Getty Images
The House Republican leadership team
Soon after the elections, still riding high from an electoral mandate and improved poll numbers, President Obama entered fiscal talks with congressional Republicans with the appropriate posture. He starting drawing lines in the sand, making unambiguous demands, and presented an offer that Democrats actually liked -- without preemptive concessions.
But as talks progressed, the president felt the need to change his posture and show some flexibility. House Speaker John Boehner made a concession over the weekend, and so Obama responded with some compromises of his own.
The fact that Republicans found Obama's concessions inadequate is not surprising. But Ezra Klein highlights a more important takeaway from yesterday's machinations.
There are also some who think that Boehner -- and, more to the point, Boehner's House members -- increasingly see weakness in the White House's negotiating position.
A few weeks ago, the Obama administration was firm that they wouldn't budge on tax rates for income above $250,000 and that they wouldn't budge on the debt ceiling. They've since budged on both. Republicans increasingly think the White House will concede more now, and that if they don't concede more now they'll definitely give Republicans a better deal if threatened with debt default. Whether or not that's true, it pulls Republicans -- and Boehner -- to the right, as it makes it harder for Boehner to argue for a compromise now.
The New York Times reported a few weeks ago that the president has been "scarred by failed negotiations" and "has emerged as a different kind of negotiator." Throughout his first term, Obama "repeatedly offered what he considered compromises on stimulus spending, health care and deficit reduction to Republicans, who either rejected them as inadequate or pocketed them and insisted on more."
That was early December. With a deadline looming, the president started feeling more confident about reaching a deal he genuinely wants -- and is prepared to work towards in good faith -- which inevitably led him to start moving towards a middle ground between him and his rivals.
And that seems like a reasonable thing to do, except the moment Obama starts yielding from his previous positions, Republicans revert to form, asking, "What else can we get from this guy if we refuse to compromise and start threatening to do real harm to the country?"
Negotiations are supposed to follow a certain pattern, involving mutual compromises. That model probably needs to be thrown out the nearest White House window.
"This fight is not going to be won by the president taking a step towards Boehner, Boehner taking a step toward the president, the president taking a step toward Boehner, Boehner taking a step toward the president and so forth until they meet in the middle," Damon Silvers, policy director at the AFL-CIO, told Ezra. "That hasn't worked before. Boehner doesn't take the steps. It will be won by the president clearly siding with the American people on tax fairness and preserving the safety net from benefit cuts."
Jon Chait raised a point yesterday the political world would be wise to remember: "We are not dealing with rational people here. We are dealing with House Republicans."
Leave a Comment:
At this point, I wouldn't cross the street to give a cup of water to a dying house Republican or Senator
Or urine....
Well... they could have the urine, but I wouldn't give it to 'em in a cup.
It was really telling, to watch Obummer's press conference this morning. He got asked specifically about Social Security cuts and spent what seemed like forever with his non-answer answer, about how he's "defending the middle class" and all the rest of his baloney. Yeah, he's doing it by stabbing the people who can't do anything - the poor, the old, the veterans, the disabled - in the back. "I will not cut benefits" was his campaign slogan. Yeah, right. Chained CPI will cut $26,000 in benefits from the average Social Security recipient (the average check is $1,000 a month, which sure puts them way out of "poverty" huh? Especially when 80% of SS recipients depend on that for the majority of their income) over the average term one gets SS. I guess we're all the people who didn't respond to his barrage of e-mail about giving him five bucks every other hour during the campaign, so we don't matter as much as those CEOs he meets with.
I only voted for this spineless moron because he wasn't as big an a-hole as his opponent. The day after the election, a friend of mine (who also voted for him for similar reasons) e-mailed me that "you can bet that within six weeks he will announce cuts in benefits." I wanted to believe he was wrong, but this week has proven me wrong.
I've been involved in Democratic politics since I was a teenager ringing doorbells for JFK in 1960, and Barack Obama is the biggest Democratic disappointment I've ever seen, and that's even comparing him with Lyndon Bastard Johnson and his worthless war. You can just guarantee that whatever he says, he's going to be back to his "can't we all just get along?" baloney.
