As the struggle to fight off criminal Republican blackmail holding the economic stability of our nation hostage, many have expressed ideas on how to proceed. One is former President, Bill Clinton. He suggested that Obama should not blink, but if necessary, should cut a short term deal, based on spending cuts agreed to so far. Clinton is half right. Furthermore, new information may well help explain the Republicans’ true intent.
Former President Bill Clinton Saturday night urged President Obama not to "blink" at Republican demands to exclude revenue increases from any agreement to extend the government’s debt ceiling.
If Republicans maintain their opposition to revenue increases, Clinton said, Obama should pursue a short-term deal to extend the debt ceiling based on spending cuts both sides have already accepted in the negotiations between the administration and Congressional leaders from both parties.
"I hope they will make a mini-deal," Clinton said in an interview conducted with him at the Aspen Ideas Festival here.
The White House and Congressional negotiators from both parties are attempting to assemble a deficit reduction package that could win support in Congress for legislation to extend the nation’s debt ceiling, which the Treasury says the government will reach on August 2. The talks have foundered amid demands from Congressional Republicans to exclude any revenue increases from that prospective deficit reduction package.
Asked what the administration could do if GOP leaders hold to that posture, Clinton replied: "First the White House could blink. I hope that won’t happen. I don’t think they should blink."
If Republicans will not accept revenues in a package to lift the debt ceiling by August 2, Clinton said, Obama should pursue a short-term agreement based on the spending reductions both sides have already accepted… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <The Atlantic>
Obama should not blink, but he should not accept a short term deal based on cuts alone.
Last night on Countdown, Keith Olbermann covered the latest in the debt fiasco, including Clinton’s statement.
Christine Romer was absolutely right. Spending cuts hurt the economy and cost jobs. Here’s proof.
From the start of the Great Recession in December 2007 through the end of 2010, 24 states have cut government spending by an average of 7.5 percent after adjusting for inflation. Another 25 states have expanded government outlays by an average of 11 percent. (The analysis excludes Alabama due to data problems reported by the National Association of State Budget Offices). And the differences in these states’ economic performance could not be more self-evident. Relative to national economic trends, states that increased spending enjoyed on average:
- 0.2 percentage point decrease in the unemployment rate
- 1.4 percent increase in private employment
- 0.5 percent real economic growth since the start of the recession
In contrast, states that cut spending saw on average
- 1 percentage point increase in the unemployment rate
- 2.1 percent loss of private employment
- 2.9 percent real economic contraction relative to the national economic trend
Steep state spending cuts have gone hand-in-hand with rising unemployment rates, falling private-sector payroll employment, and lower growth in state’s gross domestic product, or GDP — the sum of all goods and services produced by labor and equipment in each state, less imports… [emphasis original]
Inserted from <Think Progress>
This data makes it clear that spending cuts do hurt the economy and cost jobs. Since Republicans have the same data, they have to know it is true. Why then are they so insistent? The only reason that makes sense is that hurting the economy and costing jobs is exactly what they intend, so they can use people’s ignorance of this to blame Obama and Democrats for political gain.
Back to Keith’s segment, David Schuster said that to make a short term deal, as Clinton suggested, would require a “major leap of faith” by Democrats that we can trust a Republican promise to include future revenue enhancements. How absurd! I have complete faith in Republicans to take whatever they promise today off the table tomorrow. Any deal that depends on Republican good faith is insane, because the terms “Republican” and “good faith” are mutually exclusive. That they have demonstrated time and time again.
In summary, no blinking and no short term deals based on cuts alone are acceptable.
23 Responses to “Clinton is Half Right”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Is this the same eap of faith the dDemocrats took when they accepted a gentleman’s agreement on the filibuster rather than rules change when they had the opportunity? Or ois this a different leap into the abyss named faith in your opposition?
Mark, that is one of the examples I had considered when I said they have demonstrated thier lack of good faith over and over again.
Clinton seems to be getting a little old and too willing to compromise in his advancing years (I’m his age – but I’m getting more willing to throw these Republicans under the bus before they throw us off the cliff)! I don’t want any compromise – especially after the new reports of advancing CEO salaries!!!!!!! Tax the bastards – end of story!!
