Republicans Done Fucked Up!

[Flagg]

WAPO

Wonkbook: The GOP's dual-trigger nightmare
Posted by Ezra Klein at 06:39 AM ET, 11/23/2011

Imagine if the Democrats offered Republicans a deficit deal that had more than $3 in tax increases for every $1 in spending cuts, assigned most of those spending cuts to the Pentagon, and didn't take a dime from Social Security, Medicaid or Medicare beneficiaries. Republicans would laugh at them. But without quite realizing it, that's the deal Republicans have now offered to the Democrats.

In August, Republicans scored what they thought was a big win by persuading Democrats to accept a trigger that consisted only of spending cuts. The price they paid was 1) concentrating the cuts on the Pentagon while exempting Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare beneficiaries, and 2) delaying the cuts until January 1, 2013. That was, they figured, a win, as it eschewed taxes. Grover Norquist's pledge remained unbroken.

But 12 years earlier, George W. Bush had set a trigger of his own. In order to pass his tax cuts using the 51-vote budget reconciliation process, he had agreed to let them sunset in 2010. A last-minute deal extended them until the end of 2012.

So now there are two triggers. One is an extremely progressive spending trigger worth $1.2 trillion that goes off on January 1, 2013. The other is an extremely progressive tax trigger worth $3.8 trillion that goes off on...January 1, 2013. If you count reduced interest payments, the two policies alone would reduce future deficits by about $6 trillion. That's far more than anything the supercommittee came close to discussing. It's distributed far more progressively than anything the Democrats have even considered proposing. And all that needs to happen for it to pass is, well, nothing.

Republicans can't stop these triggers on their own. They need Senate Democrats and President Obama to join them in passing an alternative, or they need House and Senate Democrats to join them in overturning President Obama's veto of their alternative. So the only way for Republicans to avoid this dual-trigger nightmare is to somehow convince Democrats to bail them out. And for that, they have two points of leverage.

The first is political: Democrats don't want to raise $3.8 trillions in taxes, much of which will fall on middle-class households. Already, Democrats have said that their preference is to make the the Bush tax cuts for income under $250,000 permanent. That means making 80 percent of them permanent.

The second is that this particular deficit-reduction plan could be devastating for the economy. Rather than phasing in slowly over the course of the next decade, it would all hit at once. If the economy was stronger, that might be fine. But in a recovery this weak, it could lead to another contraction.

So the GOP is not without options. But the Democrats are in the driver's seat. Gridlock means a deficit deal that they could never have imagined getting any other way. Basic negotiating theory would suggest that whatever the Republicans offer them must somehow be better even than that. And yet, that's not how either party is acting. Republicans don't seem particularly worried about the triggers and Democrats don't seem particularly interested in pressing their advantage. At least for now.

Talk to the White House, and you'll hear that they fiercely oppose permitting the Bush tax cuts to expire, and that they would prefer to see the spending trigger replaced with a bigger, more thoughtful deficit-reduction plan. But then, they would say that, wouldn't they?

Letting the Bush tax cuts expires is not a popular policy. Nor do crowds cheer for automatic sequestration. If they happen due to Republican obstruction, that's one thing. If they happen because Democrats don't want to make an alternative deal, that's quite another.

So I take the White House at their word when they say they want to extend most of the Bush tax cuts. But it's hard not to wonder. Their economic-policy team can run the numbers as well as anyone else can. They know the revenue levels they're talking about are completely insufficient to deal with the retirement of the Baby Boomers. And if they try their hardest to come to a deal with the Republicans, but it, like so many other deals over the last year, falls apart at the last minute because the GOP won't break their tax pledge and let the upper-income cuts expire, do they really think that would be a bad outcome? Or is it a better one than they could have imagined?

So all we have to do is count on the Democrats to do what they've been doing: Nothing. Is that too much to hope for?

[VarrusTheEthical]

It's almost like it Obama planned it.

[Mr Bean]

It's almost like it Obama planned it.

