Grand Bargain

NewImage

Journalism is the first draft of history. Or something.

OK, well, if that’s true — and despite the rather widespread antipathy most folks have toward The Media, I believe it is — then it’s pretty important that, as much as possible, we get that first draft right. This recent medium-picture piece from WaPo, on President Obama’s relationship to executive power, does not do that:

Some liberals were frustrated with Obama’s unwillingness to use his power in 2011 at the height of the showdown between the White House and GOP lawmakers over raising the debt ceiling. House Republicans were threatening to block the borrowing limit increase unless Obama agreed to major spending cuts to Medicare and Social Security.

Many Democrats believed Obama should have used his executive authority to lift the debt ceiling — a move advocates argued was legal under the 14th Amendment. Former president Bill Clinton said at the time he would have invoked that authority and “force the courts to stop me.”

Even the threat of invoking the 14th Amendment would have neutralized the GOP’s leverage, many felt. And yet Obama, believing such a move to be unconstitutional, ruled out the idea. White House aides said it was not only illegal, but also impractical for the president to take such a drastic step.

I’ve written about this before, and it’s something Digby also harps on, but it’s just not true, the idea that Obama’s timidity is the reason the summer of 2011 descended as it did. For it to be true, we’d have to believe that the president didn’t really want a Grand Bargain; and we’d have to do this in the face of basically all available evidence. Or the fact that he’s trying to get one still!

On the contrary, Obama made a conscious decision during that summer to enter into Grand Bargain negotiations, choosing to use the debt ceiling as a kind of motivator, the idea being that global financial chaos would put the Fear of God into recalcitrants on both sides. Why he wanted a Grand Bargain — whether it was out of political cravenness, principled deficit hysteria, or a combination of both — only he can really say.

But make no mistake: he wanted one. And he was fine with using the debt ceiling to get it.

{ 0 comments }

The Grand Bargain’s Best Last Chance

by Elias Isquith on April 13, 2013

Obama talking Medicare Social Security cuts

I’ll be honest: when it comes to President Obama’s willingness to use Social Security as a bargaining chip, my outrage reserves are tapped. I understand why people are upset over the New York Times report that Obama’s budget will include cuts to Social Security; and I wouldn’t ask folks to be quiet since causing a ruckus is the essence of activism. I’m also on-record (a.k.a. the internet) in my belief that progressives should go total Tea Party-level obstructionist in the face of such a cut.

All the same, I related to Jonathan Chait’s response to the news, which was to call Barack Obama’s willingness to trade Social Security for higher taxes no news at all. Obama’s said as much for years. Examples are easy to find, and Digby has been tracking them since at least 2009. What they all show is that this news is not news. And it’s certainly not a reversal; or at least it’s not a reversal from the position taken at the beginning of the first term. As long as he’s been president, he’s been this way.

My take on the partisan politics is similar to Chait’s, too. There’s a flailing characteristic to the leak. For one thing, the proposal is a textbook case of lipstick on a pig politics; Republicans already turned this framework down during the fiscal cliff negotiations. As Chait puts it:

Mainly this appears to be a message strategy aimed at advocates of BipartisanThink, who have been blaming Obama for failing to offer the plan he has in fact been offering. The strategy is that, by converting their offer to Boehner from an “offer” to a “budget,” it will prove that Obama is Serious…

[T]his strikes me as completely ridiculous.

It is completely ridiculous. But if Republicans were to actually realize what’s within their reach — getting a Democratic president not only agree to cut but offer to cut Social Security — and took yes for an answer, the ridiculous would become the real all too quickly.

But a Grand Bargain can’t become law unless it gets through the House. And no bill that conservative Republicans regard as a sell-out to Obama would get out of the House without significant Democratic support. Without the Party’s Progressive Caucus’s support, the numbers even on the Democratic side don’t add up.

