|
President Obama to Republicans: I Won. Deal With It. |
 |
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=23815"><span class="small">Chris Cillizza, The Washington Post</span></a>
|
|
Friday, 18 October 2013 09:03 |
|
Cillizza writes: "A visibly frustrated President Obama delivered a blunt message to Republicans with whom he had feuded over the government shutdown and the debt ceiling over the past month on Tuesday."
Obama: 'You don't like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election. Push to change it. But don't break it.' (photo: Getty Images)
President Obama to Republicans: I Won. Deal With It.
By Chris Cillizza, The Washington Post
18 October 13
 visibly frustrated President Obama delivered a blunt message to Republicans with whom he had feuded over the government shutdown and the debt ceiling over the past month on Tuesday: Elections matter. I won; you lost. Deal with it.
That's a paraphrase - obviously. Here's what Obama actually said:
"You don't like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election. Push to change it. But don't break it. Don't break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building. That's not being faithful to what this country's about."
"Go out there and win an election." That's about as direct as you will ever hear a politician be about how he feels about his opposition and how they are conducting themselves. (It's not the first time Obama has used the "I won" construct. Remember the health-care summit in early 2010 when Obama told Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.): "The election is over.")
Obama's argument comes down to this: He believes that the 2012 election - in which he was reelected easily and Democrats surprisingly picked up Senate seats and won a handful of House seats - was a clear signal that the American electorate prefers his vision for government to the one offered by Republicans. He views that mandate as a broad one - encompassing fiscal matters, health care, immigration and pretty much everything else.
Republicans, obviously, disagree vehemently with the "elections matter … and I won" concept - noting that they still control the House, which means that simply accepting Obama's priorities in toto because he won reelection isn't representing their constituents well. (Democrats make the counterpoint that while Republicans control the House, they actually got fewer raw votes in 2012. True. But, that gets us into redistricting - and that's a whole other can of worms we aren't opening in this blog post.)
At the center of this disagreement - policy differences aside - is what it means to be the loyal opposition. Obama believes that Republicans have the right to dislike/disagree/fight his policies but only within the bounds of standard operating procedure on Capitol Hill. ("Push to change it. But don't break it.") That sentiment, in truth, is probably shared by 80 (or so) House Republicans - including Speaker John Boehner. But, for the other 140 House GOPers - including the four dozen or so committed tea party conservatives - opposing the president and his policies means using any means necessary to do so. That includes a government shutdown and very nearly going past the debt-ceiling deadline.
For that group of 140, elections matter, too - their elections. And, their constituents not only don't blanche at their tactics but embrace them. In many districts in the country, being involved in an effort to repeal Obamacare - even if it led to a government shutdown - was a very good thing politically.
Obama's annoyance - and call for cooperation - then will fall on mostly deaf ears. It's hard to play a "fair" game when the two teams can't even agree on what the rules should be or what winning (and losing) looks like.
 |
|
Winners and Losers of the Government Shutdown Showdown |
|
|
Friday, 18 October 2013 09:00 |
|
Marty writes: "The political landscape has shifted drastically since the standoff. Here are the biggest winners and losers from the government shutdown."
The Tea Party lost standing during the shutdown. (photo: Ross D. Franklin/AP)
Winners and Losers of the Government Shutdown Showdown
By Robin Marty, Rolling Stone
18 October 13
As the government reopens, we look at the damage for John Boehner, Ted Cruz and more
fter two weeks of madness, with only hours to go before the U.S. government potentially defaulted on its loans, Congress finally passed a new budget and raised the debt ceiling last night. Thanks to the last-minute deal, we have at least three months before we have to worry about another impasse and impending global economic catastrophe – and sadly, these days, that's what we call progress.
While Tea Party Republicans succeeded in shutting down a wide range of key government services and nearly destroying the country's credit rating, they were unable to change virtually anything about the newly opened health care exchanges they hate so much. (They did manage one small tweak: Now a person must have his or her income verified prior to receiving a subsidy for an insurance premium.)
But even as the Affordable Care Act remains unscathed, the political landscape has shifted drastically since the standoff. Here are the biggest winners and losers from the government shutdown.
LOSER: Speaker of the House John Boehner.
When Boehner stated, "We fought the good fight, we just didn't win," the "we" he was referencing was mostly himself. The Ohio Republican spent a large portion of the shutdown refusing to allow a clean continuing resolution to go before the full House – even though he knew one could very likely pass – simply to appease his Tea Party caucus. When he finally did attempt to negotiate a House bill to reopen the government and end the shutoff, he still couldn't get a simple majority, despite his party having 32 more seats than the Democrats. If the outrage on Boehner's Facebook page is any indication, this may be the end of the road for his time as Speaker.
