Democrats capitulate to Republican demands, Congress averts government shutdown

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Last night, Congress reached a deal on a massive spending bill that will, among other things, keep the federal government running:

Retreating from their harsh partisan sniping, and perhaps fearing public rebuke, Congressional leaders said Thursday that they had agreed on a large-scale spending measure to keep the government running for the next nine months.

But an accord on extending a payroll tax holiday set to expire at the end of the month remained elusive, with Democrats weighing a possible short-term extension, setting the stage for another fight with Republicans over how to pay for it.  

And there's the problem, or at least the most glaring problem.

President Obama and (presumably) Democrats on Capitol Hill wanted to offset the extension of the payroll tax holiday, which would benefit 160 million workers, by imposing a surtax on income over $1 million, that is, on millionaires. Republicans love tax cuts but, plutocrats that they are, opposed any such tax increase on the wealthy. (Their priority is tax cuts for the wealthy, not tax cuts for everyone else.)

Instead of fighting for the tax cuts for 160 million people, though, Democrats capitulated, taking the surtax off the table and thereby giving up their main bargaining chip.

The spending bill will go through, but, needless to say, the payroll tax holiday battle will continue, with the GOP now holding the upper hand. Democrats are reportedly "considering a plan that would find savings in other ways, including fees on the federal housing finance agencies, and could seek to end certain deductions and other tax benefits for millionaires," but, with Democrats committed to the payroll tax holiday extension, it looks like Republicans will be able to get what they want out of this: not a surtax on millionaires and nothing else that would in any way increase the tax "burden" on millionaires but spending cuts of some kind.

How the hell did this happen? Over to you, Charles Pierce:

Oh, they have made a day of it. First, the pillars of Jell-O in the Senate roll over on the itty-bitty surtax they wanted to lay on the plutocrats to pay for a payroll tax cut for the rest of us. Then, the president announces that he's not going to veto after all the bill in which 400 years of Western jurisprudence is pretty much torn to ribbons and tossed to the wind, albeit slightly less deeply into the wind than the original monstrosity would have liked. And, finally, Ron Wyden of Oregon steps forward to give cover to zombie-eyed granny-starver Paul Ryan's latest attempt to "reform" Medicare in the same way that Arthur (Bomber) Harris "reformed" the building codes in Dresden. It's a Very Special Holiday Episode of the long-running hit comedy, Ah, Who Gives a Fk Anyway?

This is an outrage. This is borderline sociopathic. This is so gloriously suicidal that I keep waiting for an angel to come down from heaven to show David Plouffe and Harry Reid what Washington would be like if they'd never been born.

**********

It cannot be emphasized enough. Of the three issues under discussion, the polling data on two of them simply could not be clearer. The American people want taxes raised on the very wealthiest among us, and the American people do not want Paul Ryan's clammy hands anywhere near the Medicare program. Public opinion is (distressingly) ambivalent on the detainee provisions, but it's not overly popular with the people who have to implement it, and it has retired Marine generals throwing bricks at it, and, dammit, the president taught constitutional law, or so we are told repeatedly.

None of these "compromises" will solve a single one of the country's critical problems. None of these "compromises" will create a single job. All they will do is toss away almost every one of the major political advantages the Democratic party has going into the 2012 elections. My god, six months ago, Paul Ryan was a squawking albatross around his party's neck. (Remember how he said he'd "given up fear for Lent," and then proceeded to start charging people a fee to come to his town meetings, and setting the cops on constituents who showed up at his office while he was on vacation? Ah, thim was the days.) The "Ryan Plan" was well on its way to being an anchor. Now, thanks to the Democrats, and to a preposterously compliant elite political press, Ryan's rehabilitation is nearly complete. Nice work, fellas.

Here's a tip, gang: The American people are not angry at government because people yell at each other and nothing ever gets done. The American people are angry because people yell at each other and nothing the American people really want ever gets done. They want higher taxes on billionaires. They want Medicare kept out of the hands of the vandals. If they think about it a little, they even like their jurisprudence with a little habeas corpus sprinkled on top. Instead, they get endless platitudes, and the steady, futile placating of an insatiable political opposition.

Yes, well done. (And brilliantly put, Mr. Pierce.) Democrats willingly relinquish the advantage, to the extent they ever really had it, on winning issues (both in policy and electoral terms), and, while the government stays open, we end up with a convoluted appropriations bill that is heavily Republican.

Yeah, Merry fucking Christmas.

