Bill Kristol tells GOP to come back to the table.

I like Steve Benen's take on the fiscal cliff negotiations this morning. Obama is finally negotiating with the GOP in a way that makes sense.

For years, Obama hoped to strike deals by being conciliatory, starting with opening offers designed to satisfy Republican demands. These efforts repeatedly failed miserably, and only emboldened GOP leaders to demand agreements tilted heavily in their favor.

Fine, the president is now saying. Let's start with an ambitious plan designed to make Democrats happy, and see how that works out. The days of preemptive concessions and negotiating from a defensive crouch are over.

One reason that the GOP may be trying to avoid presenting a detailed proposal of their desired spending cuts may be that those proposed cuts to Medicare and other entitlements would be an electoral liability in 2014. Obama has all the leverage here.

I wish I had some way of finding out what was really going on here. Reading several articles this morning made me wonder which version was closer to reality as I simply can't go with the old "I'm sure the truth is somewhere in the middle" line of reasoning. The only common thread I see is that Obama hasn't put forth a detailed plan of how he would cut $400 billion from medicare and that irks Republicans. Everything else seems to be contradictory. Republicans will and won't agree to tax cuts, Democrats will and won't agree to spending cuts, neither side has made any concessions but both sides have. It's starting to make my head hurt.

From this source:

It's easy to blame both sides equally for the stalemate, because neither has offered much in specifics on what it would do on spending. The Republicans who are refusing to consider any increase in tax rates are clearly an obstruction, but their ranks could thin quickly if the White House put forth a credible package of spending cuts as an alternative to the robotic machete that would slash programs by $1.5 trillion over 10 years if Congress fails to act. Several prominent Republicans already have signaled their willingness to break their no-tax pledges as part of a deal that includes meaningful cuts.

From here:

Republicans compromised (caved) by agreeing to increased revenues, but not increases in the marginal tax rates. That was insufficient for Democrats. Then some Republicans showed flexibility (caved again) by joining the left in bashing Grover Norquist and his revolutionary concept of forcing candidates to promise in writing to keep their word. Nobody forced Republicans to sign "the pledge" not to raise taxes. They could have been as honest as Walter Mondale, promised that they would raise taxes, and enjoyed Mondale's electoral success. They forgot why they were hired to begin with.

Yet surely the Republicans folding means a balanced deal can get done.

Wrong again. Democrats never accept any domestic cuts. Their entire coalition is a collection of interest groups who will reject any cuts under any circumstances. Try fixing Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and feel the wrath of the AARP. Don't dare cut funding for social programs. Outside of the military, there is not one program that President Obama will ever willingly cut. "Streamlining," "eliminating redundancies," and "reducing waste, fraud and abuse" are great slogans that lead to zero action.

...

America is drowning in red ink. Our government is paralyzed because the head of that government will not sit down, offer reasonable deals, treat his political opponents with dignity, and most importantly, keep his word.

And of course from FOX:

President Obama and a good chunk of Democrats want to raise taxes on the nation’s highest earners. Though the president says he also wants to have a conversation about reforming entitlements, he hasn’t put any type of proposal on paper. Nor is the president or his party interested in serious spending cuts, aside from cuts to the Department of Defense, something Republicans argue would hurt our national security muscle in a time when we need it the most.

At the same time, Republicans have put forth plans to tackle the biggest driver of our debt—entitlements—and even had a presidential ticket that ran on those reforms. The House of Representatives has passed some version of these plans and Speaker John Boehner has adopted a Mitt Romney -- idea to eliminate certain deductions in order to raise revenue to pay down our debt. Raising taxes, however—on anyone—is not an option, they say. Unless one side caves, we’re slated to dive off the so-called "cliff" in December.

So why don’t Republicans just get out of the way and let it happen? It sounds crazy, but there is a case to be made.

Let Democrats bring a bill to increase spending on what Obama calls a second stimulus, raise taxes on high earners (including many small businesses) without doing a thing to fix Medicare and Social Security for current and future generations. Republicans can take a page of Obama’s playbook and vote present as he did when he was a senator. When the nation falls off the fiscal cliff, he can own it.

The tax increases that happen will be the Obama tax increases. When spending spikes, it can be the Obama tax and spend plan. And we slide into recession as the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicts will happen, it will be the Obama recession. In other words, it's time for the right to call Obama's bluff.

I especially liked that last one because it basically says "let the country crash & burn so that Republicans will have something to point at and say see we told you he was no good!"

