Obama is the prime target in debt ceiling blame game

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share via Email
• Copy Link

  Link Copied

As we near the end of the debt ceiling negotiations, Americans have once again gotten a peek inside the often ugly legislative process in Washington. Not surprisingly, people don’t like what they see.

But with the deal nearly done, liberals and conservatives alike are raising questions about the leadership provided by their principals — John Boehner in the House, Harry Reid in the Senate, and President Barack Obama. All three faced daunting leadership challenges in this crisis, and none came out unscathed.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid saw his leadership challenged in the closing hours of the debate by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who killed Reid’s standalone bill with a filibuster threat, then went over Reid’s head by opening his own channel to Vice President Joe Biden.

WATCH PRESIDENT OBAMA’S REMARKS ON THE DEBT CEILING:
[MSNBCMSN video=”http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640″ w=”592″ h=”346″ launch_id=”43965948″ id=”msnbc27707c”]

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

John Boehner proved woefully inadequate as Speaker, taking three days to get a bill with his name on it through the House, running a chaotic process that failed to either educate or reign in the 87 tea party freshmen intent on burning down the house, and barely limping across the finish line on Friday with 218 votes for a harsh debt limit bill (it even cut Pell Grants for college kids) that was dead on arrival in the Senate.(Now, he’ll have to get the compromise bill through. Paging House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi…)

But it is President Obama who has faced the most wrenching test — with his approval ratings sliding into the low 40s and liberal members of his base accusing him of capitulation to Republicans and failure to stand up for progressive ideals. Meanwhile, Republicans were waging a scorched earth campaign to use the debt ceiling as a weapon to cripple his re-election with repeat debt ceiling showdowns, while eviscerating cherished programs like Medicare.

The deal between congressional leaders and the White House (assuming Mr. Boehner can get it through the House) averts the current crisis. And in a big win for the president, it pushes the debt ceiling issue off the stage until after the November 2012 elections.

The deal on the table Sunday night includes $900 million in spending caps and about $350 million in defense cuts over ten years — not the $1 trillion in cuts to current spending that liberals feared. And it doesn’t include Social Security, program-altering Medicare or Medicaid cuts, or the Pell Grant reductions Republicans wanted.

Despite that, some progressives are livid at what they see as another surrender to the hostage takers in the GOP. The tea party got their cuts, but where are the tax hikes on hedge fund managers and oil companies? The outcome has fed into a perception by some on the left that Obama is weak, or worse, that he doesn’t really share progressive principles.
Rev. Jesse Jackson was out front last week declaring Obama not “tough” enough, too and too eager to compromise with the other side. He said Obama lacked “a stiffness” – an unfortunate turn of phrase for the reverend, given his previous fantasizing about threatening Obama’s anatomy. (At least he didn’t call the president a Wall Street “mascot”.)

But progressives who are angry about the debt limit deal should keep a few things in mind.

First, the president had more than one constituency to answer to in this debate. Beyond liberals, who form a core part of the president’s base, President Obama also had to keep an eye on the international financial markets and bond rating agencies who, despite the unusual conflation of the debt ceiling with deficit reduction — something that has not been done in the past — were, by the end, looking for an overall debt reduction deal. Had the president failed to deliver a deal that actually reduced deficits over the next decade, and that proved he can govern with Republicans holding the House, America’s credit would have faced a downgrade even if a deal to raise the debt ceiling had been reached.

WATCH ARIANNA HUFFINGTON WEIGH IN ON ‘MORNING JOE’:
[MSNBCMSN video=”http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640″ w=”592″ h=”346″ launch_id=”43970731″ id=”msnbc74c4e”]

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The president also had to keep an eye on moderates and independents, who wanted to see a deal done, and who will give him credit for compromise.

Second, default was not an option, and really, neither was the 14th Amendment. A deal was always going to be reached, eventually, because that’s what had to happen to keep the economy from going into a death spiral. But those who wanted the president to make a show of force by using a “14th Amendment option” — raising the debt ceiling without Congress’ consent on the basis of the Constitutional amendment guaranteeing the full faith and credit of the U.S. — forget that doing so would likely have triggered an impeachment drama that would have been yet another, long, drawn out, months-long distraction from the issue we all want addressed: jobs.

Third, the issue of tax increases is not off the table. The debt limit deal includes a “trigger” that would bring about painful cuts to defense, education, and to the money Medicare providers (not recipients) receive from the federal government, among other things, if further debt reduction doesn’t occur.

But before that happens, the Bush tax cuts — the single biggest contributor to our deficits — are scheduled to expire at midnight on December 31st, 2012. The president has said he won’t extend those tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and that he will continue to pursue closing the loopholes enjoyed by the rich and by big business. He should be held to that, but there’s no reason to believe that by the end of 2012, regardless of the election (the current Congress will be in place until January 2013, when the “trigger” would kick in if the bipartisan commission fails), revenues will not be a part of the mix. In fact, all Harry Reid and the president have to do is refuse to act on the tax cuts, and nearly $4 trillion in revenues will materialize on their own.

That’s the next phase of the drama to watch: whether the president and Democrats will own the idea of ending the Bush tax cuts in the upcoming election season (normally a risky proposition, but maybe not this year), and force Republicans to explain why they were willing to take the country’s finances to hell to prevent the rich from paying a penny more in taxes to participate in deficit reduction.