**********

I'm with my friend Libby on this: "I understand the need for pragmatic compromise. But this isn't compromise, it's the same devious cave-in to placate the plutocrats. It's not only spineless, it's stupid. I'm really sick of stupid."

Unfortunately, stupid is all we've got.

Crisis averted (for now): Senate agrees to Republican-friendly deal to fund FEMA, avoid government shutdown

By Michael J.W. Stickings

WaPo:

Senate leaders agreed to a deal Monday evening that is almost certain to avert a federal government shutdown, a prospect that had unexpectedly arisen when congressional leaders deadlocked over disaster relief funding.

After days of brinkmanship reminiscent of the budget battles that have consumed Washington this year, key senators clinched a compromise that would provide less money for disaster relief than Democrats sought but would also strip away spending cuts that Republicans demanded. The pact, which the Senate approved 79 to 12 and the House is expected to ratify next week, is expected to keep federal agencies open until Nov. 18.

"It will be a win for everyone," said Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called the plan "a reasonable way to keep the government operational."

Aides to House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said he will support the compromise. 

Usually when you read quotes like this, you know the Democrats got screwed. And while this deal would appear to be fair, it clearly benefits the Republicans, particularly with respect to their long-term aganda of slashing government to a state of desperate starvation.

A win for everyone? Hardly, Senator Reid. And all you're doing is enabling the Republicans, establishing the precedent (or, rather, reiterating it) that fair is when Democrats give in to Republican demands and agree to "compromise" that requires the Republicans to sacrifice very little of their far-right agenda.

And you're allowing Republicans to look "reasonable" by playing right into their hands.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Look, something had to be done, clearly. FEMA needs money to carry on its work, and, more broadly, the government needs money to keep running.

But, once again, Republicans succeeded by holding the country hostage. They pushed the country to the brink of a federal government shutdown, just as they almost pushed it into default over the debt ceiling, by insisting on unacceptable offsets for disaster relief funding. Yes, sure, this deal allows FEMA to be funded without the budgetary offsets demanded by Republicans, but the Republicans still succeeded in reducing its funding:

Although Democrats said the Federal Emergency Management Agency needed more funding, they agreed to accept a Republican plan to spend $3.65 billion in disaster relief money, $1 billion of which would have gone toward the budget for the current fiscal year, which ends on Friday. Republicans, concerned about adding to the federal deficit, refused to support the funding unless it was accompanied by $1.5 billion in cuts. They targeted an auto loan program popular with Democrats, leading to the standoff.

The showdown between the two sides was averted on Monday, when FEMA said it could make ends meet through the end of the week. That led to an agreement that calls for the agency and other government disaster relief programs to forgo the $1 billion in proposed funding for this week. Beginning Saturday and running to Nov. 18, FEMA can begin to tap the remaining $2.65 billion for ongoing efforts.

It's hard not to see this as a concerted effort on the part of Republicans to benefit from split-the-difference politics: The Democrats propose A (a sensible, perhaps somewhat center-left but often fully centrist option), Republican extremists propose B (a radical, right-wing option supported by the party's base and much of its Congressional caucus), a crisis ensues (say, over keeping the government running), and Democrats panic and agree to C (a center-right if not decidedly right-wing "compromise" that the Republican leadership, posing as "reasonable" leaders, can champion as a significant victory for bipartisanship when in fact what is "bipartisan" is essentially mainstream Republican, with Democrats looking like utter fools and delusionally applauding their own demise).

Sound good? Well, that's what Republicans are doing. No, there aren't the offsets they wanted, or claimed to want, but they still cut FEMA's funding well below what it needs for disaster relief. (Republicans clearly have no qualms playing politics with disaster relief -- see Cantor, Eric.)

The White House has said FEMA will need $4.6 billion for the next fiscal year -- a figure many Democrats say underestimates the agency's needs.

Democrats will push to fully fund FEMA's request and perhaps broaden it during negotiations over spending for the rest of the year, but they were split Monday night over what the compromise would mean for future funding battles.

"This is a very big and important move. It says we met each other halfway. We saved the jobs," said Sen. Barbara Boxer (Calif.), referring to the the auto loan program. "We figured out a way to fund FEMA that was acceptable to them. It's a template. We have to figure out how to meet each other halfway here."

Thanks, Senator Boxer, hat pretty much encapsulates the stupidity and myopia of Democrats. Even if it's a good thing to meet "halfway," the question is halfway between what and what? If it's halfway between centrism and right-wing extremism, how is that "a very big and important move" in a good way? Really, it's just meeting Republicans well over on the Republican side of the spectrum.

