Boehner’s new proposal: We’ll raise the debt ceiling — if we cut spending by the same amount; Update: Kyl wants $6 trillion in cuts

posted at 7:56 pm on May 9, 2011 by Allahpundit

From a messaging perspective, I like it. Nice and symmetrical. Want to tack another $2 trillion onto our national line of credit? No problem: First let’s find a way to cut $2 trillion so that we’re twice as far from reaching the new debt ceiling as we otherwise would have been.

Boehner’s political problem is that, having tossed out a figure this gigantic, he’s stuck with it now. Any compromise that falls far short of the magic number risks political catastrophe on the right.

Under Boehner’s vision, for example, Republicans would have to find more than $2 trillion in cuts if they wanted to raise the debt ceiling by that amount through 2012 — which is in line with Treasury’s estimates on the debt limit. But Republicans could also go for a more incremental increase in the debt ceiling, coupling that with a smaller offsetting cut in spending. Boehner’s preference is for immediate cuts, not promises to pare back spending in the future.

But by mentioning “trillions” in long term cuts, Boehner is clearly putting entitlement reform in play — including Medicare — since it would be near impossible to cut trillions without affecting entitlement spending.

Boehner will say that “everything is on the table … that includes honest conversations about how best to preserve Medicare, because we all know, with millions of Baby Boomers beginning to retire, the status quo is unsustainable. If we don’t act boldly now, the markets will act for us very soon.”…

“To increase the debt limit without simultaneously addressing the drivers of our debt — in defiance of the will of our people — would be monumentally arrogant and massively irresponsible,” Boehner plans to say, according to prepared remarks. “It would send a signal to investors and entrepreneurs everywhere that America still is not serious about dealing with our spending addiction. It would erode confidence in our economy and reduce certainty for small businesses. And this would destroy even more American jobs.”

A Gallup poll last week found that 67 percent of Americans, including 54 percent of Democrats, expect an entitlements crisis within the next year 10 years, so the magnitude of the problem might finally be penetrating public opinion. Nevertheless, I assume the “incremental” plan described in the blockquote is the way they’ll go. It’ll be similar to the series of two-week continuing resolutions that Boehner and Reid used to keep talks going during negotiations over the 2011 budget, except that instead of $4 billion, this time the sums will be more like $250 billion. How about that for starters if the left is unwilling to tackle reforming Medicare right now? A $250 billion increase in the debt ceiling in return for $250 billion in spending cuts?

Update: Maybe the incremental plan isn’t what they’re thinking after all:

Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said Monday that Republicans will likely demand cuts to the budget worth $6 trillion over the next decade in exchange for voting to raise the national debt limit.

“You’re going to have to have significant upfront cuts,” he told reporters Monday. “You’re going to have to have significant constraints on future spending. You’re going to have to have an agreement on the next several years of budget numbers so we know exactly what those are. I think there will be other constraints on spending – there is more than one way to do that, I think there are several things that might be done.”…

“I think there will be some Medicare reform; it probably won’t satisfy Republicans in terms of what we think is necessary,” he said. “But I think it’s pretty difficult for the Democrats to simply take it all off the table.”

I wonder what they’ll end up settling for. Over/under: $100 billion.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

And are we cure Boehner won’t end up backing down again, or getting duped?

Aitch748 on May 9, 2011 at 7:58 PM

And are we cure sure Boehner won’t end up backing down again, or getting duped?

Aitch748 on May 9, 2011 at 7:58 PM

FIFM

Sorry, long day.

Aitch748 on May 9, 2011 at 7:59 PM

Forgive my skepticism.

SouthernGent on May 9, 2011 at 7:59 PM

quick, ask mitch daniels what he thinks about this… or is he not ready to debate the issue?

mjbrooks3 on May 9, 2011 at 8:01 PM

Can somebody remind me where in the US Constitution it talks entitlements?

pedestrian on May 9, 2011 at 8:02 PM

Will that be a real $2 trillion, or kinda like that $100 billion that got cut?

sharrukin on May 9, 2011 at 8:02 PM

way to easy to play games with the math

Only thing that matters at the end of the day is the deficit, either as a raw number or as a percentage of GDP.

commodore on May 9, 2011 at 8:03 PM

Whack em and Stack em !

sonnyspats1 on May 9, 2011 at 8:05 PM

“The GOP will betray you”, along with every other party and politician.

