The stupid party

Tyler Cowen linked to a WaPo article showing that the GOP is likely to cave on taxes after the election.  And what do they get in return?

But if Obama wins, the GOP would have no leverage “” political or procedural “” to force him to abandon his pledge to raise taxes on family income over $250,000, according to senior Republicans in the House and the Senate.

So they are beginning to contemplate a compromise that would let taxes go up in exchange for Democratic concessions on GOP priorities.

At the very least, that would mean protecting the Pentagon from the budget ax, which is set to whack $55 billion out of national security accounts next year. But it could also mean major changes to Medicare, which many Republicans said could quickly become the new front in the partisan battle over the budget.

“I hope, obviously, the status quo doesn’t prevail” on Nov. 6. “But if things stay as they are, and all the players are generally the same .”‰.”‰. finding a responsible reform for Medicare is the secret to unleashing very productive talks that would put in place a balanced solution to our fiscal problems,” said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.). “If you deal with the Medicare issue, then Republicans are far more open to looking at revenues.”

Difficult details would have to be hammered out. And any compromise would face head winds in the House, where a large bloc of GOP freshmen opposed new taxes during a messy fight to raise the federal debt limit last summer.

Many say they that are still not ready to agree to higher taxes and that they will press to maintain tax rates for families at all income levels no matter who wins the White House.

“As long as we have control of the House, I’m going to be really surprised if we capitulate on what’s essentially a core fundamental of conservative orthodoxy,” said Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.).

So the GOP will cave and allow tax increases, and in return they’ll get a Obama promise to raise federal spending by $55 billion.  That’s just great.   I know it’s defense, and how can we expect to defend our country with a military budget that’s only as big as the next 20 countries combined?  And then there’s that “Medicare concession.”  Memo to the GOP; Obama already wants to cut Medicare, it’s part of the health reform bill.  Indeed hasn’t the GOP been warning about Medicare cuts?  The Dems know that if they don’t reduce the rapid growth of Medicare, they’ll have no money for all those other Democratic goals (child care, infrastructure, medical subsides for the uninsured, higher teacher salaries, etc.)

And Rep. Trey Gowdy reminds me of Mill’s comment about the “stupid party.”  Do the House Republicans not even realize that taxes will rise next year, regardless of whether the GOP “capitulates” or not?  The Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire.  Try negotiating that point with Obama after he’s just won the final election of his life.  Are the GOP Congressmen going to threaten to hold their breath until their face turns blue?  Obama will let the tax cuts expire and immediately propose re-instating them for everyone making under $200,000.  And the GOP will do what?

Last year I argued that the GOP was making a big mistake by not showing a willingness to negotiate with Obama on the budget.  Let’s review the facts:

1.  Obama was very anxious to negotiate, as he wanted to run for re-election on the claim that he’d been able to get beyond the old partisan divides in Washington.  After all, he’d promised to do so back in 2008.  He knew that a grand agreement would undercut the GOP argument on the economy.  And he has the foreign policy issue wrapped up.

2.  If the GOP had gone all in for Simpson-Bowles, they would have had to give a little ground on tax increases, but they would have gotten major tax reform.  Lower rates on income taxes in exchange for far fewer loopholes.  Isn’t that what Romney claims to want?   (Except the tax revenue increase, which he only wants secretly.)  And also spending cuts.

3.  By going all in for Simpson-Bowles, the GOP would have been seen as “bi-partisan” and all those centrist DC reporters that Krugman hates would have swooned over the party.  Especially if Obama held out and refused to negotiate.  Ryan would be seen as a hero.  Instead centrist reporters now (correctly) see the GOP as a rigid ideological party in hock to the Tea Party.  And that image will cause them to lose the independents, and lose the November election.

Compromise was the right thing to do.  Instead the GOP tried to destroy Obama, regardless of how badly it hurt the country.  Now they are about to lose everything.  And they’ll end up with a far inferior policy mix to what they could have negotiated in 2011.

What a stupid party.

PS.  I guess this post contradicts my previous post, where I claimed not to have “strong views” on either party.


Tags:

 
 
 

49 Responses to “The stupid party”

  1. Gravatar of W. Peden W. Peden
    22. September 2012 at 07:10

    I’d give props to the Republicans for acting on principles rather than political advantage, if I didn’t (a) disagree with those principles and (b) tend to adopt the corrolary of the “Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetance”, i.e. “Never attribute to virtue what can be attributed to incompetance”.

  2. Gravatar of John Thacker John Thacker
    22. September 2012 at 08:06

    Obama was very anxious to negotiate,

    Scott, I’d recommend you read Woodward’s book, or at least the review in the Washington Post. His sources, from both parties, make it sound like the Republicans were anxious to negotiate and that it was President Obama who killed a deal between the Majority and Minority Leaders in both the House and Senate.

    Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) then said the four leaders wanted to speak privately, asking Obama to leave a meeting he had called “in his own house,” in Woodward’s words. The president, fuming, agreed to let them talk. “This was it,” Woodward writes. “Congress was taking over.”…
    Obama succeeded in getting Boehner to tentatively agree to as much as $800 billion in new revenue, a major concession, only to surprise the speaker with a request for an additional $400 billion as their negotiations neared the final stages…
    “Warming to his subject, he continued with an uplifting speech,” Woodward writes. “Pelosi reached over and pressed the mute button. They could hear Obama, but now he couldn’t hear them. The president continued speaking, his disembodied voice filling the room, and the two leaders got back to the hard numbers.”

    The GOP was willing to compromise. President Obama was not, as Woodward’s book made clear. President Obama won the spin war, though.

  3. Gravatar of John Thacker John Thacker
    22. September 2012 at 08:08

    President Obama killed a compromise that would have raised revenue, only to manage to place the blame on the Republicans. It was a bipartisan deal agreed upon by the Congressional Leaders of both parties. Obama came in at the last second attempting to alter the terms of an agreed upon deal that had been negotiated by his party’s legislative leadership, and killed it.

    The remarkable thing is that everyone bought his spin. Pretty good work, being the intransigent one refusing to compromise, yet getting the other side blamed.

  4. Gravatar of David R.Henderson David R.Henderson
    22. September 2012 at 08:37

    @John Thacker,
    Yes, good point. Everyone bought his spin, including Scott Sumner as evidenced in this post.

  5. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    22. September 2012 at 08:41

    W. Peden, Yes, but the GOP certainly does not act on “principles.” It’s a tribal party–us versus them.

    John, I strongly disagree. Here’s what really happened. Boehner was initially inclined to compromise on taxes, but found that his party would not support him. He worked a compromise with Reid that did not involve any tax increase, but did involve revisiting the debt ceiling before the election. Obama was outraged, and rightly so. He stood up to the GOP and demanded that the debt ceiling be extended for a longer period of time (obviously the debt ceiling is absurd, and should not exist.) The GOP backed down and Obama won on the debt ceiling. The GOP won on the tax cuts, all of which were extended. But it was a Pyrrhic victory.

  6. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    22. September 2012 at 08:42

    David, See my answer to John.

  7. Gravatar of Dave Dave
    22. September 2012 at 08:45

    I question Cowen’s conclusion, drawn from inch deep analysis, it is too simple. I believe the Republican are attempting to make the choice this November as stark as possible. For the 53% that pay taxes they are making it crystal clear that pulling the lever for Obama will pull $$ from their wallets. Elections have consequences, and all that good stuff. We shall see whether the strategy is sound of stupid, knee jerk-isms aside.

  8. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    22. September 2012 at 08:49

    John, BTW, I had read that entire article before I wrote my post, and it does not contradict anything I said in the post. The column points out that Boehner later backed off on the $800 billion, when Obama asked him to return to that position. The other GOP leaders wouldn’t accept Boehner’s deal. Read the article again.

  9. Gravatar of John Thacker John Thacker
    22. September 2012 at 09:02

    Scott, I read that article, and I don’t think it agrees with your position. Obama’s record is consistent with not actually wanting compromise. He also refused to back Simpson-Bowles. He refused to back the bipartisan Gang of Six. Every time there has been a chance at a deal, he has sabotaged the deal. I can’t possibly see how he has acted any better, and I think that there’s a lot of evidence that he’s acted worse.

    Consider that the Republicans backed down on the debt ceiling agreement, as you agree. The Republicans would have backed down similarly on an announced grand bargain. However, Obama had already shown himself to be an untrustworthy negotiator, who believed he could stay above it all, wait until something was agreed upon, and then at the end jump in and change the bargain. He’s done this repeatedly.

    The Democrats were willing to let the government default on its debts rather than keep spending level instead of increasing. The Republicans blinked first, as you note, with the debt ceiling. Who is intransigent?

  10. Gravatar of zathras zathras
    22. September 2012 at 09:03

    John, you skipped the best part, where, instead of rejecting the revenue increase, Boehner killed the entire negotiations and said no deal, never, ever.

  11. Gravatar of John Thacker John Thacker
    22. September 2012 at 09:11

    Even if you grant that some members of the GOP caucus are intransigent, I can’t see how you can possibly think that Obama is any less intransigent.

    I absolutely believe that it was a terrible mistake, politically and in policy, for the broader GOP, outside the bipartisan Gang of Six, to fail to adopt Simpson-Bowles. I also believe that it was a mistake for President Obama to fail to do so.