And listening to Nancy "we won't allow the President to do a deal that cuts benefits" Pelosi yesterday defending this was enough to make me puke.
They really are a bunch of spineless scum who are well versed in the Democratic mantra: how can we snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?
Especially when 80% of SS recipients depend on that for the majority of their income)
The fact that so many depend on SS as their main (and possible only) source of retirement income is a big part of the problem. Social Security is billed as a safety net - and it is really not even that in these times - but it, in my opinion, was not meant to be a "pension" per se. I am relying on my 401k which will hopefully be enough along with a little bump from SS (although I am not expecting the amount quoted to me by the SS adminstration). I do not have a quick fix to this dilemma facing many of our fellow citizens, but I do think that people - especially the younger adults just starting their working life - have to have a mindset that SS is and/or will be a supplement at best for their later years. Social Security is a fine benefit and I do hope it is around for many, many years, but folks have to plan for other avenues of income for their retirement. This is obviously much harder to do for the middle and lower income classes, but if you even put a small amount aside starting in your 20's you could at least have something - anything to help.
Blame that on the lack of high marginal tax rates.
Over the past three decades the highest rate has declined from 75% to 35% and during that time CEO/COO salaries and benefit packages have skyrocketed, while wages haven't even lept up with inflation.
These over-paid CEO/COOs might be worth what they get if they produced an economy in which everyone who works comes out ahead, but they don't. Making exorbitant CEO/COO payments subject to higher rates of taxation, if only on the receiving end, would force companies to readjust their priorities to what is better for the company and its' employees, rather than what's best for the CEO/COO and the company (in that order).
People can't save for their retirement if they're only earning enough to make ends meet. Increases in wages for employees, not just cost-of-living increases, means that those employees do have enough and can save for retirement.
Until we re-institute marginal tax rates of 75+%, on all income over $2-5 million per annmu, you faux sympathy is just that - fake.
There is a sense that here and in the past the President is throwing the fight.
...and to Boehner of all people, the House Lapdog?
Bullies have to be stood up to.
When you concede over and over and over, it is pretty reasonable to assume a bully will expect you to concede again. This is the prices Obama and the country are paying for Obama and the Democratic party's past spineless behavior in the face of Republican obnoxious bullying and obstruction on everything from economics and global warming to guns.
The only thing today's Republican understands is a punch in the mouth. They must be punched in the mouth. They must be made to fold. They must be humiliated. And we must rub it in. That is the only way to stop this.
Normally I would not agree with that type of tactic ... but now ... it seems to be the only way.
It took me a while to get there. But anybody who's been paying attention since Clinton took office in '93 understands how Republicans behave and it is nothing but inexorable brow-beating bullying.
Republican simply MUST be humiliated with mockery and insult. They must feel in in their guts. It must be visceral. It has to be of the order of being laughed at while naked. Anyone that deals often with these sort of people and their personalities and psychology understands this. That is all they understand at this point.
They do NOT do rational argument, discussion, negotiation, compromise any more. Part of the reason is that they have learned by dealing with spineless Democrats that their bullying works. The other is simply because of the psychological profile. Wingnut World is a fantasy world in which supply-side economics works, global warming is a hoax, everybody carrying guns makes us safer, history can be re-written to tell a Christian right story, Jesus rode a dinosaur, and life is nothing more than the sum of markets and a beneficent Invisible Hand. And they deny reality to believe we all live in that world. There is nothing that can be said to change their view. Facts and evidence can be made up to provide the fuel for the arguments. It is faith and nothing else.
Republicans must be viscerally humiliated. That is our job. Reasoning won't get it done.
Cuts to earned benefits (SS & Medicare)? Just. Say. No.
Cuts to safety-nets (SNAP, Medicaid, extended unemployment coverage)? Just. Say. No.
Holding the nation and the world hostage through the "debt ceiling" brinksmanship? Just. Say. No.
Say no and walk away, Mr. President. Your arguments won the day last month. Do you really want to send a message to your supporters that you can't be trusted to have learned from your earlier negotiation failures? We may be thick-headed, Mr. President, but we're not stupid.
what's up with the fooling with SS cost of living. it's horrible and too low as it its. my net goes up a whole $21/month next year. and food alone will go up ????
