Steve Benen, Political Animal

Blog

July 28, 2011 10:00 PM Boehner still scrambling

Yesterday, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) told his caucus to get their “asses in line.” Tonight, Boehner is telling some in his caucus to get the asses in a line to tell him how he can make them happy.

As we approach 10 p.m., the latest rumor is that Boehner is prepared to send his bill back to committee to make it more right-wing.

For hours, Boehner has been engaged in intense one-on-one meetings with Republicans in an effort to win today’s fight. Still lacking the votes at 9 p.m., Republicans were considering sending their bill back to the Rules Committee for minor tweaks to win more votes.

What kind of “tweaks”? Apparently, several far-right House Republicans believe Boehner’s plan is too generous when it comes to Pell Grants. Helping low-income students go to college is, as they see it, “welfare,” and therefore makes his bill unacceptable.

Thanks again, midterm voters. Great job.

If the bill goes back to committee, it’s likely to delay a House vote until Friday. (Take your time, guys. It’s not like there’s a looming deadline that would cause an economic disaster next week.)

Also, don’t forget, all of this is to simply get the Boehner plan through the House, so it can be promptly killed by the Senate. The Speaker knows his budget proposal will meet an unkind fate, but for the sake of his ego and his political standing, Boehner wants to make sure it’s the Senate that does the deed, not his own caucus.

No one can say with any confidence what, if anything, will happen tonight, so I’m calling it a day. Consider this an overnight open thread for those who have the patience to keep watching this fiasco unfold.

July 28, 2011 7:15 PM Drama in the House

At about 5:23 p.m. eastern, the House Republican leadership sent out this notice:

Members are advised that the House GOP Leadership has postponed the votes on the motion to recommit and final passage of S. 627 - Speaker Boehner’s Short Term Default Act (amending the Faster FOIA Act of 2011). Following general debate on S. 627, the House will consider the eight bills listed for consideration under suspension of the Rules.

To translate this into English, Speaker Boehner’s budget proposal doesn’t have the votes. In the hopes of twisting a few arms, the House proceeded to take up a few measures related to — I kid you not — naming post offices. (Yes, five days before an economic catastrophe of Republicans’ making, they’re reduced to naming post offices on the House floor.)

Nearly two hours later, GOP leaders have said they still expect to hold a vote “tonight,” though that’s a time frame that could conceivably go into the morning. Democratic leaders also anticipate a vote this evening, and have told members not to leave Capitol Hill.

By most accounts, Boehner is a vote or two shy of what he needs to pass a bill … which everyone knows will then be promptly killed by the Senate. The Speaker’s argument to his caucus is that passage of his budget plan will give him greater leverage in the final round of talks, after this bill dies, but as it turns out, that’s not much of a rallying cry for a right-wing caucus that doesn’t like Boehner’s bill much anyway.

At this point, it’s also worth noting that Boehner’s hold on the Speaker’s gavel is weakening, and failure tonight, if there’s a vote, would be a stunning rebuke of his leadership by dozens of members of his own caucus.

Harry Reid’s communications director, meanwhile, explained about an hour ago, “The Senate stands ready to defeat the Boehner plan whenever House Republicans can get their act together.”

When that might be, no one knows.

Update: Just as an aside, in “the good ol’ days,” right about now, the GOP leadership would simply start buying off stubborn members with some pork projects. (“Bite the bullet on this one and your district gets a nice, shiny new bridge.”) The party’s anti-earmark philosophy won’t allow this option anymore.

Second Update: At about 7:45 p.m., Harry Reid announced that the Senate would be in recess, at least until 9 p.m. A reliable source tells me several pizza boxes were delivered to the Republican Whip’s office, which suggests the GOP leadership doesn’t expect an imminent vote, either.

Third Update: At about 8:10 p.m., Eric Cantor’s spokesperson said the vote will occur “before tomorrow.”