Bishop on May 9, 2011 at 8:05 PM

I won’t hold my breath.

Besides, if they do manage to cut that much, they wouldn’t need to raise the debt ceiling, right?

Common Sense on May 9, 2011 at 8:09 PM

Boehner said today on Hannity that Medicare is not off the table, and what the GOP proposes is to allow seniors to have the same health care plan options that Congress and POTUS have. How can that be a bad thing?

The GOP needs to get out in front of the messaging.

They never do that.

ladyingray on May 9, 2011 at 8:09 PM

Here’s how it will work.

Today it’s $2 trillion.
Media and Dem Congressionals call the proposal “Reckless” and “Extreme”. AP/Yahoo/Evening news broadcasts repeat theme words.
Gallup/etc polls show “Falling” support for plan.

Boehner leaks “the amount is really to be spread out over 10 years”.
Gallup/AP/Yahoo/etc. hail proposal……

A week later the amount is announced to be $35 billion over three years.

On a Friday afternoon Boehner leads House vote that cuts $4.98 and Medicare agrees to not order an eraser next week.

GOP trumpets “we got all we could ya know Sean we only control one wittle bitty chamber.”

PappyD61 on May 9, 2011 at 8:10 PM

AP, you give the GOP too much credit.

I wonder what they’ll end up settling for. Over/under: $100 billion.

Lance Murdock on May 9, 2011 at 8:12 PM

If he doesn’t, he’s toast with the base. As opposed to lightly grilled right now. Balls-to-the-walls finally, JoBo, or do you still want to be loved?

Fortunata on May 9, 2011 at 8:12 PM

$6 billion in immediate cuts will find its way into $6 billion over a decade, which will find its way to $1.2 trillion over a decade, which will find its way to $398 billion, which will find its way to $32 billion.

We’ve seen this game before.

amerpundit on May 9, 2011 at 8:12 PM

First two “billion” should be “trillion”.

amerpundit on May 9, 2011 at 8:13 PM

$6 trillion

I wonder if the Dems would compromise at 5 trill?

Hhahahahahaha

CWforFreedom on May 9, 2011 at 8:13 PM

This game again?
Boehner: We won’t raise the debt ceiling unless we cut spending by the same amount.
Reid: I disagree
Boehner: OK, we’ll just raise the debt ceiling and say it’s bipartisan. But lets drag it on until the very last minute so it looks like the GOP tried to do something. OK?
Reid: OK, so long as I can say it was a monumental cut in spending even though there will be no cuts.
Boehner: It’s a deal
Obama: I got back from the golf course as quick as I could. What did I miss?
Biden: It’s a F***in big deal!
(Boehner and Reid look at each other and shake their heads)

mizflame98 on May 9, 2011 at 8:13 PM

The budget must balance in 2 years or else. Give them 1 trillion for 2 years and that’s all she wrote. We need adults in congress not a bunch of greedy jerks. It really is time to throw the bums, all of them out.

tim c on May 9, 2011 at 8:14 PM

Ugh,its turning into a Soap Opera,NeverEnding Political Story!

Stand on F/$%?&*()*&?%$/$%?&*()_)(*&?%$ principle!

Team Liberal,must be laughing there *ss`s off!!!

canopfor on May 9, 2011 at 8:14 PM

Wait, wait. I’ve heard this one before.

Boehner needs some new jokes. This “I’m totally a fiscal conservative!” gag is getting old.

Grayson on May 9, 2011 at 8:14 PM

Boehner’s political problem is that, having tossed out a figure this gigantic, he’s stuck with it now. Any compromise that falls far short of the magic number risks political catastrophe on the right.

Come on AP. I don’t know if you’re just trying to be incendiary for the purposes of this thread, or your really believe that.

What number should he go into a negotiation with? His bottom line?

I’m not saying I’m going to be happy with the result but to say that anything less than the opening bid is failure when you know the other side’s opening bid is $0, is ludicrous.

BKeyser on May 9, 2011 at 8:15 PM

I wonder what they’ll end up settling for. Over/under: $100 billion.

