President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
July 26, 2011 09:00 PM UTC

"Gimmick" For Me, Not For Thee!

  • 21 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Reports Politico, poor Sen. Harry Reid just can’t get a break:

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell joined fellow Republicans critical of Majority Leader Harry Reid’s plan to raise the debt ceiling, calling it “another attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people.”

The Senate’s top Republican didn’t outline any specific objections to the plan, which calls for slashing $2.7 trillion over the next decade in exchange for raising the debt limit by a similar amount through the 2012 elections…

But Republicans in both chambers have blasted a major provision in the bill which counts a $1 trillion in savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, something they dismiss as an accounting “gimmick” since those savings had already been expected.

Just one problem, reports ABC News:

[Democrats] cite the deficit reduction proposal being put forward by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., as an example of the difficulties of dealing with the House GOP. Reid’s plan uses what Republicans call “gimmicks” to arrive at more than $2 trillion in deficit reduction — such as counting the drawdowns of US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan as savings.

But the House GOP budget put forward by Rep. Paul Ryan R-Wisc., did the same thing, Democrats say… [Pols emphasis]

Say what? That couldn’t be right, could it, Center for Budget and Policy Priorities?

$1.3 trillion in “savings” from the official CBO baseline…comes merely from the fact that the Ryan plan reflects the costs of current policy in Iraq and Afghanistan. [Pols emphasis] The CBO baseline contains a large anomaly related to the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Following the rules governing budget baselines, CBO’s baseline mechanically assumes that current levels of U.S. operations – and costs – in Iraq and Afghanistan will continue forever rather than phasing down in accordance with current policy…

So if a Republican proposes something, it’s great, but when a Democrat proposes the same thing…it’s a “gimmick.” If that’s not something that will bury the needle on the hypocrisy meter of most Americans, no matter how slickly Paul Ryan tries to explain it away now that it’s inconvenient…well, it’s about as plainly hypocritical as it gets. After weeks of debt-ceiling “crisis” this is just another sideshow, but it sure doesn’t help Republicans in the court of public opinion.

The real problem with Reid’s plan for the GOP, of course, is that it appears to avoid any sweeping cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid–Reid has deftly attempted to take the principal objections of both sides off the table here. Regardless of the damage those cuts could do to Republicans in the long run, they are just as politically desperate for a short-term victory on entitlement spending as Obama is to prevent major cuts without a “grand bargain” and offsetting new revenues. If Republicans win cuts to entitlement programs without revenue increases to lessen the blow, they win in the short term either by showing resolve, profiting from the harm such an outcome would exact on Obama’s standing with his base, or both.

But it’s an increasingly dangerous game. Democrats can complain that their leaders are giving too much ground, to Republicans who have no intention of negotiating in good faith–but Republicans are just about out of space to keep moving the proverbial goalposts.

Tweet
Share

Comments

21 thoughts on ““Gimmick” For Me, Not For Thee!”

  2. Reid has deftly

    . . . and couldn’t disagree with more strongly.  Reid has signaled that he wants to hand the Republicans the game.

    Reid is, was, and always will be a complete and utter disaster.  100 years from now his picture will still draw laughs of derision, just as the Nast Tweed cartoons do today.

    I agree that the Democrats have created their share of responsible leadership failures and foul ups over the last thirty years; Harry Reid is top of the chart.

    1. And yet they keep electing him Majority Leader. It took Organizing for America begging volunteers to call into Nevada just to get Reid re-elected, and people are expected to follow his leadership? He’s shown little ability to bring Senate Democrats together on important issues, let alone persuading GOP senators.

      1. But Reid did produce a bill that leaves Medicare and Social Security alone by design. That’s more than I can even say for Obama.

        Reid is so far down the line with me he can probably never recover, but I don’t see how this counteroffer was a bad thing. Repubs do look like hypocrites, I agree with that.

        1. are doomed eventually without some revenue increases in the federal budget.

          Most chess games end by resignation, not the actual capture of the king.  Reid hasn’t saved anything.

          1. It was a bad idea to put forward a plan that does not cut Medicare and Social Security? I’m curious if there is anything Reid could have done, given where we are, that would have pleased you.

            1. on insisting for, and maybe even proposing, a plan that includes some revenue enhancements.  (Then too, some ancient magical deiety could shower the land with unicorn seed and pots of gold tomorrow, too.)

              And, seriously, we are going to see adjustments to Medicare and Social Security; relatively minor adjustments today or draconian adjustments some tomorrow.  Not having some immediate revenue enhancements for the federal budget are only going to exacerbate those eventual adjustments, and it is also not going to improve anyone’s election chances in 2012 (as I suspect that feckless Harry suspects).

            2. or Social Security isn’t a bad idea in itself.  But that’s not what the public is hearing.  Mainly the public is hearing that Harry’s plan offers cuts (what the Republicans want) but no revenue increases from the wealthy (what Dems and the majority of the public wants).  So it makes him look, as usual, weaker and more willing to take it in the shorts than the GOP leadership.

              Since the plan won’t pass anyway, is it worth those lousy optics? I think he and Obama have been behind the curve with the public. They’ve stayed invested in demonstrating how reasonable and willing to compromise they are long after the public quit caring about the Marquess of Queensberry rules stuff and started looking for someone to stand up for them and say, no  more burden for the middle class and the most vulnerable without the wealthy, who can afford it more than ever because they’re doing better than ever, contributing more revenue.

              The public and the economists all want a balanced approach to the debt and deficit stuff and the economists just want the usual routine ceiling raising in the meantime, same as always.

              And image is all there is since neither Boehner’s bill nor Harry’s is ever going to get to the President’s desk and everyone knows it. It’s theater and, as theater, it sucks.

        2. Medicare and Social Security were not what was holding up the deal. It was the issue of revenue increases. One side wanted them, the other didn’t. Reid has now surrendered to Republicans on the primary issue of these negotiations.

          This is the Dems’ ONLY remaining opportunity to get a revenue increase. It will be all spending cuts from now on if we cave here.

              1. I personally haven’t listened to her in years.  So obnoxious and her fact checking is really sloppy. Like a lot of righties, if she sees some new rumor that sounds good to her on the internet, she just assumes its true and repeats it as fact. I learned the hard way years ago that you can’t repeat anything you hear from her without independent checking for fear of winding up looking like an idiot. Not expressing any judgement on this particular Rhodes statement. Just sayin’, in general, I have no faith whatsoever in Rhodes as someone to be taken seriously.

  3. “The big grand bargain is still on the table,” Jay Carney said a few moments ago.

    “The public supports a balanced approach.”  He said the Reid plan, as an alternative, will still fast track a “larger” deal.  He also said he is sure Congress will act on a bill that Obama can sign because in the end “we all root for America.”

    It’s obvious the White House is relying on a killer lobbying effort to harness public opinion to harass, threaten and defeat the GOP.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

137 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!