Except he didn't and he will cave on the tax cuts because they are for the wealthy. It also assumes Obama will still be in office in 2013 which is not a for sure thing considering we might see a two billion dollar campaign. And by two billion dollars that was a estimate I heard on what outside groups are going to be spending in total against Democrats in 2012, that's outside what Obama and his rival (whoever that is) are going to spend battling each other.

[VarrusTheEthical]

It's almost like it Obama planned it.

Except he didn't and he will cave on the tax cuts because they are for the wealthy. It also assumes Obama will still be in office in 2013 which is not a for sure thing considering we might see a two billion dollar campaign. And by two billion dollars that was a estimate I heard on what outside groups are going to be spending in total against Democrats in 2012, that's outside what Obama and his rival (whoever that is) are going to spend battling each other.

Well I suspect Obama himself expects to be reelected come 2013.

As for the "Caving" meme, every time Obama appears to "cave", he tends to get a lot in return. He "caved" and allowed a two year extension on the Bush Tax cut, but got DADT repeal a new START treaty in exchange. He "caved" on the debt limit, and got a bunch of cuts to defense spending cuts while leaving entitlements largely intact. As of right now, Obama can just let Congress do what it's best at: Nothing, and get both a cut in defense AND a return to Clinton era taxes.

[Flagg]

It's almost like it Obama planned it.

Except he didn't and he will cave on the tax cuts because they are for the wealthy. It also assumes Obama will still be in office in 2013 which is not a for sure thing considering we might see a two billion dollar campaign. And by two billion dollars that was a estimate I heard on what outside groups are going to be spending in total against Democrats in 2012, that's outside what Obama and his rival (whoever that is) are going to spend battling each other.

Check the date. Obama will still be in office on January 1 2013. Either way he has nothing to lose by letting the tax cuts partially or fully expire.

[Mr Bean]

new START treaty in exchange.

The fact you think that was a "win" shows how far the goalposts have moved. The START treaty was supported by every single Republican of note not currently in office and many of the ones in office because without the START treaty. You know the thing that let us put nuclear inspectors in Russian facilities? Yeah that was not a fucking win that was the Republicans simply holding the President hostage for something they supported and created

He "caved" on the debt limit, and got a bunch of cuts to defense spending cuts while leaving entitlements largely intact.

He got no serious defense cuts from the debt limit debacle. I have no idea where you got this idea from.

As of right now, Obama can just let Congress do what it's best at: Nothing, and get both a cut in defense AND a return to Clinton era taxes.

Ahh but he won't since if he does nothing the taxes on the wealthy go up and he will do everything to stop that.

So of your stated examples you had exactly one the DADT repeal which as I'll add now, was a Democratic policy to begin with. And something supported by Republicans to some extent, enough to get by a filibuster and more than enough if it had not been filibustered to begin with.

Check the date. Obama will still be in office on January 1 2013. Either way he has nothing to lose by letting the tax cuts partially or fully expire.

Except for the fact he's going to have to compromise because that's right after the election. No way the Republicans let this sit idle on January 1st, come October right before the election Obama will cave and we will get a six month extension. And if he does not he will get a few hundred million in negative adds until he agrees to sign the extension as he has done already for the Bush Tax cuts.

[Flagg]

Check the date. Obama will still be in office on January 1 2013. Either way he has nothing to lose by letting the tax cuts partially or fully expire.

Except for the fact he's going to have to compromise because that's right after the election. No way the Republicans let this sit idle on January 1st, come October right before the election Obama will cave and we will get a six month extension. And if he does not he will get a few hundred million in negative adds until he agrees to sign the extension as he has done already for the Bush Tax cuts.

You make the stupid assumption that they won't spend those hundreds of millions against him anyway. And like the last campaign he'll simply say "we'll keep them for the middle class". The Republicans had legislative leverage to get it done before, they have none now. They played checkers, he played chess.

[VarrusTheEthical]

He got no serious defense cuts from the debt limit debacle. I have no idea where you got this idea from.