$12.75, some pocket lint and a wrinkled stick of Juicyfruit

NY Conservative on May 9, 2011 at 8:15 PM

This game again?
Boehner: We won’t raise the debt ceiling unless we cut spending by the same amount.
Reid: I disagree
Boehner: OK, we’ll just raise the debt ceiling and say it’s bipartisan. But lets drag it on until the very last minute so it looks like the GOP tried to do something. OK?
Reid: OK, so long as I can say it was a monumental cut in spending even though there will be no cuts.
Boehner: It’s a deal
Obama: I got back from the golf course as quick as I could. What did I miss?
Biden: It’s a F***in big deal!
(Boehner and Reid look at each other and shake their heads)

mizflame98 on May 9, 2011 at 8:13 PM

mizflame98:Very nice,thats the Soap Opera!:)

canopfor on May 9, 2011 at 8:16 PM

mizflame98 on May 9, 2011 at 8:13 PM

And then Sasha or Malia chimes in with “I think we all learned something here today!” Cue laugh track, applause, and credits.

Grayson on May 9, 2011 at 8:16 PM

It’s all show.

gryphon202 on May 9, 2011 at 8:17 PM

Any compromise that falls far short of the magic number risks political catastrophe on the right.

Right on Allah.

These guys are idiots. I mean – if they are truly serious about this – and don’t compromise – then THIS IS THE WAY TO GO.

But who really believes this GOP has the spine to stand up to that?

I don’t.

HondaV65 on May 9, 2011 at 8:17 PM

What number should he go into a negotiation with? His bottom line?

I’m not saying I’m going to be happy with the result but to say that anything less than the opening bid is failure when you know the other side’s opening bid is $0, is ludicrous.

BKeyser on May 9, 2011 at 8:15 PM

There’s a difference between negotiating down and coming to a solution “far short” that your original number. If you’re much closer to their original number than yours, you’ve lost.

amerpundit on May 9, 2011 at 8:17 PM

6 trillion in today’s dollars or 6 trillion in tomorrows?

clement on May 9, 2011 at 8:18 PM

What number should he go into a negotiation with? His bottom line?

I’m not saying I’m going to be happy with the result but to say that anything less than the opening bid is failure when you know the other side’s opening bid is $0, is ludicrous.

BKeyser on May 9, 2011 at 8:15 PM

Think AP is saying that he’ll have to settle for a A LOT LESS than $2 Trillion. It’s a ridiculous opening bid unless the GOP is willing to stand by it.

If I were Boehner – I’d say $2 Trillion too. Then again – I’d mean it and it would be my bottom line. No debt ceiling increase unless the $2B were met.

But we know Boehner don’t roll that way – well, he just rolls over.

HondaV65 on May 9, 2011 at 8:20 PM

O is going to run the table on the Rs. What is the 6T a cut from? Spending cuts from what? Barry’s budget? So barry set his budget so high that all Rs can do is propose draconian cuts?

All of this is posturing. I doubt that anyone (except Ryan) even knows what is in the budget until they get a call from their lobbist buddies…who say…we need more money..jump now!

This is not going to end well. Breitbart is making a big story about how men are now neutered…because of feminism and race…and how conservative women and minorities have to save the country.

None of these people could run your local dry cleaning shop.

r keller on May 9, 2011 at 8:21 PM

Tip O’Neil- We’ll cut spending if you raise taxes. Pinky Swear.

Valiant on May 9, 2011 at 8:22 PM

And then Sasha or Malia chimes in with “I think we all learned something here today!” Cue laugh track, applause, and credits.

Grayson on May 9, 2011 at 8:16 PM

Add the Facts of Life theme music and I think it’ll work.

mizflame98 on May 9, 2011 at 8:23 PM

Well I meant to say 6 Billion not 6 Trillion

You know the B and T sound the same

/Boehner and company

Brat4life on May 9, 2011 at 8:24 PM

The GOP needs to get out in front of the messaging.

They never do that.

ladyingray on May 9, 2011 at 8:09 PM

exactamundo

cmsinaz on May 9, 2011 at 8:25 PM

Brinksmanship.

Or just trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the base … … again?

