Greg Sargent reports on the intention of Democratic Senate leadership to introduce a fix for sequestration that offers (and specifies) a mixture of new revenues and spending cuts. This is controversial because it amounts to negotiating with oneself. Why offer anything to the Republicans until they specify what they want? As Sargent notes, no matter what the Democrats offer the Republicans even if it is the Moon, it will be rejected as unserious.
This could annoy some on the left who may worry there’s no percentage in offering cuts, since it will only allow Republicans to deride them as unserious and ask for still more, shifting the debate in their direction. But the White House is already on record saying it supports averting the sequester through a mix of revenues and cuts, so not even Obama could support an approach that only includes revenues.
What’s more, despite the left’s criticism in the past of offering cuts up front as part of an “adult in the room” strategy, this has arguably worked to some degree. During the fiscal cliff and debt ceiling fights, Republicans ended up caving specifically because it became overwhelmingly obvious to the public that they were the intransigent party standing in the way of compromise — the political risk of taking the blame for taxes going up on everyone, and then default, simply became too great.
Republicans appear more willing to allow the sequester to go forward than they were to go over the cliff or default. But there are increasing signs of queasiness among them about the sequester, too. Dems are gambling they won’t risk taking the blame for gutting defense and tanking the economy — particularly if Dems grab the middle ground with an offer that’s balanced between revenues and cuts.
It remains to be seen what Dems will offer, and surely Republicans will deride whatever they do offer as unserious. But the simple fact is that Democrats right now are the only party willing to compromise to avoid the sequester. This is not a partisan observation; it’s a factual one. The Democratic position is that Republicans will get some of the spending cuts they want if they agree to closing loopholes. By contrast, Republicans are explicitly saying that any deal that gives Dems any of the new revenues they want is a nonstarter. Even if Republicans dismiss the cuts Dems do offer as insufficent, it will remain objectively true that only one side is suggesting we avert the sequester with a compromise that includes some of what both sides want. Meanwhile, the other side’s openly declared position is that this must not happen and that the sequester is preferable to both sides getting some of what they want.
I can see both sides of the argument. The Democrats have to keep in mind, however, that whatever they offer will be pocketed without any reciprocation. Their offer will become the new starting point for negotiations. So, the Democrats better not offer much.