July 28, 2011 5:30 PM Thursday’s Mini-Report

Today’s edition of quick hits:

* As of eight minutes ago, tonight’s vote on House Speaker John Boehner’s budget plan has been “postponed.” The leadership assumed it would have the votes by now. It doesn’t.

* Some encouraging economic news: “New claims for unemployment benefits fell more than expected last week, dropping below the key 400,000 level for the first time since early April, according to a government report on Thursday that pointed to some labor market improvement.”

* Boehner’s crying again.

* The Speaker can’t be pleased that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops hates his plan.

* James Fallows lists the five reasons House Republicans really are to blame for the debt-ceiling crisis.

* More on this from Joe Klein: “[H]ere we are. Our nation’s economy and international reputation as the world’s presiding grownup has already been badly damaged. It is a self-inflicted wound of monumental stupidity. I am usually willing to acknowledge that Democrats can be as silly, and hidebound, as Republicans — but not this time. There is zero equivalence here.”

* The FAA shutdown: “What has happened to the Federal Aviation Administration in the last few days should remind everyone of the costs of the Republicans’ obstructionism and their slash-and-burn budget games.”

* Terror plot: “An Army soldier who had been granted conscientious objector status because of his Muslim faith purchased bombmaking materials and planned to attack military personnel outside Fort Hood, Tex., the same base where 13 people were killed by an Army major in a 2009 shooting , authorities said Thursday.”

* Remember that labor dispute at an Ikea furniture factory in Virginia? It’s ended well: workers voted overwhelmingly yesterday to form a union. It’s a big win for labor.

* Sharp piece from Paul Glastris on why President Clinton supports the “Constitutional Option” as a resolution to the Republicans’ debt-ceiling crisis.

* This hardly seems like an unreasonable assessment: “A top Russian official [yesterday] called Sens. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Mark Kirk (R-IL) ‘radicals’ and ‘monsters of the Cold War’ and warned that the U.S.-Russia relationship would collapse if Republicans came to power.”

* It can’t be good when Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) gets ideas on education policy from Texas Gov. Rick Scott Perry (R).

* Disasters happen, and with Republicans having at least some power, they’re likely to keep happening: “Call it Angell’s Fallacy: ‘X won’t happen because X would be insane.’ But these things do happen!”

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

July 28, 2011 4:35 PM The pressure is starting to get to Eric Cantor

Some people don’t handle pressure well. The House Majority Leader, for example, is so stressed, he’s starting to crack.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) declared Thursday that Senate Democrats would be responsible for a national default if they defeat a House plan to raise the debt limit.

Cantor starkly laid out the options: Either the Senate passes the House debt-limit legislation or the nation will likely default.

“There are two choices left,” Cantor said. “When we send this bill over, this compromise piece of legislation, [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid [D-Nev.] can take that up, pass it, send it to the White House. We can avoid the potential consequences of going past Aug. 2 and get on with the business of this country, or it will be on Harry Reid to bear the consequences of economic damage, and I don’t want to see that.”

So, let’s summarize Cantor’s position here. The House is poised to vote on Speaker Boehner’s budget proposal this afternoon, and the outcome is still in doubt. According to Boehner, his far-right plan is worthwhile precisely because Democratic leaders “hate” it, and it isn’t the result of a bipartisan compromise or negotiations.

When the dust settles this after the vote, if it manages to get a majority, the Boehner plan will have passed despite bipartisan opposition.

Eric Cantor believes that the Senate, whose members have already announced it can’t accept this right-wing plan, must approve the House bill and that President Obama must sign it into law, or House Republicans will deliberately crash the economy by refusing to pass anything else.

This is nothing short of crazy. “Do what we demand or we’ll shoot the hostage and blame you.”

It’s amazing Cantor is even in Congress. He seems better suited for organized crime.

Fortunately, the Speaker took a less radical approach this afternoon.

