As Congress reconvenes, Democrats are insisting that President Obama’s re-election means that House Republicans are going to have to give in to his demands for tax increases on the wealthy. While this will do very little to actually solve the impending budget crisis, the president’s supporters have a point when they claim that his victory means a majority of Americans supported his rhetoric about backing a balanced approach that would involve spending cuts in equal proportion to revenue increases. But as James Pethokoukis writes at AEI Ideas, a close look at what the president is asking for throws any notion of balance out the window.
It may be, as Bill Kristol pointed out on Fox News the other day, that it makes no sense for the GOP to “fall on its sword for a bunch of millionaires.” Speaker John Boehner’s initial offer to raise revenue by eliminating tax deductions for the wealthy was an indication that Republicans are prepared to start bargaining. And as Kristol said, there is an argument to be made that if the House leadership bargains the tax increase cutoff up, it may be good politics. But there should be no illusions that what the president is offering is a balanced plan in any sense of the word.
According to Obama’s math, his “balanced” plan cuts the projected cumulative debt by $4.4 trillion over ten years with 36% of the reduction coming from a $1.6 trillion tax increases — 80% from wealthier Americans, 20% from business. So, basically, $2 in spending cuts for each $1 in tax hikes. “Balanced.”
But once you begin to dig into the numbers, the plan doesn’t look balanced at all.
Talk of mandates is empty rhetoric whether it is meant to undercut the president or bolster his standing. His Electoral College majority is his mandate to govern and certain deference to his re-election is customary. But that doesn’t mean Republicans need to abandon their principles or acquiesce to a plan that does nothing to address the deficit or entitlement reform.
Pethokoukis also illustrates that what the president is calling for bears a greater resemblance to the fiscal follies of Europe than American notions of fiscal austerity such as the Simpson-Bowles plan:
Even if you include interest savings, 60% of the debt reduction comes from tax hikes. Obama is making the exact mistake Europe is making by employing a tax-hike heavy version of fiscal austerity. Indeed, a 2010 analysis by AEI scholars found that successful fiscal consolidations are heavy on spending cuts, light on tax hikes. Even Bill Clinton’s debt reduction plan was 2-1 in favor of spending cuts. The Obama plan is dangerously unbalanced, especially given the weak economic recovery.
The point here is that for all of the Democratic bravado about Obama’s mandate to tax the rich and do as he likes, there is still plenty of room for Republicans to both bargain constructively to avoid the fiscal cliff and to defend their principles. The president has as much if not far more to lose from a standoff that would wreck an already weak economy. Now is the time for Republicans to be smart but not craven.
considering that the Republicans spent the last couple of years blocking any compromises and deliberately playing at brinksmanship as so to exploit the entire thing for political gain in hope of pushing Obama out of mthe White House, and considering that they failed and were rebuked at the polls, "craven" simply isn't the correct word.
That is just plain nonsense. The 2010 class of House Repubs in particular had made a promise to those who elected them that they would fight like mad for spending cuts and against tax increases. The simple fact is, that Obama would not compromise at all
when those House repubs promised to "fight like mad" for spending cuts and no tax increases…..didn't that preclude conpromise, Einstein?
Come on Dubinsky, you know as well as I do that compromise is a two way street and that Obama had no more interest in coming to the center then Republicans. n nYou can complain about Republican obstructionism all you want but the bottom line is Obama's idea of a compromise is giving a fingernail and taking an arm. For over half of the Obama administration Republicans weren't even invited to the table. When they took the House and couldn't be ignored they've been asked to concede everything for nothing in return. When faced with this there is nothing Republicans can do but block block block.
as it drew closer to election time,,,,,, yeah…..Obama had as little interest in compromise as they. n nprior to that, there were deals to be made and the repubs thought it in their political interes not to make any of them. n nprior to 2010 there was great disagreement and great distrust on both sides, but they managed to make deals….after 2010, the Repubs interpreted the election results as indicating that they should push full ahead and accept no deal not on their terms.
The only deals being made prior to 2010 were the deals the Obama administration made with the Democrats to ram through the health care bill. n nThere were no compromises made on the two most important pieces of legislation from the Obama administration – the health care bill and the stimulus package. Both bills were put together without Republican input and were rammed through without Republican support. This tells me that Obama wasn't interested in compromising with Republicans (remember his secret meanings?). I do not know of any deals made on lesser pieces of legislation. n nNeither side has been willing to work with the other for the past four years. Republicans are no more to blame then Obama and the Democrats. We all need to understand the blame goes both ways.
Josef, that's simply untrue…….the healthcare bill passed the House because deals were made and Republicans switched from opposing the final bill (which went through many and substantial changes from the original proposals) n nand voted for it.
I believe the smartest approach, politically speaking, for the Republicans in both the House and the Senate, is for them to debate against all of what they disagree with on Obama and the democrats but to let them (O and the Dems) have whatever they want. Make it a four year campaign of ideas from the Republican side and let the low-information voters that put Obama in for a secound term get exactly what they asked for…and what they deserve! When companies start laying off workers because they cannot afford Obamacare and a doubling of their taxes, the sheeple will have to face reality and maybe, JUST maybe, the adults can start to fix this mess and return America to it's former status as a country that puts the rights of the individual ahead of the rights of the mob.
Interesting post, however, when you say low-information voters, I assume you mean brain dead zombies. I just hope the republic can survive another four years of BHO . I am sure our geopolitical enemies are salivating at the thought of continuing to bamboozle this amateurish Obama regime.
Clearly, the author has ignored the demonstrable danger imparted by relying upon an echo chamber. To attack, from a right-wing website, the presidents plan as "unbalanced" by citing evidence provided by a right-wing website, is simply not compelling to those not already convinced by the right-wing. Duh.