"“The only reason this balanced approach isn’t on its way to becoming law right now is because a significant number of Republicans in Congress are insisting on a different approach, a cuts-only approach — an approach that doesn’t ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all,” Mr. Obama said in his address. “And because nothing is asked of those at the top of the income scales, such an approach would close the deficit only with more severe cuts to programs we all care about — cuts that place a greater burden on working families.”" NY Times
I have thought for some time that the present struggle in Washington would end in defeat for the president. Now, I am certain that is true. His speech on 25 July was merely an attempt to cover himself in anticipation of that defeat. He hopes that "sound bites" from that address can be played back to a citzenry enraged by the triumph of moneyed interests.
His defeat was inevitable in a situation in which the Tea Party types have enough votes in the House to block any deal that they won't accept. The constitution is clear. Money bills must originate in the House and that is where the Tea Party is strong enough to make its will prevail.
Obama is the proprietor of the Executive Branch of the government. That is where the money is disbursed and services are provided. Without money he cannot do either. Some debt service would be possible and some minimal services could be possible with ongoing revenues but the net result would not be government as Americans have come to know it.
Obama has to run the parts of the government that "do things." It is clear now that the only way he will get the money to do his job is to surrender. He might as well get on with it. pl