What it all means is that if third time’s the charm when it comes to Obama’s Grand Bargain, there will be an empire’s worth of pressure on Congressional liberals to get with the program — even if the program is cutting a sacred Democratic-created program. The logic will somewhat approximate that described so memorably by Heath Ledger as the Joker in The Dark Knight and his monologue about “the plan”:

On that score, Greg Sargent of the Washington Post reports progressive leader Raul Grijalva laying down a line in the sand, refusing to vote for a cut, full stop. But it unfortunately sounds like Grijalva is speaking very much for himself:

Asked if he would vote against any deal containing Chained CPI, Grijalva said: “I’ve made the commitment that if this is part of it, I will not vote for it. I can’t support it.”

However, asked if he thought a sizable bloc of liberals would vote No, Grijalva demurred, and — in something that will bring back bad memories for the left — cited the health care debate as an example. “At this point, I don’t know,” he said. “We’ve been through this before with the public option. The motivation will be there to close ranks and support the president.”

Oh, Tea Party Republicans, don’t fail us now…

{ 1 comment }

The GOP’s Self-Inflicted Wound

by Elias Isquith on April 13, 2013

Paul ryan fiscal cliff jpeg 1280x960

Ezra Klein flagsan interesting Gallup result showing rare uniformity in American public opinion. Turns out near everyone, Republicans included, thinks the GOP is intransigent. And they don’t like it:

[Twenty-two] percent of Democrats, 17 percent of independents, and fully 26 percent of Republicans complained that the GOP refuses to compromise. That’s rather remarkable: It turns out that the GOP’s rigidity is the top complaint of both Democrats and Republicans. It easily beats “nothing,” even among Republicans!

This reminds me of a Twitter back-n-forth I had last week with frequent commenter and blogger in his own right, CK Macleod. Specifically, we were talking about Ben Carson; but the general topic was same-sex marriage (SSM) and the odd spectacle of seeing the conventional wisdom shift right in front of our eyes. Not even 10 years ago, campaigning for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage was a clear winner for an embattled incumbent Bush.

And now? Now most Republicans — excluding the Bachmanns, the Kings, the Brouns and basically all the Congresspeople ThinkProgress makes bank shaming every single day— greet expressions of homophobia with silence or vague distaste. Cool. But their fundamental opposition to SSM is unchanged. Their silence is not their assent to changing social norms over sexuality and marriage. It’s much more like closing one’s eyes and hoping the world outside can’t see, either.

Anyway, as CK and I note, Republicans made a strategic error in regards to gay marriage when they settled on total opposition. Rather than get pro-family policy concessions along the lines of those advocated by Rick Santorum — things like tax credits for children — Republicans have simply stood athwart history, yelling no, and losing ground bit by bit. The same can be said of the GOP’s response to Obamacare, financial reform, Lilly Ledbetter and dozens of other Obama initiatives.

Republican obstinance hit its tragicomic peak-nadir, of course, during the summer of 2011, when the GOP said no to a Grand Bargain well to the right of anything remotely acceptable to any Democrat not experiencing abject terror over the prospect of losing reelection. I shudder to think of the consequences if that “deal” had been struck. But thankfully Republican intransigence has been liberals’ best friend as much as conservatives’ worst enemy. And if these Gallup results are to be believed, none have internalized that fact more than Republicans themselves:

Gallup

{ 0 comments }

Obamalone

A new blockbuster report from The Washington Post serves as yet another retrospective on the failed Grand Bargain debt-ceiling negotiations of last summer, despite this being a period of our history that most Americans likely only dimly and hesitantly recall. For most of us, the memory of these few weeks sits in the section of our mental library reserved for those traumatic, drawn-out episodes of ineptitude and failure. It’s lodged in-between the chronicle of that first, agonizing high school break-up and the log book documenting the fear and regret following a night spent watching horror films made for less impressionable audiences. Even if the emotional weight it slammed against our bodies was insignificant in comparison to those personal touchstones, it still left a mark — comparable, perhaps, to a night of too much drink and too little sense. It’s not exactly something we’re thrilled to revisit.

