More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Bob Burnett

Bob Burnett

GET UPDATES FROM Bob Burnett
 

2011 Budget Battle: Obama Wins While Democrats Lose

Posted: 04/11/11 01:00 PM ET

Although both sides claimed victory after agreeing on a 2011 Federal budget minutes before the April 8th deadline, it was a smashing win for Republicans and a huge loss for Democrats. But even while his party went down in flames, President Barack Obama managed to dance away from defeat.

The winners were 800,000 Federal workers who had been notified not to report to work if the President and House Republicans failed to resolve their fiscal differences. Not adding these workers to the 23 million un- and under-employed was a plus for the feeble US economic recovery and for public confidence.

Nonetheless, the biggest winner in the 2011 Budget Dispute was Speaker of the House John Boehner. In his first real test, Boehner held together a fractious Republican caucus and negotiated a budget deal $7 billion above the $31 billion he originally proposed.

Boehner used a variation of the "good cop, bad cop" negotiating tactic, playing good cop: I'll try to do my best with my caucus but you have to understand that some of the new Tea-Party folks refuse to compromise. They promised their constituents $61 billion in cuts and they're determined to shut down Washington if they don't get their way. The Speaker claimed he could not accept any proposal that could not pass the House with only Republican support. Thus, Boehner didn't have to have all the Tea-Party votes -- Republicans have 242 Congressional seats and needed only 218 to pass the budget -- and House Dems had no roll to play in the negotiations -- they have 193 Congressional seats.

Boehner's most effective tactic was to attach social-policy riders to the proposed 2011 budget, additional demands that had nothing to do with fiscal issues, but pertained to hot-button conservative topics such as funding EPA and Planned Parenthood. This fit into his good-cop, bad-cop routine: I'd like to negotiate only on fiscal issues but the Tea-Party Representatives insist that I attach these riders. There never was any chance of getting a budget approved with these riders -- even if they had passed the Senate, President Obama would have vetoed them -- but they served as a stalking-horse for deeper cuts. Boehner got $7 Billion more than he originally proposed by adopting the attitude: the only way my caucus will withdraw the riders is if we make additional cuts.

The only Democrat to emerge from the budget negotiation with positive marks was President Obama who earned them for appearing Presidential, "the only adult in the room." Obama stayed above the fray and even took partial credit for the outcome, declaring it, "the biggest annual spending cut in history."

Recent polls have indicated Washington politicians are unpopular, in general, and only President Obama's rating is positive. However, the President's support among Independent voters has slipped and he needs this bloc to garner a second term. Obama's stance in the 2011 budget crisis is likely to bolster his standing among Independents who didn't want the government to be shut down and dislike the bickering between the two Parties.

Democrats were the big losers in the 2011 budget negotiations. House Democrats were frozen out so it fell to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to carry the Democratic position. (Not to President Obama who took the role of mediator rather than Party leader.) From the onset of the negotiations, Democrats lost control of the message. Reid never questioned whether there should be draconian cuts to government but instead wondered how big they should be. (The $38 billion in cuts include vital programs; for example, Job Training Programs -$2B, EPA -- $1.6B, Community Health Centers -$1.3B, Office of Science -$1.1B, National Institutes of Health -$1B, High Speed Rail -$1B and these are only those cuts above $1 Billion that we know about.) At the end, the Senate Majority Leader took the weak stance: Democrats agreed to enormous program cuts but managed to save the EPA and Planned Parenthood.

The Democratic message should have been:There is not a crisis; the US is not going broke. What's required is a commonsense tax system where corporations and the rich pay their fair share. Rather than point out that the tax cuts for the rich passed in December amounted to $150 billion and rescinding them would have solved the supposed fiscal problem the Democratic "message" became: How can we minimize the damage?

The 2011 budget showdown was the first of a series of financial battles between Democrats and Republicans; the next will be over the US debt limit that must be raised before May 16. Given the weak performance of the President and Democrats so far, Liberals should fear the worst is yet to come. Republicans will demand draconian cuts -- try to defund Health Care reform and gut Medicare and Medicaid -- in return for raising the debt limit.

Will Democrats find their voice? Will Obama lead or will he be content to stand on the sidelines and enhance his "appeal" to Independent voters? Stay tuned.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 51
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
01:42 PM on 04/12/2011
Democrats, why have a "standard bearer" who runs from the Democrats immediately after winning its party nomination and never returns until it's time to seek its party's nomination?

Are you going to fall for this again?

