President Obama's Surrender By Andrew Leonard (Salon)

In the end, President Obama had to admit surrender. He tried to put a bold face on it, but there's no other way to interpret his remarks to the nation announcing that Congressional leaders had cut a deal to raise the debt ceiling.

The details of the deal are stark: at least $2.5 trillion in spending cuts over the next two years, a two-stage approach to raising the debt ceiling, and a new committee to recommend further cuts to entitlement programs, along with huge automatic spending cuts if Congress fails to institute that plan. As described, the deal is a major victory for Republicans that will further embolden them over the next 18 months, and may mortally wound Obama's chances of reelection.

The president told the nation that after ten years the United States would have "the lowest level of annual domestic spending since Dwight Eisenhower was President." He said this as if it was something to be proud of. The truth is, we are a far different nation today than we were in the 1950s. We have millions more citizens, and are undergoing a major demographic shift as the Baby Boomer generation ages. With health care costs continuing to rise, the squeeze will be on. People will suffer.

The president stated that "I've said from the beginning that the ultimate solution to our deficit problem must be balanced." And yes, Obama has long maintained that revenue increases that would partially balance out any cuts to entitlement programs must be part of any deal. But there are no revenue increases in this deal. And it is surely a pipe dream to imagine that Democrats will be able to include any new revenue increases in further negotiations. After what we've seen so far, first in the government shutdown drama and now in the debt ceiling fight -- when Republicans hold firm, Democrats give in. The pattern has been set.

More at Salon link:
http://www.salon.com/news/budget_showdown/?story=/tech/htww/2011/07/31/president_obama_surrender





I certainly noticed when the President made the point in announcing the deal, "Now, is this the deal I would have preferred? No. I believe that we could have made the tough choices required -- on entitlement reform and tax reform -- right now, rather than through a special congressional committee process."

There are going to be great questions as to why this man that so many of us look(ed) up to for hope to turn sharply away from the disastrous B*sh era is so personally willing to cut from the least of these in society instead of saying "hands off programs that effect the people that are hurting so badly in our country as it is - let's focus on the savings everywhere else, we can do this, this is America and we owe it those who are barely getting by to not touch programs that could literally send thousands of people out on the streets. Again, this is America, and we are better than that."

Indeed.

Clinton? Poppy? Reagan? Were there big entitlement cuts then?

Whatever.

and ended the problem completely. Of course, he might have done that if his corporate masters on Wall Street gave him permission.

i've lost track