ryan budget: 228 Republicans in favor, 181 Democrats and 10 Republicans opposed.

Wow, all the Dems stuck together.

that's why you don't vote for Blue Dogs and, if you have made that mistake in the past, you rectify it (i.e., you don't vote for them again).

also: Pelosi runs her caucus masterfully.

that's why you don't vote for Blue Dogs and, if you have made that mistake in the past, you rectify it (i.e., you don't vote for them again).

― kurwa mać (Polish for "long life") (Eisbaer), Friday, March 30, 2012 10:12 AM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

we actually have relatively few blue dogs left in the congress...because the seats are now republican...woohoo...

i know, iatee ... and good riddance to them, too.

okay

i can see both sides. on one hand short-term i'd rather have someone who caucuses with the Democrats 50% of the time over the person who caucuses with the Democrats 0% of the time. on the other hand ideological purity could mean short-term someone who will never caucus with Democrats but longterm someone who caucuses 100% of the time (not to even get into fringe benefits of having clarity about what your party stands for + stuff like that).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Blue_Dogs.svg

that's the map of the blue dawg caucus in 2009, before the great slaughter. most of those places (southern and/or rural) aren't going to send a 100%er anytime in the next 20 years

i know that this discussion has been had before ... and once upon a time, iatee, i would've argued yer point. but that was before watching the Blue Dogs work their, um, blue magic, and more often than not the results worked out the same as they would've had there been a bona fide Republican.

well, you got what you wished for I guess

we sure showed that budget

most of those places (southern and/or rural) aren't going to send a 100%er anytime in the next 20 years

oh, you don't know that, at all. this is just your ideology talking.

we can all agree blue dogs are scumbags?

no idea why aero thinks the deep south is gonna get all librul anytime soon

we can all agree blue dogs are scumbags?

not really. There was once a place for'em. Now I can think of a few places I'd like to stick them.

oh cool this argument

lol

BEATLES OR STONES

AND WHY

no idea why aero thinks the deep south is gonna get all librul anytime soon

because I live here & actually know what it's like?

(realistically of course it's not going to get "all liberal," any more than the west is)

idgi

hell in 1932 we thought the Solid South would stay solid.

because I live here & actually know what it's like?

Dude...no. You live in one part of it, one kind of it. I live in another, see different stuff, where not even the college towns can muster up enough progressive support to do any real good.

it may have switched parties, but the economic interests of the south have not really changed much since then

xp

regional economic interests just swapped parties in the 20th century. we've been over this.

also I don't get how the west (I'm assuming aero means CA, but also maybe WA and OR?) is not "all liberal". In many ways it's much more liberal than huge swathes of the country.

well there are many rural parts of the west so sometimes it's important to highlight the rural/urban divide more than the blue state red state thing, otherwise you will get people saying "most of california is conservative!!" as if it were some truth bomb

west coast != "the west"

From about 50-75 miles inland from the population centers, CA flips to solid red.

oh cool this argument

From about 50-75 miles inland from the population centers, CA flips to solid red.

"population centers" being the key part of your post

unpopulated areas don't vote fwiw

aaaaaanyway - Walker recall election in less than 90 days

Dude...no. You live in one part of it, one kind of it. I live in another, see different stuff, where not even the college towns can muster up enough progressive support to do any real good.

this is true, I'm in a pretty rad bubble & you're way down there. it's true that population centers tend to get more progressive and as things get sparer less so - Birmingham's is fun & cool but I wouldn't wanna live elsewhere down there. MS/AL is basically what Shakey means by "the south" I figure & it's true that its voting patterns are pretty consistant. btw Shakey Mo which was the state that spearheaded all the gay marriage legislation that's finally making its way down here? was it MS? AL? GA? memory fuckin w/me here