You're Gonna Need Us, Says DeGette To Boehner

26 Comments

by: Colorado Pols

Politico’s Darren Samuelsohn reported this weekend:

Interviews with more than a dozen House and Senate lawmakers, many of whom are primed to start whipping votes, underscored the reality that the lame-duck session could still end in tax hikes and across-the-board spending cuts.

“I wouldn’t want to put a percentage on it, but it certainly could happen,” said Rep. Jeff Flake, the Arizona Republican who next month will be sworn in as a senator.

“It’s absolutely possible. We’ve seen it happen before,” added Colorado Rep. Diana DeGette, a chief deputy whip for House Democrats.

For Boehner to be successful, DeGette said the speaker needs to remember during his negotiations with Obama that a sizeable number of Republicans are expected to jump ship on any tax agreement with the White House – whether it’s a short-term deal or something much bigger.

“The Republican leadership is going to have to realize they have to work with us,” she told POLITICO.

The delicacy of this situation for Speaker John Boehner really can’t be overstated. Given the likelihood that many conservative Republican House members will balk at any deal that violates their no-new-revenue ideological principles, Boehner will have to turn to Democrats to win House passage of any reasonable budget compromise. The problem with that, of course, is that Boehner could endanger his speakership if he arranges the passage of legislation that would be palatable to Democrats. Who he would in this scenario need to pass anything.

And remember, if nothing passes, Republicans take the blame for the resulting automatic budget cuts and tax hikes on everybody. Also, they say Democrats create a “culture of dependency?” Wait until Doug Lamborn realizes those cuts to military spending are an actual possibility.

We can’t tell you exactly how Boehner intends to thread this needle, but he has more to lose.

26 thoughts on “You’re Gonna Need Us, Says DeGette To Boehner”

Albert J. Nock says:

December 10, 2012 at 9:17 am

Medicare/Medicaid is the elephant in the room.

Log in to Reply
Gray in Mountains says:

December 10, 2012 at 9:22 am

raise the medicare tax by .5% and means test it. No medicare if income greater than $150K.

Social Security, remove the cap, means test. Remeber Al Gore’s advice? Follow it. Put Social Security and Medicare revenues in a “lockbox”.

Medicaid a bit more complex but not as tough as defense spending. To start I’d remove probably 20% defense spending and apply half to debt and half to medicaid

Log in to Reply
FREMONTDEM says:

December 10, 2012 at 9:51 am

The idea that Lamborn takes a hit on this is laughable, he voted against the deal from the start.

Log in to Reply
jadodd says:

December 10, 2012 at 10:13 am

I must say that when “progressive” Democrats speak like this, I am reminded of a line from Macbeth:

It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing

.

Macbeth Act 5, scene 5, 27-28

Log in to Reply
GalapagoLarry says:

December 10, 2012 at 1:05 pm

that “blame” will fall onto Repubs. It all depends on Obama’s presentation and tone.

Still: If the alternative is a bad deal, jump!

Log in to Reply
GalapagoLarry says:

December 10, 2012 at 10:48 pm

Younger, healthier, less needy participants would widen the pool, lowering individual beneficiary costs.

Too bad that’s not the major problem. The big problem with Medicare is not the individual participant’s cost (because of his/her age, health, wealth, etc.) it’s the cost of care delivery that’s rising more rapidly than our ability to pay: drugs, hospitals, doctors, insurance premiums, inefficiencies, waste, fraud, standards (lack thereof), duplication, etc.

Any fiddling with age eligibility just shifts the overall costs from the fed to states, employers, providers and the beneficiary him/herself.

If seniors can’t turn to the federal government for health insurance, they’re likely to head to the places where the non-elderly go for insurance: Their employers and, for low income seniors, state-run Medicaid programs. So as the federal government saves $5.7 billion in 2014 by spending less on Medicare, other parts of the health care systems would spend $11.7 billion more providing the same health care benefits.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

Save a phony federal $5.7B to increase overall societal costs by $7B? Bad policy. Bad politics.

Besides, I think raising the eligibility age is a negotiating non starter as well as a policy non starter. Obama won’t fall for it (fingers crossed).

Log in to Reply