The Price of Politics by Bob Woodward (PDF)

Description

See how and why Washington is not functioning.Bob Woodward’s freshly reported, thirty-five-page Afterword to his national bestseller, The Price of Politics, provides a detailed, often verbatim account of what happened in the dramatic “fiscal cliff” face-off at the end of 2012 between President Obama and the Republicans.Now it’s happening again. In fall 2013, Washington faces a new round of budget and fiscal wars that could derail the American and global economies. “We are primarily a blocking majority,” said Michael Sommers, Speaker John Boehner’s chief of staff, summarizing the House Republican position. It was the land of no-compromise: On health care cuts over ten years, Boehner suggested to Obama, you are $400 billion, I’m at $600 billion. “Can we split the difference here? Can we land at $500 billion?” “Four hundred billion is it,” Obama replied. “I just can’t see how we go any further on that.” After making $120 billion in other concessions, Obama pleaded with Boehner, “What is it about the politics?”“My guys just aren’t there,” Boehner replied.“We are $150 billion off, man. I don’t get it. There’s something I don’t get.” The Price of Politics chronicles the inside story of how President Obama and the U.S. Congress tried, and failed, to restore the American economy and set it on a course to fiscal stability. Woodward pierces the secretive world of Washington policymaking once again, with a close-up story crafted from meeting notes, documents, working papers, and interviews with key players, including President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner. Woodward lays bare the broken relationship between President Obama and the Congress.