Boehner did tacitly acknowledge that his plan might change, though. Pressed whether his debt limit bill is a “take it or leave it” proposition for Democrats, Boehner would only say, “we have a reasonable responsible approach, there is no reason for anyone to object to it.”

Asked whether the House would be in session this weekend, after (presumably) passing his plan, he said “sure.”

So we’ll have another round of this.

This is no small concession. If Boehner were taking the same line as Cantor, he’d repeat Cantor’s “our way or the highway” sentiment and see no need for a weekend session. The Speaker knows he can’t do this, and it’s at least mildly encouraging he didn’t draw that line in the sand today.

July 28, 2011 3:20 PM Please stop waiting for the ‘old’ McCain

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) delivered some noteworthy remarks on the Senate floor yesterday, mocking some of his own party’s more extreme members. You know what that means, right? Time for another media swoon.

Here’s the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza today, with a headline reads, “McCain the maverick (again).”

Arizona Sen. John McCain’s floor speech on Wednesday denouncing the negotiating tactics of some tea party-aligned Members of Congress raises the question as to whether the famed maverick is back to his old tricks. […]

McCain’s comments (and the controversy they caused ) raise an intriguing question: Has McCain the straight-talking maverick been reborn?

And here’s the New York Times, yesterday:

Is the old John McCain back?

Stop. Really, just stop. There’s just no need for this.

For years, the media ran so many “Whatever happened to the old John McCain?” pieces, they were hard to count. The reason was obvious — media figures who adored one of the previous personas of the Arizona senator were dismayed to see what had become of one of their favorite politicians.

In time, those pieces ran their course. Nearly everyone came to realize that McCain circa 1999-2001 no longer exists, and he’s been replaced by a bitter, belligerent conservative.

My fear has long been we’d see a new push from the media. Instead of figures asking, “Whatever happened to the old John McCain?” we’ll be confronted with a bunch of “Maybe the old John McCain will come back to us?” pieces.

Which leads us, apparently, to this week.

I sincerely wish the media would show some restraint before signing up again for the McCain fan club. Just since the midterms, McCain has broken his word on the New START treaty and inexplicably voted against it; filibustered the DREAM Act he promised three years ago to help pass; lost his temper railing against gays in the military; blamed wildfires on undocumented immigrants without evidence; and assured the nation that Americans “don’t want compromise” on the debt ceiling.

That last one was just a few weeks ago. Reporters shouldn’t have forgotten it this quickly.

“Is the old John McCain back?” I suppose anything’s possible, but the question itself strikes me as a little silly. Literally every move we’ve seen from McCain for the last several years suggests that previous persona is gone, and it’s not coming back. He’s angrier, more partisan, more conservative, more dishonest, and more willing to abandon every meaningful policy position he’s taken than ever before.

“Has McCain the straight-talking maverick been reborn?” All he did was defend a far-right budget plan against criticism from even-further-to-the-right Republicans.

It’s time for the media to pick a new hero. This one isn’t coming back.

July 28, 2011 2:50 PM Quote of the Day

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), today:

Boehner, who has been twisting arms to get conservative Republicans to sign onto the bill, described the legislation as a “sincere and honest effort to end this crisis in a bipartisan way.”

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), yesterday:

Boehner said he couldn’t understand why any Republicans would position themselves with Democrats opposing his plan.

“Barack Obama hates it, Harry Reid hates it, Nancy Pelosi hates it,” he said, naming off the Democratic leadership.

If the Speaker is pushing a far-right plan he knows the Democratic Senate and Democratic White House “hate,” how is it that this represents a “sincere and honest effort to end this crisis in a bipartisan way”? Isn’t that the opposite of a “sincere and honest effort to end this crisis in a bipartisan way”?

As Kate Conway put it yesterday, “In the perverse world of the GOP’s logic, a good proposal is one that your opponents are loathe to accept — not one that arranges for circumstances both parties can live with.”

