Obama stands his ground on fiscal debates
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama devoted one word - "deficit" - to the issue that brought Washington to the brink of fiscal crises time and again during his first term.
But it was the paragraph that followed in his inaugural address that foreshadowed what's to come - more hard bargaining and more last-minute deals driven by Obama's own conviction that he now wields an upper hand.
"We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit. But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future," he said. "The commitments we make to each other - through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security - these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great."
This was the language of his re-election campaign.
And while his speech contained no reference to either political party, his pointed rejection of "a nation of takers" was an implicit reminder of Mitt Romney's infelicitous declaration that Obama's support came from the 47 percent of American voters "who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it."
In keeping with the objective of inaugural addresses, Obama chose to draw attention to the aspirations he hopes will define him rather than the conflicts that have characterized his relations with a divided Congress. He conceded that "outworn programs are inadequate to the needs of our time," but forged ahead with a call for training more math and science teachers, for building roads and even for funding more research labs.
If there was a way to reconcile such spending with demands to stabilize the nation's debt, he didn't mention it.
"Inaugural addresses are intended for the ages, not for a particular moment," said Matt Bennett, a former aide to Al Gore and a vice president of the Democratic-leaning group Third Way. "We will have to wait for the State of the Union, which is addressed directly to Congress, for a clearer sense of what he wants to do in the near-term and how he wants to get it done."
Obama's State of the Union address is scheduled for Feb. 12.
Obama and his aides approached the inaugural speech with a belief that the president had replenished his political strength with his re-election and with his end-of-year deal with Republicans that raised upper-income tax rates on some of the wealthiest Americans.
What's more, Obama delivered the speech as House Republicans were backing off earlier threats to withhold an extension of the nation's borrowing limit if not accompanied by sharp reductions in government spending. Instead, House leaders plan a vote Wednesday to raise the government debt ceiling through May 18 to avert a first-ever default on U.S. obligations.
That retreat, welcomed by the White House, takes the biggest potential crisis off the immediate horizon. But Obama and congressional Republicans still face two other fiscal deadlines: March 1, when steep automatic spending cuts in defense and domestic programs are scheduled to kick in, and March 27, when the current authority to keep government operating runs out. And then, on May 18, another debt limit crisis will loom.
"It's a matter of how you interpret it," said Jared Bernstein, the former chief economist for Vice President Joe Biden. "If you believe the Republicans will make the debt ceiling crisis a quarterly event, then this is a bad outcome. The White House playbook is that there are now enough Republican grownups in the room they can hammer out deals."
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, set a hopeful tone, declaring that the inaugural was a chance to "renew the old appeal to better angels." Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate's Republican leader, referred to the "transcendent challenge of unsustainable federal spending and debt. Republicans are eager to work with the president on achieving this common goal, and we firmly believe that divided government provides the perfect opportunity to do so."
During negotiations last month aimed at avoiding a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, Obama presented Boehner with a proposal that would have reduced spending on Medicare and other entitlement programs by $400 billion; reduced non-entitlement programs by $200 billion over 10 years; and lowered cost-of-living increases for Social Security recipients and other beneficiaries of government programs.
But Obama also wanted some increased spending and still wants more tax revenue through changes in the tax code that would force the rich to pay more, proposals Republicans reject.
Even an ally like Bernstein pointed out that when it comes to spending outside of defense and entitlements, Obama has an incompatible goal of reducing the budget as a share of the economy to the lowest levels since President Dwight Eisenhower's administration.
"It is very hard for me to square those tight budget constraints on the non-defense discretionary side of the budget and many of the aspirations I heard today," Bernstein said. "That said, I think they are exactly the right aspirations."
And there was little about finding common ground in Obama's speech.
"We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate," he said.
It was not meant as a self-critique.
But it was the paragraph that followed in his inaugural address that foreshadowed what's to come - more hard bargaining and more last-minute deals driven by Obama's own conviction that he now wields an upper hand.
"We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit. But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future," he said. "The commitments we make to each other - through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security - these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great."
This was the language of his re-election campaign.
And while his speech contained no reference to either political party, his pointed rejection of "a nation of takers" was an implicit reminder of Mitt Romney's infelicitous declaration that Obama's support came from the 47 percent of American voters "who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it."
In keeping with the objective of inaugural addresses, Obama chose to draw attention to the aspirations he hopes will define him rather than the conflicts that have characterized his relations with a divided Congress. He conceded that "outworn programs are inadequate to the needs of our time," but forged ahead with a call for training more math and science teachers, for building roads and even for funding more research labs.
If there was a way to reconcile such spending with demands to stabilize the nation's debt, he didn't mention it.
