Ramesh Ponnuru and most of the crew at the National Review are somewhat mystified about why the Republicans knifed their Speaker on Thursday night. Yet, I think Mr. Ponnuru has identified the cause correctly. The ideologues in the party do not want to vote for tax increases (even if the result is lower taxes for more people) because it will make it harder for them to criticize the Democrats on taxes. It will mess up their brand and damage their message.
And this is precisely why a Grand Bargain is preferable to going over the cliff. A Grand Bargain that forces half or more of the House Republicans to vote for a tax increase and for economic stimulus and for extending the debt ceiling will take away their ability to coherently continue their idiotic Tea Party campaign.
The backbenchers know this. And they don’t want to give up their stupid arguments, let alone vote for all the things the said they were against. That’s why they knifed their Speaker, and that’s why their Speaker can’t find a compromise that his caucus will accept.
Whether a Grand Bargain or going over the Fiscal Cliff is preferable depends on the specifics of the Grand Bargain. And must answer, “preferable for whom”? Just how much would you give away to get half of the Republican caucus to vote openly for a tax increase?
Breaking the Tea Party backbenchers is not sufficient to breaking the GOP stranglehold on economic policy. The most moderate Republican in the House (can you find one?) believes, really believes a framework of economic policy so contrary to reality that you are asking them to abandon their religious faith in the all-powerful self-healing forces of the market when you ask for a stimulus package. Five years of reality, and they still don’t get it. Even if the Chamber of Commerce itself told them to do it, they would panic at the loss of a major part of their identity. And that’s the ones who play at being sane instead of amping up the crazy.
The Democrats should be pushing for the best policy, period. “Breaking the back of the Republicans” the way Booman fantasizes isn’t possible and shouldn’t enter the equation. Republicans ceased to argue “coherently” about taxes, years ago. Reagan raised taxes, but not according to Republican history texts.
Count me as someone who would be happy to let the ideologues live in their cocoon, so long as the country doesn’t collapse under their stupidity. They didn’t give up their fantasies when Reagan was in charge. Why Booman expects them to see the light on this occasion is beyond me.
I agree that “breaking the back” of the Republican party is desirable, but I don’t think a grand bargain and going over the cliff are the only two options. I can envision a scenario in which a bargain (grand or small) is struck after going over the cliff—and that bargain could (in theory) be better for Democrats in both the short and long run.
Regardless of what happens in the next few days, Republicans seem likely to need years of repeated defeats (the Recovery Act, the Affordable Care Act, repealing DADT, tax hikes for the wealthy, ending the debt ceiling brinksmanship, climate change legislation, immigration reform, etc.) for a critical mass of Republicans to rejoin the world of “politics as usual”.
As Ta-Nehisi Coates points out, there’s a big constituency for the Republican party as it is today, and those folks are as entitled to representation as anyone else. Fortunately, they seem to be a shrinking minority of the electorate. But until they’ve lost enough times that the far right loses its power to primary (and defeat) “moderate” Republicans, Democrats are going to have to keep the pressure on.
Here’s what the AP says about the impact of both tax cuts expiring:
And the automatic sequester will deliver the rest of a $1 Trillion cut in one year.
The business elite should be careful what they ask for. But they have the cash on the table if they want to stimulate the economy.
I agree, the back benchers can’t be broken. If a comment I read yesterday by a Republican who chose to remain anonymous is to be believed, there are only 50 Republicans keeping the wrench in the works. That leaves 3 times as many other Republicans to choose from who might be willing to work with the Democrats to get something done. The can’t all be crazy. And they can’t all hail from districts where they’re vulnerable to being primaried. I honestly don’t believe that not raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires is a true article of faith in the rank and file. I don’t think Congress raising those taxes on the wealthy is enough to make constituents rise up and primary.
Here’s the thing about being primaried. It’s one of the worst things that can happen to an incumbent member of Congress. It means spending hundreds, perhaps thousands, of hours fundraising. It means going home to the district every weekend for a whirlwind of appearances, handshaking, and interminable chicken dinners.
And it doesn’t take much to put together a primary challenge that an incumbent has to take seriously—especially with the virtually unlimited funds available to groups like the Club for Growth, the NRA, and various tea party SuperPACs.
