President Obama is hopeful (video), for “Democrats and Republicans agree on the need to solve the problem” and reduce the national deficit. But such vague accordance will not deliver results unless substantiated by a set of concrete goals and priorities. As in any productive negotiation, both parties need to convey clearly and frankly what they can give up, what they cannot, and what is up for discussion. By establishing common ground and shared objectives at the outset of the conversation, perhaps individual temperament and pride will figure in less prominently as the President and Congress attempt to reach a useful compromise.
Most Republican members of Congress, including House Speaker John Boehner, Majority Whip Eric Cantor, and a swath of newly elected Tea Party heroes, are staunchly unwilling to vote for new tax increases. Further exacerbating the situation, these politicians have repeatedly announced their convictions to constituents and the media. In this week’s address, the President explains – again – that by eliminating tax cuts for the wealthy, the government can continue to provide college scholarships, health care, research grants, and postal service. But as the President’s frustration mounts, his pleas fall on deaf, obstinate ears. His political adversaries have built their political identity upon a promise to reign in government spending and slash taxes whenever possible. For these individuals, this discussion is no longer simply ideological (if it ever really was). Their pride, integrity, and purpose as elected officials are at stake; they have drawn a line in the sand and moved beyond reason in their vehement dogma.
The President’s demands are sensible, but in order to reduce the deficit, he requires the cooperation of at least some Republicans. Rather than honing in on the one policy option – raising taxes – most offensive to Tea Party sensibilities, the President might have more luck if he temporarily diverts attention from this sensitive, emotional issue. Instead of beginning the discussion by announcing, “We need to cut taxes in order to protect these programs,” President Obama could try saying, “We need to keep college scholarships, right? And medical research, too. Let’s think about how we could do that. Where can we save?”
This strategy would allow Republicans and Democrats to finally establish meaningful points of agreement. It doesn’t really help if everyone in Congress agrees that we need to reduce the deficit, just as the nuances of military engagement in Afghanistan remain contentious even while everyone in Washington wears a flag pin. Until the Republicans and Democrats agree on approximately how much the deficit must be reduced, and until they pencil in a few federally funded programs that must be protected (the postal service might be a nice place to start), negotiations will remain stagnant. But if the parties can stomach this degree of cooperation, it could trigger some important prerequisites to progress: media and political attention to taxes might simmer down, Republicans can tout the negotiations as a partisan victory, and President Obama can quietly strong-arm tax hikes for the wealthy into the final budget plan. In the current state of political inertia, the President has little to gain by digging in his heels and dignifying the mulish Republican posture. Rather, he can diffuse the petty, sour attitude of the opposition by extending an olive branch and allowing the GOP to begin a conversation without abandoning their steadfast principles. Tax hikes need to be part of the deficit reduction plan, but there’s no sense in forcing Republicans in Congress to publicly acknowledge this reality just yet.
For another perspective on the current state of the Republican party, check out The Mother of All No-Brainers, written by David Brooks and published yesterday in The New York Times. Mr. Brooks is a right-leaning moderate journalist.
It's really a shame that President Obama has hit a stump in his efforts to reform the economy.
ReplyDeleteBut now that this discussion over the elimination of tax-cuts has escalated so much, would it be a political disadvantage (especially with the '12 election in mind) if he abandons this front at this point?
Also, hats-off to President Obama for already cutting the deffisit by a significant amount in his budget spending reduction ( http://leobrownweeklyresponse.blogspot.com/2011/07/regarding-president-obamas-weekly_05.html#comments ) with the cooperation of fairly moderate republicans like Senator John McCain and House Rep. John McHugh! It's such a good feeling to see that America is becoming more efficient by the day.
Oops, that was the wrong link! Here is the article...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-reducing-spending-budget
It's pretty amazing that some of those obsolete government programs stuck around until the economic crisis forced Washington do some real accounting. I'm all for government spending when something's got to be done, but the Congressional Budget Office needs to get on our case when an expenditure no longer makes sense. And if the current system isn't working, one smart investment in our future would be an overhaul of the government's accounting methods to eliminate truly wasteful spending.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the 2012 election is concerned, you're definitely right that President Obama needs to be on top of his game - strong, effective, and principled. (As the President pointed out in 2009, "just because I'm skinny, doesn't mean I'm not tough.") My hope is that he will ultimately be able to eliminate the tax cuts for the wealthy, but without indulging Republicans in the public squabbling that they so relish.
Hi Leo!
ReplyDeleteI chuckled about the postal service, but I don't think the GOP is too hot for them either. Seems ripe for privatization to them, no?
I think one of the smartest "recasting the debate" strategies I've heard (and which you argue that Obama needs) was from my senator Jeff Merkley that "Washington spending" (whatever that means) can happen in the tax code just as much as it can happen in discretionary appropriations bills. Tax breaks for ethanol, private jets, thoroughbreds, alfalfa, stradivarius violins, whatever--just the fact that it was passed in a tax bill instead of an appropriations bill is a pretty inconsequential difference. If you just start calling tax hikes "the elimination of earmarks/pork" you might go far!
Jacob! Thanks for reading!
ReplyDeleteThat's a great point by Senator Merkley. As Sato mentioned in her post, the President has been working on eliminating pointless spending, and it is only natural that he would quickly hone in on wasteful and unfair tax rates.
So I guess at this point, we should hope for a strategy that goes something like this:
1. President Obama begins calling tax breaks for the rich "corporate grants."
2. In his next weekly video address, President Obama defends the merit of "corporate grants."
3. Republicans erupt in populist outrage.
4. President Obama concedes defeat and eliminates "corporate grants."
Keep your fingers crossed!
Oh that would be marvelous. Unfortunately the standard play seems to run like this:
ReplyDelete1. People read about "corporate welfare" in TIME.
2. Peoples get angry.
3. Ralph Nader rails against "corporate welfare."
4. Everyone is mad at Nader for some reason or another and forgets whatever it was they read in TIME.
Down with Nader! (?)
ReplyDeleteReading Paul Krugman's piece in today's NY Times, I was reminded of just how much ground President Obama has conceded to Republicans. In recent weeks (including in the 7/2 weekly address) the President has been more open to conservative economic ideas considered silly by most serious economists, suggesting cuts to Social Security and Medicare and asserting that government needs to "live within its means." Mr. Krugman decries these words as nothing less than heretic, reminding us that if our goal is to create jobs, the way to accomplish this, especially during a recession, is to increase government spending.
We can't (and the media wouldn't let us) forget that central to this debate is the looming possibility of America defaulting on its loans. Simply put, in order to avoid such a disaster, Democrats want to raise the debt ceiling and eliminate tax breaks for the rich, Republicans want to cut spending and keep taxes where they are, and President Obama is attempting to wrangle some sort of compromise, a laborious process which has, predictably, dragged him towards the right. Mr. Krugman writes that after all of this compromise, Democrats (Democrats!) might not vote for the President's proposed budget plan.
I've noticed that in many of these conversations, not much attention is given to the differing incidental value (or detriment) of government programs to society and the economy. These decisions impact more than the GDP, and they impact the GDP in ways more complex than a price tag can describe. If we slash funding for Medicare, the deficit might go down tomorrow, but costly, inefficient emergency room visits will soar and the quality of life of our elderly will plummet. Again, policy makers need to focus on concrete goals which, surely, everyone can agree on, rather than ideological standoffs.
We'll see what the President has to say tomorrow!
TTR! (tax the rich) including CEO salaries that have increased disproportionately in the last two years...
ReplyDelete