"Inaugural addresses are intended for the ages, not for a particular moment," said Matt Bennett, a former aide to Al Gore and a vice president of the Democratic-leaning group Third Way. "We will have to wait for the State of the Union, which is addressed directly to Congress, for a clearer sense of what he wants to do in the near-term and how he wants to get it done."
Obama's State of the Union address is scheduled for Feb. 12.
Obama and his aides approached the inaugural speech with a belief that the president had replenished his political strength with his re-election and with his end-of-year deal with Republicans that raised upper-income tax rates on some of the wealthiest Americans.
What's more, Obama delivered the speech as House Republicans were backing off earlier threats to withhold an extension of the nation's borrowing limit if not accompanied by sharp reductions in government spending. Instead, House leaders plan a vote Wednesday to raise the government debt ceiling through May 18 to avert a first-ever default on U.S. obligations.
That retreat, welcomed by the White House, takes the biggest potential crisis off the immediate horizon. But Obama and congressional Republicans still face two other fiscal deadlines: March 1, when steep automatic spending cuts in defense and domestic programs are scheduled to kick in, and March 27, when the current authority to keep government operating runs out. And then, on May 18, another debt limit crisis will loom.
"It's a matter of how you interpret it," said Jared Bernstein, the former chief economist for Vice President Joe Biden. "If you believe the Republicans will make the debt ceiling crisis a quarterly event, then this is a bad outcome. The White House playbook is that there are now enough Republican grownups in the room they can hammer out deals."
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, set a hopeful tone, declaring that the inaugural was a chance to "renew the old appeal to better angels." Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate's Republican leader, referred to the "transcendent challenge of unsustainable federal spending and debt. Republicans are eager to work with the president on achieving this common goal, and we firmly believe that divided government provides the perfect opportunity to do so."
During negotiations last month aimed at avoiding a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, Obama presented Boehner with a proposal that would have reduced spending on Medicare and other entitlement programs by $400 billion; reduced non-entitlement programs by $200 billion over 10 years; and lowered cost-of-living increases for Social Security recipients and other beneficiaries of government programs.
But Obama also wanted some increased spending and still wants more tax revenue through changes in the tax code that would force the rich to pay more, proposals Republicans reject.
Even an ally like Bernstein pointed out that when it comes to spending outside of defense and entitlements, Obama has an incompatible goal of reducing the budget as a share of the economy to the lowest levels since President Dwight Eisenhower's administration.
"It is very hard for me to square those tight budget constraints on the non-defense discretionary side of the budget and many of the aspirations I heard today," Bernstein said. "That said, I think they are exactly the right aspirations."
And there was little about finding common ground in Obama's speech.
"We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate," he said.
It was not meant as a self-critique.
Hey you, the one with the assault weapon, yeah you the irrational one that has issues with facts and reality. Your side had it's chance and in eight short years what happened? Looking at the past 60 years, since the end of WW2, beginning with Eisenhower, up til this date, your side has controlled the White House 36 years and the Dems 24. You have a history of trashing the economy, lying to your fellow citizens to go to war, using acts of war to benefit yourselves, trashing the US Constitution, and ignoring your citizens in need. Do the rest of us a favor and use that toy on yourself.
 @uscit16791949 That's very tolerant and open-minded of you. Typical for the left, who wants freedom to think like they do, and freedom to do as they say, but not freedom to actually disagree with them. Bush - upped the debt from about 6 T to about 10 T in 8 years. Obama added another six trillion in only FOUR years, added a huge new entitlement, and didn't do anything to address the largest drivers of our debt, entitlement spending (SS / Medicare / Medicaid), all the while throwing trillions of loans at Wall St cronies to help inflate the bubble bigger, and telling the printing presses at the Fed to go all out.
Â
Oh, yeah, he'll have his place in history, all right. Right under Carter in the list of presidents.
'But Obama also wanted some increased spending and still wants more tax revenue through changes in the tax code that would force the rich to pay more, proposals Republicans reject'.
Â
Increased spending and more taxes are a compromise?
Glad we got that straight.
Â
The only time compromise occurs in a liberals mind is when it's in their favor. That's NOT compromise. It's childish.
Â
Yes al_wa, people suck. The majority of them at any rate. They suck the life outta the minority and demand more. And they get it.
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
I say we as Obama's boss we all stop paying taxes! Let every company stop paying taxes have their payroll departments stop taking with holdings from their employees pay checks. stop having employees fill out W9's and stop sending out W2's. if we as a Nation did that and demanded! That they balance the budget cut spending to get rid of wasteful programs that have never worked. we might as a people have a very good peaceful protest. that would work.