I actually liked one segment I heard on NPR this morning that went along the lines of the proposal the Democrats have put forward basically says "We want revenue increases but you'll have to drag us kicking and screaming to entitlement cuts though we are open to them." while he felt the Republicans were responding by saying "No new taxes. End of story." He felt the healthy response would be for Republicans to respond with a similar proposal that agrees to some revenue increases while outlining what entitlement reforms/cuts they would like to see. As he put it, it's up to Democrats to outline the revenue increases they want in detail and then negotiate them down and for the Republicans to outline the entitlement cuts they want and then negotiate them down so that we have both reasonable revenue increases and entitlement cuts. As he put it, that's how it's supposed to work but all Republicans were doing was saying they wouldn't negotiate until Obama outlines in specifics what cuts he's willing to make.

nooooo... not this thread too....

goman wrote:

The deficit didn't cause the recession. The recession caused the deficit.

Actually the recession happened because there was too little deficit spending.

LOLOL! No.

Remember those bubbles? Dot.com bubble, energy scandals, accounting scandals, housing bubble, derivatives? And then everyone realized those things were all overvalued? And then the banks were pretty much all going to shut down? I understand that some people tend to forget all that happened, especially when it's time to pass laws to prevent them from happening again. I would be hard pressed to think those were caused by a lack of deficit spending

As a quick review, please see the analysis of Nixon campaign strategist Kevin Phillips or officer-turned pundit Andrew Bacevich on the subject.

Edit: excellent post, Kehama. It's nice to see such much leadership mediocrity of both parties so well summarized.

clover wrote:

nooooo... not this thread too....

Every community forum has their thing. You go to a 4Chan thread and you're eventually going to have some depraved photo posted. Go to a FOX comments section and whatever issue they start with will become Obamas fault, up to and including stories about the Mongolian invasion of China or the French Revolution. You come to GWJ's P&C forum and eventually you'll get an argument about deficit spending, the free market vs regulation, and/or when life begins after conception. It's just what we do.

As for the fiscal cliff, the more I hear the more I'm convinced that both sides really just want the automatic spending cuts to take place so they can blame the other guy and say it's not their fault. A blame-free way to raise taxes and cut spending, both of which are political nightmares. What they seem to forget is that they're the same guys who put those consequences in place. If you say "If we don't reach an agreement I'll shoot a bunny!" then you don't reach an agreement and you murder said rabbit it's seem pretty shaky to then pull the argument that the other guy's the one who made you kill the bunny after you're the one that had agreed to do it.

Keithustus wrote:
goman wrote:

The deficit didn't cause the recession. The recession caused the deficit.

Actually the recession happened because there was too little deficit spending.

LOLOL! No.

Remember those bubbles? Dot.com bubble, energy scandals, accounting scandals, housing bubble, derivatives? And then everyone realized those things were all overvalued? And then the banks were pretty much all going to shut down? I understand that some people tend to forget all that happened, especially when it's time to pass laws to prevent them from happening again. I would be hard pressed to think those were caused by a lack of deficit spending

As a quick review, please see the analysis of Nixon campaign strategist Kevin Phillips or officer-turned pundit Andrew Bacevich on the subject.

Edit: excellent post, Kehama. It's nice to see such much leadership mediocrity of both parties so well summarized.

I certainly remember all of that. I have talked about those things over and over again here.

The deficit being too little is a short hand on saying government let the recession happen because it let businesses lose money and layoff people by taxing them and their costumers too much and spending too little.

clover wrote:

nooooo... not this thread too....

We are talking about the fiscal cliff. It is fundamentally about deficits and debt.

goman wrote:
clover wrote:

nooooo... not this thread too....

We are talking about the fiscal cliff. It is fundamentally about deficits and debt.

It's true, we're on topic. It's not like this is in the feminism/gamers thread!

goman wrote:
clover wrote:

nooooo... not this thread too....

We are talking about the fiscal cliff. It is fundamentally about deficits and debt.

You need more humor in your life, goman

clover wrote:
goman wrote:
clover wrote:

nooooo... not this thread too....

We are talking about the fiscal cliff. It is fundamentally about deficits and debt.

You need more humor in your life, goman :D

IMAGE(http://troll.me/images/heyy/hey-internet-is-serious-hey.jpg)

Podunk wrote:

I like Steve Benen's take on the fiscal cliff negotiations this morning. Obama is finally negotiating with the GOP in a way that makes sense.

For years, Obama hoped to strike deals by being conciliatory, starting with opening offers designed to satisfy Republican demands. These efforts repeatedly failed miserably, and only emboldened GOP leaders to demand agreements tilted heavily in their favor.

Fine, the president is now saying. Let's start with an ambitious plan designed to make Democrats happy, and see how that works out. The days of preemptive concessions and negotiating from a defensive crouch are over.

