Below are documents obtained by the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward that show a grand bargain proposal the White House was prepared to make in order to reach agreement with the House Republicans last year. This is how Woodward described the documents on Meet the Press this morning:
"This is a confidential document, last offer the president -- the White House made last year to Speaker Boehner to try to reach this $4 trillion grand bargain. And it's long and it's tedious and it's got budget jargon in it. But what it shows is a willingness to cut all kinds of things, like TRICARE, which is the sacred health insurance program for the military, for military retirees; to cut Social Security; to cut Medicare. And there are some lines in there about, "We want to get tax rates down, not only for individuals but for businesses." So Obama and the White House were willing to go quite far."
Leave a Comment:
In this election, the GOP has totally lost - do they still think they have chips in their hands? - total delusion.
You are correct Pigotry but, that doesn't mean that they realize their delusions! Just remember all the candidates the backed in their primary. It takes years of therapy.
It sounds like you guys think this is from the GOP to the White House and not the other way around.
What they GOP has is a majority in the house. Those guys were not unelected just because Obama won. In fact, every single member of that majority just won reelection based on what they did the last two years.
Only Obama's legacy will be hurt by another recession. He has everything to lose. The party in power always gets blamed.
The document seems to show that Obama is going to sell us out on entitlements!
James - you are 100% correct. The WH deal offered up to Republicans in July/2011 puts the lion's share of deficit reduction on those who can least afford it - needy children and the elderly poor. If the Democrats take this approach, the base will not forget. At least we know what the Republicans are after; but to have President Obama and the Democratic Party go after the poorest and neediest citizens is an outrage and would be an even more egregious move to hurt those who have no voice in the political arena. If President Obama goes ahead with this approach, the Democrats lose me and I'll switch back to the Repubican Party.
One name - two words = Republican Intransignce = Grover Norquist
to jefff / nope, those republicans fanangled their way back in via gerrymandering. popular vote they lost, dem got 60%.....just lettem keep doing what they are doing, we'll geterdone next time
You are implying that your are owned by Democrats. Never give your alligence to any party, neither deserve it. When Obama signed the NDAA into law, his own words were, "I don't like this Bill, but I'll sign it anyways into law." He sold us out just as much as Republicans sold us out for less freedom to the Constitution. Both are evil and most deserve to be lined up and shot for treason.
About the only person I've seen who is true to their word, is Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul (And Ron is a little on the nutty side, but has some seriously good points in that lunatic rant.)
Which is why I switched to Green Party two years ago.
As long as the GOP holds the majority in the Us House Of Representatives that has all of the constitutional authority to control the purse-strings of the nation (save the POTUS veto power, which can be overridden), they in fact do hold most of the chips in their hands.
And there is very little a POTUS can do but acquiesce to their demands and 'go their way' to get a deal. Congress did it to Reagan in 1983; Bush 41 in 1990; Clinton in 1996-97 and they will do it to Obama in 2013.
It is all inn the Constitution. Article 1. Half the document deals with the powers of Congress. Not the President
Frank,
The GOP also needs 2/3 of Senate to override an Obama veto. NOT going to happen.
Frank...u r right in that the House is far from impotent....what the President has is that the Bush Tax cuts are set to expire at the end of the year...the GOP must compromise or Democrats will let the tax cuts expire....and rightfully so...sick of Grover Norquist holding the country hostage...
You know who's not enumerated in the Constitution? Grover Norquist. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that when a majority of representatives in the Republican-controlled House have pledged loyalty to an unelected power (Grover Norquist) whose sole objective is preventing elected representatives from doing the compromise and negotiating that are essential to governing, that the President must go along with such a blatant and treasonous course of action. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that when elected representatives refuse to participate in the back-and-forth of government, that the President must kowtow to the demands of the outside party who is controlling those representatives' refusal.
Norquist indeed ... Harvard Educated so he understands the liberal landscape and steeped in the gamesmanship and media spin that speaks loudly to the Right Wing and insurgent Tea Party acolytes. Norquist holds his "pledge" signed by most Republicans in the House, if not all of them, like the Sword of Damoclese. Anything that Norquist sniffs out as a tax rate (or just plain) tax increase will trigger his assult on offending Republican MOCs that signed his pledge and he will go after them with his strange and offputing rhetoric that resonates with the extreme Right Wing Base of the GOP, i.e., "rats in a coke bottle," "poopy head."
Forged in the no-compromize policy of Extreme Right Wing Republican political organizations - Norquist has made himself both king maker and dragon slayer for the rank and file Republican MOC/Senator in both Houses. His extra-constitutional role harkens back to the days of John McCarthy and the Red Scare tactics to keep Republicans in-line against McCarthy's insane witch hunt to ferret out non-existent communists.