Boehner added this afternoon, “The president has asked us to compromise and we have compromised.”

I’ll just assume the Speaker, suffering badly from fatigue, no longer remembers what “compromise” means.

July 28, 2011 2:00 PM Senate to quickly dispatch Boehner bill tonight

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) will bring his budget proposal to the floor later today, but not until after 5 p.m. eastern. The Republican Speaker doesn’t want the outcome to rattle Wall Street, and he needs all the time he can get to lock up every last vote within in his own caucus.

As of this afternoon, the margin will be extremely close, and a vote or two in either direction could dictate the outcome.

The problem, of course, is that all of this drama is for naught. Even if Boehner’s bill passes the House, it will go to the Senate where a clear majority is eager to kill it. In fact, they’re so eager to dispatch the right-wing plan, the Senate intends to do so with unusual speed. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) made this announcement today:

For those who can’t watch clips online, Reid explained, “As soon as the House completes its vote tonight or this afternoon, the Senate will move to take up [the Boehner bill]. It will be defeated. They know that, and the American people should understand that clearly. No Democrat will vote for a short-term Band-Aid that would put our economy at risk and put the nation back in this untenable situation we are in today a few short months from now.”

Reid added that economists believe a short-term extension carries some of the same risks as a technical default.

How can the slow-moving Senate move so quickly, killing a bill within hours of it passing the House? Brian Beutler explained, “[T]o expedite the process, and to prove as swiftly as possible that Boehner’s plan is DOA in the Senate, Reid will move to table the bill. All Democrats will vote to table the legislation, Reid has said, and then it’s on to the next step. “

Suzy Khimm added, “The advantage of tabling is that it’s faster…. The disadvantage of tabling is that Republicans will insist that Boehner’s proposal had a chance in the Senate, and that Reid was simply afraid that it would pass.”

The latter isn’t a concern — 58 senators, including every Democrat in the majority caucus, are already on record against the Boehner plan.

This clarity should also remind House Republicans that they’re sticking their necks out, voting for a right-wing plan that will fail later tonight, even if it passes the House.

Boehner seems to believe Dems are somehow bluffing, and that his plan has a real shot in the upper chamber. I hate to disappoint him, but Democrats are lousy poker players. They’re not kidding. If the Speaker’s measure passes the House, it will meet a swift end very soon after.

July 28, 2011 1:10 PM When the pressure’s on, Romney shrinks

There’s a fairly intense debate underway within Republican circles on the merit of House Speaker John Boehner’s (R) budget proposal, to be voted on this afternoon. All of the major players and institutions are weighing in, and there are some real powerhouses on both sides of the intra-party divide.

And then there’s Mitt Romney, who doesn’t want to talk about it.

Republican presidential candidates are, not surprisingly, routinely asked to weigh in on the major stories of the day. It’s not just campaign reporters — activists and voters want to know how would-be presidents feel about pressing national developments.

Initially, the GOP field was reluctant to weigh in, and that hardly came as a surprise. Picking a side meant alienating a significant chunk of the party base. By yesterday, however, many Republican candidates started falling off the fence, with Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, and Michele Bachmann announcing their opposition to Boehner’s plan, and Jon Huntsman announcing his support.

And yet, the frontrunner is apparently too afraid to pick a side.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) finds himself facing greater scrutiny for not having staked out a position on House Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) debt-ceiling plan, hours ahead of a planned vote on that proposal in the House.

Romney’s assiduously avoided commenting directly on the proposal put forth by the Speaker, all while an increasing number of his competitors for the Republican presidential nomination have made their positions clear.

The campaign’s putative frontrunner has said he “applauds” Boehner for his efforts to craft a plan to rein in spending. But that doesn’t mean he supports it, per se.

Voters looking for leadership can turn to Mitt Romney — who will tell them to keep looking elsewhere.

Ben Smith noted Romney’s reluctance to pick a side “doesn’t exactly project strength.”