Liberals like Barack Mugabe, Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell, Inslee, McDermott, etc. are all OK with 16.5 Trillion Dollars of Debt, borrowing away the future of our Children and Grandchildren, and 14% U-6 unemployment.
Ya votes for Liberals, ya gets Liberal outcomes.
 Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. But where do the people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from american parents and american families, american homes, american schools, american churches, american businesses and american universities. and they're elected by american citizens. This is the best we can do, folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out! If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you are gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders. The term limits ain't goinna do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So maybe, maybe, maybe it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here. Like... the public. Yeah. The public sucks! There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody. "The public sucks, screw hope!".
Â
George Carlin (edited for profanity)
Obama is a voice of balance and moderation in a land of extremes. We are lucky to have him as President to protect the middle class.
 @albion Are you delusional? He has done nothing but divide this country. Funny the median income has gone down for the middle class under him. Liberals just use the middle class as a pawn.
 @hinterland No, I am a card carrying member of the reality-based community. I realize we are far and few between on this discussion board.
 @Getov Mylon  @albion  @BoredETech  @hinterland You know you are right. Median income relative to expenses went down during the Reagan/Bush1 and Bush2 years so it was not uniformly diminishing since the 1980s. And even during the Clinton years the top earners were increasing much faster than middle class earners. And it is much more complex than just median income; middle class earners are squeezed by a number of different factors:
Â
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle-class_squeeze
 @albion  @BoredETech  @hinterland "The median income has gone down for the middle class since the late 70's."Â
Â
Ooo, sorry. Wrong answer. The median income has not gone down since the 70's according to the Right Wing Think Tank Fox Glen Rush Mouthpiece, the US Government Census Bureau. Inflation adjusted, the latest stats have median income roughly 10% higher than the '70's. Look it up for yourself.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/index.html
Â
By the way, I believe you mean "mean" not "median" but either way, the middle class has not gone down. The only ones that really haven't made any progress are the lower 5%.
 @albion  @BoredETech @albion, Nice try, I'm talking about the last 4 yrs, not history. Wasn't it up under Clinton?Â
 @BoredETech  @albion  @hinterland The median income has gone down for the middle class since the late 70's. While president's like Reagan have their part, it is a lot larger than any one president. Obama is trying to stop the bleeding out of the middle class, but he cannot do it on his own. And despite his efforts to bring this country together he cannot do that by himself either.
@albion @hinterland You're not and they aren't.
 @albion Really? Really?! Where has he compromised? Where has he said to the other side on any significant issue "here is what YOU can get that you want, if you give me THIS that I want?" What? Compromise isn't demands only half of everything you want now, and half later. His form of compromise is like a rapist "compromising" by only inserting the first four inches, rather than the whole thing- it's not really much of a "compromise."
 @RN1 yes, really. He has spent too much time trying to compromise with the party of no in my opinion. Which brings up the question how do you compromise when the other party doesn't want to compromise at all. (at least until recently on fiscal curb crisis). Kudos to him for at least trying; somebody had to try compromising.
 @Darn it!  @albion Don't blame the Health Care mess on Red Team when not ONE Republican voted for it. Blue owns it.
Â
Speaker Boehner: "Hey Harry, the House here passed some bills, can you vote on them?"
Harry Reid Democrat Senate Majority Leader: "No!"
Â
This, of course, makes Red the "No!" Party.
 @Darn it!  @albion Really? He compromised on healthcare? can you show me what the Rs got that they wanted, and the Dems didn't, but got put in by by the conference committee (or any other committee)? Heck, the Rs got locked out of the negotiations totally. That had zilch input.
 @Darn it!  @jennieb  @albion Parents are the party of "NO" when dealing with unruly children that want to do all sorts of stupid stuff, too. Saying "no" to ideas that have failed every time they have been tried isn't just obstructionism, it's a good idea.
 @jennieb You would lose that one too. Obama can't sign anything until it has passed through Congress. Republicans held bills and didn't bring them to the floor for discussion or vote.
Congress also passed fewer bills than any Congress in modern history.
Â
@Darn it! @albion   ok i did. cleverly coined phrase and taken on a life of it's own.  wish someone would actually tally the "no" votes.  I woulld consider betting that Mr. Obama is right up there in the tally.
 @jennieb  @albion 'party of no' is a catch phrase to describe the republicans in Congress who signed the Grover Norquist Pledge. Which was all of the republicans. Feel free to Google it.
@albion @RN1   "party of no"? sounds like a catch phrase. Over the last 4 years "no" and scorn have come from the liberal side of the aisle. i regret i have not kept tally. catch phrases become like the energizer battery . . .they keep going and going. At some point the casual observer cannot remember when or how they started.
