House Democratic leadership: Obama's 'more than halfway' offer is the new starting point

[Luminous Animal]

David Nir's most pessimistic fears in the wake of last night's debacle in the House could be realized. The House Democratic Leadership held a press conference Friday, not to rub House Speaker John Boehner's nose in his failure, but to stress the need for going back to the negotiating table and working together in a bipartisan way.

Which is fine, what the markets might need to be hearing to calm down a bit today. However, Rep. Chris Van Hollen took that just too far.

Repeatedly stressing that President Obama has come "more than halfway" in meeting Boehner's demands, Van Hollen stressed that the last offer from Obama had to become the new starting point for renewed negotiations. Why should "more than halfway" be the new starting point? So Obama can go more than three-quarters of the way? Or like during the during debt ceiling fight, when he went 98 percent of the way?

This is just insane. The last offer from Obama gave far too much away, and was obviously a negotiating disaster. And that's where Van Hollen wants to start from now? Social Security cuts, less revenue, more pain should be the new starting point?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/21/1172848/-House-Democratic-leadership-Obama-s-more-than-halfway-offer-is-the-new-starting-point#

[The Wielding Truth]

1. Oh no! The republicans must work with us. We do not have to cower to them!

Last edited Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:56 PM - Edit history (1)

[Liberal In Texas]

49. cower not cowl

[The Wielding Truth]

51. Oops, thanks.

[leftstreet]

2. Maybe he'll throw disabled and unemployed on the table

I mean, why not?

He can always claim it was a brilliant chess move

[lobezen]

22. +1

[sabrina 1]

53. They are already on the table. The Chained CPI will affect everyone's

benefits if it passes. It will affect dependent children, the disabled, seniors and veterans.

I'm sure he's going to take it OFF the table now since some here on DU claim he didn't mean it anyhow and since Repubs turned it down, why keep it there?

[djean111]

3. I suppose when an even worse piece of crap is passed, with pretty much everything

the GOP wants, we will be told it is eleventy-level chess.
And that we should cheer because it could have been worse.
That thing from Obama is now a fucking starting point?

[DJ13]

4. Idiots

[sadbear]

5. I thought all the republicans went home for Christmas.

Are they going to be back on Wednesday or something?

[djean111]

8. What I think will happen is the Dems will use the time off to renegotiate with themselves.

Spend a week or to revising everything to be even worse.
Without a GOPer even having to sit around and laugh.

[ProSense]

6. Not according to the WH:

Report: White House Considers Smaller Fiscal Cliff Deal
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022049743

Boehner had his chance. Hope this report is true. Letting the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire would be a good thing.

[JEB]

34. Not too bad.

Would cuts to DoD be left intact?

[Marr]

47. I believe they removed those some time back. /nt

[geek tragedy]

7. Can someone post an actual transcript? The Daily Kos people tend to freak out

on an hourly basis.

[Luminous Animal]

15. I've been searching for it but haven't found one yet.

[Luminous Animal]

20. Still no transcript but here is what he said on Ed last night...

VAN HOLLEN: Well, we need to call on the speaker to bring up the plan
that`s been proposed by the president. It`s a balanced plan, as you well
know. There are lots of things in that plan that I don`t like and lots of
Democrats don`t look. I still have reservations about them. We`d have to
fix parts of it.

But at the very least, let`s bring up that plan, put it to a vote.
That`s true democracy. If the speaker really wants to allow the process to
work, let`s have a true democracy, a true majority vote in the House of
Representatives, and then we could pass a true balanced plan, the kind of
compromise plan that the president has put forward.

SCHULTZ: You said earlier today on MSNBC that you think that Boehner
is stringing this out because he`s concerned about his position as speaker
of the House. Has he lost control of his caucus tonight?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, clearly he has. And it reinforces the point that I
did make earlier today, which is a concern I`m sure he has that if he were
to allow the House to have an up or down vote, you know, just -- let`s
allow a majority in this House to work its will on a proposal that`s put
forth by the president after certain negotiations, preliminary negotiations
with the speaker, that there`s a very real risk that he would lose his
speakership.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/50270450/ns/msnbc-the_ed_show/#.UNTabrbZ9L8

[geek tragedy]

21. That's much different than what the Dkos statement was.

Here he's calling for Obama's offer to get a vote in the House. Seems reasonable.

[Luminous Animal]

23. Obama's offer includeds chained CPI... but I know what you mean. So far I can't find the video

or any transcripts. Some individual members will transcribe their OWN words but not of others on their own websites but that usually happens the following day.