No, it doesn’t. Like flip-flopping on practically every issue, every time the winds change direction, it projects a degree of cowardice.

NBC’s “First Read” added some worthwhile questions: “How does someone who wants to be the leader of the Republican Party not have a position on one of the biggest issues facing Washington, especially after the dueling primetime speeches by Obama and Boehner? It’s actually quite surprising; this isn’t just another Washington fight. Is the lack of a position proof of how fragile Team Romney believes its front-runner status is right now?”

Romney was never likely to be nominated for a Profile in Courage award, but this is just pathetic. Does Romney not realize part of being president is making tough decisions and taking firm stands, even if some people will disapprove?

July 28, 2011 12:35 PM Joe Walsh and the virtues of fiscal responsibility

Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.), an ignominious right-wing freshman, loves to talk about the importance of fiscal responsibility and meeting one’s financial obligations. He’s equally fond of incorporating his own family into his talking points, saying things like, “I won’t place one more dollar of debt upon the backs of my kids and grandkids unless we structurally reform the way this town spends money!”

With this in mind, it’s worth noting that Walsh, already something of a laughingstock, is still capable of looking even worse.

Freshman U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh, a tax-bashing Tea Party champion who sharply lectures President Barack Obama and other Democrats on fiscal responsibility, owes more than $100,000 in child support to his ex-wife and three children, according to documents his ex-wife filed in their divorce case in December.

After a series of missteps and bad decisions, Walsh reportedly struggled with financial problems, which in turn led to a nine-year child support battle with his ex-wife. Walsh’s argument was that his inability to hold steady employment made it impossible for him to make child-support payments.

This caused some trouble, however, when Walsh loaned his 2010 campaign $35,000 of his own money, and took foreign vacations with his girlfriend, which suggested he wasn’t quite as broke as he’d led his children and ex-wife to believe.

Walsh’s attorney conceded that the congressman owes unpaid child support, but added Walsh has “had no more problems with child support than any other average guy.”

I have no idea what this means. The “average guy” talks about looking out for his children’s financial well being while simultaneously refusing to pay child support?

On CNN this morning, Walsh acknowledged his “financial troubles” and argued, “This is where real America is.”

Real America is made up of deadbeat dads? I shudder to think of what happens in Fake America.

Alex Pareene added, “You know how bad pundits and annoying politicians like to pretend the Federal government is like a household when they talk about how we need to balance our books? If we take that flawed analogy seriously, it does not really make a lot of sense to trust the budget to someone Joe Walsh, a private sector failure who is hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, whose condo was foreclosed on, and who is unable to make his child support payments. On a six-figure salary!”

July 28, 2011 12:00 PM Thursday’s campaign round-up

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that won’t necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* Among announced GOP candidates, Gallup still shows Mitt Romney leading the Republican field nationally with 27% support. Michele Bachmann is second with 18%, followed by Ron Paul with 11%. No other candidate is in double digits.

* In Virginia, home to one of the most closely-watched Senate races in the country, the latest survey from Public Policy Polling shows former Gov. Tim Kaine (D) leading former Sen. George Allen (R), 46% to 43%.

* Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), who appears increasingly likely to run for president, told voters yesterday the world won’t “come to an end” if the United States fails to raise the debt ceiling.

* The entire Massachusetts congressional delegation appeared in a video for the “It Gets Better” campaign, except Sen. Scott Brown (R), who refused. Brown is seeking a second term next year.

* After a series of strikingly bigoted remarks directed at Muslims, Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain issued an apology to Muslim Americans yesterday. “I am truly sorry for any comments that may have betrayed my commitment to the U.S. Constitution and the freedom of religion guaranteed by it,” he said.

* Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) was rumored to be leaving Congress next year to become the next University of Tennessee athletic director, but yesterday, the Blue Dog congressman’s office ruled it out, insisting Shuler “is running for re-election.”

