Blogs » Politcs Plus » The white flag of surrender or am I missing something?



Yesterday, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell divulged his plan C, allowing the president to demand up to $2.4 trillion in new borrowing authority but he would have to do it in three different submissions. The debt limit would automatically take affect unless both the house and the senate voted against it.

I had my doubts because it's too soon in the negotiations but Senator McConnell pretty much said that he will not deal with this president for the next 18 months. I cannot see a negotiation with a party that will not raise taxes as part of a balanced approach.

The deal which the White House has not accepted has been laid aside, for the moment, but it was hailed as a “flag of surrender" by liberal pundits and some conservatives. Senator McConnell thinks that's his "ace in the sleeve" because he would allow the congressional Republicans to vote against the measure with resolutions of disapproval. The president would likely override that measure with a veto, knowing that the Republicans do not have the 2/3 majority to overrule. This in turn would allow the Republicans to vote against raising the debt limit as they promised their constituents, but they would not bear the blame for the consequences of a government shutdown and economic disaster. It puts the onus on the White House. I can see the White House amending McConnell’s proposal because they do not want this issue in a presidential election year. I never thought that I would hear a speaker the house (Republican or Democrat) say that raising the nation’s debt limit is President Barack Obama’s problem. No, it's the nation's problem Mr. Boehner; you shouldn't have the option of opting out.

If this is allowed to stand, the Democrats and the White House get a clean bill as they initially proposed. The country loses the opportunity to have real spending cuts and small tax increases in combating our deficit and debt. The spending cuts and taxes that would not have likely take effect until 2013 because of our fragile economy. The same arguments will come up again because this is all about ideology. I predicted a "do nothing "112th Congress because the wings of both parties are too far apart. If tax increases are not part of the conversation in deficit reductions, then they aren't serious negotiations because they aren't talking about tax brackets just tax loop holes.

I don't like Ohio's Governor John Kasich and have an equal dislike for Joe Scarborough, but both said they would take the president's offer of $four trillion-dollar cuts, reforms in Medicare and Social Security and eliminating some tax loopholes. John Kasich and Joe Scarborough said it takes leaders to sell it to their constituents.

Perhaps the president never intended to put Social Security and Medicare on the table, and was just saying this to get the Republican leaders on record for refusing to negotiate. I disagree with him wanting to rise the eligibility age of Medicare from 65 to 67 because those two years might be critical to aging people without insurance. We might not ever know what could have been done because politics have won, but there is still time before the August 2 deadline.

It's going to be difficult because according to an April 2011 Pew Research poll" Overall, 55 percent of Americans, including 53 percent of independents and 69 percent of Democrats, want lawmakers whose views they agree with to compromise. But 50 percent of Republicans, including 56 percent of conservative Republicans, want lawmakers who share their views to stand by their principles, even if that means the government will shut down. Among Republicans and Republicans-leaning independents who agree with the Tea Party, 68 percent want lawmakers who share their views to stand on principle. "