I read the bloody bill! There are going to be 600 billion dollars in cuts to US Security Programs (Mostly DOD) come January 1st of 2013. Since the super committee FAILED, these cuts are going to happen unless congress acts. Obama has already stated that he will VETO any bill that tries to eliminate the defense cut without revenue increases. So yes, Obama did get a bunch of cuts to defense, this is not something that I've just pulled out of my ass.

Except for the fact he's going to have to compromise because that's right after the election. No way the Republicans let this sit idle on January 1st, come October right before the election Obama will cave and we will get a six month extension. And if he does not he will get a few hundred million in negative adds until he agrees to sign the extension as he has done already for the Bush Tax cuts.

And what makes you so sure of this beyond your own dislike of the President?

[Mr Bean]

You make the stupid assumption that they won't spend those hundreds of millions against him anyway. And like the last campaign he'll simply say "we'll keep them for the middle class". The Republicans had legislative leverage to get it done before, they have none now. They played checkers, he played chess.

Your serious?

Oh Flagg first off your under the assumption that they are playing for different teams. Ten months from today the Republicans will have passed an extension through the House I'm guessing right before or after the Democratic Convention and the Senate will pass the same and force Obama to either veto it or let it pass. Harry Reid will let it pass in the Senate because he always plays ball as he gets his funding from the same sources.

You also ignored implementation dates Flagg, if we get to Jan 1st 2013 and by some miracle they have not been extended the implementation dates push them to the end of the month which is after the next President takes office. The spending cuts are not for in process budgets or active tax rates. On January 1st 2013 Bill Gates tax rates are not going to jump 4%. Because of implementation dates it takes a full month to go into effect.

[D.Turtle]

You make the stupid assumption that they won't spend those hundreds of millions against him anyway. And like the last campaign he'll simply say "we'll keep them for the middle class". The Republicans had legislative leverage to get it done before, they have none now. They played checkers, he played chess.

When were the Bush tax cuts extended, and who had control of both Houses of Congress at that time?

[Mr Bean]

I read the bloody bill! There are going to be 600 billion dollars in cuts to US Security Programs (Mostly DOD) come January 1st of 2013. Since the super committee FAILED, these cuts are going to happen unless congress acts. Obama has already stated that he will VETO any bill that tries to eliminate the defense cut without revenue increases. So yes, Obama did get a bunch of cuts to defense, this is not something that I've just pulled out of my ass.

I see you caught that blood->bloody
Those cuts don't exist yet and won't exist until the trigger fires on Jan 1st 2013 and as I just pointed out to Flagg the cuts don't take effect January 1st 2013 but because of implementation laws they are next fiscal month.

And a extension on the trigger by a month or three won't violate his veto threat. It's not not cutting taxes it's just waiting an extra month or three to do so.

And what makes you so sure of this beyond your own dislike of the President?

His past history?
The Bush tax cuts could have lapsed already had Obama wished it and he did not he pushed it off. He had to have it both ways, not making the tax cuts permanent but not overturning them either because of economic conditions. Protip:The economy is not going to be any less shitty on January 1st thus letting him extend them again while appearing moderate.

This is not the only issue where he's gone with Republican framing and accepted, remember the disaster of the budget negotiations several months back where John Boehner and Mitch McConnell called for thirty billion dollars in cuts before agreeing to a budget. The Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi started at zero dollars and zero cents in cuts. Thanks to some hard core leadership at the end of the day they cut thirty eight billion from that budget request.

Just to repeat one side said no cuts, the other side said thirty billion at the end of the day it was thirty eight billion.

[Flagg]

You make the stupid assumption that they won't spend those hundreds of millions against him anyway. And like the last campaign he'll simply say "we'll keep them for the middle class". The Republicans had legislative leverage to get it done before, they have none now. They played checkers, he played chess.

When were the Bush tax cuts extended, and who had control of both Houses of Congress at that time?