[Vincardog]

9. Eliminate the SS CAP. Return the top tax rates to 90%. Make the Corporations pay at least

53% of the federal income.

Put a 4% Financial Transaction Tax on all speculative financial transactions.

Eliminate all corporate welfare for energy corporations.

Cut the MIC by 60% and the Black budget by 70%

That should be the new starting point.

[cui bono]

13. So obvious, isn't it?

Makes you wonder why it's not presented as such by the Dems. Why don't they fight for that? Why don't they put that out in the media?

[Vincardog]

17. Why? Because they are bought and paid for by the same interests that own the GOP.

[cui bono]

18. Yeah, that's what I was getting at.

They are not on our team. And half of our team is in here defending them.

The teams aren't Dems vs. Repubs. The teams are the people vs. TPTB. But too many Dems have been duped just as Repubs have and keep defending those who are slowly stripping them of their rights, entitlements, benefits, wages, jobs, etc... The chess meme is alive and kicking.

[Liberal1975]

27. That's it in a Nutshell

I would like to add the one percent are not a monolithic entity. They too are having their own civil war, so to speak.

The Democratic party represents the half of the one percent who depend on a relatively healthy economy because a lot their money comes from the purchasing power of the American market (at least in the short run until other markets can offset ours completely) because they "make" things like I-things or whatever. Also they represent the half of the one percent who are smart enough to realize that they need to keep throwing crumbs our way to prevent us from revolting.

The Republicans represent the other half who primarily make the bulk of their money from natural resources which are not subject to the discretionary use of funds by the public. Oil corporations, the Koch brothers etc. and of course the half that is too stupid and greedy to realize that they are indeed creating a situation which will lead eventually to utter chaos.

Obviously generalizations are never perfect and I am sure that the one above is subject to exceptions. But I honestly believe that is the gist of it.

The democratic process has been bought, the media has been bought. When you own the process and the media that comments on the process well then you own it all. Why do the disputes between these two parties occur as if in a vacuum? With no regard at all to the will of the American people. Republican citizens love social security almost as much as we do. Why is it on the table then? My theory is because these disputes are public manifestations of the disputes occurring within the one percent.

[JEB]

28. Long past due.

Cut where there is fat, waste and corruption. Leave Grandma and disabled Vets alone.

[theaocp]

10. With Dems as friends

who needs enemies?

[Dirty Socialist]

11. And Boner said Obama isn't being serious

About negotiating. This is surreal.

[forestpath]

12. Fucking traitors.

[bigtree]

14. Van Hollen needs to talk to the WH

here's the actual new starting point . . .


Report: White House Considers Smaller Fiscal Cliff Deal
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022049743

Must all of these hair-on-fire posts rely solely on the writer's (and the reposter's) imagination?

[leftynyc]

16. I'm asking the same question

on the Dkos thread - where is the transcript of Van Hollen saying it's the new starting point? Searched high and low and came up empty.

[bigtree]

19. It's not even like I'd necessarily disagree with the Kos post

. . . but they sure make it hard for folks who need actual facts to reference when writing about political statements and events.

This poster at DK doesn't seem to feel any need for accountability. That's a big mistake, not including a full quote, at least, imo.

[leftynyc]

45. It's an important point here

That's a very inflammable statement - that it's the new starting point and I don't see it anywhere but in that diary. It's sloppy crap and what I'd expect from bullshit mountain.

[lobezen]

24. I swear the Democrats could negotiate their way out of winning the lottery...

with 2 winning tickets in their hands! They have no skills and they have no game!

[Marr]

48. They have a LOT of skill.

After all, these are corporate stooges who have managed to actually win elections by claiming to be fighting the people who own them.

[MannyGoldstein]

25. "We're so close. i just *know* we can show them they can trust us."

Great stuff.

[Luminous Animal]

26. Pelosi urges cuts to Social Security....

In the wake of House Speaker John Boehner’s Plan B debacle, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is calling on him to consider bringing President Obama’s most recent fiscal cliff offer — which includes $1.2 trillion in new tax revenue, and hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to safety net programs — to the House floor.

But though she evinced little appetite for moving the framework to the left, and expressed willingness to “iron out” differences with Republicans, she made clear that Democrats won’t tolerate any further significant concessions for Republicans. And in effect, she called on Boehner to be prepared to lose more than half of his conference in pursuit of a deal, if that’s what it requires to pass a bill.

