Comments on: And the House Vote Is…..!

By: Matthew Dickinson

Matthew Dickinson — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 02:41:30 +0000

Busted! But then, I need not tell you, Big Papi, about the benefit of a little illicit “juicing”!

By: Big Papi, PA

Big Papi, PA — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 02:37:13 +0000

Rumor has it that your scotch never runs out because you buy cases of 1.75 liter bottles of Ol’ Smugglers at the New Hampshire state store. Can you confirm or deny?

By: Matthew Dickinson

Matthew Dickinson — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 00:55:31 +0000

Will,

At this point, there simply isn’t time to pass a grand bargain without first agreeing to a short-term extension/raise in the debt ceiling to buy some time to negotiate the details of a broader plan. Even then, the Tea Party/Libertarian wing of the House Republican caucus is highly suspicious of any plan that includes an increase in revenues. To make it palatable to them, I’m guessing Senate Democrats and Obama would have to sign on to a balanced budget deal with teeth – a high hurdle to clear. However, I think Obama sees the “grand bargain” that involves entitlement reform as a possible game changer come 2012 and, let’s face it, the economy is not helping his chances right now. So he has an incentive to work for the grand bargain. Bottom line – it’s unlikely, but I don’t see it as completely dead.

By: Will

Will — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 21:27:28 +0000

Professor Dickinson,

What are you hearing, if anything, about a return to the grand bargain? Is it completely dead? I would be supportive of either version, the 800 billion revenue increase or 1.2 trillion revenue increase with 3 trillion in spending cuts. And I’m a liberal – that’s a massive 3-1(ish) concession for me either way! I understand that to the Tea Party, that extra 400 billion dollars in increased revenue is unacceptable and Boehner has no way to move them. Have you heard anything of Obama being in talks with Reid to go back to the 800 billion dollar revenue version that could pass? Or is that also off the table now?

By: Matthew Dickinson

Matthew Dickinson — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 14:06:55 +0000

Alas, if it were only so simple! The various Tea Party groups, which are collectively bigger financial contributors than the Chamber of Commerce, are threatening to primary T-Party members who support Boehner, and various lobbying organizations, such as the Club for Growth, have already made it clear that they will oppose T Party members who support Boehner as well. Remember, contrary to the media spin, it’s not corporations and groups like the Chamber of Commerce that dominate the campaign lists – it’s individual donors and single issue groups. So a U.S. default won’t affect T party financing one whit – indeed, it will probably increase campaign contributions. More importantly, almost all of these “no” voters come from districts that voted heavily against Obama, and who won by large margins – often by promising to cut government spending. In short, they view themselves as having been elected to do God’s Work, and woe to anyone that gets in their way!