* Not a headline Tim Pawlenty’s campaign wants to see: “Pawlenty struggles to step out of Bachmann’s shadow.”

* Former half-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin will speak at an Iowa Tea Party rally on Labor Day weekend, renewing speculation about her possible national ambitions.

* And despite widespread liberal antipathy towards President Obama, new polling suggests the president enjoys the strongest support among Democratic voters of any other modern Democratic president.

July 28, 2011 11:15 AM Across the pond

For months, prominent Republicans have insisted that the United States follow Britain’s lead and immediately embrace sweeping austerity measures. The GOP doesn’t care for all of British Prime Minister David Cameron’s ideas — conservatives in the UK accept tax hikes as a way to close budget shortfalls — but accept the basic proposition that austerity helps.

And how’s that working out for our friends across the pond?

A slowdown in Britain’s growth in the second quarter means that the economy is weaker than thought and has no chance of meeting its official growth target this year.

The eagerly awaited preliminary GDP estimate for April to June showed the economy growing by 0.2%, rather than contracting. Although this was better than some of the gloomier forecasts, it is still slower than the 0.5% growth seen in the first quarter, which came after a 0.5% decline in the fourth quarter of last year.

Austerity doesn’t help a struggling economy; it makes matters worse. Richard Portes, an economist at the London Business School recently said Cameron’s failures should be “a cautionary tale” to others thinking about following his lead.

He didn’t mention conservatives in United States, but he might as well have.

The Cameron government believes the path to prosperity runs though fewer public services, less public investment, and counting on low interest rates to save the day. This experiment isn’t working at all, and yet, there’s been no shortage of congressional Republicans who’ve argued, “We need a budget with a bold vision — like [the one] unveiled in Britain.”

Why emulate failure?

David Dayen added this week, “What’s amazing about this debt limit debate, and the headlong rush to austerity, is that we have empirical evidence of what can result, in this kind of economy, when you massively roll back spending. We even know what happens when you do that amid the threat of a debt downgrade rather than the fundamentals of the financial markets. All you have to do is look to Britain, which has never been the same since their austerity package was unveiled by the Tories.”

July 28, 2011 10:45 AM Would Democrats ever pull the same stunt?

Last week, after renewed talk that the debt-ceiling law itself needs to be eliminated, I suggested a way to make the argument appealing to Republicans. It’s a straightforward pitch: there may come a point in the near future when a Republican president has to govern alongside a Democratic Congress (a divide last seen just three years ago). Do Republicans want those Dems to have leverage over the GOP White House, threatening to crash the economy unless progressive demands are met?

Fred Bauer imagined just such a scenario the other day, envisioning an emboldened Speaker Pelosi confronting a Republican president in August 2015 with demands for tax increases. “And what could Republicans say to this?” Bauer wrote.

How realistic is this? I’m afraid Jon Chait’s take on this is probably the right one.

I could imagine a Democratic Party holding the debt ceiling hostage, but not this Democratic party. It would have to be a far more left-wing party, in which activists have gained greater control and which has largely severed itself from any business influence.

The current democratic party lacks anything like the will to power to threaten economic catastrophe in order to force a government mostly controlled by elected members of the opposition to accept its contested policy agenda. And it would require a substantial coterie susceptible to the argument of the default denialists — a natural fit for the party of supply-siders and climate change deniers, but not a good fit for the moderate coalition that forms the current Democratic party.

As hostage strategies go, the current crop of congressional Republicans are pulling an unprecedented stunt, which only works because most sincerely believe they really are dangerously crazy. It’s critical to making the strategy work — those holding the hostage have to convince everyone that they’re ready to follow through on their threat.

In this case, that means a fairly radical assumption — Democrats have to be convinced that the congressional GOP is willing to hurt the nation, ignore their constitutional obligations, and undermine our credibility, stability, and global reputation. In other words, Republicans have to tell the political world they love a right-wing agenda more than they love the country, and convince everyone they mean it.

