(NY Times) After Protracted Fight, Both Sides Emerge Bruised

President Obama and Congressional leaders have stitched together an agreement to prevent a national default, provided their 11th-hour deal does not fracture on Monday, but the epic budget battle has failed to resolve another question: which party can be better trusted to govern?

The president, with his re-election on the horizon, emerges from the showdown in a diminished state after giving considerable ground and struggling to rise above a deep partisan intransigence that has engulfed Washington. And Republican leaders, especially Speaker John A. Boehner, are bruised after navigating the intractable sentiment of the Tea Party movement.

A full victory lap was not expected ”” or, perhaps, deserved ”” by those on either side of the debate, which has consumed the capital, unnerved the financial markets and infuriated the American public. Yet even as a compromise was announced on Sunday evening, both parties were prepared to try to define the deal as staying true to their respective principles.

Read it all.


Posted in Uncategorized

17 comments on “(NY Times) After Protracted Fight, Both Sides Emerge Bruised

  1. Teatime2 says:

    It’s still not clear this will pass. I’m seeing interviews with Tea Partiers in the House who say they won’t vote for it. The far left may not, either.

  2. Br. Michael says:

    Supposedly 45 House Republicans will vote no.

    You know just for once I would like to see an honest unbiased explication of a piece of legislation before it is voted on. If the text is available why won’t the news articles link to it?

  3. David Keller says:

    So, Obama needs to reassert himself as a leader? That sentence implies that at some point he was a leader. I see no evidence of that. He’s more like Jimmy Carter on milque toast. #2–During the campaign Mr. Obama promised that his would be the most open administration in US history and that all bills would be posted on the web at least 48 hours before they were voted on. Truth and reality seem to have collided, or possibly diverged, in the Obama Administration. There was a great Mallard Fillmore cartoon this past week in which a reporter was interviwing TOTUS (Teleprompter of the United States). That seems to say it all.

  4. Archer_of_the_Forest says:

    One does tend to get bruised when one continues to hit oneself over the head with one’s own toys.

  5. Teatime2 says:

    I agree, Br. Michael. It is nearly impossible to find details.

    Last night, the media were pressing legislators on whether they’d vote for the proposal and seemed surprised/irritated when representatives said they had to read it first. One woman said they’re expected to vote on things they haven’t thoroughly read.

    It’s scary, when you think about it. They’re making laws and have little idea about what’s truly in them but we’re all legally bound to them anyway.

  6. Jill Woodliff says:


  7. Creedal Episcopalian says:

    Somehow I just can’t picture our current president as a Reasserter.

  8. David Keller says:

    #7–Excellent point!

  9. Don R says:

    If you’re still interested in information, [url=http://keithhennessey.com/2011/08/01/bca-summary/]here is a decent synopsis[/url].

  10. magnolia says:

    um, you cannot put impossible stipulations in and then when you take them out later claim a compromise was had.

    i like obama but he and the dems should have come out with a plan first and then the pubs would have had to defend their nothing but tax cuts position.

    all they had to do was say the pubs are leaving the middle/lower class to rot and protecting the wealthy… like they always have and always will do.

    no brainer but then the dems haven’t had brains for awhile unless it’s fighting for social lib issues.

  11. Br. Michael says:

    9, what does the word cut mean? Seriously. Are we talking cuts as ordinary people understand them or “reductions in the rate of spending increase”.

    I can’t tell.

  12. Br. Michael says:

    I also can’t tell if the Congress is delegating to the Executive the authority to raise the debt limit in the future.

  13. Don R says:

    11 & 12: The definition of “cut” seems to be what an ordinary person would understand it to mean, i.e., spending less than they were going to spend. I don’t see that he addresses anywhere the whole question of [i]baseline budgeting[/i] (as used for CBO scoring), which is what I assume you’re wondering about.

    The bill doesn’t hand off to the executive the authority to raise the debt limit (like the McConnell plan was said to do). Instead, it raises it 3 times, based on Congress receiving “certification” from the President that we are within $100 B of the current debt limit. He can only deliver the certification as of specific dates set forth in the bill. The actual text of the bill is [url=http://keithhennessey.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/DEBT_016_xml.pdf]here[/url].

  14. Br. Michael says:

    Thanks 13.

    The bill does not use cut in the sense of cutting what you are currently spending. It is in fact cutting what you were going to spend but have not. It’s a reduction in the rate of spending increase. And they only take place in the future which will never happen.

    The bill does cede to the Executive the authority to raise the debt limit subject to a legislative veto. It’s in ‘‘§ 3101A. Presidential modification of the debt ceiling” on page 31 of the bill. It’s unconstitutional. It allows the President to spend funds in advance of Congressional appropriation subject to a Congressional veto.

    As far as I am concerned it is a total sell out, even if it is the best that can be done. If we don’t want constitutional government then let’s get rid of it. I am thoroughly disgusted.

  15. Capt. Father Warren says:

    One day the world is going to quit financing our style of living beyond our means. Does anyone think this bill addresses that issue? How?

    When the world refuses to finance us anymore, the Fed will print money at warp speed to buy Treasuries; this monatization of the debt will collapse the dollar. Does anyone here think this bill addresses that issue? How?

    As Jill says, prayer is imperative. Ninevah listened to the prophet Jonah and repented and was spared the consequences of their sinfullness. Will we ever be ready to repent of our sins?

    Does anyone truly believe that out of a $3.7T spending binge this year (there is no budget–thank you Dems), there is just no place to find [b]real[/b] cuts to spending?

  16. Br. Michael says:

    Here is a great parody that explains what is going on:
    A brief excerpt:
    “Agreed,” said Ima, smacking her palm on the plastic tablecloth. “I propose that we cut our hash expenditure by $100 next year.”

    “That’s great!” exclaimed Howard. “A real savings of $100 will really help our budget. Of course, we have to recognize that spending $900 is still a heft outlay.”

    “Excuse me – $900?” said Ima quizzically.

    “Yes, $900,” replied Howard, bemused. “Subtract $100 from $1,000 and you get $900.”

    “No, no, no,” said Ima, grinning. “Subtract $100 from $1,200 and you get $1,100. We had projected a hash expenditure of $1,200 next year, so a $100 cut gets us down to $1,100.”

    “But that’s not a cut at all,” said Howard. “It’s a $100 increase.

    “Not the way I see it,” said Ima. “I had planned to spend $1,200 on hash, so spending only $1,100 means we have saved $100. I don’t see why it should be a difficult concept.”
    Read more: Insanity-based budgeting http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=328489#ixzz1ToyeL5rh

  17. David Keller says:

    #10–You re-state my point exactly. I don’t like the guy, but he is presiodent. One expects him to do something. He appears completely paralized.