Tag: compromise

File Under: Cogent

Hendrik Hertzberg deftly summarizes why Obama is systematically losing the left (the only folks who supported his Presidency to begin with):

Obama’s seeming refusal to hold [invoking the 14th Amendment to the Constitution] in reserve (“like the fire axe on the wall,” in Garrett Epps’s words) is emblematic of his all too civilized, all too accommodating negotiating strategy—indeed, of his whole approach to the nation’s larger economic dilemma, the most disappointing aspect of his Presidency. His stimulus package asked for too little and got less. He has allowed deficits and debt to supersede mass unemployment as the emergency of the moment. He has too readily accepted Republican terms of debate, such as likening the country to a household that must “live within its means.” (For even the most prudent householders, living within one’s means can include going into debt, as in taking out a car loan so that one can get to one’s job.) He has done too little to educate the public to the wisdom of post-Herbert Hoover economics: fiscal balance is achieved over time, not in a single year; in flush times a government should run a surplus, but when the economy falters deficits are part of the remedy; when the immediate problem is what it is now—a lack of demand, not a shortage of capital—higher spending is generally more efficacious than lower taxes, especially lower taxes on the rich.

The whole piece is fantastic, but this paragraph could easily form the basis of a savage, intellectually driven attack on Obama from the right. Well, it could if such a concept as “appealing to the intellect” or “thoughtful” even existed over there anymore. They’re too busy arguing over who loves the country the very most or who would starve the most children to death in their first 100 days to worry one little bit about convincing even a single Democrat or independent to join their particular crusade. For once: this is why the GOP will fail.

File Under: Cogent

How You Negotiate

In reference to this and this, I think I’ve been less clear than I could have been about how I think Obama and his team should proceed.

For the sake of discussion, let’s take as written the Ezra Klein 83:17 cuts:revenue breakdown. The GOP wanted 85:15 in March, got offered 83:17 (plus a lot of exactly-what type details) in June and walked out. This is their choice. But there has to be a price for that choice.

Since there’s no deal, we’re going to take the GOP’s advice and just pay the interest on the debt. Seems like our only choice, thanks to the GOP’s intransigence re: corporate jet tax breaks and such. So we start by telling seniors to be ready not to receive their Social Security checks in August; if this troubles them, they should call their Congressional representatives. Medicare providers will not be compensated for the foreseeable future; they will receive IOUs in lieu of payment as of August 1. Is this going to be a problem for you? Call the Congress. We tell Wall Street they’d best to do like Cantor and get out of Treasuries.
And, we make clear that the deal, as of right now and for a limited time only is going to be 80:20. Take it or leave it. But if you do leave it, on July 1 it becomes 70:30. July 15th it is 50:50. Want to see where we go on August 1?

Once the GOP actually starts losing things when they pull the old football away, they will stop using the tactic. And until they do start paying a price for it, they’d be foolish not to use the tactic. So far it’s gotten them everything they want and hung blame on the Democrat. That needs to stop. So: you make your case, you state the stakes in clear and unmistakeable language, and then you set the timeline for agreement. Take it or leave it.

Ideal Framework

Ygleisas dares to dream about the “ideal negotiating framework” for the debt ceiling:

White House demands clean debt ceiling increase, House majority demands big spending cuts, Senate majority demands partial repeal of Bush tax cuts, and we all compromise on just doing the damn debt increase.

That would be nice. But it would also require non-feckless Democrats in the Senate. Which, so far as I can tell, do not exist.

But, since the plutocrats and banksters seem to realize they’ve got skin in this game, maybe we can just cut some insanely rich people’s taxes, raise the debt ceiling, start a fourth war (I’m thinking Spain is due), and call it a day.

An interesting idea that was brought up to me by my chief of staff, we won’t do it until tomorrow, is putting out an appeal to the Democratic leader. I would be willing to sit down and talk to him, the assembly Democrat leader, plus the other two Republican leaders—talk, not negotiate and listen to what they have to say if they will in turn—but I’ll only do it if all 14 of them will come back and sit down in the state assembly. They can recess it… the reason for that, we’re verifying it this afternoon, legally, we believe, once they’ve gone into session, they don’t physically have to be there. If they’re actually in session for that day, and they take a recess, the 19 Senate Republicans could then go into action and they’d have quorum because it’s turned out that way. So we’re double checking that. If you heard I was going to talk to them that’s the only reason why. We’d only do it if they came back to the capitol with all 14 of them. My sense is, hell. I’ll talk. If they want to yell at me for an hour, I’m used to that. I can deal with that. But I’m not negotiating.

Scott Walker, governor of Wisconsin, revealing his plan to end the stalemate by doing what Republicans always do: pretend to talk and be a sober representative of the people while using that opening to end the standoff in a typically underhanded fashion.
But, yeah, Obama: acting like and adult and negotiating from the compromise position will work every time because the GOP is all about policy outcomes.
Source: Slate

I reject the word

Incoming Speaker John Boehner: We have to govern. That’s what we were elected to do.
Leslie Stahl: But governing means compromising.
Boehner: It means working together.
Stahl: It also means compromising.
Boehner: It means finding common ground.
Stahl: Okay, is that compromising?
Boehner: I made it clear I am not gonna compromise on my principles, nor am I gonna compromise…
Stahl: What are you saying?
Boehner: …the will of the American people.
Stahl: You’re saying, “I want common ground, but I’m not gonna compromise.” I don’t understand that. I really don’t.
Boehner: When you say the word “compromise,” a lot of Americans look up and go, “Uh-oh, they’re gonna sell me out.” And so finding common ground, I think, makes more sense. […]
Stahl: Why won’t you say you’re afraid of the word [compromise]?
Boehner: I reject the word.
Lemkin: I’ll give the Obama team 45 minutes to dig up the old Rhythm Corps song “Common Ground” and get Clinton out to the lectern to run a few bars for us.