Yes, a program Democrats like was saved, but that is a short-term win that means little given the ongoing Republican assault on government. Why not let Republicans shut down the government and force them to take the fall? Why not demand that they defend their extremist positions to a public that in the past hasn't exactly supported government shutdowns and that actually likes most of the programs Republicans are trying to cut?

Because Democrats are a bunch of pathetic wusses, of course. Because they (almost always) panic and (almost always) end up on their knees desperate for Republicans to save them from themselves -- and always on Republican terms, of course.

Because that only "fair."

And do you really think Democrats will be able to get the funding they want for FEMA? Do you really think Republicans will let them? We'll just hear more about compromise, with Reid et al. smiling their stupid smiles and feeling ever so good about themselves for meeting the other side halfway. (Is it any wonder progressives, those to the left of Democratic centrism, are so frustrated, so angry, so alienated? These are core Democratic voters the Democrats are losing with their Republican-enabling deals.)

And with Democrats operating this way, why would Republicans ever agree to any meaningful compromise on anything?

Another day, another looming Republican-triggered government shutdown

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Here we go again:

The House stunned Republican leaders Wednesday by rejecting a temporary spending bill that would have funded the government through Nov. 18.

The vote failed, 195-230, after Democrats pulled their support for the bill and Republican leaders were forced to scramble for enough votes entirely within their own ranks. Four dozen conservatives voted against the bill because it left spending levels for 2012 higher than the cap set in the House GOP budget.

The defeat hands leverage to congressional Democrats in a dispute over federal disaster funding. Democratic leaders objected to a GOP provision cutting funding from a Department of Energy manufacturing loan program to offset additional money for disaster relief.

The House and Senate must pass a spending bill by Sept. 30 to keep the government running into the next fiscal year. Both chambers are scheduled to be out on recess next week.

The defeat was a stinging loss for Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who pitched the measure to his conference as the lowest spending number they could get.

House GOP leaders retreated to the Speaker's office after the vote to plot their next move.

Who's to blame for this? Well, Democrats combined with renegade right-wing Republicans to defeat the bill, and perhaps Democrats did embarrass Boehner and gain a modicum of leverage (even though the GOP will never let them use it; Republicans are better then Democrats at the game of political chicken, as we saw during the whole debt ceiling debacle), but basically it's the Republicans who, once more, are pushing the country to the brink of a federal government shutdown, just as they almost pushed it into default, by insisting on unacceptable offsets for disaster relief funding:

Republican opposition was based on House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's (R-VA) attachment of $1 billion in disaster relief funds in the wake of Hurricane Irene and other natural disasters, which Republicans, including Cantor, had demanded be offset by spending cuts in other areas. Last week, Cantor promised that no one in the House Republican caucus would hold disaster relief hostage over spending cuts — an assertion that today's vote has apparently proven false. Democrats opposed the offsets Republicans did find, which targeted funding for energy efficienct vehicles. A bipartisan Senate majority approved $7 billion in disaster relief funds last week.

Of course, we knew Cantor was going to do this. He's been playing politics with disaster relief for some time now. And this is basically the GOP's budget strategy: make extremist demands and get what it wants, refusing to compromise even with a president who has been more than willing to give in to its demands, or shut down the government.

I suppose this was, as Kos's Joan McCarter writes, "a major blow for House Republican leadership in their shutdown brinksmanship game," but the risk is that Republicans won't learn the obvious lesson and try to work out a reasonable deal with the Democrats.

"With Democrats willing to hold together against the offset, John Boehner will have no choice if he really wants to get this bill passed and avoid a shutdown," Joan adds. Sure, but do they really want to avoid a shutdown? Boehner maybe, and those willing to back him on this one, but many Republicans, particularly in the House, have proven again and again that they put their extremist right-wing ideology first, regardless of the consequences. And given how much they hate government, and particularly the federal one, they may just do that again. And Boehner may not be able to do a thing about it.

Minnesota running out of booze, chaos expected

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Things are getting worse in Minnesota:

Hundreds of bars, restaurants and stores across Minnesota are running out of beer and alcohol and others may soon run out of cigarettes -- a subtle and largely unforeseen consequence of a state government shutdown.

In the days leading up to the shutdown, thousands of outlets scrambled to renew their state-issued liquor purchasing cards. Many of them did not make it.

Now, with no end in sight to the shutdown, they face a summer of fast-dwindling alcohol supplies and a bottom line that looks increasingly bleak.

