You are hereForums / Issues / The Economy / Republicans reject own debt-reduction deal
Republicans reject own debt-reduction deal
This from Ezra Klein:
Add this to the long list of Republican ideas that are then taken up by Democrats, and which are then in turn rejected by Republicans because they feel the need to distinguish themselves further from the Democrats.By the end of the debt-ceiling negotiations, the Obama administration had agreed to a deal that would reduce the deficit by $2.4 trillion, with $2 trillion of the total coming from spending cuts and $400 billion coming from tax increases. Taxes, in other words, would be about 17 percent of the final deal. Republicans rejected it. But as little as four months ago, it was the Republican ideal.
Mike Konczal points us to “Spend Less, Owe Less, Grow the Economy,” the March 2011 report released by the Republicans on the Joint Economic Committee. The report, which tried to argue that fiscal austerity would lead to short-term growth, was as methodologically unsound, and quickly forgotten. But for our purposes, that’s irrelevant. What is relevant is the report’s golden ratio: “successful fiscal consolidations averaged 85% spending cuts and 15% revenue increases, while unsuccessful fiscal consolidations averaged 47% spending cuts and 53% revenue increases,” it concluded. There was even a graph:
So when the GOP’s economic policy team sat down to make the strongest case they could for growth-inducing deficit reduction, they recommended a mix an 85:15 mix, not a 100:0 mix. And then, when the Obama administration agreed to an 83:17 mix, the Republican leadership walked out of the room and demanded that taxes be excluded from the deal altogether. How do you negotiate with that?
- Login to post comments
The Republicans are not interested in negotiating tax/revenue increases and, to their considerable credit, they have given no indication in the last six months or more that they would. They are either playing chicken to the last minute or they are going to take the risk and force Obama to surrender or go over the cliff with them.
I don't admire their position but I admire they way they have approached it. From December 2010 through today they have been on this "America doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem" jag. Democrats in congress wake up every morning, a la Bill Murray in GROUND HOG DAY, seemingly shocked to discover anew that Republicans feel this way.
With control of two of the three branches of government, Democrats fumble every day figuring out how to approach Republicans, who have put out their very simple position and have not wavered on it for months. If you are playing poker against someone who always keeps his cards open on the table, you ought to be able to figure out how to win a hand or two now and then.Conservative columnist David Brooks says Republicans lack "moral decency" and are "unfit to govern" if they reject Democrats 83:17% and hold out for 100%:0% on debt ceiling debate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?hp
PS So called "real" conservatives have been dissing Brooks for going on two years now since he had the audacity to suggest that Sarah Palin may lack the temperment and self-discipline to be President. I guess that position, along with this one, officially makes him a socialist. :-)
What's sad about the way the Republicans are behaving is that I don't think this is a negotiating tactic-- I really think they won't accept ANY revenue increases, no matter what they're given in return.
Brooks narrows down their irrationality perfectly-- these people would rather have the U.S. default on its debt than to concede on taxes slightly, even though a default would have much more severe repercussions on the economy. Makes you wonder if these kooks love their fringe ideology more than they love their country.
At the fringes, people equate their fringe ideology with love of country (return to America's Founding principles, bla bla bla). And some number of the new Congressional republicans campaigned on a platform of absolutism (NO TAX INCREASES), and might fear re-election backlash at home irrespective of their better judgments.
Brooks also underscores how weak the Democrats have been, throwing 2+trillion on the table before getting anything in return ("Deal of the century" or something he called it). I emailed the White House (through Biden's page) exhorting them to give Cantor et. al. 24 hours to return to negotiations with a serious attitude toward new taxes/loophole closing or Dems will start drawing back the concessions at a rate of 1/4 trillion dollars a day. At least that way the administration will be viewed as having an active, rather than a passive/reactive, role to play in the negotiations/message war/ (I am sure whatever summer intern picks up my email will get right on it. LOL)
You obviously don't understand reality, Suzi.
No increase in taxes at any time, no matter what the situation. That is the GOP mantra, and they will stick to it, come hell or high water.
Look up inflexibility in Mirriam-Webster's. It has a picture of an elephant next to the definition.