What did the Democrats get in exchange for prolonging them, genius?

[Flagg]

You make the stupid assumption that they won't spend those hundreds of millions against him anyway. And like the last campaign he'll simply say "we'll keep them for the middle class". The Republicans had legislative leverage to get it done before, they have none now. They played checkers, he played chess.

Your serious?

Oh Flagg first off your under the assumption that they are playing for different teams. Ten months from today the Republicans will have passed an extension through the House I'm guessing right before or after the Democratic Convention and the Senate will pass the same and force Obama to either veto it or let it pass. Harry Reid will let it pass in the Senate because he always plays ball as he gets his funding from the same sources.

You also ignored implementation dates Flagg, if we get to Jan 1st 2013 and by some miracle they have not been extended the implementation dates push them to the end of the month which is after the next President takes office. The spending cuts are not for in process budgets or active tax rates. On January 1st 2013 Bill Gates tax rates are not going to jump 4%. Because of implementation dates it takes a full month to go into effect.

It doesn't change the fact that the rates and cuts will be law. And I love how you ignore that Obama only compromised on the tax cuts for the wealthy. It's not something he needs to do again. If he gets a compromise by the Republicans to save their precious death machine money by letting the tax cuts for the rich expire he wins then, too.

[VarrusTheEthical]

Those cuts don't exist yet and won't exist until the trigger fires on Jan 1st 2013 and as I just pointed out to Flagg the cuts don't take effect January 1st 2013 but because of implementation laws they are next fiscal month.

And a extension on the trigger by a month or three won't violate his veto threat. It's not not cutting taxes it's just waiting an extra month or three to do so.

The fact is that these cuts are the LAW, and will require a change to the law in order to be avoided. Regardless of who wins the Presidency next November, the Republicans are not going to get a filibuster proof-majority in the Senate, and I would not be surprised if the Democrats shut down Congress on a Republican president the same way the Republicans have with Obama. Turnabout is fair play, after all.

You make the stupid assumption that they won't spend those hundreds of millions against him anyway. And like the last campaign he'll simply say "we'll keep them for the middle class". The Republicans had legislative leverage to get it done before, they have none now. They played checkers, he played chess.

When were the Bush tax cuts extended, and who had control of both Houses of Congress at that time?

What did the Democrats get in exchange for prolonging them, genius?

DADT Repeal, New START, Unemployment benefit extension, and tax cut extension for the middle class.

[D.Turtle]

What did the Democrats get in exchange for prolonging them, genius?

Some other tax cuts that actually benefited not just the wealthy (along with more tax cuts for the wealthy) and an extension of unemployment benefits.

SUCCESS!!!

[Flagg]

What did the Democrats get in exchange for prolonging them, genius?

Some other tax cuts that actually benefited not just the wealthy (along with more tax cuts for the wealthy) and an extension of unemployment benefits.

SUCCESS!!!

Yes, success. It's called a tradeoff.

[blahface]

I read the bloody bill! There are going to be 600 billion dollars in cuts to US Security Programs (Mostly DOD) come January 1st of 2013. Since the super committee FAILED, these cuts are going to happen unless congress acts. Obama has already stated that he will VETO any bill that tries to eliminate the defense cut without revenue increases. So yes, Obama did get a bunch of cuts to defense, this is not something that I've just pulled out of my ass.

What do you want to bet that they'll cut veterans benefits and try to claim that as cuts to defense spending?

[VarrusTheEthical]

I read the bloody bill! There are going to be 600 billion dollars in cuts to US Security Programs (Mostly DOD) come January 1st of 2013. Since the super committee FAILED, these cuts are going to happen unless congress acts. Obama has already stated that he will VETO any bill that tries to eliminate the defense cut without revenue increases. So yes, Obama did get a bunch of cuts to defense, this is not something that I've just pulled out of my ass.

What do you want to bet that they'll cut veterans benefits and try to claim that as cuts to defense spending?

That would require a new bill. The current law explicitly excludes veteran's benefits.