I don't really have a problem with taking the position that starting out with a plan that will certainly not be acceptable to the other side is a good negotiating tactic, as long as that's applied to both sides. Like when Boehner puts Obamacare on the table.

...so because some guy wants other young guys to be crippled like him, "the deficit?"

aborted babies... less gdp... deficit

Keithustus wrote:
goman wrote:

I certainly remember all of that. I have talked about those things over and over again here.

The deficit being too little is a short hand on saying government let the recession happen because it let businesses lose money and layoff people by taxing them and their costumers too much and spending too little.

Talked about doesn't reflect understanding, apparently, given your next statement. So you're saying we could have avoided all our financial problems by eliminating most taxation and spending far more money as a government that we already have?

I will respond here with the same sort of on-topic evidence as you do:

Despite suffering a paralyzing injury during a kickoff return in 2010, former Rutgers player Eric LeGrand believes NFL kickoffs should be moved back to the 30-yard line.

LeGrand expressed his views in an intriguing guest column for SI.com’s Monday Morning Quarterback. The NFL moved kickoffs from the 30-yard line to the 35-yard line in 2011, leading to more touchbacks and fewer injuries on kickoffs. However, LeGrand favors moving kickoffs back to the 30.

Eric LeGrand's injury came from a kickoff, but that doesn't change his stance on what the NFL should do with its endangered special teams play. (AP Photo)
"Take if from someone who has gotten injured on a kickoff: I think kickoffs in the NFL should return to the way they used to be, because lots of football players can make a career out of playing on special teams, and the new system takes some of the thrill and excitement of the game out," LeGrand wrote.

Countless people have been inspired by LeGrand’s courage since suffering his injury. LeGrand vows to walk again, and he was signed to a contract with the Buccaneers this offseason by his former Rutgers coach, Greg Schiano, now the Buccaneers’ head coach.

LeGrand’s take on kickoff rules is interesting, especially with player safety now a hot topic at every level of football.

Screw kickoffs from the 35. If I wanted to watch inept kickoff returns I'd go watch local football instead of the NFL.

Wait what?!... we are talking about fiscal issues and the best example you give me is a football analogy?

Seth wrote:

...so because some guy wants other young guys to be crippled like him, "the deficit?"

Humor. I should have pointed that out, I guess. If someone believes that the fiscal cliff and deficit are problems caused by having too many taxes and not enough government spending, then I should certainly be free to believe that they're caused by the NFL changing its rules for the worse.

clover wrote:
goman wrote:
clover wrote:

nooooo... not this thread too....

We are talking about the fiscal cliff. It is fundamentally about deficits and debt.

You need more humor in your life, goman :D

Sorry for being too serious. My wife is getting laid-off today because of a bank merger.

goman wrote:

I certainly remember all of that. I have talked about those things over and over again here.

The deficit being too little is a short hand on saying government let the recession happen because it let businesses lose money and layoff people by taxing them and their costumers too much and spending too little.

Talked about doesn't reflect understanding, apparently, given your next statement. So you're saying we could have avoided all our financial problems by eliminating most taxation and spending far more money as a government that we already have? That sounds like you believe in Keynesian economics and supply-side magic, at the same time. I didn't know such a creature could exist!

I will respond here with the same sort of on-topic evidence as you do:

Despite suffering a paralyzing injury during a kickoff return in 2010, former Rutgers player Eric LeGrand believes NFL kickoffs should be moved back to the 30-yard line.

LeGrand expressed his views in an intriguing guest column for SI.com’s Monday Morning Quarterback. The NFL moved kickoffs from the 30-yard line to the 35-yard line in 2011, leading to more touchbacks and fewer injuries on kickoffs. However, LeGrand favors moving kickoffs back to the 30.

Eric LeGrand's injury came from a kickoff, but that doesn't change his stance on what the NFL should do with its endangered special teams play. (AP Photo)
"Take if from someone who has gotten injured on a kickoff: I think kickoffs in the NFL should return to the way they used to be, because lots of football players can make a career out of playing on special teams, and the new system takes some of the thrill and excitement of the game out," LeGrand wrote.

Countless people have been inspired by LeGrand’s courage since suffering his injury. LeGrand vows to walk again, and he was signed to a contract with the Buccaneers this offseason by his former Rutgers coach, Greg Schiano, now the Buccaneers’ head coach.

LeGrand’s take on kickoff rules is interesting, especially with player safety now a hot topic at every level of football.

