Were I in Congress, I’d vote against it. All that said, I think this is it, so we might as well get used to it. Just keep track of who on the right votes against it. They’ll be the real heroes. If we get lucky, it goes down and we fight on. Just don’t hold your breath on that one.
As discussed in here the last few days, this deal is clearly inadequate to our fiscal challenges. But liberals are screaming about it. I’m surprised Reid didn’t get more. Clearly, the bottom line the White House cared about most was putting another debt-limit fight beyond the election, and even that — depending on economic conditions — could be in doubt if he only gets $1.2 trillion in the second tranche.
Tea Partyers should recognize just how much Obama and the Democrats caved: $2 trillion in spending cuts. No tax increases. A new precedent that debt-limit hikes must be accompanied by equal or greater cuts in spending. And the potential for a balanced budget in 10 years. That the Tea Party accomplished all this in just six months — at a time when the GOP controls one-half of one-third of the federal government — is remarkable.
Conservatives can take some satisfaction from the fact that the 2010 election has allowed us to begin to make a stand against profligate federal spending. But we have a long way to go, and that mostly means that there are millions more Americans who need to be educated about the magnitude of the federal debt and the destructive effects of wasteful government spending.
Whatever one’s ultimate judgment on the deal, it establishes a terrible precedent in treating defense as a pot of money to be slashed if various spending-control mechanisms don't work. It will thereby make it more difficult to have a serious discussion of the military spending that’s required for our national security needs.
The logic of the “trigger” in the showdown depends on Democrats not minding defense cuts and desiring tax hikes. They won’t want either and will therefore be pushed in the Republican direction in the negotiations.
Though there are many conservatives who are critical of the bill that House Speaker John Boehner passed, and worried about splits within the Tea Party, the fact is that the left feels it lost the deal as well as the debate.
Both sides can claim victory, and both sides can blame the other guy for taking so long to come to terms. But the real winner here is President Obama. He stands to get the only thing that really matters to him — the troublesome issue off the table until after the next election, since the debt-ceiling argument wouldn't be revisited until 2013.
Stand hard against disproportionate defense cuts or we’ll regret it soon enough. The British and French have already made a hash of Libya because of their own defense cuts. If America goes, there’ll be nobody left to stand against the coming tide. And believe me, the tide is coming.
As president, my plan would have produced a budget that was cut, capped and balanced – not one that opens the door to higher taxes and puts defense cuts on the table. President Obama’s leadership failure has pushed the economy to the brink at the eleventh hour and 59th minute. While I appreciate the extraordinarily difficult situation President Obama’s lack of leadership has placed Republican Members of Congress in, I personally cannot support this deal.
If raising taxes on these politically disfavored classes was really the Democrats' priority, they could have done it already — either before the 2010 elections or by driving a harder bargain in the last three budget battles. But instead, their priority is debating these targeted tax increases and pretending they will save Medicare from insolvency. Democrats' willingness to compromise doesn't reflect superior maturity to the more rigid Republicans. Quite the contrary: It reflects caring less about policy than about politics.
This gives us a leg up, and I am amazed you [Boehner] got one for one on cuts, no violation of conservative principles, and I am amazed you got the deal that you did.
Pete Wehner, gunning for the day's unintentional irony award:
Rather than take into account the economic (and empirical) failure of Obama’s Keynesian approach, those who take a dogmatic, faith-based approach to American politics engage in intellectual contortions in order to try to innoculate their ideology from damage.
Jonah Goldberg, with characteristic profundity:
You don’t eat Satan, and you don’t coat sandwiches with sugar.