Proposed Entitlement Curbs Aimed at Compromise; GOP Leaders Dismiss Plan. I think this hurts the GOP if this is what they are seen as doing-and the headline makes it clear they already are. The public already doesn't like it's refusal to compromise and they have to avoid the O word-not Obama in this case but Obstructionist-first and foremost.
Here's another way to look at it. Here is a potshot the WSJ editorial page took at Obama's chained CPI proposal:
"President Obama is said to be trying to lure Republicans into another grand bargain by including a proposal in his 2014 budget that would slightly slow the growth of Social Security and other federal benefits. But he's also telling the Democrats going bonkers about slashing Social Security not to worry, the cuts aren't drastic and barely noticeable."
"It's the Schrödinger's cat of entitlement reform. Both his political postures can't be true at once, and no points awarded for guessing what the details reveal."
Schrodinger's cat. This is always the key in any bipartisan negotiation however. There are actually many things in his budget for liberals to like. He had to have a few things for GOPers and the fact that liberals hate chained CPI makes his job easier in arguing that he's offering real compromise. There are many things in the budget to like.
The Buffett Rule, higher cigarette taxes, a new Romney Rule.
One virtue to this Obama budget compared with previous years is that he actually proposes many things. In the past it's been complained that he's kept things vague:
In the usual script for Washington's fiscal ritual, the president delivers his budget in early February. It's quickly branded "dead on arrival." Then Congress does its thing.
"This year is different.
"Because of timing and substance,Barack Obama's new budget may prove more significant than any previous one."
"This year's arrives after House Republicans have passed a budget outline (heavy on spending cuts) andafter Senate Democrats have passed an alternative (lighter on spending cuts, heavier on tax increases)."
"Mr. Obama steers between them, a Clintonesque attempt at "triangulation." Past Obama budgets were so bland they didn't even include things the president said he favored. In this year's, the president takes a step down trails that past budgets avoided."
Wessell actually argues there's a lot in the Obama budget for Republicans to like-again that Schrodinger cat/ Interestingly, Grover Norquist has criticized chained CPI as a "very large tax increase over time" due to "bracket creep." It's not clear what pleases Norquist though. He loved the Jindal budget which was a very large tax increase for many in Lousisana.
As Greg Sargent notes, the GOP response has been to say yes to chained CPI and no to tax increases. After all, they argue why not just do what both sides can agree to?
"If the White House’s political goal in calling for Social Security cuts in its budget was to reveal the GOP as the intransigent, uncompromising party in Washington, it’s having the desired effect."
"The statements from Republican leaders today in response to the budget are noteworthy, though not surprising: They say we should proceed with Obama’s proposed entitlement cuts but not raise any new revenues by closing any millionaire loopholes. Oh, they don’t put it in those terms. But here’s John Boehner:
While the president has backtracked on some of his entitlement reforms that were in conversations that we had a year and a half ago, he does deserve some credit for some incremental entitlement reforms that he has outlined in his budget. But I would hope that he would not hold hostage these modest reforms for his demand for bigger tax hikes. Listen, why don’t we do what we can agree to do? Why don’t we find the common ground that we do have and move on that?
And here’s Eric Cantor:
If the President believes, as we do, that programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are on the path to bankruptcy, and that we actually can do some things to put them back on the right course and save them to protect the beneficiaries of these programs, we ought to do so. And we ought to do so without holding them hostage for more tax hikes.
"In other words, let’s only do the thing where there’s common ground (entitlement cuts) and not do the thing where there is disagreement (tax hikes)."
"Now in one sense, this can be seen to validate some of the left’s worst fears about what would happen if Obama offered entitlement cuts. Now that he’s formally proposed cutting Social Security benefits, Republicans can describe that proposal as the one area of agreement between the two parties. And it’s true Obama will probably take a political hit for the proposal."
"At the same time, though, it’s worth noting that this doesn’t put Republicans in the greatest political position, either. The GOP position — revealed with fresh clarity today — is that we should only cut entitlements but not raise a penny in new revenues by getting rid of any loophole enjoyed by millionaires. GOP leaders try to compensate for this by robotically repeating the phrase “tax hikes” as a negative, but polls show that majorities already understand that Republican policies are skewed towards the rich. The use of the phrase “tax hikes” to obscure what Dems are really calling for — new revenues from the wealthy — didn’t fare too well in the 2012 elections."
So the GOP has already walked into the trap. Now, the Obama haters will argue that this is a waste of time: establishing Obama as the reasonable compromising party. Still argues Sargent:
"Now, maybe you don’t believe that there’s much political value in staking out the compromising high ground in this debate, because the Very Serious Deficit Scolds in Washington won’t ever award Obama any real credit for doing this. And maybe you believe that offering Chained CPI will do nothing more than make it easier for Republicans to attack Dems for cutting Social Security in 2014 and 2016."
Krugman-while not an Obama hater-argued recently that all the White House is doing is looking for approval from the Very Serious People who will never give it to them. I think there's more to it than that. There's the public. Even the VSP can be educated somewhat-as we have seen by the much less deferential way they've treated Paul Ryan recently.
"All I can say to that is that the White House views things differently. Obama advisers believe Republicans could just as easily attack him this cycle for cutting Social Security based on his previous support for Chained CPI. They think the lesson of 2012 (remember the failed “he raided Medicare to pay for Obamacare” talking point?) is that Dems can fend off this attack with relative ease. And from what I have been told, they are looking beyond just getting the approval of the Very Serious People. They want to establish a Beltway narrative that GOP devotion to protecting the wealth of the rich is what’s preventing a deal to replace the sequester, in hopes that it will seep into local news coverage of the cuts around the country as the pain of those cuts sinks in, weakening Republicans further."
Overall, I agree with Sargent here both on the policy-it's awful-but also on the politics.
"Chained CPI is awful policy, and I oppose it. On the raw politics of all this, however, only time will tell who is right."
I think the politics may work out well. Notice that Boehner complained that Obama offered more back in 2011? The more the GOP says My way or the highway the less they get. As I've said before, just because Obama has offered chained CPI doesn't mean he'll ultimately have to do it.
No comments:
Post a Comment