Dems’ Mystifying New Fiscal Cliff Strategy

[ProSense]

Dems’ Mystifying New Fiscal Cliff Strategy

Brian Beutler

<...>

It, too, starts at a baseline where Democrats can get $800 billion for free. But from there Democrats are offering to chip away at the revenue haul in exchange for bonus spending provisions. Arithmetically, this is an approach you might take if your goal was spending down surpluses, or implementing a stimulus. That’s why, as of last night, the parties were hovering in the vicinity of a deal that would be deficit neutral relative to current policy. It has nothing to do with deficit reduction. And though, per above, that’s a fine outcome in a weak economy, it raises the cock-eyed question of what the hell Congress has been arguing about for the last two years. And the details such as we know them are mostly downside for Dems.

<...>

A deal like this re-enforces the GOP’s skewed approach to budgeting, which basically ignores the impact tax cuts or increases have on the deficit. It indulges their desire to reduce budget negotiations back down to what and how much to cut — and to the status quo ante that new spending can’t be paid for with higher taxes.

And it calls into question Obama’s insistence that he’ll refuse to negotiate a debt limit increase early next year. Under the GOP’s most recent offer, the sequester will still be largely intact. And having agreed to compromise on the one thing he was supposed to get for free, Obama will be left to choose between two basically identical, but losing propositions: cut a skewed deal with Republicans to raise the debt limit; or “refuse” to negotiate over the debt limit, but reach the same endpoint in order to defuse the sequester.

Here’s another way to look at it: Relative to current policy, tax revenues will increase by about $5 trillion over 10 years automatically if Congress does nothing. Likewise, if Congress does nothing, spending will fall about $1.2 trillion over the same timeframe. Obama’s willing to give away $4.2 trillion in revenue from the get go, and then, apparently, negotiate down further from there. Republicans don’t want to yield on any of those spending cuts, and don’t think they have to. This is why Obama’s supporters are so distraught about the latest news reports.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/12/dems_mystifying_new_fiscal_cliff_strategy.php

The news reports better be wrong. This is absolutely ridiculous.

No friggin deal.

[flamingdem]

1. A Republican spokesperson on MSNBC is optimistic about this latest round

That can't be good.

[ProSense]

2. "Dems won't accept 90-day sequester "

Senate Dem aide: "definitely no deal yet," Dems won't accept 90-day sequester "buy-down" because that "just kicks the can down the road"
— @JohnJHarwood via web

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/31/1175001/-Biden-gives-Republicans-one-last-chance-to-avoid-fiscal-cliff

Cut 'em off. No more negotiating with these clowns. No deal.

[octoberlib]

3. Jonathan Chait's article on the subject

What happened? The administration’s line seems to be that Senate Democrats undercut, or were going to undercut, Obama’s position. “They worry that if we go over the fiscal cliff, skittish Senate Democrats will quickly fold before some House-passed plan that raises taxes on income over $750,000, does nothing on stimulus, and sets up a debt-ceiling fight for early next year,” wrote Ezra Klein, reporting the administration’s thinking. "The White House thinks it’ll be very difficult for them to veto anything Senate Democrats agree to, and so they would prefer to strike the deal themselves rather than getting into a situation where vulnerable Senate Democrats could strike a deal on their behalf.”

It’s surely true that the historical desire of many Senate Democrats to position themselves in the center of any debate, irrespective of substance, and associated desire not to upset their rich fundraising base posed a strategic problem for Obama. But if Obama fears trying to hold a line that Senate Democrats have abandoned, it’s just as likely they fear the same about him. Obama’s history of foolish negotiating with the Republican Congress gave Democrats every reason to fear he might fail to hold firm on his own line — the burden lay with Obama to prove otherwise. And two weeks ago, when Obama made a concession to Boehner that he would let the Bush tax rates stay in place on income up to $400,000, he gave them every reason to doubt him.

Much of the Republican 'intransigence' and 'hostage-taking' and 'terrorism' that they deplore is a direct consequence of the fact that Republicans assume that Democrats will always, always, cave on taxes.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/12/why-is-obama-caving-on-taxes.html

[ProSense]

4. Nonsensical crap

It’s surely true that the historical desire of many Senate Democrats to position themselves in the center of any debate, irrespective of substance, and associated desire not to upset their rich fundraising base posed a strategic problem for Obama. But if Obama fears trying to hold a line that Senate Democrats have abandoned, it’s just as likely they fear the same about him. Obama’s history of foolish negotiating with the Republican Congress gave Democrats every reason to fear he might fail to hold firm on his own line — the burden lay with Obama to prove otherwise. And two weeks ago, when Obama made a concession to Boehner that he would let the Bush tax rates stay in place on income up to $400,000, he gave them every reason to doubt him.

If this is true, it portrays Democrats as stupid and desperate to appease Republicans. Why would the WH do this, and why do Senate Democrats need cover to do something stupid that they don't want to do?

If they want to do it fine, but stop insulting people's intelligence.

If it's stupid, don't do it. No friggin deal.

[octoberlib]

5. I agree. nt