User’s Reviews

Editorial Reviews: Review “A book everyone is talking about.” –Diane Sawyer, ABC”A very revealing, insightful book.” –Sean Hannity, Fox News, “Hannity””Required Reading” –Elizabeth Titus, Politico”A highly detailed dissection of the debt-limit negotiations. … A remarkable achievement. …Woodward, being Woodward, digs deeper and draws more out of the protagonists than anyone else has.” –Jeff Shesol, “The Washington Post””Almost every bookshelf in the U.S. capital holds a thin volume called “13 Days”, Robert F. Kennedy’s account of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Memo to Washington: Make room on those shelves for Bob Woodward’s latest behind-the-scenes book, “The Price of Politics”, which might as well have been called “44 Days”. The centerpiece is a riveting account of the tedious negotiations to reach a ‘grand bargain’ on the federal budget.” –David M. Shirbman, Bloomberg Businessweek”””Bob Woodward, in characteristic fashion, does his competitors one better by filling in blanks and providing even finer detail.” –Miranda Green, “The Daily Beast””Groundbreaking” –David Gregory, NBC’s Meet the Press”Takes us inside the room once again.” –Charlie Rose”Fabulous book and great reporting.” –Norah O’Donnell, CBS This Morning About the Author Bob Woodward is an associate editor at The Washington Post where he has worked for 50 years. He has shared in two Pulitzer Prizes, one for his Watergate coverage and the other for coverage of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He has authored 20 national bestselling books, 14 of which have been #1 New York Times bestsellers. Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved. PROLOGUEThe lavish dinner at the Capital Hilton Hotel in downtown Washington on the evening of Saturday, March 11, 2006, was about the last place you would expect to find him. But there was Barack Obama, age 44, the junior senator from Illinois for only the last 14 months, in formal white-tie with tails and very much at ease in the crowd of 600. His trademark smile, broad and infectious, dominated his face as I met him for the first time.We were at the annual Gridiron Club dinner—a rite of passage for national political figures such as Obama. The crowd included President George W. Bush and most of the major politicians in Washington. It was one of Senator Obama’s maiden voyages into the unsavory belly of the Washington beast. Bush was to speak for the Republicans, and Obama had been selected to speak for the Democrats.Founded in 1885, the Gridiron—named because its motto was to “singe but not burn”—had the reputation of being an old-school event of in-jokes, skits and music that seemed more fitted to a bygone era.“You’re from Wheaton, Illinois,” Obama said to me, referring, unprompted, to the small town where I was raised in the late 1940s and ’50s. Wheaton, 25 miles west of Chicago, is home to Wheaton College, best known for its alumnus evangelist Billy Graham, whose influence permeated the town.“I’ll bet you didn’t carry Wheaton,” I said confidently, referring to his Senate race 16 months earlier. A bastion of Midwestern conservatism and country-club Republicans, Wheaton was the most Republican town in the country in the 1950s, or at least regarded itself that way.“I carried DuPage County by 60 percent!” Obama responded, beaming that incandescent smile. Wheaton is the county seat of DuPage.I said that seemed utterly impossible. That couldn’t be the Wheaton or DuPage I had known.Obama continued to smile me down. The certainty on his face was deep, giving me pause. Suddenly, I remembered that Obama’s opponent for the Senate seat had been Alan Keyes, the conservative black Republican gadfly. Keyes had substituted at the last minute for the first Republican nominee, who withdrew from the race when divorce and child custody records revealed that he had taken his wife to sex clubs in New York, New Orleans and Paris.“Well, everyone who runs for office should have Alan Keyes as their opponent,” I said, trying to hold my ground.Obama smiled some more—almost mirthful, yet unrevealing. The conversation turned to Illinois politics, and Obama ticked off the areas where he had strong support—Chicago, the labor unions—and weak support, downstate and the farm areas. He defined the categories skillfully, expanding on the state’s interest groups and voting blocs. He made it clear he knew where he had work to do.He sounded like a graceful old-fashioned pol. Though he had carried DuPage by 60 percent, he had won 70 percent of the statewide vote.His wife, Michelle, stood by his side in a stunning gown. But the focus and the questions from people crowded around were all directed at the dazzling new star.• • •When he appeared at the podium several hours later, Obama stood perfectly erect, projecting radiant confidence.“This is a true story,” he said.1 “A friend sent me a clip about a new study by a psychologist at the University of Scotland who says sex before a public speaking engagement actually enhances your oratorical power. I showed this clip to Michelle, before we arrived here tonight. She looked it over, handed it back and said, ‘Do the best you can!’ ”The laughter ignited instantly.“This appearance is really the capstone of an incredible 18 months,” he said, citing the keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, cover of Newsweek, a best-selling autobiography, Dreams from My Father, a Grammy award for reading the audiobook. “Really what else is there to do? Well, I guess . . . I could pass a law or something.”The self-deprecation played well.Referring to Senator John McCain’s positive treatment by the press up to that point, Obama said, “Some of my colleagues call John a prima donna. Me? I call him a role model. Think of it as affirmative action. Why should the white guys be the only ones who are overhyped?”The self-awareness played smooth.Noting the speculation that the 2008 presidential campaign could come down to McCain, a maverick Republican, versus Senator Hillary Clinton, he said, “People don’t realize how much John and Hillary have in common. They’re both very smart. Both very hardworking. And they’re both hated by the Republicans!”This played bipartisan.Obama turned toward President Bush, who was on the stage nearby. “The president was so excited about Tom Friedman’s book The World Is Flat. As soon as he saw the title, he said, ‘You see, I was right!’ ”The joke played confident.“I want to thank you for all the generous advance coverage you’ve given me in anticipation of a successful career. When I actually do something, we’ll let you know.”The audience clapped and hooted in delight.After dinner the buzz was like a chain reaction. Not only could this young Obama tell a joke on himself, with the required self-effacement, but he had remarkable communications skills. An editor at The Washington Post once said that journalists only write two stories: Oh, the horror of it all, and Oh, the wonder of it all. Obama was the wonder of it all that night and he basked in the attention he had captured. Rarely have I seen anyone manage the moment so well. He had frankly and forthrightly trumpeted his lack of accomplishment, and the roomful of egos ate it up. But if he had done nothing much so far, why was he there? Why the buzz? The approbation? What exactly was being measured?It was the dramatic impact he was having on his audience. The triumph was the effect.Twenty-five years earlier in 1981, I had attended a Gridiron dinner where the speaker for the Democrats was Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the bookish intellectual who had served in prominent posts in both Republican and Democratic administrations. Moynihan, then 53, made some good jokes, but his theme was serious: what it means to be a Democrat. The soul of the party was to fight for equality and the little guy, he said. The party cared for the underdogs in America, the voiceless, powerless and those who got stepped on. It was a defining speech, and the buzz afterward was that Moynihan was going to be president. He wasn’t, of course. That was then, this was now.Obama had not once mentioned the party or high purpose. His speech, instead, was about Obama, his inexperience, and, in the full paradox of the moment, what he had not done.Two and a half years later, he was president-elect of the United States. Read more

Reviews from Amazon users which were colected at the time this book was published on the website:

