Whoever’s willing to walk away from the table has more power in a negotiation between two parties. It’s an old saying, but it’s true.
Last year John Boehner’s self-interest in keeping his job as Speaker and leader of the Republican caucus was more important to him than a debt reduction deal with President Obama—even a deal that was weighted 80/20 towards spending cuts over tax hikes.
For Eric Cantor and a large faction of House Republicans, refusing to vote for any tax increases was more important that whether the federal government defaulted on its debt for the first time in history.
As a result, Obama and the Democrats had to accept a $2 trillion debt reduction deal that relied entirely on spending cuts. Why? Because they weren’t willing to walk away from the table. Because protecting the US government’s credit rating was more important to them than how a debt reduction deal was structured.
Less than a year later, House Republicans want to walk away from that deal and cut an additional $28 billion from domestic programs. But this time the President seems eager for the confrontation: “Until the House of Representatives indicates that it will abide by last summer’s agreement, the President will not be able to sign any appropriations bills”, according to acting OMB director, Jeffrey Zients.
If Obama refuses to sign any appropriations bills, and House Republicans refuse to budge, then the federal government could shut down on Oct. 1, just five weeks before Election Day. Which is why House Republicans will most likely budge.
Crossposted at: http://masscommons.wordpress.com/