So here I am watching pre-debate coverage on MSNBC's Meet the Press-Chuck Todd. The news is in: The GOP House has actually passed the big budget deal that will put an end of government shutdown and debt ceiling chicken at least into 2017.
"Other than the days of speeches, it’s probably over. The Senate might not even have to work over the weekend."
"With the House voting 266-167 Wednesday to pass a budget agreement that provides for the suspension of the debt limit into 2017, all that would be left is for the Senate to act and clear the measure for President Barack Obama’s signature."
"House Appropriations Chairman Harold Rogers managed the floor debate for the GOP majority, and the Kentucky Republican was looking ahead to the next step, which is the detail-oriented work of crafting an omnibus spending bill by Dec. 11."
“With passage of this important agreement, my committee stands at the ready to implement the details of the deal — going line by line through budgets and making the tough but necessary decisions to fund the entire federal government in a responsible way,” Rogers said. “We will begin work with our Senate counterparts immediately.”
"As in the House, there’s been no shortage of conservative opposition to the deal reached between the top four congressional leaders and the White House, but it’s not as though those lawmakers were ever expected to back the deal."
http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/budget-debt-deal-senate/?dcz=
It's not saying much but this is a rare decent day for the House which also looks set to vote in Paul Ryan. While I agree with Krugman that he's a fiscal charlatan this is the GOP after all: so who isn't?
Ryan does have the unmistakable look of an actual leader. It may be better under him. At least no one can accuse me of being a rose-colored optimist about the GOP. My general operating theory with them is you never go broke in underestimating the Grand Old Party.
However, I do think it might be a little better under Ryan-heck how can it get worse? I mean the only thing you can expect out of the GOP House is to raise the debt ceiling and pass a budget. We have a new budget now with a higher level spending than the sequester. Anything else we get between now and 2017 is gravy.
Brian Beutler gives us the glass half empty perspective:
"But Democrats didn’t force Republicans to abandon the strict limits they won on annual appropriations. They acceded to Republicans that sequestration will act as a control on government spending at a more universal level. Democrats can secure relief from sequestration for a year or two at a time, but only by drawing on other government resources to pay for it, or extending the caps into the future, preserving downward pressure on the budget indefinitely."
"Other than the days of speeches, it’s probably over. The Senate might not even have to work over the weekend."
"With the House voting 266-167 Wednesday to pass a budget agreement that provides for the suspension of the debt limit into 2017, all that would be left is for the Senate to act and clear the measure for President Barack Obama’s signature."
"House Appropriations Chairman Harold Rogers managed the floor debate for the GOP majority, and the Kentucky Republican was looking ahead to the next step, which is the detail-oriented work of crafting an omnibus spending bill by Dec. 11."
“With passage of this important agreement, my committee stands at the ready to implement the details of the deal — going line by line through budgets and making the tough but necessary decisions to fund the entire federal government in a responsible way,” Rogers said. “We will begin work with our Senate counterparts immediately.”
"As in the House, there’s been no shortage of conservative opposition to the deal reached between the top four congressional leaders and the White House, but it’s not as though those lawmakers were ever expected to back the deal."
http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/budget-debt-deal-senate/?dcz=
It's not saying much but this is a rare decent day for the House which also looks set to vote in Paul Ryan. While I agree with Krugman that he's a fiscal charlatan this is the GOP after all: so who isn't?
Ryan does have the unmistakable look of an actual leader. It may be better under him. At least no one can accuse me of being a rose-colored optimist about the GOP. My general operating theory with them is you never go broke in underestimating the Grand Old Party.
However, I do think it might be a little better under Ryan-heck how can it get worse? I mean the only thing you can expect out of the GOP House is to raise the debt ceiling and pass a budget. We have a new budget now with a higher level spending than the sequester. Anything else we get between now and 2017 is gravy.
Brian Beutler gives us the glass half empty perspective:
"But Democrats didn’t force Republicans to abandon the strict limits they won on annual appropriations. They acceded to Republicans that sequestration will act as a control on government spending at a more universal level. Democrats can secure relief from sequestration for a year or two at a time, but only by drawing on other government resources to pay for it, or extending the caps into the future, preserving downward pressure on the budget indefinitely."
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/123245/ending-debt-limit-crisis-win-and-embarrassment-america
Yes, but at least we have relief for now-for a year and a half. Baby steps. He's right that the 2011 deal was a disaster-that was thanks to Biden working behind Harry Reid''s back.
Yes, but at least we have relief for now-for a year and a half. Baby steps. He's right that the 2011 deal was a disaster-that was thanks to Biden working behind Harry Reid''s back.
Here however, is the glass half full perspective: those prigs from the Center for a Responsible Fed Budget don't like it. They told Dodd that while they agree the debt ceiling had to go up and that the sequester wasn't good, they are upset about us getting some relief form it without 'real offsetting cuts not gimmicks.'
If they oppose it then you know it's not too bad a deal.
"If they oppose it then you know it's not too bad a deal."
ReplyDeleteLol...
BTW, Sumner has a post up today describing where he thinks both parties specialize in being stupid.
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=31068
Yes I did see that. I don't that I buy his argument that the Dems are illiterate about microeconomics because they need 'concrete steppes.'
ReplyDeleteThere are a number of ways this needs to be unpacked but for starters, I've never been sure whether I buy his 'concrete steppes' canard in monetary policy.
Ie, Keynesians don't get monetary policy because they wrongly need 'concrete steppes.'
So with a theory I don't even know about in monetary policy he's now applying it to microeconomics.
I pointed out to him that he sounded like a person of the concrete steppes a week or so back. I forgot what the subject was. His response: "touche'"
DeleteJason Smith took a look at Sumner's post today too. I need to reread both of them now:
http://informationtransfereconomics.blogspot.com/2015/10/do-counterintuitive-economic-results.html?showComment=1446073699609#c4098990566433582343
Maybe I will have something intelligent to say after. Or maybe not.
Glad to hear Jason Smith is still keeping him honest. TK for important link
ReplyDelete