    All of President Obama’s actions are completely consistent with not wanting a budget compromise. Appointing a Commission, then ignoring it? That’s the classic Washington strategy when you want to sound good but not get something done. Did he help with the Gang of Six? Attempt to make a deal with any of the moderates, even retiring moderates like Olympia Snowe? No.

    It’s been clear that Obama’s strategy has been to refuse to compromise, paint it as the GOP’s fault, and then wait until after the election. Yes, a good deal of the GOP caucus would like to do the same, but the debt ceiling deal showed that, in the end, they would compromise.

  12. Gravatar of Jay van Santen Jay van Santen
    22. September 2012 at 09:26

    It’s clear that there is dysfunction in DC, and both parties are to blame, to some degree.

    Obama’s 1.2 trillion in revenue increases corresponded roughly to the Simpson-Bowles breakdown — 1 part revenue increase, 2 parts expenditure reduction. A plurality of the American people feel that is an appropriate ratio. And, it’s doubtful that Obama would have been able to sell anything less to the Democratic members of Congress.

    I don’t doubt Woodward’s factual basis. What I question is his assessment of blame.

    An analysis that Republicans truly wanted to find a compromise would be to play against type, and I simply don’t buy it. Both Republican leaders of the Senate and House have said their top priority was to defeat Obama in 2012. Republican opposition to Obama’s legislative priorities (which are almost all those that Republicans have supported in years past) has reached a level of obstruction greater than at any point in 100 years.

    And, when candidates for the Republican Presidential candidacy were asked whether they would support a 1:10 ratio of tax increase, expenditure decrease, none raised their hand.

    So, Woodward may be good with the words. I’m not sure he has as much insight into motivation…

  13. Gravatar of John Thacker John Thacker
    22. September 2012 at 09:30

    Try negotiating that point with Obama after he’s just won the final election of his life. Are the GOP Congressmen going to threaten to hold their breath until their face turns blue?

    Glad you realize that Obama has the capability to be intransigent. Now consider: why would he be any less intransigent before the 2012 election if he were certain that he could politically blame it on the Republicans if any deal collapsed? Here’s what I see:

    1) You believe that Obama would be intransigent after 2012 because the political repercussions wouldn’t hurt him;

    2) You agree that the political repercussions for Obama in the 2012 election are nothing but positive if the Republicans are blamed for being intransigent before the elections.

    3) You agree that the GOP has been willing to compromise and let Obama win, as in the debt ceiling case;

    4) Even though (see 3), you agree that the GOP backed down and accepted a loss in the debt ceiling negotiations, most people and centrist observers painted the case as the GOP being intransigent, even though the Democrats and Obama were equally willing to allow default rather than the GOP win;

    5) You agree that a deal, whether along the lines of the tentative one, Bowles-Simpson, or the Gang of Six proposal, would be a good one, and that Obama endorsed none of them.

    1-2) argue that President Obama had and has a strong incentive to sabotage negotiations if he could blame it on the GOP. If he’s willing to do it after 2012, why wouldn’t he do so before 2012 if it would lead to his preferred post-2012 scenario?

    3-4) argue that the GOP is very likely to be blamed for intransigence even in cases where they were more willing to compromise than the Democrats and Obama.

    Together, 1-4) argue that President Obama has a strong incentive to sabotage negotiations and should be suspected of doing do.

    5) provides circumstantial evidence that he has done so.

  14. Gravatar of John Thacker John Thacker
    22. September 2012 at 09:37

    Note further with 5) that Obama’s refusal to endorse any of these bipartisan compromises has not been taken as signs of intransigence by the centrist folks and journalists (outside of Woodward) the way that the GOP’s refusal to endorse them has. That is more evidence that Obama has a strong incentive to be intransigent and refuse to compromise, since he will not be blamed for doing so.

  15. Gravatar of Patrick R. Sullivan Patrick R. Sullivan
    22. September 2012 at 09:48

    ‘By going all in for Simpson-Bowles, the GOP would have been seen as “bi-partisan” and all those centrist DC reporters that Krugman hates would have swooned over the party.’

    Boy, is that wrong. Andrea Mitchell would see the light? Chris Matthews? Ted Koppel? Dana Milbank?

    Can you give us an idea of which centrist reporters would be strong enough to suffer the slings and arrows of their peers, and swoon over the GOP? Look what a pariah Chris Wallace is, and he’s a registered Democrat.

    Btw, in 1980 Carter polled well ahead of Reagan right up to the election. This election has eerie similarities to 1980, even including problems in the mideast.