WINNER: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).
Cruz hasn't even been in office for a year, and he already shut down the entire government. That ended up being a total fiasco if you ask most rational observers – but it did set him up nicely as the hot right-wing fringe pick for the 2016 presidential primary. As ThinkProgress reports, Cruz managed to collect 2 million email addresses for himself and other members of the "Senate Conservative Fund," as well as raising nearly $800,000 in the last quarter for his personal PAC. Most of that money appears to have been filtering in as Sen. Cruz was filibustering and advocating for the very government shutdown that just ended.
LOSER: The Tea Party.
Unsurprisingly, after weeks of futile grandstanding, no one seems to like these folks anymore – not even their own party. A new Pew Research poll has a Tea Party approval rating of just 30 percent. Among self-described moderate Republicans, the approval rating drops to 27 percent. For comparison's sake, the number of conservatives who still believe President Obama is a Muslim is also around 30 percent.
LOSER: The U.S. Economy
The government shutdown took about $24 billion out of the U.S. economy, cutting 0.6 percent off this year's fourth- quarter growth, according to Standard & Poor's. Even worse, the financial research company expects consumer confidence to continue to be shaken, which could have lasting effects down the road – especially since we will likely play another game of fiscal chicken at the beginning of 2014. And S&P's estimate could be a low-ball: Moody's Analytics has estimated the costs of the shutdown at closer to $55 billion, about the same as the economic costs of Hurricane Katrina.
WINNER: Obamacare.
The Affordable Care Act didn't get defunded, delayed or gutted in any of the ways that the GOP initially wanted – a fact that sort of makes you wonder what the point of this whole ordeal really even was. Meanwhile, new polling has Obamacare more popular than ever, with just 38 percent of Americans opposing health care reform at this point. Even more interesting, one side effect of the shutdown may have been to inadvertently make the ACA even more successful. After all, the Congressional standoff acted as a lead story most days, taking the media spotlight off of the early computer glitches in the federal and state exchanges.
LOSER: Poor people.
Furloughed government workers are likely to eventually receive back pay, so for those who were able to dip into savings, the shutdown likely wasn't a huge financial hardship. But for those who live paycheck to paycheck, it was a much bigger deal. The thousands of Americans who were unable to apply for new benefits through the Social Security Administration, the low-income preschoolers who lost Head Start, families who were counting on WIC benefits before some centers ran out of funds and countless others will never see any compensation for the impact that the shutdown had on them.
WINNER: Senate women.
Women currently hold only 20 of the 100 seats in the Senate (and the ratio in the House is even worse) – yet when it came to ending the stalemate, it was the women of the Senate who got the government up and running again. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) was the force behind the drafting of the final plan, and her female colleagues on both sides of the aisle were instrumental in making the bipartisan bill a reality. For a Congressional body that has been rightfully criticized for silencing the voices of women over the last few years, it is a welcome change and, hopefully, a harbinger of things to come.
|
|
|
Obama Declares National Day of Gloating |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>
|
|
Thursday, 17 October 2013 14:22 |
|
Borowitz writes: "Residents of the District of Columbia were roused from their sleep by a massive fireworks display over the White House just after midnight, as President Obama declared what he called 'a national day of gloating.'"
US President Barack Obama speaks during the sixth annual Wounded Warrior Project's Soldier Ride, 04/20/12. (photo: Getty Images)
Obama Declares National Day of Gloating
By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker
17 October 13
The article below is satire. Andy Borowitz is an American comedian and New York Times-bestselling author who satirizes the news for his column, "The Borowitz Report."
 esidents of the District of Columbia were roused from their sleep by a massive fireworks display over the White House just after midnight, as President Obama declared what he called “a national day of gloating.”
“It would not be productive for this nation, going forward, to crow about our victory over political adversaries,” he said in a nationally televised address. “So let’s get it all out of our systems today.”
Immediately after the President’s speech, loudspeakers outside the White House blasted “We Are the Champions,” and the national day of gloating began.
In addition to a ticker-tape parade, the day’s events will include a screening on the Mall of a clip reel of Texas Senator Ted Cruz’s marathon Senate speech, punctuated by sad trombone sounds.
“Starting tomorrow, my message to the Republicans is, ‘Let’s work together for the American people,’?” said Obama, wearing what appeared to be a beer hat. “But today my message is, ‘We won, bitchaz.’?”
|
|
FOCUS | What to Expect During the Cease-Fire |
|
|
Thursday, 17 October 2013 12:00 |
|
Reich writes: "Regardless of what happens in the upcoming budget negotiations, it seems doubtful House Republicans will try to prevent the debt ceiling from being raised next February."