Republicans both in and out of office are extremely sucseptible to group-think and propaganda. They are easily held in check by the likes of Limbaugh and Norquist - non titular Extremist Right Wing Republicans who set both policy and strategy for Boehner and McConnel to tow the Tea Party line.
There will be a bargain before sequestration kicks in, however; from all appearances and the political intransigence of Republicans - it looks like the poor and the elderly will suffer the most in the deal. If that becomes the case; the Democrats will lose the 2014 mid-terms and the 2016 Presidential and Senatorial races will go Republican. There is hardly anything worse than promising something to the base that re-elected you and then in a few short weeks you pivot and go against the promise to preserve the social safety net. Instead of talking about the Republicans going the way of the Whigs; we'll see the beginning of the end of the Democratic Party for the foreseable future - voters remember when they are lied to ...
Hope it goes just as you stated!
Thanks for posting MTP. It was an interesting read. The fix is in and this is the budget plan with very slight changes. My predictions are: 1. Various trial balloons with elements of the plan in the next few weeks. 2. This budget bill will pass and President sign between Thanksgiving and Christmas, when Americans are focused on the holidays. 3. The Gang of 6 and/or retiring senators/house reps. will be the "face" of the bill and take the heat for its unpopularity. They no longer have a constituency to worry about. Obama doesn't have to worry about re-election so he can take the heat as well. 4. Senators/reps up for re-election who might be primary challenged for the vote will make a "valiant" effort trying to stop passage of the bill. They will not vote for it and say that they did everything they could to prevent it from happening... Oh, the games that politicians play and how we fall for it every time. While people are focused on tax cuts for the rich, you're not asking about the spending cuts. What a shell game!!
Having worked in DC for 25 years before I retired ... and seeing the shell game up close and personal ... I think you laid out a credible scenario for how it will play out. One thing I learned .. if the WH offers up a deal, the opposition works down from that deal even if a new "formal deal" is proposed by POTUS. The Republicans never play up from the first hand they are dealt ... they knew POTUS would cave on entitlements back in July 2011; the GOP will work a deal down from there and strengthen their bancrupt Republican supply-side policy, i.e., tax cuts for the rich and reductions in the social safety net for the poor. Alan Grayson's depiction of the Republican approach to health care is upheld ... if you get sick ... die quickly.
What about the austerity riots that follow and the split of Democratic Party. Socialist Party will gain, Democrats become minority party far into the future, if it survives. Old people will not be able to take it to the streets like they did in 60s. Poor youth will be rioters. Do you suppose this is why Obama was in such a funk during the first debate? He didn't have the enthusiasm for what he was hired to do that night.
I want to be wrong on this scenario.
Obama allowed Bush tax cuts to continue for two years in 2010 when the economy was growing faster than today. Therefore, in the face of the current tepid recovery and economic malaise, it is advisable to let the Bush tax cuts to continue for two more years.
I'm down with that IF we get something for it. Like a $1T infrastructure and renewable energy stimulus package. You want the economy to grow? That will do it.
This is playing out like an intervention reality show where
the GOP is getting so boxed in that they’re realizing THEY have a problem.
THEMSHELVES!
The medical situation is already difficult for people that are dependent upon Medicare. Even charity care bills I have received show that these clinics, serving not just retired Americans but illegals with babies born here, are charging Medicare huge sums , many problems associate with these clinics. You think the only difference is you may see a different doctor each time you go but the reality is that you have no idea when you will become a patient observed by video. That can end up extremely painful when it is a pelvic examination, over a rather long period of time, while the doctor is lecturing about your body to an unseen audience. It can be extremely painful and no one really cares, the lecture goes on. The last three years has made it clear: the physicans are not going to offer the same level of care that was offered before I was on Medicare. So it is o.k. for NJ Horizon Blue Cross to send out a brochure telling Senior Citizens that there is an appeals process when they turn down your physician! The physician I now see says that it is happening and takes up their time to deal with this. Meanwhile, the physician has to provide a very limited time for patients. Pressure seems to be directing the profits and the quality of care and it would appear that this type of health care for ill individuals or those that are aging and may have serious health issuesare about to find out that they do not have access to good care.
Bob Woodward claimed this last "offer" from the president, contained offers to "cut Social Security". I don't see it..does anyone else?
That's because you weren't supposed to see it. The White House refers to it as "civilian retirement" instead of "Social Security".