  16. Gravatar of Negation of Ideology Negation of Ideology
    22. September 2012 at 09:48

    Elections have consequences. I’d suggest that if Obama wins it’s a clear mandate for the end of the Bush tax cuts for the over $250,000 crowd. Their official positions are the same for the under $250,000 crowd as far as I can tell. If the Republicans can wrangle some entitlement cuts in exchange, obviously that’s good, but they should be willing to deal.

    One note on defense is I don’t think comparing the defense budget of the US to the next 20 countries makes sense. How many big, rich countries are there? A soldier in a poor, big nation like China, Russia or India probably costs a fraction of a soldier here. Japan is big and rich, but they’re not allowed to spend a lot for historic reasons. If you counted the EU as one country, it would be a similar size to us, but comparing us to Greece (the #20 military spender) doesn’t makes sense to me. We account for 41% of world military spending and we’re about 25% of world GDP. So we’re high, but not absurdly so considering how big we are.

    I’d suggest a better comparison would be the number of tanks, planes, ships, soldiers, etc. Having said that, I’m sure there are savings to be made in the defense budget without harming national security.

  17. Gravatar of John Thacker John Thacker
    22. September 2012 at 09:54

    However, I definitely agree with your basic point Scott about Bowles-Simpson, because of the argument that I’ve outlined.

    Precisely because Obama had no incentive to compromise in secret negotiations– since the failure of secret negotiations would always be blamed on the GOP, not Obama– the only winning strategy for the GOP (among the centrist smart set) was to publicly embrace the Bowles-Simpson plan. Secret negotiation were never going to work because the President always had a greater incentive to torpedo them, knowing that he would never get blamed.

  18. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    22. September 2012 at 10:52

    John, You said;

    “I absolutely believe that it was a terrible mistake, politically and in policy, for the broader GOP, outside the bipartisan Gang of Six, to fail to adopt Simpson-Bowles. I also believe that it was a mistake for President Obama to fail to do so.”

    I agree, I think you need to re-read my post. But I believe that the GOP could have gotten a far better deal in 2011 than what they’ll get in 2013. And I also believe that in the end Obama would accept $800 billion in extra revenue and Boehner went back on his word.

    Patrick. Ryan got a ton of praise from mainstream Washington reporters, until he went off the deep end. Krugman was outraged at all the good PR Ryan was getting month after month. They he started spouting nonsense, and he lost his centrist support.

    Negation, You said;

    “A soldier in a poor, big nation like China, Russia or India probably costs a fraction of a soldier here.”

    Those soldiers are pretty ineffective, and pose no threat to the US. I believe defense spending is “absurdly high”, when one considers plausible scenarios for an attack on the US. Our nukes deter an attack from a big country, and our military is mostly useless against terrorists. And as we saw in 1991, we have way more than we need to evict a country like Iraq from Kuwait. I’d add that most other countries also spend way too much on defense (except perhaps for the Gulf states.)

    Everyone, My views in this post have little bearing on my view regarding the upcoming election.

  19. Gravatar of rh rh
    22. September 2012 at 10:54

    Patrick Sullivan, I have to point out that your last paragraph is a political myth based on a couple of outlier poll results from Gallup.

    See http://www.tnr.com/blog/electionate/107171/exploding-the-reagan-1980-comeback-myth

  20. Gravatar of Gene Callahan Gene Callahan
    22. September 2012 at 11:08

    “For the 53% that pay taxes…”

    The legal incidence of a tax is not the economic incidence of the tax. You have no idea who actually pays taxes and who doesn’t.

  21. Gravatar of Mike Sax Mike Sax
    22. September 2012 at 11:59

    “Btw, in 1980 Carter polled well ahead of Reagan right up to the election. This election has eerie similarities to 1980, even including problems in the mideast.”

    Yeah we’ve been hearing about that analogy by the Romney peope ad nasueum. All they have left are their dremas of 1980.

    Well this isn’t 1980, Obama isn’t Carter, and Romney sure as hell aint Reagan.

    I know there’s this urban legend about how Carter led Romney until the end but it’s a false analogy.

    Carter may have led late in certain polls but he did not lead wire to wire as Obama has in this race. Sure the marign has often been close but Romney has never lead in a Real Clear Politics poll since a day or two back in 2011.

    People forget that Reagan had a huge convention bounce and led by 30 points right after. What history tells us is that the candidate who leads after the convention wins the eletion. Check this in every election since 1964.

    Obama has a lot of other good harbingers. For one he’s the incumbent. Since 1900, incumbents don’t lose the Presidency provided they are not primaried by their own party.

    Check the history books. Since 1900 exactly one incumebent not primaried lost-you guessed it, Hoover back in 1932.

    Yes, I know Romney thought he was going to paint him as Herbert Hoover, but the polls show that most Americans think George W. is Hoover not Obama.