 @Darn it! What?!?  He compromised on healthcare?  He rammed Obamacare through - where exactly is the compromise?Â
 @albion  He compromised all over the place on healthcare. That's why it's such a mess. If he had stayed the course we would have universal health care now. But he came into office so willing to compromise and show he was fair that he gave away the boat. At least he has learned his lesson. You can't compromise with a party who has agreed to vote against anything he proposes. Â
 @albion He is a tyrannical narcissistic leader. He has not compromised on one issue.... never has any president been so bound to Marxism.
 @MonroeMad  @albion So, if you are trying to balance the needs of corporations with the needs of middle class citizens you are now a Marxist? Marxism is such a moving target these days. ;-)
Â
Or is more that you think by definition any black politician must be a Marxist?
@albion @MonroeMad sorry, you lost me. where is the definition of a black politcian?  Marxist? as in Karl Marx? he was white.Â
 @the unvarnished truth You are right that he is slightly more of a moderate conservative than a moderate liberal. But he has balanced policies toward the middle class much more than any president since Jimmy Carter, so while not perfect he is moving in the right direction.
Â
Funny I had you pegged as a conservative. Now you are sounding like a liberal. Who knew?
Romney was a tad bit off on his 47% remark its more like a tad bit over 50% as Obama's election clearly shows...
He'll just keep running the country into the toilet. He has no understanding of economics, hates capitalism and the ideals this country was founded on - just go back to Kenya and let us get on with life.
Morons elect morons.
 @MonroeMad Of course they do, look at the House.
Obama on the presidents financial leadership failures.  " The fact that we are here today to debate raising Americaâs debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government canât pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Governmentâs reckless fiscal policies."Â
Â
Double down and keep on borrowing - worked for Bush, now working for Obama.
Â
Â
If the conservatives in Congress would learn to play nice, Obama could get some things done to improve our Nation.
 @factchekr This president is a total loser. He had his chance fix it all and it is WORSE!
@factchekr --- You mean like Castro, Chavez and Ahmadinejad?
...Less talk more action on getting things done not delayed Obama...
What is with this guy? He is so full of himself I cant bare to even watch or listen to him. So full of BS
 @Rick4001CS He is a narcissist and that will mean bad things coming.
The deficit will drop as soon as this clown disappears. His constant need of committees, sub-comittees, etc is costing mega millions. He has to have someone do everything except for wiping his butt, but then, Â who knows.............
 @90F250 tell us, how does it feel, heading into your fifth straight year of white hot rage, with another three after that lookin ya in the eye?
 @tufa23  @90F250 We are all just swirling turds in a toilet waiting to go down thanks to this president.
No rage, disgust.
if obama could govern as well as he can do speeches, he'd go down as the greatest prez of all-time...
If I was to guess why there is no deal yet on raising or keeping the debt limit as is, I would say it is the television market that is paying off Obama and Boehner not to come to a deal. The TV market makes billions more in advertising when the debt talks start up again as all the people are glued watching the clowns in our government. I am surprised that they have not installed a bell and a microphone that descends from the ceiling during these talks. Maybe have a few scantily dressed political aides holding up scorecards during the debates.
Â
I am ashamed of what our political system has become. You have the republicans who say if you are not for us you are not American, and then you have the democrats that want to just guilt you to death with cries for more taxes. No place for the middle ground. Time to fire all the politicians and put working people in their place like the founding fathers wanted in the first place. Put term limits on and get rid of their benefits that they voted for themselves with no say from the working class Americans.Â
eeeewww khala!!!
I must have missed the memo on this guy. I find him comparable to the character Oz in the Wizard of Oz. Don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain. Look over here! Seriously, the inattention to our country's debt is appaulling. Anyone remember what Obama said in 2006 about raising the debt ceiling under Bush?
Mr. OBAMA: Mr. President, I rise today to talk about Americaâs debt problem. The fact that we are here today to debate raising Americaâs debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government canât pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Governmentâs reckless fiscal policies.
[...] Increasing Americaâs debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ââthe buck stops here.ââ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase Americaâs debt limit.
Â
@ObsidianOne --- Obama lives by the Democrat/Liberal motto "Do as I say, not as I do."
 @ObsidianOne you don't have a clue about the difference between the debt limit and the deficit.
@tufa23  Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem. Nowhere in ObsidianOne's post did I read the word "deficit". What he was commenting on is that President Obama's position on raising the debt ceiling has swung 180 degrees from when he was a Democratic Senator addressing a Republican President to now when he is a Democratic President addressing a Republican Majority House. In 2006 it was okay for him to oppose raising the debt ceiling but now he thinks congress should rubber stamp it because he wants them to. Cant you see how two-faced that is?