To add a bit more detail ... if you pull back the curtain on "Civilian Retirement" this means using the "chained CPI" vice CPI-W for calculating cost of living increases for both Social Security and Federal Retiree Pensions - all of them, immediately with passage of the bill. However, there are other schemes floated around in the West Wing that require current FERS participants to increase their pension contributions from .8 to 5% of current pay and there are plans to extend the age for normal federal retirement from 55 to 56 years old or order. Addiitional there is talk of raising the SS payment threshold to $250,000, but this will be fought tooth and nail by the Republicans and is considered nearly DOA and falling off the table. Again, POTUS and Democrats caving in. Labeling this cut "Civilian Retirement" gives POTUS cover to reduce pension payouts for both Social Security and Federal pensioners under the cover general dislike and disdain for Federal Employees - who until you need them or don't have them - are made out to be parasites by Republicans and mostly brushed aside by Democrats.
It also refers to reducing the 75 year Social Security shortfall with a balanced program of tax and benefit changes. See Section I, title III.
I hope the president holds firm on balanced tax reform. If the republicans want to shut down the government that is their choice. In 2 years they would be come the party of non-existance. It would take a couple of weeks before the real money in this country let key republicans know it was time to quit playing games and bet rid of tea party control.
Ironic - no mention of veterans today -except Boeing commercial. However, WH document mentions "willingness to cut TRICARE which is the sacred health insurance for military retirees" according to Bob Woodward's expose of last year's Obama best offer for fiscal reconfiguration. Really? How compassionate on Veteran's Day and not one member of the MTP panel even reacted - including Gregory who never even mentioned our military's sacrifices for whom 11-11 is in place. Shameful.
Ironic - No mention of today honoring veterans - except for the Boeing commercial. However, Bob Woodward related that via a secret White House document the Pres. and WH presented a "willingness to cut TRICARE, the sacred health insurance for military retirees." Not one member of the MTP panel nor David Gregory registered this point. Of course, not one person stated anything about 11-11 being Veteran's Day either. They could speak to the General Petraeus scandal but not other veterans on this day. Shameful to say the least.
Arlene .... Social Security wasn't to be cut per se; the deal was to gradually raise the retirement age over a period of time thereby reducing the cost of the program. It's in Woodward's book "No Time for Politics".
The WH lied ... they will apply chained-CPI to future COLA and thereby reduce the long term cost of both Federal Pensions and Social Security = "Civilian Retirements"
What is Bob Woodward's deal? It seems no one in the White House talked to him because it is all told from the GOP point of view. Why isn't the media condemning the house republicans for making pledges to Grover Norquist and imploring them to let the Bush Tax Cuts expire instead of trying to hold the president to this unfair "grand bargain" made when the GOP was holding the credit rating of the USA hostage? The other day I even heard Andrea Mitchell on Morning Joe say President Obama didn't reach out to the Repub licans in his first term and she will see if he does in his second term. That statement really bought home the fact that the media is truly unfair & unbalanced.
Mitchell was telling the truth. When do you recall the President reaching out to Republicans?
He made constant overtures through meetings and conferences with Republicans throughout his first term. And what was the result? Republicans kept moving the bar further and further right to their selfish desires. But what they don't understand is that you can cut off your nose but it won't save the face. In fact, this is going to lead to the destruction of our society.
This plan sucks!!!
I did not vote for Obama so he could sell me out. This sounds like something Paul Ryan put together.
It is too bad that we did not have a choice of a real liberal.
I agree - at least Ryan told you up front he was going to screw you and your aged parent. I switched from GOP to Democratic 12 years ago - however, if POTUS makes a deal that slashes the Social Safety Net, I will go back to the Republican Party. At least that way I know we are going to get screwed and by how much and not be let down again and again by Democrats lying to me to get my campaign constributions, my support and my vote. If POTUS caves in to the Right Wing Republican Party ...as much as I am disgusted by the GOP - I will go against my own best interests, hold my nose, and vote GOP.
The ONLY MANDATE this election proves is Americans are not willing to kill the "golden goose".
Obama won re-election because 80 million Americans are on some form of "give away" program, and they are not about to "vote out" the people who sign the checks.
From fast tracking food stamps to "obama-phones" Obama put on his OBAMA-CLAUS outfit, and America voted for "self preservation", not "self determination".
AUSTERITY will happen its just a matter of time.......and when the money runs out and the checks stop coming......there is going to be alot of pissed off voters......
and its going to be FUN TO WATCH Obamas transformation from OBAMA-CLAUS to the GRINCH.
Exactly!