But in this as well as many other ways, the denizens of DC are not like most of us. And it’s not surprising, I suppose, if you keep in mind just what it is that the wise old men (and token women) of Washington think they lost last summer. A great, historic agreement to finally canonize neoliberalism as the bi-partisan reality from which There Is No Alternative; the Holy Grail of reasonable centrism; the long-awaited doling-out of Shared Suffering and Sacrifice; the great reckoning. For a fleeting moment in August, it was so, so close.

And then it was gone.

To the luck of the nation, as well as Obama and the Democratic Party, I might add. Despite his best efforts, Barack Obama was not able to lock-in the kind of austerity measures here in America that are currently sending Europe well on its way to a Lost Decade. He had to give up every Democrat’s dream — cutting social welfare programs in order to lock-in historically low tax rates for the ultra-rich — and settle instead for super committees and triggers, for bare minimums and shifting blame. But while the dominant narrative that’s emerged from the wreckage of this ultimate Washington, DC fustercluck has been one of Boehnerian impotence (characterized by a Speaker of the House finding himself in the uncommon and ignominious position of being the dog wagged vigorously and with true abandon by his Tea Party tail) the Post‘s lengthy report is unique. A few particulars gibe with those shared before, but the picture painted casts the President in a different hue.

In this tableau, it’s Obama, not Boehner, who sits at the center of kids’ table, poised to blow out the candles, but just moments away from going face-first into the frosting.

I’d hesitate to call the article definitive or authoritative. It’s obvious that the sources used, blind and otherwise, ere on the side of the Elephants — and it’s patently obvious that the largest source from inside the White House is a man no longer inside the White House, in no small measure because of how spectacularly poorly he performed during his time inside the White House. I speak, of course, of a Mr. Former Chief of Staff Bill Daley. Ever since Daley was officially fired, after being de facto fired some weeks earlier, it’s not been rare to see stories depicting his time in the White House in an almost tragic light. He was the no-nonsense business-friendly centrist who came in to Get Things Done just like Obama said he wanted. But the ugly partisan goblins and trolls of DC came out with their knives and stabbed Daley in the back, and compelled Obama to wuss out on being a macho, square-jawed Clintonian Third Way hero, becoming instead a typical partisan liberal Democrat running for reelection.

Blah, blah, blah. It’s basically the same story Rahm Emanuel was pitching in the brief period of time between his being more or less fired and his coronation as the new Da Mare. Emanuel, however, had the benefit of actually accomplishing something during his time at 1600, which took the sting away just a little…

Anyway, the gist of the report is that Obama, Boehner, and Cantor were very close to signing off on a deal that would have done a whole bunch of things Republicans wanted — raising Medicare’s eligibility age, lowering cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security, locking-in tax rates not only below those during the Clinton years but potentially below today’s post-Bush cuts, locking-in low rates on capital gains and corporations, and cut-cut-cutting sundry other programs, wages, and departments — in exchange for…raising the debt ceiling and closing out some loopholes in the tax code, which would’ve resulted in somewhere near $800 billion in revenue. In other words, Obama was very, very close to agreeing to a far more draconian and permanent austerity than Republicans could ever dream of achieving, even if they controlled the White House.

Save for Ralph Nader’s, he was not exactly living up to expectations.

And then the so-called Gang of Six — a working-group of Senators, three from each side, tasked with proposing their own deficit-reduction plan — unveiled the outlines of their framework and Obama found a way to, even by the warped and misguided standards he was living by at the time, muck things up further:

The Gang of Six was unable to seal its own deal. But that morning — a Tuesday — they finally revealed their work at a closed-door briefing for 64 fellow senators. Coming at that moment, it had an unintended effect.