Dave -- Same here, but my net is closer to $30. In my case, higher property taxes will more than exceed that. I already spend less on food now than I did in the late 1980s. Meat is long since off the list.
This is apparently a symbolic trophy issue for the Other Side. I have absolutely no idea why PBO put and maintains this on the table. Any half-wit knows it is (1) a benefit cut, and (2) pointless budgetarily and, as Krugman says, just cruel.
To my knowledge, no WH explanation for this has come out. Have you heard anything?
i agree with you dave! the cola for most of us whether we're receiving ss or not doesn't cover the real cost of the prices on everything that goes up!
Stop throwing us under the bus Mr. President just to make a deal, we voted for you because you were the one that gave us the best deal - don't make us regret that decision! Let's just go off the "fiscal curb" and then we can negotiate about who really gets to keep their tax breaks! Let the nation see exactly who the GOTP is fighting for on tax cuts & deficit reduction!
All you had to do was listen to his non-answer answer to the question about Social Security cuts in his press conference this morning to know he's back to driving "Italian tanks" (one speed forward and five in reverse), as an old military joke used to go.
there is much that i admire about our president, but there are times that he exasperates me, especially in negotiations with the republicans. at those times, he reminds me of what teddy roosevelt said of his successor, willam howard taft: "i could carve a better man from a banana."
I was going to submit a comment jim, but your comment is so right on I don't need to bother!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Some suggested rules of negotiation for Obama:
1) Get the principals in a room who can actually deliver the votes you want. Boehner doesn't suffice - you need Cantor and Ryan.
2) What goes on in the room, stays in the room. Any leaks before the final agreement are met with full denial from the White House, and a cessation of negotiations.
3) Nothing's agreed on until everything's agreed on.
These rules aren't exactly original, and even in a public negotiation like this one, the repetition of #3 by Obama and everyone associated with him would be a step forward.
Dems have already gone a step too far to get a deal. If that's not enough we have to go over the cliff and let the GOP own it.
Negotiating at this level is a team activity. I suspect one or more of the President's advisors are telling him that this is the proper negotiating posture. If so they need to be replaced.
Again, I wouldn't care if these negotiations collapse just like last year. The fiscal cliff will create a minor recession, but long term the Clinton tax rates and sequestration look better to me than anything Boehner has proposed.
" I wouldn't care if these negotiations collapse just like last year."
I PRAY that they collapse!
Return to the Clinton rates- I don't give a Flyin' F**k about "my2K", because i did quite well under those tax rates, and will gladly pay an extra $2000 a year for all the benefits to me and to future generations!
Reversion to Clinton tax rates and sequestration is much better than what Obama has proposed and will do the most to rein in our spending and start chipping away on our debt.
"Sequestration is better than Obama's Last Offer" is an excellent slogan, right up until the point that you actually learn something about the tidal wave of suffering and economic disruption that the sequestration provisions will cause. At which point, you realize that it's just @!$%#ing idiotic.
The economic situation is a big problem, but at this point, the biggest concern is political, not economic. Continuing the 20+ year caving in to Republican big bad stupid, reality-denying policy in dead give-aways in service of progress toward a banana republic must stop. Not next year. Not next month. NOW.
Or we are going to have that banana republic. The economic problems with the stupidly-named "fiscal cliff" are significant. But the political situation is even more dire. Government and Democrats can NOT continue to be allowed to unceasingly bend to the plutocratic whims of the Republican overlord class. Period.
It must stop NOW.
Steve, if you think sequestration is actually going to happen, I have a bridge you might want to purchase in Brooklyn. Congress proposes budgets and approves spending. There is no way they will actually stick with the draconian cuts demanded by sequestration more than a few months.
Do NOT capitulate again to the Republicans. All the Dems seem to do is cave in when the going gets a little rough. Take a page out of the republicans' playbook -- say something, do it, mean it, and own it. What does President Obama have to lose? He's a lame duck President (and I'm from Michigan, where our lame duck republican-dominated legislature just passed some of the worst legislation as they walked out the door!). Just say no, President Obama!!
