What Does the GOP Need to Make a Deal?

     Would you believe they need to regain face? That's what it's seeming like more and more. They don't necessarily have any clear demands. They claim to agree with the President on the need to raise revenue and that the taxes on the rich need to go up.

     However, they continue to claim that the best way to do this is by closing loopholes-which ones they never say. They admit the President has a mandate. Yet, if they acknowledge this why are they offering the Mitt Romney tax proposal that lost the election?

     There are different face saving maneuvers the GOP has tried. One way is to insist that ObamaCare be on the chopping block for negotiations. Of course, they have no mandate-or leverage-to end ObamaCare which Boehner admitted the day after the election is now undeniably the law of the land.

     Still, they want if nothing else the symbolism of putting certain ObamaCare provisions in a deficit reduction deal.

     http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/the-three-most-likely-obamacare-cuts.php?ref=fpb

      Another idea they've floated is to find a way to keep the top rate at 35%-so that they can plausibly claim that they held firm to the base. They are willing to do this by holding rates at 35% in exchange for eliminating different rates on people who make more than, say, $400,000 a year. Scott Sumner heaped scorn on this idea-Sumner has been on the warpath lately insisting that Obama plans to raise taxes not just to 39.6% but to 43.4%.

     "One possible change would tax the entire salary earned by those making more than a certain level — $400,000 or so — at the top rate of 35 percent rather than allowing them to pay lower rates before they reach the target, as is the standard formula. That plan would allow Republicans to say they did not back down in their opposition to raising marginal tax rates and Democrats to say they prevailed by increasing effective tax rates on the rich. At the same time, it would provide an initial effort to reduce the deficit, which the negotiators call a down payment, as Congressional tax-writing committees hash out a broad overhaul of the tax code."      

 

       "That idea could be combined with the reinstatement of tax code provisions that once prevented the rich from taking personal exemptions or itemizing deductions. Those rules were eliminated by the tax cut of 2001. Reinstating them would tack an additional one to two percentage points onto the effective tax rates of high-income households without raising the 35 percent rate, but which households would be affected has not been decided. In all, tax experts say, families in the top tax bracket would find their effective tax rate jump to 41 percent, even though the top statutory rate would remain 35 percent."

 

         http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/23/us/politics/congress-looks-at-ways-to-leave-top-tax-rate-as-is.html?pagewanted=1&_r=4&hp&pagewanted=all&

 

         For Sumner's gloss see

 

         http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=17851#respond

 

          The GOP is just desperate to be able to claim that they got something out of the deal. What it is almost doesn't matter just that they can make it look like it's something. They really have no leverage but just want to avoid making this painfully obvious.

 

           So they demand "structural entitlement reform" but refuse give us any clue as to what that might mean. They want Obama to go first to explain what that means-after all, they tell him, you won the election.

 

           "What do you think they mean by structural changes?” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi asked rhetorically at a Capitol press conference last week. “Do they mean reducing benefits to our — to America’s great middle class? What do we mean? I mean, let’s define our terms. What do they mean by structural changes? … Is that a euphemism for I am going to cut your benefit if you are a middle‑aged senior? Is that what structural change means? No, I don’t support that.”

            Asked Friday what the House GOP’s terms are, a top aide to Speaker John Boehner said, “Republicans’ willingness to support additional revenue via tax reform is conditional on it being accompanied by significant entitlement reforms that begin to address the problem of the debt. There are a variety of ways in which this can be accomplished. As the Speaker has indicated, we’re open to talking with Democrats about any and all serious and responsible entitlement changes they’re willing to discuss. Without such spending controls, any plan to avert the fiscal cliff is not a balanced approach,” but provided no specifics or approach preferences.

 

           http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/the-gops-conspicuous-silence-about-entitlement-cuts.php?ref=fpb

           

          They're not even above "forcing" the Dems to do things they were already open to doing. the proverbial pushing through the open door.

 

           "In the recent past, Republicans have proposed dramatic reforms to all three of those programs — partial privatization of both Medicare and Social Security, and dramatically reduced federal spending on and authority over Medicaid."

            "But their ideas lack popular support, and a majority of the voting public rejected them on Election Day. Even if Republicans continue to advocate these plans, they don’t have the leverage to force Democrats to accept them."

             "Privately, some Republicans hope to return to the kinds of proposals Obama and Boehner nearly settled upon last summer during their failed debt ceiling negotiations — including a higher Medicare eligibility age, and a less generous formula for calculating Social Security cost of living adjustments."

             "These proposals constitute de facto benefit cuts, and enjoy little support among rank and file Democrats — though despite a new post-election political reality some leading Dems have left the door open to accepting ideas like these."

              "Publicly, Democrats have proposed both using Medicare’s purchasing power in various ways to reduce spending on the program, and lowering reimbursements to Medicare providers — either directly, or by strengthening the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a Medicare cost-cutting panel created by the Affordable Care Act."

               "But even if Republicans broadly endorse cutting Medicare spending, they get nothing from demanding reforms Democrats already support as the “price” of accepting higher taxes on top earners."

                "That means whichever pound of flesh Republicans hope to extract will be politically vital — and it’s why they’re dancing around the issue, and pressing Obama to speak up first."

 

                We demand you give way to us on: something. Doesn't matter what it is. Just tell the public you did it because we compelled you to. This must be that mandate Grover Norquist has been talking about-you know only losing 8 House seats and still having 219 Congressmen who have singed his pledge.

                 The GOP is like the Jets in the 4th quarter: playing for pride.