If I were a gambler, I’d be willing to bet good money that the vast majority of Republican House members think, with good reason, that they “hail from districts where they’re vulnerable to being primaried”.
It’s going to take repeated losses over many years, I think, for the average Republican House member to be in a position where he/she can afford to ignore the party’s ideologues.
They still have to get the voters to accept the new name and face. If the public (partisan as it is) grows weary of these musical chairs and decides to support the incumbent, all those chicken dinners can pay off. If they break one Primary, they can be sure to break future attempts to unseat them. But you’re probably right. Republicans aren’t known for their fortitude.
You’re right; all those chicken dinners and fundraising calls and visits can (and often do) pay off. But it’s stuff that most politicians hate doing.
Most members of the Republican caucus in the House aren’t “crazy”; but if talking and voting “crazy” is what it takes to avoid a primary fight and the risk of being involuntarily returned to civilian life, then most of them will do it.
I understand the “vulnerable to being primaried” bit, we’ve seen enough of that of late. But isn’t the situation a bit different now?
For all those who would vote on purely ideological grounds, aren’t there enough GOP voters who would respond to the very straightforward argument: “Look, I got your taxes lowered, and if I’d done what my opponent says I should have done, they’d still be high.” Not even Norquist could argue with that.
I realize that there are about 50 lunatics in the House that find Norquist too liberal, but they’re not the ones that would be primaried.
Rationally, your argument makes sense. But politics is never purely rational.
It’s the “moderates” in the House Republican caucus that have to worry about being primaried by the far right. And all it takes is one county commissioner or city councilor or state senator or prominent businessman who’s willing to run and can raise money from right-wing PACs and superPACs to force a primary fight. Even if the incumbent wins, it’s an ugly, painful, expensive and dispiriting experience.
Most incumbents really hate primary fights. All I’m saying is, don’t underestimate the power of that threat.
Nerdy Wonka @NerdyWonka
WSJ reports GOP aides begged WH to return to grand bargain deal of 2011. Pres. Obama said no and reminded them he won the election.
………………………………..
Nerdy Wonka @NerdyWonka
WSJ reports when WH refused to re-offer 2011 grand bargain deal, GOP aides told WH: “So you’re breaking up with us?”
……………………..
Nerdy Wonka @NerdyWonka
WSJ reports POTUS summoned Boehner to the WH & told him he can choose a door. Door 1: Take his deal. Door 2: Get blamed for a recession.
…………………………..
Nerdy Wonka @NerdyWonka
WSJ reports Boehner begged for the deal POTUS offered in 2011. Pres. Obama told him: “You missed your opportunity on that.”
……………………….
Jonathan Karl @jonkarl
WSJ also reports Paul Ryan opposed the larger cliff deal because it did not make structural changes to entitlements.
…………………..
ok, the image of this just cracked me up:
Jonathan Karl @jonkarl
One other detail: Obama sent a plane to Ohio to bring Boehner back to DC for their meeting on Monday.
………………………
Orange Julius clutching the Jack Daniels, and gets a phone call.
OJ: Yes.
Phone: The plane will be there at 10 a.m., Mr. Speaker.
OJ: What plane?
Phone: The plane the President sent for you.
OJ about to speak when he hears a `click’ at the other end.
There it is, folks. Everything else is just gamesmanship.
When will the village turn on Ryan? It seems clear that Ryan was a net negative to the Romney campaign, his ideas for “reform” are almost universally opposed by the American people and yet, Boehner still gives him a place at the table. I realize he has a leadership post and carries a certain power within the caucus as evidenced by the fact that they all voted for his ridiculous budget, but his ideas are extremely unpopular and are an anvil to the party. Oh, and he was just on a losing ticket for President and has almost no appeal outside the GOP.
I don’t think this is a fight they can win, in fact, it seems suicidal.
That’s what breaking their backs looks like. There is no need for a grand bargain to do that. Shit, it’s already chaos; that’s why Boehner’s Plan B failed. It was everyone for themselves.
Also, Matt Steinglass agrees with Booman I think:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/12/fiscal-cliff-3
This is pretty sweet stuff. If the Obama team played it anything remotely this rough… It makes me happy.
My question is this. Usually the Obama people are great at strategy. I wonder if they have a plan in mind they think they can work towards. I wonder what it is?