    Then again, in election years where the market rises, the incumebent wins. No better tell than the market which has risen during this entire election season.

    If you or anyone else can show me the election where the incumbent leads the chalenger in every poll, increases his lead post convetnion, while the market rallies all election and yet at the last second the challenger wins in some huge landslide like Reagan in 1980 I’ll be impressed.

    This election is much more like Bush-Kerry 2004-except of course Obama is Bush in this case. Yet Kerry was a much stronger candidate electorally-he often led during the Summer of 2004. Bush pulled ahead after Kerry-like Romney this year-failed to get any bounce from his convention and indeed, both actually lost a point.

    The 1980 analogy fails on so many levels. Another huge difference is that the electorate was much less polarized back in 1980. You forget, but during the Reagan years, he and then Bush won in places like New York, Mass, NJ, and California. When is the next Republican going to win any of those staets in a Presidential election?

    Reagan campaigned in all those places-obviously back then California was GOP country back then-how much things have changed.

    The conservative who is most circumspect about all this is actually Pat Buchanan.

    http://www.humanevents.com/2009/01/20/is-gop-still-a-national-party/

  22. Gravatar of Eric Beckman Eric Beckman
    22. September 2012 at 12:48

    Note to Dave. Saying that only 53% of Americans pay taxes is a signal to all thinking observers that you do not know what you are talking about.

    Another data point to corroborate Mike Sax’s point about 1980 and today. Unemployment was rising throughout 1980. The real analogy to 1980 was 2008, with the more polarized partisan environment making 1980 style landslides very unlikely.

  23. Gravatar of Bonnie Bonnie
    22. September 2012 at 14:29

    “Last year I argued that the GOP was making a big mistake by not showing a willingness to negotiate with Obama on the budget.”

    I agree. Simpson-Bowles wasn’t unreasonable. The Gang of Six plan was also a reasonable plan. There are plenty of people on both sides of the isle trying to do the right thing but the politics between Reid, Bohener, and Obama keeps getting in the way. Reid wouldn’t even entertain the Gang of Six, and so there is plenty of evidence it isn’t just Republicans being the “stupid party”; they are both stupid and average Americans are screwed regardless of who wins in November.

  24. Gravatar of Becon Becon
    22. September 2012 at 17:17

    “I know it’s defense, and how can we expect to defend our country with a military budget that’s only as big as the next 20 countries combined?”

    While I agree, I have softened a bit on that specific complaint about defense. As we saw in Libya, our NATO allies don’t even have enough ammunition or spare equipment to carry out an offensive for more than a few weeks. We’re the real military might of all of Western Europe. And I imagine our labor costs are also extremely high. China has more troops but spends a mere fraction on their wages.

    Given the role we gave ourselves, our military budget isn’t too lavish. We need new foreign policy first.

  25. Gravatar of Mike Sax Mike Sax
    22. September 2012 at 19:18

    See this piece by Scott underscores just how much trouble the GOP is in.

    Obviously I’m a bomb throwing, take no prisoners, partisan Democrat.

    However, for a guy like Scott, who’s a sensible centrist, mainstream, swing voter type who certainly always at least gives the Rs a fair hearing to say this shows just how badly Romney and company have lost the battle for the swing voters.

    A very foreboding bellwether

  26. Gravatar of Saturos Saturos
    22. September 2012 at 20:14

    Scott, do you think most of the Republican base shares your perspective on this?

  27. Gravatar of Peter N Peter N
    23. September 2012 at 03:07

    All these long term deficit calculations depend on 2 dominant factors:

    1) projected medical costs, and projecting medical costs 20 years by extrapolation is likely to be as successful as projecting transportation costs in 1925 from those of 1905 based on the necessarily increased number of horses.

    A cure for a few expensive chronic diseases (Alzheimers, diabetes, COPD, rheumatoid arthritis, autism, schizophrenia, heart disease…) would make projections worthless.

    2) the ratio of retirees to workers. This could be solved by increased immigration.

    A real economic plan would involve accelerating these two trends, along with changing some of the medical system’s perverse incentives. That’s where the money is.

    To ignore these and squabble about relatively minor issues is ridiculous.

  28. Gravatar of doug M doug M
    23. September 2012 at 08:12

    2006, Democrats sweep Congress on an agenda of “not Bush”
    2008, Democrats take the White House with “the Republicans are driving the the economy off a cliff” and “not Bush.
    2009, we get see the first tea party grublings over stimulus, TARP and GM bailouts. Negotiations over Obamacare begin. Scott Brown wins a special election on an agenda of “stop Obamacare”
    2010 Tea Party activist scuttle the candidacies of moderate republicans. Remaining feilds shifts aware that there are targets on thier bank. Repbulicans sweep congress on a mandate of “stop Obama.”

