The liberal media, obviously.
Politico, March 29, wrote:
Republicans have suggested a possible top line of $1.052 trillion, and the administration has said it is prepared to move toward $1.058 trillion — leaving a difference of $6 billion. The White House has refused comment on the details of its discussions, but the latest offer follows a discussion between Obama’s chief of staff, Bill Daley, and Boehner’s office and represents a significant effort to move toward the numbers discussed by the GOP.
Measured against the $61 billion in initial House cuts, the new offer — described as now on Reid’s desk — would be about halfway.
The Hill.com, March 29, wrote:
Reid said Senate Democrats and the White House have met Republicans “far more than halfway” with their budget plan. Using 2010 spending as the baseline, Democrats are proposing $30 billion in total cuts, including $10 billion already enacted in two short-term measures.
The Hill.com, March 30, wrote:
A source familiar with the talks said members of the Senate and House Appropriations panels are working toward a target of $33 billion in spending cuts. The $33 billion goal splits the difference between $30 billion in cuts Senate Democrats have proposed and $36 billion in cuts Boehner suggested in talks with White House officials, according to the source.
CSM, March 31, wrote:
Leaving a meeting with Senate Democratic leaders, Vice President Joe Biden said on Wednesday evening that House and Senate negotiators had reached a partial agreement and were now "working off the same number," after the Appropriations chairmen in both chambers had agreed on $73 billion in total cuts from the spending levels proposed in President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget proposal--or $33 billion from current levels. Republicans had pledged to cut $100 billion from Obama's fiscal 2011 budget during the midterm elections campaign.
Still, the progress reported on Wednesday night appears to be the result of a grown-up discipline suddenly taking hold of the process, despite the continuing public acrimony and heated rhetoric from the extremes of both parties.
A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, Michael Steel, did not specifically dispute Biden's assertion that the sides are working off the same number but said, "There is no deal until everything is settled--spending cuts and policy restrictions."
Roll Call, April 1, wrote:
Negotiations are expected to go into the weekend as Congressional leaders work against a fast-approaching deadline. The current continuing resolution runs through April 8. The two sides appear to be closing in on a deal to cut $33 billion from the federal budget.
Then, on April 4th,
The Hill.com, April 4, wrote:
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Monday that Vice President Biden’s offer of $33 billion in spending cuts is “not enough,” suggesting the chances of a government shutdown are increasing.
Boehner, who delivered the GOP’s radio address on Saturday, issued his most definitive rejection of the level of cuts that Democrats had for days claimed were the basis of a bipartisan accord.
Politico, April 6, wrote:
In talks since, Obama has moved more than halfway to a target of $33 billion in cuts, or about $73 billion from his initial budget. Last week, that target became the framework for talks between the House and Senate Appropriations committees, but at a White House meeting Tuesday, Boehner upped the ante by floating a compromise of $40 billion in cuts, or $80 billion below Obama’s budget request.
In fact, negotiators have continued to stay close to the $33 billion target — which may explain some of Boehner’s frustration
$33B was never just a number "bandied about" one time; it was the point that they were building off of in multiple negotiations last week through this week (up until Monday). I admit the error in saying "weeks" rather than "the past week" -- I mentally figured it as being a week last week and a week this week. However, there were multiple meetings last week and whoever told you that it was "likely just bandied about in a meeting one day with no weight behind it" was, once again, either lying to you or else you misunderstood what they were saying. Edited, Apr 6th 2011 8:10pm by Jophiel