I guess yes, because that's where the money is.

And only certain individuals benefit from this misbegotten strategy.
02:07 AM on 04/12/2011
The only thing worse than an incompetent liberal president, is a competant one.
10:01 PM on 04/11/2011
Regarding Speaker John Boehner and the Republicans' demands for draconian cuts in exchange for raising the debt ceiling, I can't see how holding up a vote on raising the debt ceiling can possibly help Republicans. Wouldn't that cause the US to default on its obligations and throw their Wall Street puppet masters to get into the fray, against Republicans?

The Senate should pass a bill raising the debt ceiling, send it to the House unadorned by any amendments, and let John Boehner see what a trap he has walked into.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Marc Schiele
The Weapon of Mass Instruction
09:12 PM on 04/11/2011
The winners were 800,000 Federal workers who had been notified not to report to work if the President and House Republicans failed to resolve their fiscal differences. Not adding these workers to the 23 million un- and under-employed was a plus for the feeble US economic recovery and for public confidence.

Oh, yes, don't want those folks UNEMPLOYED, while MILLIONS of the tax payers ARE---- NO, NO, MUST KEEP the FEDS WORKING, at ALL costs, to the taxpayer!! :)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MULE2009
Locomotive Engineer
07:30 PM on 04/11/2011
Pure theater. Crony capitalism at work. Reward your friends and punish your enemies especially the poor. Still the US is the wealthiest nation and largest corporation in the world run by inept but ruthless people.
04:06 PM on 04/11/2011
$38 billion may sound like a huge cut, but it amounts to less than 1% of the budget. I think Obama won big here. His 2011 budget is still larger than 2010 and nearly 20% above 2008. He proposed a big increase and got a smaller one.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jsens3
03:48 PM on 04/11/2011
Well, the writer is correct of course. What many "progressives" still don't understand is that both Clinton and Obama were good for Republican interests. Neither is a true Democrat. They did, however, prove that Harry Truman was wrong when he said that "If you run a Democrat who acts like a Republican against a Republican the Republican will win every time." Clinton acted like a Republican and got reelected; looks like Obama is going to do the same thing.
03:39 PM on 04/11/2011
Since Obama has embraced all of the other Bush/Cheney policies his emphasis on cutting social programs while keeping the military budget sancrosanct was very predictable.

I'm an Independent and he lost me a long time ago but I don't think Obama's marketing teams really care because they don't think we have anywhere else to go. I think they've actually succeeded in convincing many people that is true from the HP comments I've read but I'm not one of them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RickMoss
04:33 PM on 04/11/2011
I agree, Obama is a bit of a coward. If he had a little more backbone he could be a great man.
The alternative to Obama is much worse, so we really don't have a choice as far as another viable candidate. But you do have another option, "the nuclear option"


FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM
OsiXs (Revolution 2.0)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:38 PM on 04/11/2011
http://dailybail.com/home/matt-taibbi-tax-cuts-for-the-rich-on-the-backs-of-the-middle.html

Matt Taibbi
Rolling Stone
Paul Ryan, the Republican Party’s latest entrant in the seemingly endless series of young, prickish, over-coiffed, anal-retentive deficit Robespierres they’ve sent to the political center stage in the last decade or so, has come out with his new budget plan. All of these smug little jerks look alike to me – from Ralph Reed to Eric Cantor to Jeb Hensarling to Rand Paul and now to Ryan, they all look like overgrown kids who got nipple-twisted in the halls in high school, worked as Applebee’s shift managers in college, and are now taking revenge on the world as grownups by defunding hospice care and student loans and Sesame Street. They all look like they sleep with their ties on, and keep their feet in dress socks when doing their bi-monthly duty with their wives.
03:38 PM on 04/11/2011
Government spending has increased by 1.2 trillion or 50% over the past 5 years. To call 38 billion in cuts draconian is foolish at best. 1.2 trillion is 1,200 billion. So 38 billion is around 3% of that increase. That is a drop in the bucket. Were those programs in place 5 years ago? The private economy has shrunk $600 billion since then. Somehow the private economy was able to be bigger without these "vital" programs. The act of spending money that we don't have is harmful to an economy. It creates inflation and uncertainty. The spending itself crowds out private investment.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
procrustes13
04:53 PM on 04/11/2011
That is required to counteract deleveraging. Alternatively, they could always induce inflation to lighten the load of private debt. Such naturally is sacrilege.
05:02 PM on 04/11/2011
It wasn't required by any stretch of anyone's imagination. The best argument is that doing it would flatten out the economic ups and downs. Did it do that? It seems to have failed and now we also have alot more debt. It is difficult to believe the notion that failing to do that would have caused an even more dramatic downturn.
03:14 PM on 04/11/2011
Government programs are the closest thing we ever see to immortality. Every government program ever created is "vital," "indispensible," or "critical." Cutting every program is going to "hurt the weak and the poor," "destroy jobs," and "destroy our children's future" or "destroy the environment."