⭐Woodward is evenhanded. He paints the personalities in Washington as they are, and is evenhanded and balanced in his treatment of both Republicans and Democrats. The problems they face are large. The greatest of these is the perennial problem of government, balancing the budget. This is something that transcends America and transcends our time.The major story in the book is the debt crisis negotiations of 2011. They showcase the differences between the parties and the degree to which each party must cater to its political base.It is also the story of a president who arrived in office with a minimum of experience with the political process. Though Woodward is more restrained than other critics, such as Ron Suskind in “Confidence Men,” Obama comes through here again as a man who is simply out of his depth. He does not have a command of the issues, and more important, does not have enough fundamental knowledge about economics, history and American politics to effectively lead the political process. The lack of unity on the Democratic side of the aisle, in particular his failure to build a working relationship with Harry Reid in the Senate and Nancy Pelosi in the House, betray his lack of experience working with people.The book reveals flashes of the arrogance which others attribute to him. More significant, these qualities infused his team, from Valery Jarrett to Larry Summers to Rahm Emanuel. There was little compromise in the makeup of any of them. Woodward reveals the raw, tactless way in which they wielded power their first two years, and how their high-handedness came back to bite them after the 2010 midterm elections. Mainly, however, it is a story of a man with no executive experience thrust into the world’s most demanding executive position. He didn’t have the tools to do the job, and was too self-absorbed to see his own shortcomings. In one of the most telling passages of the book, Valery Jarrett chews John Boehner out for saying that Obama was willing to learn. She assumed he already knew all that was necessary.Fiscal irresponsibility is the downfall of almost every government and every currency over the long course of history. Governments have three sources of revenue. They can tax, they can borrow, and they can inflate it away their debts. This book picks up our story when the US had long ago lost its ability to balance the budget through taxes, and was running out of borrowing power. The major players in the book, most Republicans and some Democrates (Geithner, Orzag) realized that it was essential to rein in the government deficits.Any solution must take into consideration increasing revenue and decreasing expenses. However, the expenses have been written into law in such an insidious way, as entitlements in terms of both Medicare and Social Security, that they cannot be easily taken away because such a large portion of the electorate has come to depend on these entitlements. As of now more than half of the population is dependent on federal handouts. They simply cannot be taken away, because people have forgotten how to exist without them. And the people who pay the tab, the wealthier half, the slight minority who actually pay income taxes, are unwilling to pay anymore. We do not have the political unity within the country needed to make the necessary budget compromises.Woodward describes the situation fairly clearly, but a man in his position cannot honestly analyze the reasons for the great divide. The Republicans and the Democrats represent increasingly different constituencies. The Republicans, on balance, represent average taxpayers. The Democrats represent the bottom and top layers of society: The academics who increasingly control the media and entertainment sectors are on the top, and the minorities and recipients of government benefits on the bottom.It is widely agreed that there is a difference a growing gap between the two, between the well-paid and the not so well paid. We observed at the same time that there is a continual expansion in gaps in various measures of achievement between these groups, notably academic and financial success, and at the same time there is an increasing demand in society in the workplace for highly skilled workers. It is quite natural that there would be a divergence. The bulk of our workforce is less and less skilled, and yet the demands of the workplace call for more and more skills. It only makes sense that the people who can do work that is valued, a decreasing minority, earn more and the bulk of the people earn less.However the political process cannot recognize this reality. They talk about moving jobs offshore. Of course this is true – the workers offshore, notably the Chinese, demand far less in hourly wages. What goes unstated is that they are also more productive. And that their productivity is related to Chinese intelligence, which is by most measures higher than that of the average American worker. They certainly have a strong work ethic honed by years of hanging on merely to survive.We have therefore as American society that is becoming increasingly fragmented as it becomes more diverse. It was heading toward the model of such multiethnic societies as Brazil, the Andean nations split between Native American and European populations, and South Africa and Zimbabwe, and perhaps Italy, considering the divide between the Mezzogiorno and the North. In any case we are a multiethnic society in which the levels of achievement among the various groups vary quite widely, always have, and show no signs of converging. It is not a recipe for success.This is an aside, but it is an important background to the facts which Woodward reports. The Republicans and the Democrats in Congress represent increasingly different constituencies. The fact that they cannot compromise easily is due in large part to the fact that their constituencies are irreconcilable. Rather, the demands of the various constituencies are irreconcilable. One of the reasons that this is so is that nobody is willing to recognize the truth of the situation.The truth of the situation is that American labor is worth less on the world market than it used to be. Other nations have caught up. Another truth is that different people have different levels of ability. That observation goes against the grain of American history, American culture, and certainly the diversity story as taught in schools. So we cannot accept reality, and we are increasingly the victims of our cognitive dissonance.Another factor, one which Woodward does acknowledge, is the changing age demographics of America. The four biggest parts of the budget are defense spending, Medicare, Social Security, and welfare payments such as food stamps and long term unemployment. Obama did rein in military spending by taking troops out of Afghanistan. However, he reports that the Democrats were unable to address the ongoing liabilities concerning Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. These are unbounded liabilities which all players recognize will lead to deficits for the foreseeable future. They are unpredictable and unbounded, as the nature of medical technologies and the demand for medical care simply cannot be predicted. The only thing one can say with certainty is that every prediction in the past has turned out to be too optimistic.The Republicans lack the will to ask their constituency to pay more taxes, and Democrats lack the will to aks for reasonable cutbacks in entitlements. This problems are more than a lack of leadership – it is fundamental unwillingness on the part of the American people to accept the truth. Churchill observed that America will do the right thing – when all else has failed.We did not resolve the debt crisis. Throughout the Obama administration the politicians “kicked the can down the road.” We are not alone in this. The Europeans have done no better. They have given the Federal Reserve no choice but to print more and more money through Quantative Easing, a story better told in “Confidence Men.” The result will be a major depression, one which many believe has alreadys begun. The iron fist of reality will impose a resolution to resource distribution problems which could not be resolved by politics. For seniors, minorities and others who benefit disproportionated from government largess the process will be ugly and painful and probably, at times, fraught with violence. If we were smarter it could have been otherwise. Woodward does not attribute a lack of brains to any of the players in this tragedy. Instead, just as in a Greek drama, each is constrained by his own party and his own human failings. Obama’s tragedy is that he doesn’t seem even to recognize his shortcomings.