    Who says that Congress doesn’t react to the will of the people? We have exactly the Representatives we have asked for.

  29. Gravatar of Liberal Roman Liberal Roman
    23. September 2012 at 13:01

    I could not agree more with Scott. What a disaster the GOP have been. They have been hijacked by the radicals in their party not just on policy but on tactics as well.

    I’ll be a bit more speculative about the future. I expect the GOP to be seriously trounced this election cycle. I wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t take the Senate majority. The real pain for the Republicans will come in 2014. And in 2016, when they lose a 3rd straight Presidential election and many of the Tea Party candidates who won in 2010 lose their seats. Then and only then, will they finally turn away from the radicals, but by that time many liberal policies will be entrenched.

  30. Gravatar of lxm lxm
    23. September 2012 at 13:28

    The WaPo article quotes Senator Bob Corker TN “.”‰.”‰. finding a responsible reform for Medicare is the secret to unleashing very productive talks that would put in place a balanced solution to our fiscal problems,” said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.). “If you deal with the Medicare issue, then Republicans are far more open to looking at revenues.””

    Senator Corker is, essentially running for reelection without an opponent. His Democratic opponent has been disavowed by the Democratic Party. Senator Corker is also independently wealthy. Yet, Senator Corker consistently votes with the Republican caucus which means that he just joined his fellow Republican Senators in killing a bill that would have helped veterans get jobs.

    As Forbes puts it: “But how does even the most dedicated Republican live with the knowledge that their party’s top elected officials can so easily cast a vote to send an American solider off to war, only to refuse a comparatively small sum of money to help that veteran get his or her life back in they event they actually make it home?” http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/09/23/senate-gop-obstructionists-throw-veterans-under-the-bus-vote-down-bill-to-help-vets-in-need-of-jobs/

    If Senator Corker, who could easily act independent of the Republican caucus, and his fellow Republican Senators are willing to throw returning veterans under the bus in their efforts to defeat Obama, then there is no reason to think the election will change anything.

  31. Gravatar of Andrew Andrew
    23. September 2012 at 13:34

    John Thacker, here’s what you’re missing in your analysis. A big bipartisan deficit reduction deal in 2011 would have HELPED OBAMA get reelected. Multiple figures from both parties make that point throughout the Woodward book. Keep in mind that Obama’s numbers that year showed his reelection was far from assured. So yes, it makes sense for him to take a deal that’s tilted in the direction of Republican policy preferences (4:1 spending cuts:revenue), with the benefit of helping his reelection.

    It’s weird that you’re flailing around pretending there’s no difference between a president’s incentives right before the “final election of his life” and right after it.

  32. Gravatar of Brian Donohue Brian Donohue
    23. September 2012 at 14:53

    Scott,

    I don’t think Obama will get a “better deal” in 2013. The real long-term solution was never gonna be struck last year, but it may well next year.

    Reagan/Rostenkowski, Clinton/Gingrich… something about a second-term president and a hostile House.

  33. Gravatar of Bill Ellis Bill Ellis
    23. September 2012 at 15:33

    Scott says…
    “Everyone, My views in this post have little bearing on my view regarding the upcoming election.”

    This is what is so frustrating about you when it comes to politics. 🙂

  34. Gravatar of Donald Pretari Donald Pretari
    23. September 2012 at 16:16

    In case anyone’s interested:http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/

  35. Gravatar of Scoop Scoop
    23. September 2012 at 16:46

    “Obama has foreign policy issue wrapped up.”

    That basically shows that this is a media-rigged election. I’m not a particular fan of Romney, but it’s hard to believe he could get foreign policy more wrong.

    In Obama’s four years:

    1. He has spent trillions on two foreign nation-building exercises for no reason whatsoever. It was clear on the day he took office that shortly after American soldiers leave, all their efforts will start to unravel. Bush couldn’t back down. Obama could have but chose not too. Epic fail.

    2. Revolutions across the Muslim world have put replaced put Muslim fundamentalists in charge of half a dozen countries. The terrorists have gotten enough of a foothold in Libya in just a few months that they were able to execute a plan to execute our ambassador.

    3. Iran continues unabated in its quest for nukes.

    4. Foreign leaders have basically laughed at every attempt by the Obama administration to provide leadership on the world economy, to negotiate better trade deals or more investment opportunities for Americans, to put together any global warming treaties.

    Is there a single foreign policy victory in the entire Obama administration aside from killing bin Laden? To have it generally conceded that Obama has a foreign policy advantage over anyone is just shocking. Sorry.

  36. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    23. September 2012 at 17:03

    Saturos, I doubt the base agrees with me.

    Bill, I have little interest in the Presidential election—I’m more focused on the referenda, which are much more important.