Desperate to resolve the debt-limit deadlock, senators enthusiastically and publicly latched on to the proposal, which included more taxes and stronger protections for the poor and elderly than the still-secret Obama-Boehner framework. Dozens of senators emerged from the briefing praising the group’s work, including Republicans such as Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), then the third-ranking member of his party’s leadership team. The Gang of Six had “come to a bipartisan agreement,” Alexander told reporters, “and I support it.”

At the White House, Obama showed equal enthusiasm. He made a rare appearance in the White House pressroom, surprising reporters who had been awaiting the regular briefing from press secretary Jay Carney. As Carney stood to the side, the president hailed the plan as “broadly consistent with what we’ve been working on here in the White House and with the presentations that I have made to the leadership when they have come over here.”

In private, however, he and his aides were alarmed. The emerging deal with Boehner looked timid by comparison.

“The Democratic leaders already thought we were idiot negotiators,” Daley said. “So I called Barry [Jackson] and said, ‘What are we going to do here? How are we going to sell Democrats to take $800 billion when Republican senators have signed on to” nearly $2 trillion?

Daley added,“I don’t think it was a mischaracterization on our part to say we’d be beat up miserably by Democrats who thought we got out-negotiated.”

In lauding the plan quickly, Obama hoped to harness the enthusiasm for it on behalf of his own talks. But his appearance that day caused more problems by increasing suspicions among conservatives about the group’s framework — and boosting their distrust of any bipartisan dealmaking.

Coburn, a staunch conservative and the only member of his party who openly acknowledged the need for higher taxes to balance the budget, had developed a close personal bond with Obama dating to their shared opposition to federal budget earmarks when both were senators. But Coburn was “shocked,” he said later, when he saw Obama’s remarks that day on television. His effusive praise for the Gang of Six, Coburn believed, was a tactical mistake that revealed Obama’s inexperience in the ways of Washington. It signaled to skittish conservatives that a tax hike was on the way.

Obama’s announcement, Coburn said in an interview, “absolutely killed anything we were doing with the Republicans.”

From there on out things went from bad to worse, with the White House scrambling to secure something despite their knowing — and their actions belie that they knew — the deal on the table was not only unacceptable but laughably so. It would have spelled the end of Obama’s Presidency, and possibly dealt a stomach-punch to the Democratic Party that would’ve taken a generation to undo. Recall that this is all transpiring mere weeks before the Occupy protests start happening in-earnest. Can you imagine how rambunctious, chaotic, and enraged people would have become if Mr. Hope and Change had been the man responsible for gutting the twin pillars of 20th century liberalism, Social Security and Medicare? Obama would have become a walking (or perhaps flying, since lame ducks don’t walk) American Weimar; the prophesied Barack Hoover Obama.

This is all crying over unspilt milk, I know, since no deal was reached and, as the article makes clear, Obama subsequently decided to give up on any sweeping compromises and focus instead on winning the political argument that is 2012. Predictably, the authors of the Post piece write as if Obama’s volte face in this regard was some kind of tragic act of deep, deep cynicism. (“His goal now was unequivocal: to win a second term,” they finish. How ugly! No great President has ever done something so venal, so selfish, as that. Maneuvering to be reelected… God truly is dead.) Yet though post-August Obama has been a much more impressive figure — a politician willing to give up the always a silly and deeply narcissistic conviction that he was a technocrat messiah, a Great Compromiser, freeing men and women from all walks of life from the crippling affliction of being unable to see the Holy Path of the Reasonable Moderate that lay before them — I don’t think I’ll ever totally get over summer 2011. How could anyone who paid attention and who’s read the retrospectives still not come away shaken?

Even when people’s most destructive delusions and nastiest addictions bring them to the brink of destruction, of themselves everyone around them, most of us find a way to forgive. But that doesn’t mean we forget. For Village scribes, self-styled centrists, and long-time fans of austerity and foes of social democracy alike, the failed Grand Bargain will forever loom in the memory like their own tower of Babel in those sweet moments before it fell. For me, it’s more like the shadow of that great, iron-soled Other Shoe. And I’m just waiting for it to finally drop.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }