I agree with much of this reader’s take on the sorry state of the debt-ceiling talks:
I’ve been watching the debt negotiations play out with a bit of a sinking feeling–Obama’s strategy of offering $3 trillion in imaginary cuts in exchange for $1 trillion in tax increases was genius. The offer isn’t genuine–nobody knows where the $3 trillion comes from, other than that it doesn’t include real structural entitlement reform. But because the press hasn’t called him out on this, he’s able to come off looking pretty reasonable–i.e., asking for $1 dollar of new taxes for every $3 of spending cuts. Grover Norquist may not like it, but that’s where most of the country is (especially independents who decide elections), and it isn’t such a bad deal for Republicans–especially if the new revenue came from closing loopholes rather than raising marginal rates. The problem, of course, is that Obama isn’t really offering a 3 for 1 deal; he’s promising fake cuts in exchange for real tax increases that are designed to permanently finance the massive expansion of government he has sponsored over the past 2 and a half years. But the reasons why the President’s “cuts” are fake are difficult to convey (especially during the summer when no one is paying attention).I was particularly struck by the way the reader calls the McConnell’s Contingency “a retreat” in the course of defending it, since the plan’s biggest haters are keen on calling it a “surrender.” But not all retreats are capitulations, are they? I’m not personally in love with the McConnell plan, but I do know the senator is probably the Republicans’ best political tactician on the Hill — it’s not for nothing that one top Dem staffer called the plan a work of “evil genius.”
At the end of the day, a retreat along the lines that McConnell is proposing might be the best option. It would be hard for Obama to veto, and perhaps Republicans could offer it as a way to avoid default, but still continue to negotiate a deficit reduction package, so it won’t look like they are giving up.