Only 62,610,717 voters chose to re-elect, not 80 million. I know more than a few who decided at the end of campaigning to vote to re-elect Obama. None of them are getting any kind of gov't aid or assistance, nor are they anticipating any. None. "No hand-outs", no "give-outs", none of that. Thus, not all of that 62,610,717 are of the stereotype you describe.
I agree. I don't know where the conservatives like LHR1 and Rule.303 get this bs. I work hard, pay my bills, play by the rules, have a ton of student loans and yet I'm not expecting any hand outs. I did vote for Obama but this is alarming. We have to take to the streets. In NYC, Occupy is so busy helping Sandy hurricane victims, I don't know if they can also organize a protest. But the idea isn't to look to others, it is to look to ourselves. We have to protest this.
As a retired Navy man, I was quite surprised at the document brought out on the program yesterday. I know there are lots of people who consider Tricare to be nothing more than a drain on the budget. Just know this: When I joined the Navy over 40 years ago, I had no intention of making a career of it. But I found that I loved it and so I stayed at it for over 20 years. Part of the bargain was that I would give my life to the government to do with it whatever was needed to preserve the American standard of life in freedom. In return I wiould receive medical care for the remainder of my life upon retirement. While Tricare isn't entirely free to its users, it is none-the-less relied upon by many military retirees including myself and my family. I think that many Americans, including those on the show yesterday and so many more, have forgotten that throughout history the military has protected their right to live in freedom. Let them walk in our shoes for 20-plus years and then they might realize that Tricare is not so much an entitlement as a debt, paid for in sweat and blood by military retirees who were willing to give all, including death if necessary,to protect America.
Hear, hear. I'm the most un-military person you'd ever meet but understand and am grateful for these folks' dedication to our nation. How dare we not protect and supply them fully in battle, delay their claims when they come home, and not meet our promises in their retirement.
In fact, all pensions, etc. are "earned" at the time of employment - not something open for discussion later.
I do hope Obama has regained some spine.
You need to broaden your tent. Its not just retired military that promised to give there lives. There are many more one-hitchers out there that made that promise also. So everyone will be losers if Obama grand bargains away retirement programs. Yet Bowles-Simpson will get to keep there packages. They are the greedy geezers!
Everyone seems to agree we need to reduce the deficit, but then people get all up in arms when it looks like they're program will be cut. Folks need to face the fact that everyone will be impacted, regardless of whether it was an Obama or Romney administration. What's more important here is the proof that Obama was trying to come to an agreement with the Repubs, but Boehner couldn't get the House in order. It's time for the tea partiers to realize that just saying no won't fix anything.
If this was the last offer from the President, what were the Republican's waiting for........an election? We sure wouldn't want President Obama to look like he had a reasonable offer. I know it will hurt all of us in some way or another but I think the balanced approach seems reasonable.
Incidentally, I am retired and am now on SSN and Medicare. After paying into the system for years, you damn right I feel entitled. I just never believed hard working retired people would be described as moocher......drains on society. I know the system is abused by some. So, fix it. But the seniors who have paid into the system are "entitled" to their "civilian retirement" especially since many of them were screwed out of their private retirement by company lay-offs, outsourcing, and wall street corruption.
Trust me the tea party is alive and well.
Congrats to all of you who voted for REVENGE - it's coming soon
This is a horrible plan, deeply and utterly Conservative and plutocratic, so it will definitely pass in this Lame Duck session, i.e., when Republicans have their only leverage toward making a deal. If the year ends without a deal, the Bush tax cuts will expire and Defense contractors will be slightly inconvenienced, which is unpalatable for two parties and a media that get all of their swag from these very rich donors/sponsors. Instead, this Grand Bargain will cut from the middle class and LOWER taxes, which everyone at the top loves. It is a virtual guarantee that Obama will make this Conservative deal, and will make it in the days just before Christmas so it goes unnoticed by most of his base, a base that will be outraged at this betrayal, but should have known it was coming (given his corporatist Republican governance all along). Yes, this looks like Boehner's plan if the Republicans had WON and Obama had absolutely zero political capital. And instead it will be Obama's plan IN VICTORY, for which he will shamelessly beg ("wash Boehner's car") in order to not have this plan compromised even further to the Right.