What we need is a scientific system to evaluate the actual effectts and consequences of each federal agency and federal spending program. Every federal specding program needs to have a built in automatic termination date. I am sick of politicians who talk about stopping wasteful spending and then do nothing about it.

If we continue trying to employ people by putting them to work in a federal government bureaucracy and throwing money at them, this country is doomed.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Law101
My micro-bio is now full.
03:06 PM on 04/11/2011
Repeat after me Democrats:

There is not a crisis; the US is not going broke. What's required is a commonsense tax system where corporations and the rich pay their fair share.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Marc Schiele
The Weapon of Mass Instruction
09:25 PM on 04/11/2011
LAW- repeat AFTER ME!!!! GOVERNMENT NEVER creates WEALTH- IT merely diverts it to the " favored VOTERS!!!!
photo
maserati2
Finally an honest politician! ELIZABETH WARREN!
09:41 AM on 04/12/2011
Response from a former Obama volunteer now following in the footsteps of Diogenes, and still searching for that honest politician.

Schiele - repeat AFTER ME!!! The government has ALLOWED our wealth to be diverted to "FAVORED WEALTHY CORPORATIONS!!!

The present failure of our economy was never by accident or oversight but the result of a 30 year-old attack by Conservatives who do not want a government able to enforce consumer-friendly regulations or levy taxes on corporate profits. They do not want workers to have the option of collective bargaining but to be reduced to the pay-grade of 3rd world countries and end up owing their souls to the company store.

Wars are profitable to corporations, especially if the taxes to support them come from the general public and not corporate profits. Playing games with money not their own that resulted in the largest transfer of funds from public to private hands should not then merit bonuses for the principals involved.

Raiding the national treasury for personal gain and then demanding that the public pay the bill was never an accident or oversight but part of the original plan, the bible of Conservatives and the Robber Barons that almost destroyed our country during the Great Depression, now back and intent on finishing the job.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
PATina
03:06 PM on 04/11/2011
I think one of the big misconceptions in politics is that people who declare themselves "independent" are centrists or don't have a true political ideology. Most independent voters I know are libertarians who don't want to associate w/ the Republican party... and I and a few friends are progressive independents who don't want to identify w/ the Democratic party. Our reasoning is pretty similar... neither the Republican or Democratic party really represents us. Maybe the President's is losing "independents" because he seems to be playing the middle against the ends?
03:04 PM on 04/11/2011
I voted for Obama, I'm sorry, but this is bullsh*t... there is no "win" for the American people when the USA is insolvent. Both parties have ignored the financial realities for decades and it's going to cost everybody.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
procrustes13
05:00 PM on 04/11/2011
How can the US be insolvent when debt to GDP ratio is not even 100%. Britain had higher levels than that through its empire period back when it had to have gold to pay debts. All the Fed needs to do is conjure it out of thin air.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Marc Schiele
The Weapon of Mass Instruction
09:30 PM on 04/11/2011
Two badger, I CANNOT believe you asked that question!! Do you EVEN understand that premise??? DEBT is actually, well, in most sane minds, something you eventually have to pay back!! Once you get even CLOSE to 100%, you are on the verge of, well, um, bankruptcy-nobody wants your paper " money"!! 100% of GDP means the governent DEBT is taking ALL of the capital out of EVERYTHING!!! Get a grip!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Law101
My micro-bio is now full.
03:02 PM on 04/11/2011
Democrats manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again.

Obama should have given the Republicans nothing, called their bluff, and let them take the fall out for shutting down the government.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:36 PM on 04/11/2011
Yes indeed. But he didn't and he won't. I can't believe we got a Republican light president after all that.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jsens3
03:51 PM on 04/11/2011
What you got is a classic Chicago politician who knows which way the wind is blowing and bends accordingly.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Marc Schiele
The Weapon of Mass Instruction
09:32 PM on 04/11/2011
Yes, that would have been, politically interesting to watch- VETO a bill which would have PAID our military- Yep, that would really work in " your universe", two badger!! LOL