"It's going to cripple our industry," said Frank Ball, executive director of the Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association, which represents thousands of liquor retailers in the state.

The Ugly Mug, a popular bar near Target Field, doesn't have enough beer to get through the baseball season.

And how will Minnesotans possibly get through the upcoming Vikings season without beer?

This is the sort of thing that could lead to riots in the streets. One suspects that the first party to bring home the booze will be heralded like Caesar returning from one of his victorious campaigns and handed power for eternity by a rapturous populace.

As Homer Simpson once said, "alcohol is the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems." We don't quite know what to do without it.

And, in Minnesota, it, or rather its absence, may just bring the entire state to its knees.

A failure of leadership: Jonathan Chait and Paul Krugman on Obama, the budget, and the government shutdown that never was

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I haven't written much on the budget/shutdown, mainly because I just haven't had much to say. I never thought a shutdown was likely. Boehner was certainly facing enormous pressure from the right, but most Republicans understood that a shutdown would hurt them politically (if not the country generally), and it was inevitable that a Democratic Party that fears confrontation and that is, for better or worse, all about compromise, would give in. And that's just what happened.

So who won? -- a question Jon Stewart amusingly looked into last night. Well, the Republicans, perhaps, as they came away with fairly significant concessions from the Democrats (even if this was just about domestic discretionary spending), but many on the right aren't happy, whether over the continued funding for Planned Parenthood or over the fact that spending wasn't cut even more -- and while Boehner emerges intact, it's not clear how long he'll be able to hold off the Tea Party. But I'm not really sure the Democrats lost. A shutdown would have been bad for everyone, and so avoiding a shutdown without giving up too much is a sort of "win" for them, as long as they can take the fight to the budget battle still to come and thence into 2012.

And Obama? For a president who is all about compromise, yet another compromise is also a win, and he'll now be able to position himself to secure even greater support from independents when the time comes. He stepped in when he needed to, acted like the mature adult in a world of petulant children, and, however this may irritate progressives (myself included), accepted a deal that will benefit him politically at the expense of fighting the Republicans' disastrous agenda.

That's just the way I see it. I'm not saying I like it.

And the big political problem, it seems to me, is that, once again, Democrats just caved without much of a fight at all, even a symbolic one, except over Planned Parenthood (which, to be fair, is worth fighting for, but it's not the be-all and end-all of federal budget issues), allowing Republicans to secure the upper hand, and a fairly significant "win," despite the fact (forgotten by the media, it seems) that they're still the minority party (controlling the House but not the Senate or the White House) -- even after last November's "shellacking." At TNR yesterday, Jon Chait offered a number of reasons for why this happened. Yes, Democrats are generally more conciliatory (to their credit, perhaps, if not so much in the crucible of legislative politics), and, yes, the issue generally favours Republicans (who can spin their economic and fiscal agenda as "small government" (and who likes taxes? who likes government (until you realize what it does for you)?). But this, to me, is the most convincing explanation:

Republicans were able to credibly threaten a shutdown of the government. That willingness to impose harm on the entire country if they didn’t get a sufficiently friendly outcome proved to be powerful bargaining leverage, moving the goalposts progressively closer to them.

In other words, Republicans are just tougher negotiators, willing to push the country to the brink, or at least to bluff that way, to get their way. It's a game of chicken, and Republicans know that Democrats swerve first. Of course, Democrats should have known better. They should have called that bluff and challenged Republicans to shut down the government. Sure, the government may then have been shut down, but wouldn't Democrats then have "won" politically? At the very least, they would have had a strong case to take to the American people.

But, no. Not this time. Not ever, it seems.

And it doesn't help that Obama himself wasn't really up for a fight. As Paul Krugman writes:

What have they done with President Obama? What happened to the inspirational figure his supporters thought they elected? Who is this bland, timid guy who doesn't seem to stand for anything in particular?

I realize that with hostile Republicans controlling the House, there's not much Mr. Obama can get done in the way of concrete policy. Arguably, all he has left is the bully pulpit. But he isn't even using that -- or, rather, he's using it to reinforce his enemies' narrative.

His remarks after last week's budget deal were a case in point.

Maybe that terrible deal, in which Republicans ended up getting more than their opening bid, was the best he could achieve -- although it looks from here as if the president's idea of how to bargain is to start by negotiating with himself, making pre-emptive concessions, then pursue a second round of negotiation with the G.O.P., leading to further concessions.