HalJordan on May 9, 2011 at 8:27 PM

I wonder what they’ll end up settling for. Over/under: $100 billion

*sigh* you pegged it allah

cmsinaz on May 9, 2011 at 8:28 PM

here we go with the gop want to kill granny again…

cmsinaz on May 9, 2011 at 8:29 PM

Why not just cut spending so we don’t have to raise the debt ceiling? This is why I’m not cut out for political office….

joejm65 on May 9, 2011 at 8:30 PM

Its amazing how easily they discuss cutting “entitlement spending” like social security, WITHOUT acknowledging that money is TAXES that have been SEIZED from us, against our will. For our ENTIRE ADULT LIVES, with the expectation that we will get it back upon (hopefully) living to retirement age.
And yet, when they do discuss this, I hear NO MENTION of them cutting their own VERY LUCRATIVE “entitlements”. Or in their participation with Medicare/Medicaid like us Proles.

To coin a phrase from the Left: revolucion!!

KMC1 on May 9, 2011 at 8:32 PM

SHUT IT DOWN!

GarandFan on May 9, 2011 at 8:32 PM

Since you asked……..THE PAPPY PLAN!

1. Seal the Border!

2. 10% across the board cuts in Fed spending!

Simple, and you call any plan other than that…… RECKLESS, EXTREME, and OUT OF TOUCH.

America saved financially.

PappyD61 on May 9, 2011 at 8:37 PM

quick, ask mitch daniels what he thinks about this… or is he not ready to debate the issue?

mjbrooks3 on May 9, 2011 at 8:01 PM

A month or so ago Daniels said it would be a “grown up” thing to discuss raising taxes. To me, that says he doesn’t see a need to cut back on spending, just raise taxes to finance the next mountain of irresponsible Democrat spending.

RJL on May 9, 2011 at 8:41 PM

I like what Kyl is saying….I also can’t forget REALLY liking Palin’s ‘Helz No!’ in answer to Brett Bier’s question last week, about whether she would raise the debt ceiling. It just doesn’t make sense to do it. We would be FORCED to prioritize our spending and cut excess & stupid out. I know, not likely. But, we should make that our high water mark.

Minorcan Maven on May 9, 2011 at 8:42 PM

Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.): You’re going to have to have an agreement on the next several years of budget numbers so we know exactly what those are.

It concerns me that Jon Kyl is so foolish.

No Congress is binding on another. Once the Democrats get their debt limit increase it’s back to “Let the good time roll!” They will never stick to a multi Congress deal for cutting $Trillions. If it’s not law along with the debt increase, it will never happen.

RJL on May 9, 2011 at 8:47 PM

Negotiating the trade of a $2 trillion increase in the debt limit in eachange for $2 trillion in cuts sounds good in theory. How is it going to be inforced?

Hark bask to 1986 when Reagan agreed to amnesty in exchange for border security and other enforcement tools. The Dems renegged on that. What’s to prevent this from becoming the same thing?

bw222 on May 9, 2011 at 8:51 PM

Is the over/under real savings or advertised savings?

TubbyHubby on May 9, 2011 at 8:55 PM

I’ll see your Trillion… and raise you a ba-Zillion. Time to updat a few songs…
-

RalphyBoy on May 9, 2011 at 9:04 PM

Kyl the open borders RINO?! That Kyl? Child, please…

Jaibones on May 9, 2011 at 9:07 PM

Trillion here, a trillion there and now your starting to talk about some real money!

chickasaw42 on May 9, 2011 at 9:09 PM

$12.83 is my guess for the top end Boehner will get. And that assumes the Dems are feeling generous.

FalseProfit on May 9, 2011 at 9:14 PM

I wonder what they’ll end up settling for. Over/under: $100 billion.

With Boner on the job….we’ll probably end up $18.50 in cuts and a voucher for 10% of a Chevy Volt.

I have ZERO faith in his ability to negotiate.

Tim_CA on May 9, 2011 at 9:14 PM

the decision has already been made to raise the debt ceiling…suckers.

equanimous on May 9, 2011 at 9:30 PM

I wonder what they’ll end up settling for. Over/under: $100 billion.

Dude, before this is over both sides will vote for a spending INCREASE & raise the limit.

tetriskid on May 9, 2011 at 9:53 PM

The Spelunker of the House will raise the debt ceiling and get “promises” (soon to be ignored) of $352 Million in cuts…It worked last time for the dems…

Gohawgs on May 9, 2011 at 10:48 PM

Anyone else get a Dr. Evil kind of vibe reading this….

