I hope so. They need to do something much more serious if they want to avoid further downgrades.
15 thoughts on “The Debt Deal”
Comments are closed.
I hope so. They need to do something much more serious if they want to avoid further downgrades.
Comments are closed.
I’d very much like to see a better deal, but read on to that third sentence: “And will conservatives find new political power to force deeper spending cuts?”
Political power comes from votes, and the conservatives have already deployed all the congressional votes they are going to get until 2013 – which is too long to wait. So no, they will not find new political power to force deeper spending cuts. They may be able to bargain for deeper spending cuts, but bargains necessarily require compromise – if you can’t force the other guy to give you what you need, you have to give him something he needs. And what liberal politicians need is something that looks like a tax increase on wealthy Americans to offset the effects of deep spending cuts on their constituents.
Or conservatives can stand absolutely firm on their principles until 2013, making no bargains, daring us to read their lips as they say “No New Taxes”, and hope the voters respond with “Why, those Republicans were so principled they let the national economy go to hell in a handbasket rather than compromise even an inch! We should elect more like them!”
Somehow, I do not believe this will be a winning strategy.
In between the hardline liberals and hardline conservatives are the squishy moderates. It’s possible that some of the moderates will swing towards real spending reductions if they sense a public demand for cuts.
“Or conservatives can stand absolutely firm on their principles until 2013, making no bargains, daring us to read their lips as they say “No New Taxes”, ”
What have the Democrats compromised on?
Nothing.
If the Republicans agree to raise taxes, they should get something for it. For a $100b a year increase in taxes they should get at least $500b in real time cuts and a freeze in spending. That would make our deficit somewhat manageable if/when the economy recovers.
No new cuts and class warfare isn’t going to be a winning strategy, although we know what Obama’s game plan will be.
John Schilling:
“And what liberal politicians need is something that looks like a tax increase on wealthy Americans to offset the effects of deep spending cuts on their constituents.”
“Somehow, I do not believe this will be a winning strategy.”
You are new around here, aren’t you? Yes, all three of us believe this to be true, you, me and David Brooks.
My read on this all along has been something along the lines of what you said — the Grand Bargain would entail some symbolic tax increases coupled with those deep spending cuts you talk about.
But I am not so sure that the President wanted merely symbolic tax increases, especially after his backing out of an agreement with John Boehner on a substantial tax increase because the President changed his mind and thought he could get more. And then there is this thing about how tax increases are forever whereas out-year spending cuts tend to be promises, promises.
I keep waiting for the fulfillment of the old Star Trek Vulcan proverb “It took Nixon to go to China”, that somehow good ol’ Ayers pal, Alinsky acolyte, Jeremiah Wright congregant Barack Obama will be the person to set the Budget Crisis and the Entitlement Crisis right, but I am not seeing any evidence this will ever happen, just the same lefty cliches over and over again as if with repetition they become true.
But I agree with you that however bad Mr. Obama is, the “let’s not raise the debt ceiling at all” crowd is working hard at getting him reelected.
“What have the Democrats compromised on? Nothing.”
Democrats, including liberal democrats, have expressed a willingness to implement actual spending cuts, including entitlement cuts. As they’d rather just tax the rich, that certainly looks like a compromise to me. More to the point, it looks like a compromise to moderates.
Possibly they are bluffing; there are plenty of ways they can derail the process before the serious cuts kick in. But if that’s a bluff, it’s a bluff that should be called, and if it’s a sincere offer, it’s one that should be taken up.
If the Democrats say, “We are open to a mix of significant spending cuts and modest tax increases to resolve this crisis”, and the Republicans say, “You Lie! Also, No New Taxes Ever!”, the Democrats will win in 2012.
Even if you are right about the part where they lie.
When? Where?
The only cuts I’ve seen them entertain are (1) to “expenditures in the tax code,” and (2) to defense.