Because seriously, the sequester’s no joke. If the Obama team successfully points all of the pressure from that thing at Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor, there could be some epic public crumbling.
That’s lovely stuff. But then you have crap like this .
Uygur is sure that Obama is going to cave. I don’t think so. But I guess we’ll see 9 days.
The only pundit who’s been more wrong than Matt Stoller has been Cenk Uygur.
Although I do think the WSJ article is troubling on the economic front:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/22/guess-who-still-believes-in-invisible-vigilantes/
There must be some strategic factor here that I don’t understand, and I’m open to being persuaded to have a different opinion about these negotiations. You say that forcing Republicans to vote for a small tax increase on a tiny percentage of people and other similar actions would damage their brand, divide the party, remove positions that they can campaign on, and all together break their backs. How is this different from forcing Democrats to vote for cutting Social Security benefits for some percentage of recipients?
And while primary challengers will use a tax increase vote against an incumbent Republican, how can a Democrat use it and maintain any distinction of integrity between the parties? (Note that this is unilateral problem for Democrats: Republicans had the cheek to campaign against Democrats wanting to cut Medicare benefits; Democrats can’t use the tactic in reverse).
“A Grand Bargain that forces half or more of the House Republicans to vote for a tax increase and for economic stimulus and for extending the debt ceiling will take away their ability to coherently continue their idiotic Tea Party campaign.”
The Tea Partiers are already incoherent. unfortunately this does not stop them now what makes you think it would do so in the event of a Grand Bargain?
There is a conundrum here (did use that word correctly?).
Going over the cliff in the short term is the worst thing to do in a recession, let alone the Great Recession.
Going over the cliff in the long term is the best policy for the country.
People forget that Keynesian economics has two sides. For eighty-odd years we have pushed pedal to the metal in stimulus, both taxes and spending, during good times and bad. What this has given us is 1,744% inflation from November 1932 to November 2012 and all the attendant distortion in economic planning.
During a boom, Keynes tell us that budgets should be over-balanced to dampen inflation, speculation, and bubbles. But no one wants to take the proverbial punch bowl away, so we wind up with post-bubble hangovers time and again that are cured by another “hair of the dog”.
It really should stop sometime. Projections that I have seen for “falling over the cliff” call for a 3% drop in GDP and a 1% rise in unemployment. That doesn’t sound like too bad a price to start the road toward sustainable growth without bubbles. Finally reducing Pentagon spending is just a welcome side effect.
Forcing through a bargain that cuts seniors, students, and the poor while retaining tax cuts for 98% of us may give short term political dividends, but it will make the future poorer. Frankly, that is the Romney-Ryan vision for America.
Since many hate the fiscal cliff metaphor, may I suggest “diving into the pool”? Really, the water’s a bit cold but it will get warmer.
The inflation figures above are taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov and ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt You’ll have to dig around a bit for the historical data. It’s not all in the same place. I’ve been keeping a spreadsheet with the DOW and CPI back to 1910 for about ten years now. I update the CPI monthly from the second link. You can sign up for an automatic e-mail of the monthly releases. The releases just tell you the change, press releases actually. But when the release notification comes just go to the second link and you will find a new line in the table.
Going over the cliff, as the cliff is currently defined, means tax increases which will hit the lower middle class, while at the exact same time the Federal budget is cut by over $1 billion with a hatchet. We would wish that this $1+ billion in spending cuts will come entirely from soft portions in the budget which, when cut, will do little harm to the economy as it effects the most vulnerable and middle class.
Unfortunately, that is not how the cuts are defined in law. Nor in a realistic political universe can we expect that alternative cuts of that size would avoid hurting the 99%. The growing group of poor people have no operating margin as it is, and allowing that “dive into the pool” to last would cause widespread suffering and needless death. That 3% loss in GDP looks reasonable to you, but if those policies were allowed to ride for a full year, it would be a crime against the American people.
Gerrymandering in most States may have given many Representatives the ability to be less responsive to their constituents, but regardless of their ideology no member of Congress wants to preside over a return to deep recession, even the TEA Party caucus.
Mistaken on the cuts- $1+ Trillion per year in the sequester, as mentioned earlier in the thread. It takes adjustment for me to absorb those numbers.
