« | »

NYT Crows: Obama’s Hostage Taking Is Paying Off

From the New York Times:

Signs Indicate That Obama’s Debt Ceiling Gamble May Be Paying Off

By JACKIE CALMES | October 15, 2013

WASHINGTON — More than two years ago, President Obama was still in the thick of his previous showdown with Republican House leaders over the nation’s debt limit when he called five senior advisers into his office. He did not ask their advice, one said. Rather, he told them, in a way that brooked no discussion: From now on, no more negotiating over legislation so basic and essential to the economy, and the country.

“I’m not going through this again. It’s bad for democracy. It’s bad for the presidency,” Mr. Obama said, according to the adviser, who declined to be identified describing internal discussions.

Obama and the Democrats refuse to submit a budget, as is required by law. So the Republicans are left with not other way to control spending, which is the primary job of the House, than to attach provisions to the continuing resolutions and debt ceiling deals.

And, in reality, both CRs and debt ceiling deals have always had provisions attached, even back in the days when there used to be real budgets.

Since then, so has Mr. Obama. To make his message on the debt ceiling stick, he had to deliver it, repeatedly, not only to Republicans convinced that he would “cave,” as many often have said, but also to business groups, the broader public and even to Democrats in Congress. Failure could shake not only the economy, but also Mr. Obama’s presidency, given his reputation, fair or not, for drawing red lines and then watching foes cross them.

The Times is still desperately trying to rebuild Obama’s reputation as a tough leader, after his ‘red line’ debacle with Syria.

The current fight is hardly over, yet the steady retreat of House Republicans since late last week, when they first proposed a short-term increase in the debt limit without policy strings, suggests that Mr. Obama’s big gamble could be paying off.

In other words, the New York Times is praising Obama for refusing to negotiate on the most basic aspect of government that is always negotiated — the budget. This is The Times revealing their ardent desire for a dictator, as long as he is on their side.

[S]corched by the July 2011 fight that hurt the economy and his political standing (though not so badly as the Republicans’), Mr. Obama was determined to undo the precedent he had set by making concessions — in that case, more than $2 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years, including the across-the-board reductions known as sequestration — so that Congress would ensure that the government paid its bills…

And never mind that the sequester was Obama’s idea. And never mind that Boehner had even given Obama everything he wanted in a ‘Grand Bargain,’ and Obama decided to walk away.

He had the united backing of Congressional Democrats. “It took very little persuasion,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York. “The theory is very simple: It’s that if you do it now, we’ll be doing it every three months.” …

Once again, the Democrats are trying to take away from the House its only real Constitutional power, the power of the purse. They are doing that by refusing to present a budget, and refusing to negotiate on CRs. If there was a budget, this wouldn’t have to be done every three months.

As this week’s deadline neared, the investor Warren Buffett, among others, likened threatening default to a kind of economic nuclear warfare. The White House approached the confrontation with the gravity of those October days a half-century ago when President John F. Kennedy stared down Nikita Khrushchev over the Soviet Union’s nuclear missiles in Cuba. If Mr. Obama blinked this time, he and his advisers believed, he would invite more showdowns and threaten his already limited leverage to enact the rest of his second-term agenda…

What a laughable comparison, even for the purple prose addicts at The Times. This is not nuclear war. This is the way our government is supposed to work. Budgets are supposed to be negotiated.

This is not a monarchy or a dictatorship. Not yet, anyway.

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, October 16th, 2013. Comments are currently closed.

One Response to “NYT Crows: Obama’s Hostage Taking Is Paying Off”

  1. GetBackJack says:

    “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” – Franklin D. Roosevelt

« Front Page | To Top
« | »