“The fastest thing we can do is bring it to the floor for consideration,” Pelosi said at her weekly press availability Friday.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/12/pelosi-says-no-concessions-to-help-boehner-in-fiscal-cliff-talks.php

[JEB]

29. Fuck this shit.

Off the cliff. Best deal we'll ever get from the lying blood suckers.

[ProSense]

31. She did no such thing.

Transcript of Pelosi Press Conference Today

Q: Madam Leader, the President has already offered to raise his threshold to $400,000. He has said he would commit to $400 billion over 10 years in cuts to Medicare and health care. He has also agreed to the chained CPI. Can you support those concessions, and how much further could the President go to try to get a deal with Speaker Boehner?

Leader Pelosi. Well, first of all, let me just make clear to everyone what the President did say about the $400,000. It was just on rates, it was just on rates, and it didn't apply to deductions or other tax considerations up to $400,000, so what he was conceding on was about $50 billion, about $50 billion, as compared to what the Republicans are doing with this bill, which is closer to $500 billion in terms of lost revenue. So, the President, yes, he did say he would do that.

The cuts, he has always talked about that; he has always talked about that. In regard to – and I think there are ways to do that, and one of the places you can go and get a big chunk of money is to – the cost of drugs in our system. We know that the President has in his budget over $100 billion – is it $130 billion in the budget? I don't know what the net of that is, but it is a big, a great deal of savings. So, yes, you can put that kind of, those kinds of savings together there.

On the CPI, chained CPI, if – and we have had this conversation, too. What we have said, any consideration cannot harm the poor and beneficiaries. So where are the vulnerabilities there? With people on SSI, they would have to be protected, with people who have received Social Security for at least 20 years, people like 85 years old, where savings start to fade, you would have to mitigate for the change at that point. And then there are people that are really poor, because your Social Security is tied to your wages, as you well know, and so you would have to mitigate there in the middle. So how much do you save by the time you mitigate for SSI, people with disabilities, poor people, and really older, much older people? With all of these things, as I said with the age, how much do you really – but if there are some savings that do not harm people who are in need, then that is something to look at, but we are actually looking at the bigger picture. It doesn't mean you subscribe to everything within it, and certainly my colleagues are not happy with the chained CPI, but if we were very happy with the proposal that the President put forth, I am not sure it would have much of a chance on the Republican side. So it is a compromise, and I salute the President for his trying to find a middle ground, even more, making another step to find a solution, but this is within range, you know, in terms of the – before the silliness that started with the million dollar proposal, there was a place to negotiate on this in terms of spending cuts, in terms of reviewing items like chained CPI, in terms of revenue, and let's hope that whatever happens on the floor – it is interesting, do you know how many times what has come to the floor has changed since yesterday? I don't know if you were here last night. Over and over and over again, a different version of the story was coming out of the Rules Committee, and the one that surprised me the least was when they pulled the 250 [thousand] and above, because I knew if they brought that to the floor, it could win.
http://www.democraticleader.gov/Pelosi_Press_Conference_on_Boehner_Plan_B

Why do people feel the need to distort this and keep pushing something that is no longer on the table?

The President is making an announcement shortly.

[Luminous Animal]

39. Yes she did. Your link is from yesterday. They had another press conference today at 1:00 PM EST.

[ProSense]

40. She still didn't say it:

Transcript of Pelosi, House Democratic Leaders Press Conference Today
http://www.democraticleader.gov/Pelosi_Democratic_Leaders_Press_Conference_on_Failed_Plan_B_Vote

In any case, the President outlined a new offer: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022051149

And Boehner knows he doesn't have the votes: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022051243

[Luminous Animal]

41. Yes she did.

Q: Leader Pelosi, you mentioned in your opening remarks that you hoped that the Speaker would bring the President proposal to the floor so that it can be considered. Given what happened last night, is there any appetite among the leadership team to change that proposal to take some things out of it that your Caucus doesn’t like?

Leader Pelosi. Well, I think that what we should do is consider it. I think that the best thing to do is to go to the table. You know, to have the Speaker – the fastest thing we can do is bring it to the floor for consideration. What I did say in my remarks is to bring it up so we can iron out our differences, go to the table so that we can iron out our differences. And I really think that, that can be done. You have to remember that when the President came forward with a new proposal this week it was on the strength of how close the Speaker and the President had been. And now the President came closer to the Speaker’s position in terms of spending cuts and in terms of tax rates. And so it seems like every time we get close, the goal posts either changes or they just go to a different field all together.