Democrats, in this case, are persuaded. It’s why the debt-ceiling negotiations have occurred, and why Dems have been willing to concede so much — Democrats genuinely believe Republicans are as radical and dangerous as they appear to be.

But what would happen if/when a Democratic Congress started making comparable threats to a Republican president? Probably nothing. It’s a question of credibility — GOP leaders and everyone else knows that Democrats aren’t crazy; they’re not irresponsible; and they’re not indifferent to the nation’s needs and future.

They wouldn’t, in other words, be perceived as folks who would shoot the hostage. Republicans play this game far more effectively because they satisfied the political world’s skepticism — few question the notion that they’re stark raving mad.

July 28, 2011 10:05 AM Romney inadvertently backs Obama’s agenda

Given that Mitt Romney is the apparent frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, it’s often surprising how awful his campaign really is.

The former Massachusetts governor was in central Ohio, visiting a rock-crushing-equipment factory called Screen Machine Industries. As Romney argued, the business would be thriving if it weren’t for that rascally President Obama and his liberal agenda.

Oops.

[I]t’s been the government — and Obama’s policies in particular — that has helped propel Screen Machine’s growth at its sprawling new headquarters here, even during the recession. The company, which builds heavy-duty crushing and screening machines used in construction, mining and recycling, received four stimulus awards totaling $218,607. It is also benefiting from a 10-year deal with local and state governments to not pay taxes on its property, equipment or inventory, according to public records.

And Screen Machine, which is expanding its global sales, recently won a federal contract to deliver its machines to Kandahar Airfield in Afghanistan.

I see. So, Romney would have us believe the federal government is holding Screen Machine Industries back and preventing it from growing. In reality, the federal government in general, and the president’s agenda in particular, is boosting Screen Machine Industries and helping it thrive.

And that’s just under Obama. This same company received government aid — from federal, state, and municipal agencies — seven years ago to help expand its Ohio headquarters.

Remember, Mitt Romney considers Screen Machine Industries an example of government intervention hurting the private sector.

What’s more, this keeps coming up. Romney recently visited a closed-down facility in Pennsylvania, and inadvertently made the case in support of Obama’s agenda. Soon after, he traveled to a dilapidated California shopping center, without realizing the project failed before Obama took office, and was actually shut down by a major Romney donor.

Has Romney not hired a research staff? How about an advance team? The former governor can take some solace in the fact that the political world’s focus is on Capitol Hill right now, not on the GOP presidential candidates, or his campaign’s striking incompetence might be a much bigger problem.

July 28, 2011 9:25 AM Boehner’s pitch to his caucus

Yesterday, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said President Obama “wants a $2.4 trillion blank check that lets him continue his spending binge through the next election.”

Putting aside the fact that the “blank check” argument is nonsensical garbage, I have to admit, Boehner’s line did bring a smile to my face. After all, if the check is for $2.4 trillion, it isn’t, you know, blank. In reality, there is no check, and the Speaker is just lying shamelessly, but even at face value, Boehner’s talking point is incoherent.

But that’s not all the Speaker is saying. Boehner’s office explained what he’s telling his caucus, in trying to get them to support his budget proposal.

“There are only three possible outcomes in this battle: President Obama gets his blank check; America defaults; or we call the president’s bluff by coming together and passing a bill that cuts spending and can pass in the United States Senate,” Boehner told the rank and file, according to aides to the speaker. “There is no other option.”

None of this is even remotely true, and the fact that Boehner is using this as his principal pitch suggests the Speaker doesn’t think highly of his own caucus’ intellect.

First, Obama isn’t seeking and wouldn’t get a “blank check.” Indeed, the very idea doesn’t make any sense at any level.

Second, Boehner thinks his right-wing plan “can pass in the United States Senate.” I can prove otherwise.