  37. Gravatar of Major_Freedom Major_Freedom
    23. September 2012 at 17:12

    ssumner:

    W. Peden, Yes, but the GOP certainly does not act on “principles.” It’s a tribal party-us versus them.

    That is a principle.

    For an excellent overview of the principles of the GOP (of today) in general, and neoconservatism in particular, I recommend the book “Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea”, by Thompson.

    In this book, he details the Machiavellian/Trotskyite/Straussian roots of neoconservatism. Very informative, and explains why it is so hard to identify the “principles” of the GOP.

  38. Gravatar of OGT OGT
    23. September 2012 at 17:41

    Amazingly, I am going to find myself defending, or, at least, partially excusing the House Speaker Boehner. I think he wanted to give a grand bargain a shot and probably agreed with much of what you wrote. But, his problem was that 87 of his members were freshmen. Many of whom never held office and really are complete ideologues. Then added on top of that Eric Cantor has been cultivating them for a leadership challenge against Boehner, he blinked.

  39. Gravatar of Benny Lava Benny Lava
    23. September 2012 at 18:08

    Kinda weird how one part of one book is treated as gospel. The freshmen Republicans were adamant that they would not accept any tax increases under any circumstances. There is no evidence that Boehner could convince a huge bloc of his party to accept a “grand compromise”. That argument is really specious and is being constantly repeated, as if repetition is truth.

    I also remember during the talks Conservatives over and over insisting that Obama could simply stop spending money, implying that:

    1. the President could subvert the will of Congress and the letter of legislature by fiat

    2. the President has line item veto or impoundment powers, both of which have been rejected by the Supreme Court

    3. that enactment of such prerogatives would not constitute a huge unconstitutional power grab by Obama and a long term increase in centralization and powers of the President over a small, temporal political ploy.

    I found the situation hugely ironic that conservatives wanted to see the president make a huge long term dictatorial power grab simply to see a favored bit of temporal policy enacted. To me that was the greater stupid than not embracing the compromise.

  40. Gravatar of D D
    23. September 2012 at 18:08

    All these people defending the GOP on the budget deal are missing the forest for the trees. There did not have to be a deal! The Republican leadership decided to turn a normally routine debt ceiling vote into Obama’s Waterloo.

    Obama had no interest in helping McConnell complete his stated #1 priority, so he gave them enough rope to hang themselves. You’d think Boehner at least would have warned people how well the brinksmanship strategy worked out for Republicans in 1994.

  41. Gravatar of Major_Freedom Major_Freedom
    23. September 2012 at 18:27

    OGT:

    The entire Congress is composed of ideologues.

  42. Gravatar of Nick Nick
    23. September 2012 at 18:42

    Why not go back further to 2010 when everyone agreed to extend all of the bush tax cuts for two years? I have always thought that Republicans should have let the Democrats vote to raise taxes on those over $250K (with two clear votes, one for those under $250K where everyone would have agreed, and one for those over $250K where the parties would have split). Then the Republicans run for the house/senate/presidency saying “we let Obama, Pelosi and Reid raise taxes on the rich and it hasn’t solved anything since the economy still sucks and we still have $1 trillion plus deficits”, while the Democrats get their “the Republicans voted against raising taxes on the rich” ads.

    We then have an election and see which side wins (personally I think the Republicans get the better end of the deal given the still slow economy and how Obama is still going on and on about the ‘fair share’ stuff). If the Republicans won the presidency they can implement full scale tax reform that would be revenue neutral with the slightly higher post-2010 tax deal numbers, thereby getting both tax reform and slightly higher tax revenues, while voting only for tax cuts at every step of the way.

    What am I missing from a strategic perspective, other than the liberal argument that the Republicans only care for the rich, which unfortunately I think is made stronger by their NOT pursuing the above described sequence of events.

  43. Gravatar of BC BC
    24. September 2012 at 21:20

    Nick, one could equally ask why Dems are so intent on raising the top rate from 35% to 39% if most serious plans for tax reform (Simpson-Bowles, Gang of Six) call for lowering the top rate even further to 23-29 percent anyways. If we know that the tax system needs to be simplified and the top rate will end up being *lower* than 35% anyways, then why so much emphasis on the soon-to-be-obsolete top rate? The answer, of course, is the fallacy of “revenue neutral” and “distributionally neutral” tax reform: for any given reform proposal, those in the top bracket will appear to “save” more if the top rate is “reduced” from a baseline 39% rather than 35%. This savings, the Dems will argue, will need to be “offset” somewhere else out of “fairness”.

