Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol says that Republicans in Congress should “take Obama’s offer” to raise taxes on the wealthy because the GOP shouldn’t “fall on its sword to defend a bunch of millionaires.”
Question for you. Does anyone think John Boehner, Eric Cantor and those Tea Party Republicans in the House are going to take Kristols’s advice and cut a deal despite Obama’s victory and the Democratic party gaining seats in the Senate and House, even though Republican Governors and state legislatures gerrymandered the districts in their states to keep the House in the red and fought like hell to make it harder for people (not corporate people) to vote?
Yeah, me too.
The GOP is going to freak out about this but I invite them to do what the Philly Inq did and go try to find a Republican in these Philly wards.
ha ha
Suh–WEEEEEEEET!
The 2014 Senate math for the Democrats is as bad, if not worse than it was in 2012.
The House is sufficiently well gerrymandered to stay red through the next Census.
And there’s no reason for the Republicans not to anticipate the usual reversion to a more GOP-friendly mid-term electorate.
What’s the incentive for the GOP, especially in the House, to deal? They’re not interested in governing, and they need austerity — the bigger the better — to tip the economy back into recession so they don’t have to run against a recovery in 2016.
The necessary bi-partisan cover will be provided by the handful of grandstanding lefties, like DeFazio and Grayson, or people whose first allegiance is to their career, and angling for Pelosi’s job, like Hoyer. The new tax bill will turn out to be simultaneously not progressive enough, and too progressive.
Second verse, same as the first.
Just read something somewhere this morning about mid-census gerrymandering being legal thanks to that Texas decision…why wait?
Because it’s DEMOCRATS we’re talking about, that’s why. Bringing a rock to a tank fight, every time.
Because you need a state legislature that’s majority Democratic, for starters. Who gerrymandered the 2.5% edge into the House in the first place? GOP state houses.
And a Democratic governor to not-veto the plan.
We’ll see. It doesn’t look good though, Steven:
Leaked deal memo for last year’s Grand Bargain: “Obama willing to go quite far”
Let’s see how correct Booman was in his analysis that Obama only gave away this stuff because he “knew” Boehner couldn’t deliver.
I am growing weary of knee-jerk opposition to any Grand Bargain.
How did that get to be a bad word?
When Dick Cheney said that deficits don’t matter, it seems like a lot of Democrats believed him.
The offer made to Boehner in that memo was made with the full understanding that Boehner couldn’t deliver, but that doesn’t mean that no offer of any kind should be offered.
The progressive community is going to present a unified no-compromise front to mirror in strength the no-compromise stance of the GOP. But let’s not start believing our own bullshit.
Here’s job number one. If you are doing something that you criticized when the other side did it, you are engaging in hypocrisy. If it’s strategic hypocrisy, then fine. But if it is real hypocrisy, you are making the same mistake you easily identified when committed by the other side.
Then let’s get down to specifics, Booman, because you’re right on principle…but what do the Democrats have to offer?
The real reason we’re knee-jerk rejecting making an offer is because it SEEMS as though that’s all Obama has ever done–giveaway and compromise and begin the negotiations right at the middle, only to give more than we get every time.
And Social Security and Medicare should not be on the table–that’s the BIGGEST reason for the knee-jerk rejection.
Whaddaya got? Any new ideas to offer them to give them cover? I really have no ideas myself, so…
First of all, let’s just go over the fiscal cliff. Obama can’t say that, but he can do it just by refusing to back down from his campaign position.
So, now we have higher tax rates on everyone and government contracts getting cancelled and all kinds of people from every walk of life screaming at the House Republicans to fix things and fix them fast.
That’s when you introduce a tax reform package that can lower rates on everyone while increasing revenue, a la the 1986 tax reform written by Bill Bradley. There is going the have to be a Medicare piece to it, but Social Security can be completely off the table. The Medicare piece isn’t because we want it necessarily but because we can’t ever get a deal that doesn’t address Medicare costs. What does that wind up looking like? I’m sure we won’t like it, but it doesn’t have to be catastrophic.
We’re in a very strong position which is why Bill Kristol is crying ‘Uncle.’ He knows that the blame for the sequester will fall on the GOP and that their leverage will be further weakened by their horrible polling numbers. To get the House GOP to move, though, we need a tax reform that ostensibly lowers taxes while actually raising revenue, and we need to ding Medicare in some way. Otherwise, we get another government shutdown because Boehner can’t deliver the votes.
Ok, so let’s say we get tax reform that lowers rates for everybody. This will not satisfy the GOP’s lust to cut taxes for the wealthy. They will keep at it. Why should we concede the opportunity to raise taxes and reduce deductions for the wealthiest?
If all we get is tax reform that is made up removing deductions it will not last very long.
I like the idea of a Grand Bargain. I was a debt scold during the Bush years and I think we should take steps to reduce our debt. I like better a Grand Bargain in which we get the best deal possible and don’t give an inch beyond what we need to give up.
We shouldn’t give up on getting the best possible deal. You’ve 4.6% to play with, though. Once the rate goes back to 39.6%, you can bring it back down to 38% or 37% and make up the rest in reform.
And if they decrease it to 28%?
When you say we have to ding Medicare the warning bells go off. Nothing will mess up the D party more than that phrase alone in 2014. The R’s are going to end up with the same playbook they used for 2010 midterms. Whats going to stop them?
Your warning bells can go off then.
There is no universe in which this House of Representatives funds the government without Medicare taking a hit. That can sound a lot scarier than it has to be, however. As for the 2010 playbook, you can tear up that playbook.
As a rule, Boehner won’t introduce a bill that has less than 50% support from his caucus. If he gets less than that and he still goes ahead, he will probably lose power and the House Republicans will feast on themselves. They will feast on themselves regardless.