Democrats, including liberal democrats, have expressed a willingness to implement actual spending cuts, including entitlement cuts. As they’d rather just tax the rich, that certainly looks like a compromise to me. More to the point, it looks like a compromise to moderates.
Yes, a Lucy has promised Charlie Brown that she’ll hold the football still this time. Honest. Go ahead, pull my finger.
We can’t really do a thing until 2012. Well, we could try to be clear on the message until then. Congress is still trying to convince us with imaginary actions.
Present! Sorta.
“What have the Democrats compromised on?”
The Democrats in the Senate joined hands with the Republicans to vote down Obama’s budget 97-0.
John Schilling Says:
“Democrats, including liberal democrats, have expressed a willingness to implement actual spending cuts, including entitlement cuts.”
I saw Obama say he was willing to do entitlement cuts in a speech but I also saw the Democrats in the congress go nuts over his suggestion. The likelihood that the Democrats in congress would have voted for entitlement cuts was about the same as Tea Party Republicans voting for tax increases. How can they keep running throw grandma off the cliff adds?
I tend to agree that taxes will be going up at some point but if they do the Tea Party will want more than $100-200b in cuts out of a budget of $3,700b. The argument from Obama has been, “We need to raise revenues so that we can spend more money.” That wont fly.
The argument from Obama has been, “We need to raise revenues so that we can spend more money.” That wont fly.
Yep, that’s what I’ve seen as well. No where have I heard a sincere Democrat stand up and say we have a problem that requires major cuts and perhaps increased taxes on all to raise revenue. Rather, I’ve only heard about minor cuts and a need to raise taxes on a few that are already paying the vast majority of taxes.
Me: Democrats, including liberal democrats, have expressed a willingness to implement actual spending cuts, including entitlement cuts.
Wodun: I saw Obama say he was willing to do entitlement cuts in a speech but I also saw the Democrats in the congress go nuts over his suggestion. The likelihood that the Democrats in congress would have voted for entitlement cuts was about the same as Tea Party Republicans voting for tax increases.
There is an alternate universe out there in which this was actually put to the test, in which the Republicans passed in the House the package Obama said he favored and the Democrats in the Senate either A: followed the GOP’s lead or B: voted against their own president. In that universe, no matter what the Democrats do, the Republicans win big in 2012.
We do not live in that universe. And yes, it is mostly the Tea Party that has decided we will not live in that universe.
The Republican controlled House passed a budget this year. The Democrat controlled Senate voted against it. The Senate has not passed a budget in almost 3 years, a violation of the Budget Act. The House passed a bill a couple weeks ago addressing the debt ceiling. The Senate voted it down but offered nothing of their own.
Who exactly is being intransigent?
Obama and the Democrats in Congress want the spending to continue indefinitely regardless of the debt. Remember, they voted to increase the debt ceiling by $2 trillion in 2009 and have already blown through all that money, needing trillions more to prolong the spending for a few more months. They’re screwing our children’s future. They are economic pedophiles.
I’m all for raising revenue. It is only done by raising the GDP. Tax rates do not do what some people think they do.
For a $100b a year increase in taxes they should get at least $500b in real time cuts and a freeze in spending.
Woden I empathize, but that’s just continuing to play the game.
First the ridiculous cry of ‘UNFAIR!’ because it isn’t one for one.
Second, there is no such thing as a real time cut with these [insert favorite noun… it will not be harsh enough and an insult to actual favorite nouns.]
We have to suffer them all until 2012. …and then suffer that new bunch for a while. They’ve all got there hands in the cookie jar and that isn’t going to change until we get a majority that isn’t temped by the cookies.
I just wish the press would wake up one day and finally just do their jobs.
During the debates I had to agree with that other college professor Newt… the questions they asked were stupid tabloid gotcha questions of no substance. If that’s what people want we have an answer to Franklins implied question, “a republic, if you can keep it.” We didn’t keep it and just haven’t realized it yet.