Why there will be no “Grand Bargain” in 2013

[DonViejo]

Why there will be no “Grand Bargain” in 2013

In rancorously partisan environment, both sides say a big deal on the national debt is out of the question

BY ANDREW TAYLOR

WASHINGTON (AP) — On this, GOP budget guru Rep. Paul Ryan and top Senate Democrat Harry Reid can agree: There won’t be a “grand bargain” on the budget.

Instead, the Wisconsin Republican and the Nevada Democrat both say the best Washington can do in this bitterly partisan era of divided government is a small-ball bargain that tries to take the edge off of automatic budget cuts known as sequestration.

Official Capitol Hill negotiations start next week, but Ryan and Reid both weighed in Thursday to tamp down any expectations that the talks might forge a large-scale agreement where several previous high-level talks have failed.

Long-standing, entrenched differences over taxes make a large-scale budget pact virtually impossible, according to lawmakers, their aides and observers who will be monitoring the talks.

Republicans say they simply won’t agree to any further taxes atop the 10-year, $600 billion-plus tax increase on upper-income earners that President Barack Obama and Democrats muscled through Congress in January. Without higher taxes, Democrats say they won’t yield to cuts in benefit programs like Medicare.

full article
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/25/why_there_will_be_no_grand_bargain_in_2013/

See also:

Harry Reid: 'We're Not Going To Have A Grand Bargain'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014630801

[djean111]

1. Remains to be seen, actually. No harm in being noisy about not wanting one.

Learned a long time ago that what politicians say - on the record, off the record, most vociferously, most elegantly rhetorical - means nothing. What they do that counts. Nothing else.
Politicians and talking heads and bloggers and journalists, etc. can opine all they want - what actually happens behind closed doors is the only thing that counts. Waiting to see what actually happens before yelling about it is pointless. After the fact, only thing that changes is voter enthusiasm.
I am hoping for the best - no grand bargain - but expecting the worst - smarmy "bipartisan, couldn't help it, actually strengthens Social Security, blah blah blah".

By the way, regarding that "strengthen Social Security" thing - when I think that not paying out much at all would certainly "strengthen" it, I see the chained CPI as just a softening gambit. Same with means-testing. Means-testing is sooo easy to chip away at, year by year. Serving up bits of meat to the GOP.

Is "small-ball" a technical economics term, or is it more of a descriptive term......

[rock]

2. Because we don't have a long enough spoon

As in when you sup with the devil ...

[Laelth]

3. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

[Hippo_Tron]

4. Good the economy is still in the shitter, reducing net expenditures is bad policy

If they want to tax the rich then spend that money on infrastructure or other badly needed investments, that's fine. But taxing the rich just to reduce the deficit ESPECIALLY in "exchange" for reduced transfer payments is bad for the economy.