And bear in mind that this was just the first of several chances for Republicans to hold the budget hostage and threaten a government shutdown; by caving in so completely on the first round, Mr. Obama set a baseline for even bigger concessions over the next few months. 

I still think Obama succeeded politically, continuing to set himself up nicely for re-election next year. But Krugman is right that he weakened himself and his party over the long run, essentially giving Republicans still more confidence that they can they way, or at least a great deal of their way, just by controlling the House.

It will take more time to sort out who "won" and who "lost" this shutdown battle, but with an absence of principled, determined leadership in the White House, the losers ultimately are the American people, who need something other than the Republican agenda and who have a president who is apparently unwilling to fight for anything at all.

Ugh; or, being under the weather and watching Republicans push America over a cliff

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Sorry, I'm a bit under the weather this week, which is why I haven't blogged much the past few days -- it's one of those things that's tough to shake.

But stay tuned. We'll keep posting, and I hope to be back to normal soon.

In the meantime, some suggestions:

-- Karoli, Crooks and Liars: "UPDATED: Conservative Waukesha County Clerk "Finds" 7,000 Votes For Prosser." (Loads of reaction to yesterday's stunning news from Wisconsin at Memeorandum.)

From state to federal...

-- Steve Benen, Political Animal: "Would Boehner Shut Down the Government Over Planned Parenthood?"

It's all (or a lot) about so-called policy riders:

-- Brian Beutler, TPM: "Riders Caused The Storm: Government Shutdown Looms Over Anti-Abortion And Anti-EPA Measures."

And Republicans, who would likely lose politically in the event of a government shutdown (though both sides are preparing their spin), are trying to make it about the troops:

-- Tanya Somanader, ThinkProgress: "While Slamming Obama For Opposition To 'Troop Funding Bill,' House GOP Votes Down Troop Funding -- Twice." 

Just your typical GOP bullshit. I'm surprised they didn't try to make it about 9/11.

Have a nice day.

-- Michael

Words to live by, words to regret

By Carl 

Obama: 'Inexcusable' not to reach budget deal:

"At a time when the economy is still coming out of an extraordinarily deep recession, it would be inexcusable -- given the relatively narrow differences when it comes to numbers between the two parties -- that we can't get this done," Obama said last night at the White House.

Obama has played this budget debacle exactly right, in my opinion, and it's paying huge dividends for Democrats across the nation. He has come off as statesman-like and put no political capital on the line here.

Conservative pundits have been screeching like seagulls about how Obama needs to be more involved, how it's wrong of him to go off to fundraisers for 2012 while the nation faces a crisis, yaddayaddayadda.

First, one wonders where these asshats were during the 6 1/2 years that Bush spent down in Crawford through things like Katrina, but I digress.

The Constitution is pretty clear about the delineation of budget responsibilities: it falls to Congress. What the conservative tactics tell me is, Pelosi and Reid have been playing hardball, drawing lines in the sand and refusing to commit to anything beyond them.

Those lines must be pretty fair ones, too, for moderates or we'd hear a lot of complaining about how entrenched the Dems are being, how special interests are playing fast and loose with the budget and so on. As well, we'd hear that the sides are very far apart. Obama has made a particular point of noting the narrow gap between the two sides.

Clearly, conservatives feel they can get a better deal from Obama. To his credit, he's refused to upend his Congressional leadership.

Contrast Obama with this: 

Boehner 'No daylight' between tea party and me:

"Listen, there's no daylight between the tea party and me," the Ohio Republican said in an interview with ABC News conducted Wednesday.

"None," he said, when questioner George Stephanopoulos pushed back. "What they want is, they want us to cut spending. They want us to deal with this crushing debt that's going to crush the future for our kids and grandkids. There's no daylight there."

I'm grinning as I write this. Boehner is from Ohio. Ohio is a battleground state. While Boehner can slather his district with pork to ensure his re-election, the one thing he cannot do is persuade people that insane folks are sane.

His seat is officially up for grabs now. By marrying himself to the Teabaggers, he will now make the Speaker of the House of Representatives officially responsible for every hate-mongering sign, every slanderous blogpost, each and every outrageous stunt the Teabaggers pull, in and out of Washington, D.C.

There's eighteen months. That's practically an eternity in national politics nowadays. He's hitched his wagon to a failing star whose light is dimming after the supernova of 2010. The Koch brothers' money is running out, or else Glenn Beck would still have his job at FOX and Wisconsin would still be electing Republicans.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)