Economist, professor, author and political commentator Robert Reich. (photo: Richard Morgenstein)
What to Expect During the Cease-Fire
By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog
17 October 13
 he war isn’t over. It’s only a cease-fire.
Republicans have agreed to fund the federal government through January 15 and extend the government’s ability to borrow (raise the debt ceiling) through Feb. 7. The two sides have committed themselves to negotiate a long-term budget plan by mid-December.
Regardless of what happens in the upcoming budget negotiations, it seems doubtful House Republicans will try to prevent the debt ceiling from being raised next February. Saner heads in the GOP will be able to point to the debacle Tea Partiers created this time around – the public’s anger, directed mostly at Republicans; upset among business leaders and Wall Street executives, who bankroll much of the GOP; and the sharply negative reaction of stock and bond markets, where the American middle class parks whatever savings it has.
The saner Republicans will also be able to point out that President Obama means it when he says he won’t ever negotiate over the debt ceiling. The fact that he negotiated over it in 2011 is now irrelevant.
On the other hand, there’s a significant chance of another government shutdown in January. By then we’ll be well into the gravitational pull of the 2014 midterm elections. Every House member is up for reelection – mostly from safe (often gerrymandered) districts in which their major competitors are likely to be primary opponents from the Tea Party right.
These opponents will be challenging them to show what they’ve done to sandbag Obamacare and shrink the size of government. The President and the Democrats have made it clear they’ll protect Obamacare at all costs. Which means the real action between now and January 15 will be over the federal budget. The threat of another government shutdown is the only major bargaining leverage House Republicans possess in order to get what they consider “meaningful” concessions.
We know the parameters of the upcoming budget debate because we’ve been there before. The House already has its version — the budget Paul Ryan bequeathed to them. This includes major cuts in Medicare (turning it into a voucher) and Social Security (privatizing much of it), and substantial cuts in domestic programs ranging from education and infrastructure to help for poorer Americans. Republicans also have some bargaining leverage in the sequester, which continues to indiscriminately choke government spending.
The Senate has its own version of a budget, which, by contrast, cuts corporate welfare, reduces defense spending, and raises revenues by closing tax loopholes for the wealthy.
Here, I fear, is where the President is likely to cave.
He’s already put on the table a way to reduce future Social Security payments by altering the way cost-of-living adjustments are made – using the so-called “chained” consumer price index, which assumes that when prices rise people economize by switching to cheaper alternatives. This makes no sense for seniors, who already spend a disproportionate share of their income on prescription drugs, home healthcare, and medical devices – the prices of which have been rising faster than inflation. Besides, Social Security isn’t responsible for our budget deficits. Quite the opposite: For years its surpluses have been used to fund everything else the government does.
The President has also suggested “means-testing” Medicare – that is, providing less of it to higher-income seniors. This might be sensible. The danger is it becomes the start of a slippery slope that eventually turns Medicare into another type of Medicaid, a program perceived to be for the poor and therefore vulnerable to budget cuts.
But why even suggest cutting Medicare at all, when the program isn’t responsible for the large budget deficits projected a decade or more from now? Medicare itself is enormously efficient; its administrative costs are far lower than commercial health insurance.
The real problem is the rising costs of healthcare, coupled with the aging of the post-war boomers. The best way to deal with the former – short of a single-payer system — is to use Medicare’s bargaining power over providers to move them from “fee-for-services,” in which providers have every incentive to do more tests and procedures, to “payments-for-healthy-outcomes,” where providers would have every incentive to keep people healthy. (The best way to deal with the latter – the aging of the American population – is to allow more young immigrants into America.)
More generally, the President has been too eager to accept the argument that the major economic problem facing the nation is large budget deficits – when, in point of fact, the deficit has been shrinking as a share of the national economy. The only reason it’s expected to increase in future years is, again, rising healthcare costs.
Our real economic problem continues to be a dearth of good jobs along with widening inequality. Cutting the budget deficit may make both worse, by reducing total demand for goods and services and eliminating programs that lower-income Americans depend on.
The President has now scored a significant victory over extremist Republicans. But the fight will continue. He mustn’t relinquish ground during the upcoming cease-fire.
Robert B. Reich, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock" and "The Work of Nations." His latest is an e-book, "Beyond Outrage." He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.
|
|
'm glad that the government shutdown has ended, and I'm relieved that we didn't default on our debt.