Go Lee! I too am about the same age and have come to the same conclusions as you.
Make me #3.
” Any deal that depends on Republican good faith is insane, because the terms “Republican” and “good faith” are mutually exclusive. “~~ You’ve got that right! TomCat! 😈
NO BLINKING—-NO COMPROMISING 👿
Thanks Johnny.
Offering to compromise is a moot point as the Rethuglicans will refuse whatever is offered.
After wasting as much time as possible in the process.
The republicans are following through on McConnell’s statement:
“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
They are willing to sacrifice the American economy and the American people to achieve it.
Bingo!
Their goal is to make President Obama a one- term President ;-per McConnell , do not doubt that- they have been clear- ‘whatever it takes”
I agree ; NO COMPROMISE ! and NO BLINKING .Seems pretty simple–
The only reason they insist on their way seems obvious ;
“The only reason that makes sense is that hurting the economy and costing jobs is exactly what they intend, so they can use people’s ignorance of this to blame Obama and Democrats for political gain.” (from this article)
Keep quoting my words and you’ll swell my head. 😉
The more I hear, the more I think Clinton is starting to sound Harold Ford to me.
God, I miss having Christina Romer’s sound counsel in economic matters available to Obama.
She is surely one of the good ones.
I think Obama should just play hard ball with them and say no cuts, only revenue enhancements like the hedge fund managers pay at 15%, tax breaks for corp jets, etc. and let them stew on that for a while. If he has to give something up, let it be the military (the sacred cow), or one of the 17 intelligence agencies that we have, not including the Homeland Security boon doogle. They know they are making the economy worse which is exactly their plan. And if they try to hit any more of the 3rd rails of politics (SS, Medicare or Medicare), just invoke the 14th Amendment and be done with this stupid mess.
Enough of this bullshit of trying to compromise with the party of ‘no’; they know they are wrecking the economy, risking a world wide crisis, not to mention the ‘good faith and credit of the US currency’. I guarantee that they will back down if Obama keeps telling the American people that the Repubs are trying to take away benefits that the PEOPLE have paid into their whole lives. And Rand Paul is an idiot – like you’re gonna get an amendment to balance the budget in this economy? I want whatever he’s smoking.
Bush NEVER balanced the budget when the going was fairly good, even after he was handed a surplus which he blew in the first 15 minutes in office; just deficit after deficit and they raised the debt ceiling 7 TIMES for that jackass with no attachments. FU Repubs.
I know Obama won’t do it, but I would. 😈
So would I, and so does The People’s Budget.
Oh, and no short term deals – he’ll just have to give up more shit to these theives, oops sorry, Repubs. That’s just gonna piss people off and we’ll have to go through this whole bullshit right before the elections. As someone on Obermann said “that’s just kicking the can down the road”. Or how about we start with their benefits, staff and travel expense all compliments of the US taxpayer. That’s a great place for cuts. 😈
He said no short term deals today
Clinton-Gore founded the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) which was the beginning of the end for the democrats. Clinton has no credence with me. Raygun-bu$h-bu$h-cheney were evil, but Clinton and the DLC, and now Obama are collaborators with the enemy. All they do is “compromise” and “we the people” pay for it. I’m done with them. It makes no difference whether we vote any more. The democrats had BOTH houses of congress AND the White House and they STILL let the republicans call the shots. There is no doubt in my mind there will be yet another compromise. There always is. We are being nibbled to death, but the bites are getting bigger and more vicious. The democrats are a bunch of fools.
Devora, while I agree that Obama has compromised far too much, what do you propose as an alternative?
Obama should get on TV and report to the people of this country on the “progress” of the talks with the Repugnants. Tell exactly what the Democrats propose and everything that the Repugnants demand and tell the people to call their Representatives and Senators what they want. It is non-political and can’t be claimed so by the Repugnants. The people need to be informed.
Mudsocker, I normally understand the need to keep negotiations out of the public view. In this case, I agree with you, because Republicans will not negotiate in good faith.