⭐I never thought I would be writing good words about someone I felt was a “dyed-in-the-wool” Ultra Liberal reporter, notwithstanding his stellar investigative achievement on the Watergate Affair, bringing down President Richard Nixon. However, his book, The Price of Politics, shows fine work on a very complicated subject. It’s good! It’s an easy read, well documented.Being from Nevada, it was interesting and informative seeing and hearing from one of our most unique characters, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. This book may not be interesting to people who don’t like politics. Many might lose interest in it. The book might also make you mad. Readers should definitely have at least a basic understanding of politics, like the three branches of government and how they are supposed to be independent, but, in the case of the House of Representatives and the Senate—work together and compromise for the greater good of the American people.Woodward should be gratified that he has earned the trust of so many of his sources who opened up so many closed doors,with names, dates and places, to a vital legislative process: To solve the huge debt crises facing our country, which threatens to bring us to our financial knees. It was obviously a mutual trust.We are witnesses through Woodward’s keen reportorial skill, to a very combative process; under the guise of politeness. The Price of Politics ratifies the old adage: “If you don’t like watching sausage being made—you don’t want to see laws being created!”It was evident that during Obama’s 3 3/4 years in office, he felt he had to DOMINATE congress. Several passages refer to this fact, but it is so pervasive, it needs repeating: The most important thing/issue/result to President Obama during the endless planning, behind-the-scenes talks, meetings and sessions on the Budget and Debt Crisis was: HIS Re-election; according to Woodward, from his interviews. The biggest and most shameful surprise of all coming out of Woodward’s research: After Obama drumbeat the promise of “transparency,” “openness,” “public involvement,” in his bright new administration—one of the most IMPORTANT issues ever to face America in our lifetimes, was discussed NOT in committee hearings onC-SPAN,but in SECRET MEETINGS.Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV),and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, weren’t even told what was happening; until it failed! Also at work was “The Gang of Six,” An unofficial group of senators, three Democrats and three Republicans. They too were developing a Tax & Deficit Reduction Plan. Then there were Sen.Alan Simpson and Sen.Erskine Bowles, Co-chairs of the President’s Official Fiscal Commission, whose plan got “lost” in the shuffle. A “Doomsday” scenario from its inception. The economic problems of the mounting Tax & Debt Crisis were being “solved” behind closed Doors with NO public meetings, committee hearings or public input! A process that has been indelibly ingrained in our legislative procedures for the past two-hundred years!One of the most frustrating and recurring problems, during the months this book covers: after taking hours to negotiate a deal on some issue ALL parties would agree on. The next day, Eric Cantor, Virginia Congressman and House GOP Majority Whip, wrote in his notes—“It has been changed again!” The president rarely put anything in writing. The Democrats seldom put their proposals in writing. The Republicans most often would. The next day there would be MAJOR changes! Woodward had irrefutable proof that a great many of those changes were insisted upon by President Obama.Why did this occur? President Obama’s key, chief ultimate goal or result of any final agreement or bill—before he would agree to ANY concessions: It must contain—“Taxing the Wealthy!” “The Bush Tax Cuts must NOT be extended to THAT group!” As we continue reading it may be true that only political activists will really enjoy this book. To me, who has been in the crucible, it’s great reading! There is NO doubt about its being factual.One key quote I had been searching for is the underlying “punch line” of the book. What Woodward found out. When he could ruminate on what message, if any, he could impart to the reader and the people of America, out of a very complicated and poorly understood subject–by the general public.At one point Woodward commented, “It is increasingly clear that no one was running Washington.” (Pg.313)It is from one of Bob Woodward’s many interviews with (GOP)Speaker John Boehner that some insight emerges. The Speaker’s complaint–that here is NO outreach to the Majority (GOP) or to the Democrats, either. “There is NO outreach!” “The White House is dysfunctional!” (Pg.376)Contrary to the constant flow of White House statements.No Harry Truman’s desk sign there: “The Buck Stops Here!” My words–C.P.authorCONCLUSIONS:President Obama’s method of leadership appears to be, letting others come up with the ideas, then he passes judgment on them. The president doesn’t take the lead. His habit is to LECTURE the members of Congress and the Senate on why HE is right and THEY are wrong. He doesn’t work well with other people. He has little or no use or respect for either the House Members or the Senators and at one point even cut Nancy Pelosi (still Minority Leader after being replaced as Speaker) and Harry Reid OUT of the process. Obama feels SUPERIOR to the Legislative Branch.In comparing him with Ronald Reagan, with whom I am very familiar, RR kept his committments and practiced civility, courtesy, decorum, and honesty. Obama built NO bridges with the legislators. Both President Ronald Reagan and President Bill Clinton knew the value and importance of having both branches of government contributing something and working together! V.P. Joe Biden proved to be an asset in working with both Congress and the White House. The president seemed unable or unwilling to COMPROMISE, even for the good of the American people; no matter how many times he proclaimed he was attempting to do so.Recommended reading! BUY THIS BOOK to read further REVELATIONS on who helped and who hindered the progress of this critical process.Thanks again to B.W.