This is when Obama infuriates me. IF, and it's a big if, he was negotiating with rational people, his tactics would work. He is not working with rational people, so he should be standing his ground, letting Boehner put ALL his cards on the table, then go from there. If not, it's a short plunge over the fiscal cliff. It won't be all the gloom and doom as predicted, because Congress will be able to enact new legislation and make it retroactive. When he put SS on the table, he lost me.
Very well put, the Republicans are indeed irrational. Look at the Contempt citation that issued Eric Holder. They took an unprecedented vote to sanction Holder, something never done in our entire history, on literally nothing. Once they did that, all bets are off. Never throw a single one of these liars a lifeline of any kind, and when they beg for one, remind them of Eric Holder, a man simply doing his job.
Agree Dixie, except for the part about "congress will be able to enact new legislation." They have been incapable of enacting any legislation for 2 yrs and I dont see that changing for at least 10 more yrs.
Obama should know better by now.
This isn't a negotiation and the debt ceiling won't be either.
Man up .
After indebting our children’s generation, our generation is now engaged in national debate about how much debt to pass on to our grandchildren’s and our great-grandchildren’s generations.
Future generations should not be sentenced to a fiscal hell that is the product of our generation’s sinful spending and criminal governance.
If this generation cannot implement honest fiscal reform, then no generation, other than our own, more rightly deserves to go over the fiscal cliff.
Your teacher is calling... Talking Points 101 class is waiting for you...
When cons/teahadists start saying this when the GOP spends like crazy, then I'll believe they are sincere. Until then spare us your phony hand-wringing.
So where were you when George W. got us into this?
It is the conservative, liberal, and amoral baby booming, "me" generation who, on the promise of getting something for nothing, continue to re-elect those same, self-serving politicians who enabled the dot.com bubble, the Enrons, the sub-prime housing bubble, and the Lehman Brothers.
John P: Even more stale talking points? Seriously, do a little reading. This blog tends to rise above most and include some meat, not literally. I guess it's fine if the bar is set real low, so I suggest elevating your game or finding a low bar.
JP Smith: the sheep you love to fornicate are calling - best get back to WackoWorld where acts like that are not thought of as "unnatural."
I just have a question for you:
Why is passing debt to the next generation in terms of national debt a bad thing?
Please note I do not want to hear you make a comparison to if you personally passed debt on to your children. I want to know about national debt from the government. What is this big existential threat that people are so worried about? If you cannot quantify it then shouldn't that say something about it's validity?
I can't BELIEVE that they are talking about the debt ceiling.
Obama should not only call their bluff, he should play the same game. Tell the GOP that Obama won't raise the debt ceiling unless they agree to raise the Capital Gains rate to 39%.
Argh!
http://www.facebook.com/SendYourBalls
I'm still pissed that he won Person Of The Year(or whatever the F$%# it is), while Malala stood up and took a bullet for what's right. Barack (No Balls) Obama deserves an Academy Award for his great acting abilities, not an award that honors one for extraordinary accomplishments!!
Cathy: Nobody reads that magazine, certainly not wingnuts like you. Please look to your masters for pertinent and relevant anti-Obama screeches, you need to elevate your game...
The Republicans are completely irrational and unwilling to put people first--winning is the only thing that matters to them. I hope the next election will show them that not listening to the people who put you in office isn't a good idea.
As I stated when PBO folded over the Susan Rice issue, meet the next four years folks. He will go down in history as "Barack the Spineless". He will throw seniors and the middle class under the bus for tax cuts for the rich, and call it "a necessary compromise". Then when the debt ceiling debate comes up, the Repubs will kick his ass again. This is not a prediction. This is simply reading his past record.
debt ceiling will be a part of any deal, guaranteed.
And why would the Repubs give up such a juicy bone, such a clear opportunity to rub PBO's nose into the steaming pile of crap this country's financial situation is? There will be no package deal simply because Barack the Spineless will not demand one. Why did we elect him? So he can run the country by the tune the Repubs are playing? SS cuts and big, big rich folks tax cuts, GUARANTEED. Let's talk about it in a couple of weeks.