NBC, you might be doing your job as a corporation, but you are not doing your job as a news organization. I'll be nice and say that this is mostly because of "Beltway capture" and not out of malice. But that "fiscal cliff" you are screaming about as a "dire emergency" is a far more fair and productive way of reducing the deficit than "both parties working together in the spirit of compromise and brave adult conversations." It isn't brave to cut benefits from the powerless while lowering corporate and top-income tax rates and sparing the bloated military. It is cowardly. It is self-serving to the Bubble and disastrous to the other 99% of the country. Stop reporting quotes from Republican-lite Obama (especially if you frame them as some form of Left-wing proposals) and then reporting quotes from extremist nihilist Republicans, who ideologically and financially benefit from the GOVERNMENT FAILING, and then determining that the place in the middle of those two horrid corporate-bought options is the "reasonable Center." Journalism doesn't stop at "quoting both sides" and letting the audience decide. It doesn't even start there. It starts with showing the FACTS and the context of the issue. How much does the military budget increase by every year, what are the proposed cuts, what would be the practical impact of them, and what aspects of our defense department, military or defense industry could be expendable as they relate to the current makeup of the world's threats? How much money would workers lose or not save if these Entitlement/service cuts and age raises went into effect, and what percentage of their typical savings would this impact? How would it compare to the percentage of loss of those whose Bush tax cuts could sunset, how much would it reduce the deficit, and are the economists correct that it could worsen the recession? By how great a dip? Are there other economists who disagree, and why? THESE are the questions that would comprise competent journalism on this issue, not what each camp's spokesperson says.
Excellent comments Mr. Geller. This is what needs to be said without waffling or timidity. The Democratic party must understand that if it wants pain and suffering from middle class folks it had better come up with some real pain and suffering from the 1 percent. Token gestures are no longer any good.
My compliments and appreciation to Steven Geller for his comments. His comments are clear, artculate and spot-on. Said comments should directly accompany any copy of the "grand" bargain - a.k.a giving away the store. This so-called bargain is exactly why I totally dismissed anything the Teapugs had to say. It certainly is NOT what I expect Obama to lead with, OR to settle for. Time for a multi-million letter campaign and donations to those advocacy organizations who can expose and publicize this travasty. Only large numbers will give Obama some spine.
Jefffff: Not every single member in the House was re-elected. In fact, some representatives lost their seats. Democrats picked up seats in the House during these elections. The number you don't want to mention, because it doesn't help your case, is the result in the Senate. Republicans were squarely trounced in the Senate-- all they had to do was defend 10 seats and they ended up losing seats; whereas Democrats had to defend over 20 seats and not only did they defend all of them, but they gained a couple more. So you are willfully ignoring the voters' will as expressed through this election: voters re-elected the president, gave the Dems a strong majority in the Senate, and gave more seats to Dems in the House. And that does not at all indicate that Republicans are going into these talks with as strong a hand as it seemed they had last year.
This is not what I voted for. Social Security if anything should be expanded. medicare should not be tampered with. Why is there nothing about negotiating drug prices in Part D. Time to cut the crap folks and let the President know what we expect him to do. That goes double for the House. I voted for a congressman. I voted for a senator and I voted for a President. I did not vote for Grover Norquist or any other K street Lobbyist. I hope the White House understands that we will stand with the president if he stands firm but we will walk the other way if he simply wants to get a deal at all costs. A bad deal is a bad deal if it is a sell out. it is far better to lose a battle than to lose the war. This is not about the budget or the deficit. This is about institutions like Social Security and Medicare that took generations to fight for and achieve. To undermine them in anyway would be to concede defeat. That would be intolerable.
Interesting that not one penny is deducted from our active duty defense considering our bloated defense spending. The priorities of our rulers are simply insane. Some quotes from Eisenhower which are just as appropriate in spirit today.
"The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.
"It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.
"It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals."
"We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed 8,000 people."
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”His son John Eisenhower writes, “The most fundamental conviction that the period of Ike’s command in Europe and the Mediterranean imprinted on his mind was the cruelty, wastefulness and stupidity of war."
He saw at firsthand how war destroyed cities, killed innocent people (in which I include most of the participating soldiers), wiped out national economies and tore up the structure of civilizations. Its wastefulness cut him to the bone, and its specter never left him.
This was from last year, now I highly doubt that he is even willing to go this far. Boehner and Co thought they could win this election and institute what ever they wanted. Obama won and now they are the lame ducks that are going to try to ruffle feathers. I'm willing to go over the Fiscal Cliff if they don't want to negotiate...
This is for "jefffff"
The GOP only kept their seats in the house because of the 2010 census, the fact that they won that year in the midterms, and were able to gerrymander the district lines to the degree that they highly favored Republicans. Why do you think some Dems retired, because the district lines were changed to either place them in republican districts now, or place them in districts where 2 dem seats would end up running against each other.
The fact is that Democrats received more popular votes than Republicans for all house seats. That's no Republican mandate--as Boehner has been trying to sell--and that's not a republican win outside of re-drawn lines. Boehner didn't want to lose even one seat, but lost 8.