Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Biden Has the Right Idea About the Freedom Caucus [View all]

The White House says there should be no negotiating over an oncoming government shutdown.
https://prospect.org/politics/2023-09-21-biden-has-right-idea-freedom-caucus/

America is staring down the barrel of yet another Republican-imposed government shutdownthe 21st in history. As my colleague David Dayen writes, this wasnt supposed to happen. The debt ceiling deal from a few months ago included an agreement on what the budget should look like next year. But the Freedom Caucusa couple dozen of the most extremist right-wing House Republicanshas forced the GOP to renege on the deal. The reason, it seems, is that they are incoherently mad at President Biden and the Democratic Party. They cant agree on what specifically they want, whether its defunding the prosecution of Donald Trump, or extracting even more cuts from federal agencies, or a personal baby seal club for every Republican voter, or what. A purely messaging budget resolution that would have funded the government for just one month in exchange for deep spending cuts just went down in flames. But one thing is clear: The Freedom Caucus is extremely mad.
Luckily, President Biden has the right idea: letting House Republicans twist in the wind. Now, I thought it was the wrong move to negotiate with Republicans over the debt ceiling, though Biden ended up getting a much more favorable deal than I had expected. But since that deal was done, how else to approach a party that cant hold up its own end of a bargain? In the past, the Democrats have been less willing to stand up for themselves. Back in 2011, for instance, President Obama decided to try to negotiate a deficit reduction deal by offering up hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Social Security and Medicare in return for Republicans raising the debt ceiling. Those cuts were thankfully avoided only because the Freedom Caucus refused to countenance even a token tax increase on the rich.
Or consider a stipulation of the House GOP budget resolution that just went down in flames due to the caucuss mad rage: the creation of a bipartisan commission to come up with suggestions to cut the budget deficit. The real purpose of a commission like this is to try to shove through large cuts to Social Security and Medicare to make budget headroom for tax cuts for the rich, which is so unpopular that it could never be passed through the ordinary legislative process. We know this thanks to the Bowles-Simpson deficit reduction commission, created by an executive order from none other than President Obama back in February 2010. The commission produced a report whose very first recommendation was, sure enough, a large tax cut for the rich (though it did not get support from all the commission members). These days, by contrast, the Biden administration calls such an idea a death panel for Social Security. The Democrats really have wised up on this question.

As an aside, it is quite remarkable how argument-proof this demand for starving grandma is to all available evidence, at least on the right. The endless growth in Medicare spending, which is by far the largest driver of projections showing massive deficit increases over the long term, has actually leveled off over the last decade or sosaving about $3.6 trillion since 2011 relative to the prior spending trajectory. As The New York Times reports, nobody is quite sure why it happened. But Republicans dont seem to have even noticed. For them, starving grandma is an end in itself. Structurally speaking, the basic problem here is that the U.S. constitutional structure requires compromise during times of divided government, but a critical mass of Republicans are simply too crazy to negotiate. Whereas in a parliamentary system, the majority has the full run of government, and hence there is no need to get opposition buy-in for anything, in our archaic system, we do. So when one party goes nuts, the government tends to get shut down all the time.
snip
16 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

The US was built to allow for a massive train (what I'm calling the system of governance and growth)
Celerity
Sep 2023
#8
Yes, but I was only referring to an actual true derailment, where the government was blown apart
Celerity
Sep 2023
#13
I'm more optimistic about institutions surviving but I do see chaos on the horizon
malaise
Sep 2023
#14
I am starting to look at the US like siamese twins where one twin has joined a death cult
Celerity
Sep 2023
#15
Not, it is not that common to have parties that are 'antithetical' to each other form a
Celerity
Sep 2023
#10