I’ll raise the debt ceiling for a spending cut of….one…bajillion….dollars.

angryed on May 9, 2011 at 10:54 PM

Can somebody remind me where in the US Constitution it talks entitlements?

pedestrian on May 9, 2011 at 8:02 PM

Yes, the 28th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

unclesmrgol on May 9, 2011 at 11:19 PM

Obama: “I approve the cut in spending of $2T. To show you how serious I am about them, I am willing to not spend the $2T on next years budget that is targeted towards the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. We can do this people…yes we can!”

Mo_mac on May 9, 2011 at 11:41 PM

As long as he can spin it as the Republicans fault, I am not sure Obama would be all that unhappy with a failure to raise the debt ceiling. He can decide for himself what programs he will fund with the tax dollars avialable and blame the republicans for all the cuts in things he would have liked to cut anyway.
—–
Plus, if the economy slows; he will just say it was because those evil Republicans starved the government job creation machine./s

KW64 on May 10, 2011 at 12:02 AM

Something about fool me once……

If I had a red flag I’d throw it right at Boehner’s head but he’d probably just cry.

It’s time to get the primary paring knives out of the drawer if the house Repub’s don’t get their act together.

This isn’t tea time…..it’s a boxing bout and you gotta wade in and start landing some blows or you’re going to lose!

VikingGoneWild on May 10, 2011 at 1:40 AM

My guess is a buck three eighty. They will fold like a cheap suit as soon as the dems baulk at the idea and the press starts to ride them. They are gutless and everyone knows it.

flytier on May 10, 2011 at 6:28 AM

I wonder what they’ll end up settling for. Over/under: $100 billion.

Under, waaaaaaaaay under

Sinner on May 10, 2011 at 7:29 AM

This will fail because Americans aren’t willing to cut defense. The end.

Dave Rywall on May 10, 2011 at 8:06 AM

Ok, this is the promised big fight everyone sacrificed that smaller one for, right? This is where Boehner goes all out! Right? Do or die!

Dongemaharu on May 10, 2011 at 9:14 AM

The budget must balance in 2 years or else. Give them 1 trillion for 2 years and that’s all she wrote. We need adults in congress not a bunch of greedy jerks. It really is time to throw the bums, all of them out.

tim c on May 9, 2011 at 8:14 PM

Better yet, give them $1 trillion for as long as it lasts, PERIOD. Since current deficits are running about $1.6 trillion per year, that will last until about next February, then we can have this debate again with Obama on the ballot.

Steve Z on May 10, 2011 at 9:48 AM

I’ll gladly cut trillions on Tuesday for trillions today.

elfman on May 10, 2011 at 12:07 PM

I don’t understand why we want to raise the ceiling by x in exchange for cutting y when x=y. Unless the desired increased spending is x+y. How does this even drive the spending and ceiling down. Repeat this a few times and we’d be talking about raising the ceiling by 50 trillion and cutting 50 trillion from current spending. This is nonsense pretzel logic.

Why not just NOT raise the ceiling and we have to cut anything to stay below the ceiling.

I think I’m starting to understand West. As long as these knuckleheads use Pelosi math while slowly raising spending, I’d just walk away and vote no on everything these clowns put out while concentrating on other things that matter. That way, when it comes out that any cuts are illusionary, I can shrug my sholders and say that’s why I voted NO to pretending to cut.

AH_C on May 10, 2011 at 12:31 PM

This will fail because Americans aren’t willing to cut defense. The end.

Dave Rywall on May 10, 2011 at 8:06 AM

Defense is chump change compared to entitlements. How’s the liberal hope n change working for you in the great white north?

AH_C on May 10, 2011 at 12:33 PM

This will fail because Americans aren’t willing to cut defense. The end.

Dave Rywall on May 10, 2011 at 8:06 AM

Defense is chump change compared to entitlements. How’s the liberal hope n change working for you in the great white north?

AH_C on May 10, 2011 at 12:33 PM
——

idiot doesn’t want to cut defense
so typical
now get out there and lobby for oil and agriculture subsidies

Dave Rywall on May 10, 2011 at 12:50 PM

The debt ceiling will be raised. Nothing will be cut.

Bugler on May 10, 2011 at 4:04 PM