Screw kickoffs from the 35. If I wanted to watch inept kickoff returns I'd go watch local football instead of the NFL.

goman wrote:
clover wrote:
goman wrote:
clover wrote:

nooooo... not this thread too....

We are talking about the fiscal cliff. It is fundamentally about deficits and debt.

You need more humor in your life, goman :D

Sorry for being too serious. My wife is getting laid-off today because of a bank merger. :-(

That sucks, I'm sorry

NormanTheIntern wrote:

I don't really have a problem with taking the position that starting out with a plan that will certainly not be acceptable to the other side is a good negotiating tactic, as long as that's applied to both sides. Like when Boehner puts Obamacare on the table.

Ok. The first step is figure out if it will actually help or hurt the deficit

White House: Obamacare ‘Reduces the Deficit Considerably'

Truth-o-meter; Mitt Romney says 'Obamacare' adds trillions to the deficit - FALSE

How will ObamaCare add to the national debt?

CBO: Obamacare Would Increase National Debt, Spend Medicare ‘Savings’

Now these links were within the top results on google for "will obamacare raise the debt" In the first 10 hits it appears pretty evenly split as to whether it will or not.

So I think if you want to have Obamacare on the table fine but we have some work to do before we can even establish the effects.

Greg wrote:

You do realize that those projections are based on falling off the fiscal cliff source? If we want these projections to materialize, the republicans must reject the Democrats proposal to increase taxes, spend stimulus money, and put off the budget cuts. Otherwise, mitigating the fiscal cliff continues to increase the deficit problem as a percentage of GDP - same source.

Um, no.

The numbers I quoted were the CBO's baseline projections. Those numbers are based on the revenue and spending levels that are mandated by current laws. If we want the CBO's deficit numbers to come true then all we need Congress to do is, well, nothing. They've already passed the laws that will make those numbers happen.

On the revenue side the current law says that the Bush era tax cuts--all of them--will go away at the end of the year. Also the current law says that the estate tax will go up and that there will be changes to taxing gifts and the ATM.

On the spending side the current law is that sequestration will kick in and there will be tens of billions of spending cuts next year. The current law is that Medicare/Medicaid payments to doctors will drop 27%.

farley3k wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

I don't really have a problem with taking the position that starting out with a plan that will certainly not be acceptable to the other side is a good negotiating tactic, as long as that's applied to both sides. Like when Boehner puts Obamacare on the table.

Ok. The first step is figure out if it will actually help or hurt the deficit

[links cut]

So I think if you want to have Obamacare on the table fine but we have some work to do before we can even establish the effects.

Not to mention that Step 2 of that tactic should be "... and then back away from the completely unacceptable position towards real compromise."

If the GOP is willing to show they have even the slightest interest in doing that (given that they haven't in the past few years), I can see that Obamacare as an apples to apples comparison to what happened with the budget proposal. But when Boehner and others say "but first, axe Obamacare", that doesn't strike me as part of an overall negotiating strategy. It seems like, as it has been in the past, another iteration of their "do what we want or we will not participate" negotiating strategy.

If Obama's administration pulls the same crap, it will certainly be the same crap. But we definitely have reason to believe it's a bargaining tactic with the current administration while it's been shown time and again it may not be for the GOP.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Whose fault is it that House Republicans waited until after the election to do their damn jobs? They are like Clark Griswold spending his Christmas Bonus on a pool, and then he gets jelly.

It's amazing that you would accuse me of partisan punditry and try to make this argument in the very next post. The Democratic Senate, unlike the House, hasn't passed a budget in 41 months. Fourty one months. I'm sure this is somehow our fault as well though.

Missed this earlier.

The Economist covered this fairly well earlier this year, but the short version is "without 60 votes in the Senate or a cooperative House of Representatives, you can't pass a budget".

OG_slinger wrote:
Greg wrote:

You do realize that those projections are based on falling off the fiscal cliff source? If we want these projections to materialize, the republicans must reject the Democrats proposal to increase taxes, spend stimulus money, and put off the budget cuts. Otherwise, mitigating the fiscal cliff continues to increase the deficit problem as a percentage of GDP - same source.

Um, no.

The numbers I quoted were the CBO's baseline projections. Those numbers are based on the revenue and spending levels that are mandated by current laws. If we want the CBO's deficit numbers to come true then all we need Congress to do is, well, nothing. They've already passed the laws that will make those numbers happen.

On the revenue side the current law says that the Bush era tax cuts--all of them--will go away at the end of the year. Also the current law says that the estate tax will go up and that there will be changes to taxing gifts and the ATM.

On the spending side the current law is that sequestration will kick in and there will be tens of billions of spending cuts next year. The current law is that Medicare/Medicaid payments to doctors will drop 27%.