And third, the Speaker is arguing that the only other option is default, but that’s plainly crazy. There are plenty of other options, including a clean bill, Harry Reid’s overly-generous compromise offer, and some kind of hybrid model with $1 trillion in cuts now and empowering the White House, ala the McConnell plan, to raise the ceiling on its own in the next round.

I know Boehner is desperate to persuade his caucus, but shouldn’t House Republicans mind that their Speaker is lying to them and treating them like fools?

As for the success of Boehner’s outreach, The Hill counts 22 House Republican opponents of the Speaker’s plan. If 24 House Republicans vote against it, the plan will fail.

In other words, it’s going to be close.

July 28, 2011 8:35 AM The differences between the Reid, Boehner plans

At this point in the process, there are effectively two competing plans to resolve the Republicans’ debt-ceiling crisis: House Speaker John Boehner’s (R) proposal and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D) plan. A third alternative may come together — with five days to go, it would have to come together very quickly — but for now, two options are on the table.

This week, there’s been some worthwhile discussion about whether the differences between the two are really that great. There’s clearly something to this — both plans include massive cuts, both plans include effectively nothing in new revenue, and both would raise the debt ceiling. I heard someone say the other day that, from a progressive perspective, both plans are like going to the dentist to have wisdom-teeth removed — Reid’s plan would yank three of them; Boehner’s would yank four. Both are wildly unpleasant, though one is slightly worse.

There are differences, though, and the details matter.

The most obvious, and the one you’ve no doubt heard the most about, is the duration of the extension. Under Boehner’s approach, Congress would raise the debt ceiling for six months, and then force us to go through the process all over again early next year. All available evidence suggests this would undermine the economy significantly. Under Reid’s plan, the extension would go through the end of next year, putting a lot of minds at ease. Obviously, this matters.

But Jonathan Bernstein goes further, noting that for the left, Reid’s plan is “much, much better” than Boehner’s.

The first difference is the total cuts. Everyone is emphasizing that Reid’s front-line totals are very similar to Boehner’s. But bookkeeping cuts, which analysts are ignoring, buy Reid an extra year of debt-limit extension in exchange for, basically, nothing at all, meaning that Reid slashes government far less than Boehner does. […]

The second set of differences is harder to see from the details that have been reported so far, but they’re about timing and location of the cuts. By all accounts, the revamped Boehner plan is going to be more frontloaded than was his initial offer, because Republicans (to some extent with good reason) don’t trust future Congresses to be bound by decisions made now. Liberals prefer backloaded cuts, partially because they’re less real, but especially because liberals believe that up-front cuts will hurt the economy more while it’s still fragile at best. This is another way that the Reid plan is superior.

Also note the way in which Boehner sets up the second vote in six months. The problem isn’t just the uncertainty that comes with a needless short-term extension; it’s also the fact that under the Speaker’s scenario, policymakers are supposed to spend the next several months in negotiations on how to “reform” the tax code and entitlement programs.

This matters, of course, because if Republicans refuse to accept a compromise, as seems to be their nature, the crisis begins all over again. With no deal, Dems would be told in January, “Accept another $1 trillion in cuts or the GOP will crash the economy.”

In contrast, Reid’s plan would also begin the process on tax/entitlement “reform,” but failing to come up with an agreement wouldn’t undermine the full faith and credit of the United States.

And then there’s the small question of what, exactly, will be cut as part of the larger plans. As Jonathan added, Reid seems focused on military spending, which can afford a few reductions, while Boehner hasn’t offered much in the way of details, which isn’t a good sign.

To be sure, I don’t like Reid’s plan. It’s far too conservative; it concedes too much, and it includes effectively nothing in new revenue, failing to meet the “balanced” test. Under sane circumstances, a Democrat would never propose it, worse yet support it.

But our current circumstances are anything but sane, which is why Reid unveiled this approach, and why the White House and Nancy Pelosi support it. When compared with Boehner’s plan, it’s clearly the smarter way to go.

Political Animal Archive