    Of course, this argument demonstrates that looking at *changes* relative to some baseline — for example to keep things “revenue and distributionally neutral” — rather than the end policy is fallacious. For a fixed tax reform proposal, people will pay the same under that proposal going forward, independent of the previous baseline. Thus, there is no sense in which those in the top bracket, for example, “save more” under the proposal if their previous rate was 39% than 35%. To believe otherwise is to believe that one can “save” at a 50%-off sale when the “regular” prices have been doubled. To believe that “cutting” the top rate from 39% to 35% or some other rate that is still higher than everyone else’s somehow “favors” the wealthy, one would also have to believe that we could help the poor by first raising their rates to 39% so that they too could subsequently “enjoy” the same generous tax cuts that those in the top bracket receive.

    Yet, this is exactly the logic used by Dems when they talk about “paying for tax cuts”, tax cuts that “benefit” the wealthy, etc. They always look relative to some baseline, never at the final tax distribution. A tax system that is still quite progressive, but not as progressive as some other baseline, is said to “give” money to the rich.

    So, to answer your question, why didn’t the Republicans cave to Democrats about a top tax rate that all serious tax reformers agree should soon be obsolete (and why do Democrats care so much about it anyways)? It’s because the Democrats like to play rhetorical games.

  44. Gravatar of Sumner on the GOP – Tyler’s AM Reads – September 24, 2012 « Blog of Rivals Sumner on the GOP – Tyler’s AM Reads – September 24, 2012 « Blog of Rivals
    25. September 2012 at 04:05

    […] Scott Sumner is evidently not a fan of the state of the Republican Party. Share this:EmailTwitterFacebookPinterestLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. ▶ No Responses /* 0) { jQuery('#comments').show('', change_location()); jQuery('#showcomments a .closed').css('display', 'none'); jQuery('#showcomments a .open').css('display', 'inline'); return true; } else { jQuery('#comments').hide(''); jQuery('#showcomments a .closed').css('display', 'inline'); jQuery('#showcomments a .open').css('display', 'none'); return false; } } jQuery('#showcomments a').click(function(){ if(jQuery('#comments').css('display') == 'none') { self.location.href = '#comments'; check_location(); } else { check_location('hide'); } }); function change_location() { self.location.href = '#comments'; } }); /* ]]> */ […]

  45. Gravatar of Nick Nick
    25. September 2012 at 18:24

    @BC I understand your points and do not dispute any of them from a policy perspective. I agree it is all rhetoric, and the Democrats have made a poll-driven calculation that they will benefit if they force the “raise taxes on the 1%” and “pay their ‘fair share'” stuff. Scott’s post was about strategy and optimal policy mixes; it certainly looks right now that the Republicans are not going to get as good of a deal as they could have had earlier, nor are they in a better political position (for the presidency or control of the senate) because they have been painted as obstructionists protecting the rich. They would have cut off this entire line of attack, or at the very least weakened it, had they played their cards differently.

    Personally I do not buy any of this rhetoric, but it works. Obama’s 73% chance on Intrade (and roughly the same on Nate Silver’s 538 blog) is proof of that reality.

  46. Gravatar of "What Are We Going To Do About This?" – Big Tent Revue "What Are We Going To Do About This?" - Big Tent Revue
    25. September 2012 at 20:07

    […] is not helping the GOP. Doug Mataconis talks about how to fix the Republican Party.  Economist Scott Sumner calls the GOP “the stupid party.” I could go […]

  47. Gravatar of “What Are We Going To Do About This?” | The Moderate Voice “What Are We Going To Do About This?” | The Moderate Voice
    25. September 2012 at 20:14

    […] media is not helping the GOP. Doug Mataconis talks about how to fix the Republican Party. Economist Scott Sumner calls the GOP “the stupid party.” I could go […]

  48. Gravatar of Joe Eagar Joe Eagar
    26. September 2012 at 17:11

    With respect to Mr. Sumner, I don’t think history has rendered a verdict on whose fault it was that the “grand bargain” talks collapsed in 2011. It may have been Obama, it may have been Boehner, it may have been Pelosi, or any of a number of other people.

  49. Gravatar of Joe Eagar Joe Eagar
    26. September 2012 at 17:22

    I would also like to point out that at one point, Boehner agreed to a five-to-one cuts-to-tax-hikes deal. It took a lot of effort by Republican moderates for that happen, and frankly we were laughed at and mocked by both the media and the Democrats for doing so. After being constantly criticized for not accepting a 10-to-1 deal, it was disheartening to see how uninterested the Democrats were in this 5-to-1 deal.

    In truth, I think Pelosi and Reid were just as incapable of getting Democrats behind Medicare cuts as Boehner and McConnell were in getting Republicans behind tax hikes. The moment the deal looked like it might really happen, prominent politicians in both parties did everything they could to sabotage it.

Leave a Reply