The only way for Obama to negotiate in this manner is to take something away every time Boehner pulls this. There has to be a fear that the terms are going to get worse, not better. If moving to the middle is perceived as weakness, do the opposite.
Bring on the Cliff!
As a registered (moderate) republican who voted for Obama the last two elections, I am rather surprised that the White House negotiating tactics are so weak in the aftermath of an election mandate. Obama earlier said that he was elected on the mandate of raising tax rates on the highest 2% and was holding firm at the $250K threshold. Now he has moved to $400 which will no way seal the deal and the republican look to walk all over him like they did the last 4 years. Obama is a wimp and the democrats don't know how to lead. They need to "grow a backbone" as stated by Deval Patrick at the convention. Obama needs to take lessons from Scott Boras, the super agent that baseball owners hate but gets the best deals for his players. When you negotiate your terms with the republican house controlled by the tea party quacks, you set your terms and listen. When you don't respond to their ridiculous posturing, THEY will get nervous and come to you. When Obama responds and weakens his position, he has lost the battle and will lose the war! My advice would be to go off the cliff, then the republican will look like the far right kooks that they are only serving the top 2%. Obama bargaining position will be strengthened and he would get more than he would before going over the cliff. You cannot reasonably negotiate with unreasonable people. Boehner has no control over his caucus anyways!
Go over the cliff!!
January 20th, Boehner's history and the Republicans in the House go into total chaos mode.
One can only hope.
I really wish that Obama would drop this whole grand bargain thing. It is nothing more than a capitulation that the priorities are 1) defict; 2) debt; 3) taxes (lower and lower); 4) defense; 5) jobs. Of course, since that is the Republican agenda, it is somewhat backwards and totally incomplete. The White House MUST publish an agenda and state that by following the following agenda, America will be back on track by the 2014 election. If not, then it will be the responsibility of the American public to vote in all Republicans. If the Republicans continue to force their agenda, then it will the responsibility to vote in all Progressive Democrats and Independents. The agenda:
1) Jobs; 2) Education 3) Taxes (more progressive); 4) Green Energy; 5) Single Payer Health Care System; 6) Pay Equality; 7) Safe schools & Less guns.
Obama may not want the fight but I sure do. Why? because poll after poll shows the American people are with the President but he acts like they aren't. Based on what's leaking out we are getting ready to get raked over hot coals by the man we worked hard to elect...the back stab here reaches epic proportions and supremely ruins my faith in the process. No to compromise!
I'm hoping Obama knows that the orange shell of a man the coward Republicans sent in to "play" him has no real voice or power to negotiate. So Obama says whatever and watches the conservative propoganda machine twist itself into joyful knots, thinking the POTUS has been had.
But as has happened before, suddenly the Orange One gets a tap on his shoulder from the secret man behind the curtain and he then throws the entire deal, blaming the President for not doing enough.
This is not a new show, this is not a new plot line, this is no new Boehner, this is the same Republican rut. Obama has heard the GOP song for so long he has to be singing it in the bathroom. I want to trust the man has learned a thing or two in 4 years of dancing with the czars.
INTERESTING! We've seen President Obama draw some heavy fire for appearing to "cave" even a little bit -- but tell me if you disagree with THIS interpretation: BECAUSE he advanced a proposal with a 'hint' of concession (AND made sure it still wasn't going to be acceptable; no need to fillibuster his own proposal, after all), NOW Boehner is even FARTHER in a corner because now his base AND his people think they can get MORE concessions ("Hope -- a poison-pill carrot"). And as a result they're poised to shoot themselves in the foot (and step on their own ...umm, shoelaces) even MORE definitively than they already had been.
I'm not seeing "weakness" in President Obama's response, I'm seeing STRATEGY and cunning and insight. He continues to successfully maneuver the situation in such a way that the GOP's options increasingly diminish and deteriorate. Cool!