OK, I understand. I am coming to accept the coming austerity. There are two good consequences and one bad consequence.

The bad consequence is the almost certain recession.

The the first good consequence is that the projections show that it will bend the curve on the deficit and move us towards a more reasonable deficit.

The second good consequence is that when the charade is up that Congress will actually prevent the negative consequences, some certainty about tax and spending policy will be achieved. Businesses and individuals will be able to make rational decisions about how to proceed. Kicking the can down the road for 12 months or even 24 months down the road makes the future much less clear.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

aborted babies... less gdp... deficit

Ack. That got coffee up my nose, you monster.

Greg wrote:

OK, I understand. I am coming to accept the coming austerity. There are two good consequences and one bad consequence.

The bad consequence is the almost certain recession.

The the first good consequence is that the projections show that it will bend the curve on the deficit and move us towards a more reasonable deficit.

The second good consequence is that when the charade is up that Congress will actually prevent the negative consequences, some certainty about tax and spending policy will be achieved. Businesses and individuals will be able to make rational decisions about how to proceed. Kicking the can down the road for 12 months or even 24 months down the road makes the future much less clear.

Or you do the sane and rational thing, which is to split the difference.

You renew tax cuts for the middle class and let them expire for the people who can afford the tiny hit to their pocketbook. The $200 or so extra billion in middle class spending power helps mitigate or possibly even avoid the recession the CBO does project will happen in 1H 2013 if we go over the fiscal cliff. The deficit still decreases some $400 billion the following year and, as an added bonus, our economy might grow more than the paltry 0.5% it's projected to because of the austerity measures.

And that's really the game that the GOP should be playing with the Democrats: figuring out how to goose economic growth in the short term without increasing the long-term debt too much. Instead, they're coming across as the party that wants to tip the entire country into recession because they don't want the richest 2% of Americans--the same people who were barely affected by the Great Recession--have their taxes go up by 3.6%.

OG_Slinger, Thanks for the rational discourse.

I think it is difficult to figure out how to bend the curve on deficit spending and have everyone keep their sacred pledges (not touching taxes or entitlements).

So letting a temporary tax cut expire = raising taxes? Is this like when the military says their budget was cut because they only got a 5% budget increase instead of 10%?

Also I think it is pretty disingenuous for the GOP to harp about the deficit now when they didn't seem to care at all a few years ago when they controlled everything.

Greg wrote:

I think it is difficult to figure out how to bend the curve on deficit spending and have everyone keep their sacred pledges (not touching taxes or entitlements).

It's simple. No one gets to keep their ideological sacred cows.

And I would say that Democrats have long shown a willingness to touch entitlements. I mean welfare reform happened on Clinton's watch twenty five years ago. And just last year the Democrats agreed to $1.5 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade and Obama has put another $400 billion in Medicaid cuts in his 2013 budget. You don't get much more sacred cowy for Democrats than welfare and Medicaid.

Republicans, on the other hand, have shown absolutely no willingness to violate their non-binding pledge on taxes. And they've even tried to violate their own debt ceiling deal by maneuvering to have all $1.5 trillion in spending cuts come from non-military programs instead of sticking to their word and having the cuts spread equally.

But both parties fear touching Medicare and Social Security. And that is a problem. Those two programs chew up about half the federal budget.

LeapingGnome wrote:

So letting a temporary tax cut expire = raising taxes? Is this like when the military says their budget was cut because they only got a 5% budget increase instead of 10%?

Not sure who the question is being asked of. But, no. Letting the temporary tax rates expire is not raising taxes in my book. Passing the Democratic proposal would be raising taxes in my book.

OG_slinger wrote:

...Obama has put another $400 billion in Medicaid cuts in his 2013 budget. You don't get much more sacred cowy for Democrats than welfare and Medicaid.

I thought that the democratic proposal included 1.6T in tax increases on the 'wealthy', and $400 billion in cuts over the same 10 years. I thought that the $400 billion cut in Medicaid had to do with the ACA implementation, not the fiscal cliff resolution. I am confused.

Republicans, on the other hand, have shown absolutely no willingness to violate their non-binding pledge on taxes.

Is this criticism really fair when the republicans have put limiting deductions on the table which would increase the effective tax rate without raising marginal rates?

But both parties fear touching Medicare and Social Security. And that is a problem. Those two programs chew up about half the federal budget.

Agreed. I like the solution of raising the retirement age for social security and medicare. It seems fair and I will need the extra 2 years - retirement age pushed to 69 years old to save enough money to retire anyhow. I think that 75 is the new 65.