And so, I think that while many in our Caucus don’t like every aspect of the President’s proposal, and if they did, then the Republicans would probably reject it. So, it’s a compromise, there’s pain on both sides, that that’s really a very good place to start. And do my colleagues want to add anything to that?

[ProSense]

42. That's not "urges cuts to Social Security...." She

Q: Leader Pelosi, you mentioned in your opening remarks that you hoped that the Speaker would bring the President proposal to the floor so that it can be considered. Given what happened last night, is there any appetite among the leadership team to change that proposal to take some things out of it that your Caucus doesn’t like?

Leader Pelosi. Well, I think that what we should do is consider it. I think that the best thing to do is to go to the table. You know, to have the Speaker – the fastest thing we can do is bring it to the floor for consideration. What I did say in my remarks is to bring it up so we can iron out our differences, go to the table so that we can iron out our differences. And I really think that, that can be done. You have to remember that when the President came forward with a new proposal this week it was on the strength of how close the Speaker and the President had been. And now the President came closer to the Speaker’s position in terms of spending cuts and in terms of tax rates. And so it seems like every time we get close, the goal posts either changes or they just go to a different field all together.

And so, I think that while many in our Caucus don’t like every aspect of the President’s proposal, and if they did, then the Republicans would probably reject it. So, it’s a compromise, there’s pain on both sides, that that’s really a very good place to start. And do my colleagues want to add anything to that?

...is demanding that Boehner bring it to a vote. The same way he did with his Plan B. She acknowledges that the Democratic caucus doesn't support it. Basically, she's challenging Boehner to bring the the proposal to the floor.

"What I did say in my remarks is to bring it up so we can iron out our differences, go to the table so that we can iron out our differences."

Fat chance Boehner is going to do that.

Again, that offer is no longer on the table: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022051149

[Fuddnik]

32. I urge Pelosi to resign.

[SidDithers]

30. Speculative outrage is the best outrage...nt

Sid

[Fuddnik]

33. Of course it is, since it won't effect you at all.

[KoKo]

44. Exactly...Canada is a different country. So...it's interesting that this Canadian

is so interested. Maybe they have family and relatives here. But...still.

[iandhr]

35. Theres conflicting information

Here is a Times article that says the President has a plan B of his own.


President Obama is considering a “Plan B” of his own to avert a fiscal crisis in the New Year, a bill to extend expiring Bush-era tax rates on incomes below $250,000, with a measure to temporarily suspend automatic, across-the-board spending cuts and an extension of unemployment insurance benefits, Democratic officials said Friday.

The bill would be similar to legislation already passed by the Senate, but the added measures delaying so-called “sequestration” and helping the unemployed would make it that much more difficult for Republicans to oppose, Democrats said. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, was meeting with the president Friday afternoon to consult on ways forward. A Senate Democratic leadership aide said Mr. Reid would only move forward with the stripped-down bill to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff if Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, agreed not to filibuster it.

Asked whether he would do that, Mr. McConnell stepped onto an elevator and said “Merry Christmas.”

With just days to go before a the automatic tax increases and spending cuts go into effect, Democrats are increasingly giving up hope on a major deficit reduction deal. They hope a fallback plan would win so much support in the Senate that Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio would feel no choice but to bring it to the House floor, where a combination of Democrats and Republicans would push to passage.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/politics/debt-reckoning.html?hp#sha=d1bc2cc67

[JEB]

36. I thought

we did not negotiate with terrorists. Off the cliff!

[FiveGoodMen]

37. Bipartisan is another word for dealing with the devil.

[Myrina]

38. POTUS needs to learn to stop bidding against himself

Seriously.

[KoKo]

43. President Obama gives Away and Away...because he believes in this:

You Tube of Obama's Address to Brooking Institution in 2006...

FACT CHECK....!


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022051328

[Marr]

46. What happened to "I will not negotiate with myself"?

That lasted about five minutes.

Let's just admit that this is exactly what it appears to be. Obama *wants* austerity, and he particularly wants to set a precedent with Social Security cuts.

[mick063]

50. 1979 is the frickin starting point. We ain't buying the bullshit Nancy.

[IMG][/IMG]

[Doctor_J]

52. Checkmate!

Only it wasn't Boner who got checkmated. It was we suckers who thought we were voting for a Dem.