And I'm going to say this again (and again and again, until someone picks up on it and can firmly state yea or nay on the subject): I'm suspecting someone has come up with a breakthrough in "intelligent" data analysis and extrapolation and interpolation, maybe as far back as several years ago. Because the "string" of successful results of advanced planning are becoming increasingly unlikely without some form of augmented analysis and planning.
Yes, it's entirely possible President Obama and/or his staff and advisors have some incredible aggregate gift for insight and prediction (and choreography too); but I'd LIKE to believe there's more to this, and that we-the-people may soon see some tangible spinoff pertinent in less rarified levels of endeavor. Of course, if an element of "nobody can know, else it stops working" (see Psychohistory re Foundation series by Asimov) is true and pertinent, I may disappear at any moment, eh?
You make some good points, but your use of caps makes it near impossible to read IMHO.
It'd be terrific if you are interpreting this correctly. I am not seeing it that way and am pretty angry, but we shall see.
I think you have nailed it Dan. In some ways I think particularly since the last 6 months of the election we have seen an Obama team that is using their "elite academia" insights to box the Republicans around like Muhammad Ali. They are dialing into the Extreme Conservative/Tea Party psychology and using a long term strategic plan to make Republicans own every last bit of their radically unpopular policies and their stubborn refusal to work for real, acceptable solutions.
Negotiating in good faith with Boehner is like debating in good faith with Romney. Similar tactics are needed, similar willingness to call a lie a lie and present fact-based points. If Boehner takes a step back, then Obama should take an equivalent step back, not a step towards Boehner. (Boehner suggests tax hike on over $1M earners; Obama proposes 45% on $240K+ earners.) Not that Boehner can deliver the votes on his side, anyway. No compromise! Do not compromise with BS'ers. Especially no compromise on Medicare or Social Security benefits. Those should not be on the table at all.
Just because the GOP wants something does not mean what they want is right or good. Quite the opposite, IMO. While both sides may have moral worldviews that underlie their positions, I think it's abundantly clear that American voters' morality tends towards protecting SS and Medicare benefits. Fixing fraud and better organizing provider deals is OK when looking at spending cuts, but do not touch benefits.
If anything, benefits should be adjusted upwards. I see that my first salary in 1960's and '70's is listed in then current dollars -- but adjusted for inflation to current dollars would be considerably more -- and would entitle me to more. So the truth is that we did pay in more in real current dollars, and if adjusted for the real current value of old payments, I am fairly certain most of us would not use the amount we paid in.
In addition, the big baby boomer generation is going to be using these funds now or soon, but that is a temporary increase in payouts. After a couple of decades at the most, the payout rate will drop dramatically. Both funds are easily propped up, if necessary, by an increase in the caps, and to include all types of incomes -- an increase that could be adjusted when this temporary increase in payouts is ended. There is simply no need to adjust spending on benefits. It's GOP BS. Obama should not be bending on this.
Obama seems intent on showing some kind of movement so that his critics won't call him a demagogue, but they already do. In fact, they'll call him anything that might scare him into their corner.
But the President can show flexibility without compromising his principles.
For example, Boehnern and his colleagues argue that we mustn't raise taxes on the rich because they are the job creators of our economy. The President could say, "Let them prove it. We'll restore the Clinton-era tax rates, but give a credit to those earning over $250K when they create new domestic jobs. Let's see, what would be reasonable? How about a 1% credit for every 100 full-time jobs a person creates, in the year he creates them? We'd have to establish some new regs that assure only one person claims credit for particular job, and that people don't "churn" jobs to earn recurring credits for them, but hey -- we have the best tax attorneys in the business. I'm sure we can come up with something."
You running around with your hair on fire; put it out and settle down. The Republicans are not going to except any deal in which tax rates for the wealthy go up, so Obama can use that to look like the adult in the room who's willing to put everything on the table.
Besides, even if you don't believe that, I'm tired of the left freaking out over unsubstantiated rumors. In past deals it took a few months to see that the President rolled the Republicans while letting them think they rolled him. So I think a little patience and prudence is welcome here, yes?
Thank you, JSS. I was just about to post something along the lines of "don't mistake this kabuki-theater for real life," but your post pretty much sums up the gist of what I had in mind.