Secondly, a bill that dings Medicare and addresses our long-term structural deficit will be met with laurels from the establishment press and the near total loss of any rational for supporting the GOP in elections. The downside, which is the real consequences of the cuts, will be swamped in the midterms by ticker-tape and balloons.
Remember, it isn’t a bargain if Obama doesn’t stand up to his base and give away something heretical. That’s the price for getting the Republicans to make a similar leap.
As for tax reform, 1986 model is a good one, although I have no problem raising the top marginal rate above the Bush rate, while still keeping it lower than the Clinton rate. Whatever allows people to save some face so they can sign off on the deal is fine with me as long as it significantly increases revenue from the wealthiest 2 or 3 percent.
I remember people saying the same thing – many people, many of the leading lights of the left-wing blogosphere – about the 2012 elections: that the Republicans were going to attack Obama over what he “put on the table” during the debt ceiling negotiations.
As it turned out, that prediction was completely wrong.
That’s when you introduce a tax reform package that can lower rates on everyone while increasing revenue, a la the 1986 tax reform written by Bill Bradley.
And this was accomplished how? How does lowering rates on everyone(including the Wall Street MOTU’s) result in increasing revenue? Isn’t that what W. claimed with his tax cuts?
The 1986 tax reform include closing a lot of loopholes. Did you know that credit card interest used to be tax deductible?
It wasn’t magical “dynamic scoring” free-lunch revenue. They actually did things that increased people’s tax burdens, in addition to lowering rates.
Because, as Bazooka Joe and a commenter over at Kevin Drum’s place have long detailed:
The deficit is not actually a “debt” that needs to be “paid back” but is simply an addition to the money supply that can remain in circulation indefinitely so long as inflation is under control. Since there’s basically zero inflation these days, deficit reduction (not to mention “entitlement reform”) is about as far from important as it can get.
Once you accept that the money is created out of thin air, the only burden created by the debt/deficit is inflation – specifically, the reduction in value of saved wealth – which falls mostly on the wealthy.
Lastly, because Obama’s willing to go farther than anyone on the left should, and he starts out giving away the store. If it was only because Boehner couldn’t deliver, and he’ll offer something else that might still suck but we can live with…then fine; that’s your argument, as far as I understand it.
PS: We had a grand bargain with Tip’N’Ronnie, and it was the worst mistake ever. Creating that trust fund was one of the biggest blows to SS and the tax base of this nation; it’s also suckered liberals into lifting the cap on SS, which should be the last thing we want to do. Fool me once…
You’re sounding a lot like Dick Cheney. Sure, deficits don’t matter. Just print more money. That works until inflation rears up and then you’re screwed. Hyper-inflation can happen and, as the 1970s taught us, once it does, it’s nearly impossible to tamp back down.
Obama’s proven himself very smart in these negotiations. He’s maneuvered Republicans into a box. I think we should trust him.
Right. Why do people always forget that Keynesianism has two halves?
Printing lots of money is great during a recession, because the deflationary pressures means you have a huge hole to fill before you get anywhere near causing inflation, but when the economy comes back around and is growing, running high deficits is either going to cause inflation to spike, or crater lending as new government debt eats up investment dollars.
Well I’m not a Keynesian. For two, I talked about inflation, and I said that’s the only worry. However, there is no worry right now, or any sign of worry.
And fixing inflation is easy. A bit painful, but easy; certainly less painful than prolonged longterm unemployment.
However, there is no worry right now, or any sign of worry.
You’re sure right about that. Worrying about inflation now is ridiculous.
Booman, I don’t agree that this is lefty hypocrisy, since a lot of the objection is to being stampeded into doing something NOW. The time to address deficits is when the economy is robust, not when we’re near the beginning of a slow recovery. There’s reason to hope that the economy will be in better shape in a few years — why the rush to adopt a Grand Bargain (aka austerity) right away?
Likewise, the thorniest problem with maintaining the safety net is keeping Medicare solvent. Obamacare has bought us 8 additional years to address that, and Obamacare has already brought about some slowing of inflation in medical costs. Why not wait until Obamacare is fully implemented to see if that trend continues, and make adjustments then, especially if the economy has continued to perk up?
In many ways the Great Deficit Crisis that supposedly demands a Grand Bargain is as artificial as the so-called “fiscal cliff.” In both cases I suspect the anti-safety-net forces (both on the right and the center) are pushing to act now to reduce programs they disagree with philosophically because the know they will not have the political strength to do it in a few years, not because our economic well-being depends on it.
I agree with you and seabe. As Atrios has noted: The best thing to do about the Bush Tax Cuts lapsing on January 1 is NOTHING. Let ’em lapse. That alone will help with the deficit, not to mention any new spending stimulus this economy needs–but nobody I’ve read ever mentions that…
“The progressive community is going to present a unified no-compromise front to mirror in strength the no-compromise stance of the GOP. But let’s not start believing our own bullshit. “
So, in other words the progressive community is going to whip its members into a frenzy, only it’s bullshit?
I don’t understand the tactics of this, because if you tell people up front with a wink and a nod it’s bullshit, why get in a frenzy?
If you don’t tell people up front, then yer not being frank with them.
The way I see it is, a lot of people gravitate towards the ‘reality-based community’ precisely because they don’t like or want to be bullshitted. So when compromise does come, they’ll be angry and disappointed.
On LW blogs, I expect to hear truth from the writers, not some unified false front they’ve all agreed to present in private. Which is one reason I don’t have any of them bookmarked anymore, save this one.
Why is there a need for a “Grand Bargain”? Did you learn nothing from the Clinton years? Do you not read Krgthulu?
No. They aren’t gonna start playing nice all of a sudden, and they KNEW Romney would lose anyway.
Anyone who thinks otherwise was either afraid Mitt would win…or THOUGHT he would win.