President Obama Sets Bar for Debt Negotiations

[bigtree]

from NYT: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/in-debt-game-an-early-move-from-obama/


_____ In a high-stakes negotiation, the most important moves often come not in the end game but at the very start, when one side or the other prevails in defining what is on the table. If you listened closely, you might have heard President Obama try to do just that in his news conference on Monday, when he suggested that Washington will have tamed the government’s debt problems if the two parties can agree on another $1.5 trillion or so in spending cuts and tax increases.

Fiscal hawks and small-government conservatives say the White House is setting the bar for fiscal responsibility way too low and just kicking the can down the road again on hard decisions that will only become more painful as time goes by. But Mr. Obama appeared intent on establishing that he was just one more deal away from putting the government back on sound footing, if only Republicans would go along.

His numbers are relatively straightforward. During his re-election campaign he committed himself to $4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years — he referred to that figure on Monday as the “consensus” on what is necessary “to stabilize our debt and deficit” — including savings he and Congress had already agreed to. Altogether, they have enacted roughly $2.5 trillion in budget cuts and tax increases so far.

At around $4 trillion in deficit reduction, the United States would have a good shot at achieving what Mr. Obama and a growing number of Democrats consider to be a politically plausible and economically meaningful outcome: holding the national debt steady for a decade or so at under 75 percent of gross domestic product. (As recently as last summer the Congressional Budget Office was projecting a debt-to-G.D.P. ratio climbing into the 80s by the end of this decade if the government did not act to cut spending further and raise more tax revenue.)

. . . Best of all, from a Democratic perspective, reaching that goal would not require immediate deep cuts to Medicare or Social Security or a fundamental rethinking of the social welfare compact.


read: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/in-debt-game-an-early-move-from-obama/

[1StrongBlackMan]

1. What bets are there that ...

the usual DU suspects will seize on this part of the commentary:

. . . Best of all, from a Democratic perspective, reaching that goal would not require immediate deep cuts to Medicare or Social Security or a fundamental rethinking of the social welfare compact.

And then, claim that it is a planned for fact, all along?

[bigtree]

2. critics here have misrepresented the cuts proposed all along

That's why I'd counsel against anyone taking these hair-on-fire threads criticizing the cuts for the gospel truth.

For instance, the cuts that intended to make providers more accountable were presented as threats to beneficiaries when the onus should be on profit-taking institutions and providers which collect our money and spend it on things unrelated to actual care and services. It's as if we can't reform the system to make it more efficient and responsive to our needs without someone parroting industry defenses; just to claim that the president intends to restrict or reduce benefits. You can't expand benefits just by feeding more tax dollars into a robber-baron system without attempting to reign in provider excesses and diversions of appropriated money.

[leftyohiolib]

3. my concern is the "immediate" part

[bigtree]

4. that part is pure 'commentary,' of course

. . . not part of the president's statements.

[1StrongBlackMan]

6. Must ...

Learn ... To ... Type ... Faster ...

[1StrongBlackMan]

5. The "immediate" part ...

is an editorial comment from the OP writer, not the Administration. Peace be still.

[Arcanetrance]

7. Forgive my ignorance

But I seem to remember after the fiscal deal there where people the president included telling us there will be no negotiations on the debt ceiling

[bigtree]

8. according to this

. . . he's just restating a long-held position; looking to collect on the rest of the revenue he needs.

"His numbers are relatively straightforward. During his re-election campaign he committed himself to $4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years — he referred to that figure on Monday as the “consensus” on what is necessary “to stabilize our debt and deficit” — including savings he and Congress had already agreed to. Altogether, they have enacted roughly $2.5 trillion in budget cuts and tax increases so far."/blockquote]

[Arcanetrance]

9. We shall see I do have a mistrust of those in power

Mostly because I've been on the downside of all their policies lately trying to take care of a disabled father he gets a cola and medicare goes up and his foot stamps get cut