On the one hand, it’s possible to look at all these Republicans distancing themselves
from Grover Norquist and his famous pledge as an encouraging sign that
they can read and understand election results. On the other, let’s not
get carried away. The “compromise” they are offering is no compromise at all,
really. And what they want in return from Democrats—which they are
keeping intentionally vague—shows very clearly that they haven’t yet
quite accepted the idea that elections have consequences.
It’s
nice to see Norquist’s Maginot Line holding about as well as the real
one did. It’s been a long time coming. But let’s break down what this
really amounts to, because it’s not something to be celebrated in and of
itself just yet.
Norquist’s anti-tax position
all these years has been so totalizing that he has counted lots of
things as tax increases that aren’t explicitly tax increases. You may
remember the tiff he got into with Oklahoma GOP Senator Tom Coburn
over oil-and-gas subsidies. Coburn, who is retiring, was willing to end
those subsidies, which amount to a few billion dollars a year. To
Norquist, this was a tax increase on oil companies. I can see the logic
in a way, but if you’re going to go down that road, then you are taking
loads of policy options off the table.
It’s
an extreme definition, and it’s the very fact that it’s an extreme
definition that allows Republicans breaking from it to appear to be
taking a bold position while they are in fact doing nothing of the sort.
Because under the big headlines about Breaking From Grover, the actual
news content is that they will consider increased revenue but not
increased rates. The vehicle of choice right now seems to be a limit on
deductions, of maybe $40,000, which would reduce the amount rich people
can deduct and, in effect, raise their taxes and bring in more revenue.
That’s
fine as far as it goes. But it’s not enough. Barack Obama ran on
raising rates on dollars earned above $250,000 from 35 to 39.6 percent.
He said it a thousand times. The other guy said the opposite a thousand
times. Obama won a clear victory. It was a victory for raising tax
rates, period. But Republicans won’t grant that they lost and their pet
position lost. And just you watch—even as they give a little temporary
ground on this deduction limit business, they’ll continue to push for
Simpson-Bowles-ish lower overall rates in the long term, rates closer to
what Mitt Romney was proposing, which were resoundingly rejected on
Election Day.
So
all in all, that’s a pretty lame olive branch. As I said, it looks
semi-reasonable only because the opening position, the position they’ve
held for 20 years, was so utterly unreasonable. So that’s what they’re
offering. Actually, it’s what a few of them are offering—no sign from
Mitch McConnell yet that he’s offering anything like this. But let’s
move on from that and now discuss what they want in return, which is
even worse.
They
haven’t really said it, but they want Obama and the Democrats to agree
to sizeable cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Now, here
again, we had an election. The stakes could scarcely have been clearer.
One side said, basically, we will protect Medicare and Medicaid. The
other side said, we will go after them. It was a little more complicated
than that, but that was roughly the size of it. The side that said we
will protect them won.
So
now, having won, the Democrats are supposed to cave in? Sure, they’ll
have to play a little ball. That’s politics. But the party that lost the
election—lost the presidency, lost Senate seats, and yes, held on to
the House, but lost seats there too—doesn’t get to dictate terms.
And
most appallingly of all, how in the world is Social Security getting
dragged into this? Social Security is the one thing that wasn’t debated
at all during the campaign. Even the Ryan Budget didn’t touch Social
Security. And now Republicans like Bob Corker of Tennessee think they
can come along after an election in which they didn’t even put Social
Security on the table and now do so, in such a way that will cut
benefits dramatically for people who commit the error of living into
their 80s and 90s? Yes, I know: establishment panjandrums want the
entitlement “crisis” solved. But does it not strike you as maybe a
little odd that only weeks after an election in which both parties vowed
not to touch Social Security, they would agree to cut benefits?
Obama
will have to give to get. That’s how it goes. But he’d better not
forget, and he’d better not let the Republicans forget, that he just won
an election in which the American people were given a clear choice—and
they made it. Republicans walking away from Norquist deserve a few
brownie points for coming back to planet Earth, but that sure doesn’t
entitle them to start calling any shots.
Read the full story here.
Read the full story here.
Comments
Post a Comment
Thanks for leaving comments. You are making this discussion richer and more beneficial to everyone. Do not hold back.