JONATHAN CHAIT AUGUST 2, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, he writes:
During the negotiations over raising the debt ceiling, President Obama reportedly warned Republican leaders not to call his bluff by sending him a bill without tax increases. Republicans in Congress ignored this threat and passed a bill that cuts more than a dollar in spending for every dollar it increases the debt limit, without raising taxes.
Yesterday, Mr. Obama signed this bill into law. He was, as he said, bluffing.
In fact, every media outlet has reported that Obama said this not with regard to passing a debt ceiling hike without tax increases, but in response to a Republican proposal to pass a short-term debt ceiling extension. This is not a subject of partisan dispute. Even Eric Cantor's version of the exchange confirms this:
The Cantor version:
Immediately upon leaving the White House on Wednesday night, Mr. Cantor and his aides offered their description of the clash.
It came at the end of the meeting, they said, when Mr. Cantor complained that Mr. Obama was constantly changing the amount of spending he was willing to cut, and Mr. Cantor raised the idea of increasing the debt limit in small, temporary increments over the next 18 months.
What about a short-term goal, Mr. Cantor asked?
The president “got very agitated, seemingly,” Mr. Cantor told reporters.
“Eric, don’t call my bluff,” the president said, according to Republican aides. “I’m going to the American people with this.”
I suppose what's interesting here is that Ryan is trying to present Obama as a weakling rather than as a fearsome, tax-crazed socialist.
11 comments
Yeah well, Obama was bluffing and the Republicans did call his bluff and he folded. This is just putting lipstick on a pig. There is every good reason for Ryan to be grinning ear to ear.
- roidubouloi
August 2, 2011 at 10:00pm
And yet, here we DO have a short-term Debt-Limit increase, to be followed in December by whatever lunatic creation comes out of the "Super Congress" panel. By which we find that either Obama is a really bad poker player, or just said it wrong, or unlike the Republicans is not treating governing America like a game of chicken. Frankly, I wish he wouldn't allow the Republicans to treat it like a game, or when they do would blame them for it, not this generic "Congress" that America is so angry with.
- AllanL5
August 2, 2011 at 10:07pm
Allan, it's not a short-term increase. The hostage is now defense spending and medicare reimbursements, not our borrowing authority, which lasts until some time in 2013--at least as long an increase as usual. If I were Obama, I'd either get a permanent repeal, next time around, or just ignore it--there are at least four legal justifications for doing so.
- Curran1
August 2, 2011 at 10:37pm
Did you even read this post, roid? Paul Ryan is lying once again. He is a serial fabulist. Usually, you never pass up an opportunity to paint Republicans as evil. Here however, you gloss right over this falsity. It seems that your distaste for Barack Obama trumps your Republicans-are-evil narrative. I could just imagine if you were president, r. we would all be screwed. It would be time to head for Canada. It wouldn't take long for me; I am only 110 miles from the border.
- liberalref
August 2, 2011 at 10:43pm
Please, lib. Are we supposed to think it is news that Republicans are lying in order to spin their success? As I have pointed out many times, the thoroughly evil and corrupt Republicans lie about literally everything all the time. In response, Democrats just whine, to absolutely no effect. They do not know how to fight. Does this news of Republican perfidy excite you? You seem to think it more important than the successful hostage taking itself. Does the fact that the Republicans now lie about the negotiations make their crimes worse or relieve any of the consequences of bad policy made by succumbing to blackmail? In the context of the damage the Republicans are doing as they roll over Obama and the country, this is a triviality. As well, in essence Ryan is correct: Whatever details Ryan may have lied about, the core reality is that Obama was bluffing, his bluff was called, and he folded. I cannot imagine you being president. Indeed, I cannot imagine you doing anything that involves tools, matches, or having to get out of bed. I am not however worried because I am sure that you are far, far away from doing anything that involves even the slightest responsibility.
- roidubouloi
August 2, 2011 at 10:57pm
Does anyone know if it's possible to link cuts to the cut proposer? As in Sen. X from Idaho wants ten billion $$ in cuts = Sen. X from Idaho gets his wish, and all cuts come from Idaho. Is that legal? Can it be introduced? p.s. Mad as we might be, BHO is lightyears better than ANYONE the R's will put out, and people not voting got us a preposterous tea "party"
- bundylu
August 3, 2011 at 1:44am
To be fair, the Democrats publicly lie about their sex lives, but in the case of Weiner and Clinton, it is to avoid personal embarrassment. For Republicans, reality is merely a technicality that can get in the way of policy decisions and they ignore it at our peril. Bush's instincts only policy got us to Iraq, but it was the Republican unbending faith in low taxes that got us where we are today.
- Nusholtz
August 3, 2011 at 2:48am
Paul Ryan lies...I am shocked, shocked that gambling is going on here!
- MikeB.
August 3, 2011 at 8:36am
Deadweight Chait -- Getting no love from your moonbats.. ouch And Ryan is correct, whether Obama said it directly to Repub leaders or not, the liberal point was the deal needed to include more taxes.. Anyone remember the 'balanced' talking point As far Obamanation, he lies about his Mother's healthcare. Nice. A lying, weak, hapless President. At least he is driving Conservative voter identification to the highest levels in history according to Gallup --- doing something right.
- mr_rationale
August 3, 2011 at 9:22am
On the substance of the deal, rather than Ryan's confabulation (which it clearly is): I think this is all about 2012. Yes, Obama could have taken stronger rhetorical stands. But it should be abundantly clear that ideological obstructionists in the House and procedural obstructionists in the Senate will make sure that just about nothing productive actually gets done. I don't like the deal on substance, but as politics it sets up the revenue issue for the next election--an issue that the polls show overwhelmingly favors Democrats. Even a majority of Republicans favor a "balanced" approach to our fiscal problems. Perhaps Republicans are betting that the word "taxes" works in their favor. But having this fundamental fairness issue going into 2012 may be the best vehicle for Democrats, since it's doubtful that the economy will be anything to write home about even if the trendlines start moving slowly in the right direction. The long game is what counts. The debt ceiling is out of the way for now (even if another government shutdown looms). The ideologues have to be voted out of office, since they're immune to fact and reason. All efforts must be devoted to that result. In that context, I'm not so sure that the deal doesn't promote that goal.
- dsimon
August 3, 2011 at 9:42am
- And yesterday Mr. Chait relied upon the WSJ (AKA Fox-Murdoch) version of events to portray a WH that was asleep as the liars lined up to accept their offers and cry to the public the got nuttin'. There are only orphans when the results of negotiating are bitter. Good luck in finding a trusted source for what happened, it appears everyone will take selective ownership for the aspects that flatter their cause. That means I'm ignoring any recollection from the right (AKA GOP-TP Fox-Murdoch).
- michaelg
August 3, 2011 at 10:04am