The Grand Bargain makes structural changes to Medicare/SS/FERS/CSRS and military pensions while the Fiscal Cliff doesn’t. It seems your argument boils down to “Screw the old people. I want my tax cut.” because that is the choice. The Grand Bargain will have no DoD cuts and preserves the special treatment of dividends and interest which is what the truly rich are most interested in. You might not even get your tax cuts because the Republicans want to cut deductions to make up the income.
There is no choice that has no cuts and no tax increases. The House will not make a bargain that progressives like. It would be better to increase spending at this time, but the Republicans will not let that happen, unless it’s to buy more carriers and F-35’s, maybe the new upgraded nukes they talk about. They have the power. Obama does not. Any bargain would entail some degree of capitulation. The Bush tax cuts were extended once before. The House demands they be permanent, even if scaled back. They mean to starve the beast. But if tax cuts for people who have jobs are more important to you than assistance to those who don’t have jobs, then we really have nothing more to say.
Remember, even Plan B is too progressive for the House.
Allow me to correct some of your notions of my views. First off, I think the FICA payroll tax cut is a very risky way to provide stimulus. We need to keep the SS fund healthy, and now we’re adding underfunding to the raids of previous years. I don’t personally need that cut and am not excited by it. That said, it does provide a real-time infusion of badly needed cash to the suffering lower and middle classes. I believe they need to be helped out a bit longer, and God knows they’re being brutally screwed over by a number of other policies which we will have an impossible time changing with this House in the mix.
I am quite aware that there are a series of difficult options before us. I am also aware that negotiations around a Grand Bargain have suggested some of the cuts you mention. That said, the expiration of all Bush tax cuts and sequesters is law, while a Grand Bargain is not. A Bargain could be freely remade in a number of ways, since it has no fixed starting points. The cliff is better than a bad Grand Bargain. However…Yes, the sequester leaves SS/Medi alone; that would make the $500+ billion cuts in discretionary programs quite the evisceration of them, wouldn’t it?
Plan B is currently too progressive for the House. I consider that a temporary circumstance, and that once the non-nihilists absorb that they have lost their leverage early next year, we must be able to negotiate a better deal. Keep in mind that a final House deal wouldn’t have to happen through all GOP votes. I’m not fearful of going over the cliff, but it’s unacceptable for it to last all year. It’s one thing for the economy to crater as a result of a market crash, but for a -3% GDP quarter or quarters to take place as a direct result of Congressional intransigence? That level of incompetence would expose the House to too much pressure, I think.
The cliff”s cuts in discretionary programs are 10%. I’ve worked for the federal government for 21 years (and in the real world for 25 years). I’ve never seen a program that could not survive a 10% cut. Hell, we could save that much by transferring work back from profit-making contractors back to civil servants, undoing another big Reagan mistake.
Sorry, I forgot to acknowledge that I agree with your paragraphs 1 and 3.
A sense of the alternative to the sequester is the House bill reallocating the sequester cuts which Boehner allowed to come up and pass in his unsuccessful attempt to pass Plan B. All the war spending cuts are removed and dumped into Medicare, Medicaid, and discretionary spending. It would basically be the end of “normal” governmental functions apart from war spending and (reduced) social welfare. No NIH, no NASA, no NOAA, no EPA – all wiped out.
The clear point is that the House isn’t going to pass any bill without sequester-level cuts. Given that we’re going to get those cuts, the sequester is far better than anything we’re going to get out of negotiation. Any Grand Bargain is going to cause massive worsening and waste in spending – to the tune of 100-200 billion per year. I can’t see anything coming out of a bargain to justify that.
You’re mistaken Booman.
The ideologues have pushed repeatedly to raise taxes on Americans. This is what the flat-tax does. It’s also what Romney’s “47%” comment was all about. He was specifically complaining that 47% of the country don’t pay taxes. Paul Ryan has been making the same argument for years. Meanwhile Boehner and the Republicans are happy to let the “Obama” tax cuts expire on January 1st.
Republicans do not want tax increases on very specific people. Very wealthy people. They’ll raise payroll and consumption taxes along with fines, fees and tolls in an instant and if a flat tax requires raising the rates for the bottom 90%, so be it.