⭐As an Englishman what intrigues me most about this is what it reveals about the way Obama works. Having read Suskind’s “Confidence Men” last year about Obama’s attempts to handle the banking crisis, he seemed to be a man with no opinions who let himself be pushed around by his advisors. And yet Suskind’s analysis didn’t really hang together, and Suskind himself didn’t comment on what he described. I felt something was missing in the picture.Many of the reviews on Amazon.com make similar criticism of Obama, as do many of the players in Woodward’s book: Obama doesn’t know how to negotiate, they say.I disagree. It seems to me Obama was forced to negotiate with a bunch of Republicans holding by any standards prior to 2000 an extreme right wing position, who themselves felt hostage to the Tea party, a bunch of people who they said didn’t care whether America defaulted all its debts, it didn’t matter anyway. Presumably they felt the market was the only thing that mattered.To me Obama did extraordinarily well in his refusal to compromise. He was after all dealing with the Republicans who to a man (not many women in this book) were not prepared to countenance the idea that the megarich should have to pay more than 28% tax to help the country nay world out of a jam. Even Obama’s own people, some of them, like Reid and Pelosi seemed prepared to undercut him at times.Woodward himself is quite critical of Obama in his brief judgment at the end, suggesting that if he had handled the Republicans more skilfully he might have got more out of them. To me that seems very unlikely. Someone towards the end of the book said the Republicans felt they needed to come out of the negotiations looking as if they had humiliated the president because that was the only outcome that would satisfy the Tea Party.I don’t agree with Woodward’s opinions, but as always he does a great job of stating the play. The negotiations were incredibly protracted and tedious and you have to admire the stamina and resilience of all the players if not necessarily their motivation. However the things they were arguing about on day 25 were the same as day one, and as is often stated in this book it was all really just a game of chicken. At one point one of the politicos rings up the guys on Wall St., who were all having kittens, to say, “Chill, we’re all just playing a game here.”

⭐Probably more to do with the subject matter but not as good as his other books. A slow read which I didn’t really enjoy.

⭐The cover came bent, and some pages came bent.

Keywords

Free Download The Price of Politics in PDF format
The Price of Politics PDF Free Download
Download The Price of Politics 2013 PDF Free
The Price of Politics 2013 PDF Free Download
Download The Price of Politics PDF
Free Download Ebook The Price of Politics