Deficit fever today, deficit fever tomorrow, deficit fever forevah!
by digby
Brian Beutler wonders why president Obama would allow Boehner to keep his debt ceiling hostage, even if he promises not to kill it for another year:
If Boehner drops his debt limit demands going forward, fine. But if Obama’s going to have to call Boehner’s bluff no matter what, at great peril to the economy, better now, with the election fresh in everyone’s mind, when public opinion is on his side, when he’s more popular than he’s been in four years, when Harry Reid has signaled he has the votes to raise the debt limit with 51 Democratic votes.
Put the fight off for a year, and there’s no guarantee that any of those conditions will still exist. We’ll be a year out from mid-term elections, and Democrats probably won’t be as steeled for a major confrontation as they are right now.
Everything else leaking out of the talks isn’t all that surprising, given Obama and Boehner’s known predilections, and the tilt of the scale in the negotiations. But I find this part of it pretty baffling.
I thought pushing the debt limit demands off for a year would make sense if it meant that all we had to do was give up some of the already moderate millionaire chump change and forestall any cuts to vital programs in this round. (Every day those cuts don't happen is a good day.) But if the president is already willing to give up the chained CPI why in the world would he give in on the debt ceiling fight? What does he have to lose at that point?
As Jamison Foser tweeted:
Budget negotiation FYI: If someone “accepts” X in exchange for Y when Y was going to happen anyway, that means they want X.
The most generous explanation is that they just want to get it off the table at the moment. But they must know that it will result in more cutting a year from now. I don't know what will be on the chopping block, but unless it's defense cuts it can't be good.
.