REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

An interesting solution: "Obama, Give In to the Irrational GOP"

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Thursday, March 21, 2013 10:00
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 481
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, March 21, 2013 7:43 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


This is crazy, but interesting:
Quote:

In a rational world, Republicans would get the blame for the budget mess in Washington. In the George W. Bush era, they frittered impressive surpluses into unprecedented deficits. In 2011 they threatened to force the U.S. government into default if President Obama didn’t accept massive spending cuts, essentially taking the global economy hostage; the current sequester was part of their ransom. And now, even though the deficit is shrinking, even though just about everyone agrees that the sequester’s haphazard cuts will damage a fragile economy, GOP leaders won’t even discuss an alternative that includes new tax revenue.

Unfortunately, we don’t live in a rational world. The Beltway establishment recognizes the intransigence of the GOP, but the capital’s scorekeepers are incapable of blaming just one side. Their solution to the stalemate is just like Obama’s: a mix of spending cuts and tax hikes. But they still can’t resist pox-on-both-houses narratives. Why won’t Obama lead?

The answer is that the president isn’t omnipotent; he can’t bend the opposition to his will through schmoozing or fortitude. And Obama has already compromised, agreeing to $1.5 trillion in spending cuts and even proposing modest entitlement reforms. The only way Obama could fulfill the punditocracy’s dreams of bipartisan agreement would be to drop his demand for new revenues and cave to the tax-phobic Republicans he thumped in November.

So he should cave — not to appease the chattering classes, unify Washington or show the country he’s open to compromise. He should cave to ease pain, advance his agenda and improve the country in tangible ways.

Forget the dopey spats over White House tours and Easter-egg rolls. The sequester will cause real harm, so the President ought to at least try to replace it. And the pursuit of new revenue, while a reasonable goal, is not as important as his other goals — like avoiding short-term austerity that could derail the recovery, promoting long-term prosperity through targeted investments and tax reform, moving the budget in a fairer direction and preventing the GOP from taking more hostages in the future. He can’t possibly get a deal with everything he wants. But Republicans are so eager to avoid new taxes — and to make Obama look weak — that he might get a lot of what he wants if he gives them their top priority.

For example, everyone knows that the tax code is riddled with inefficient and indefensible loopholes and giveaways, from small perks for corporate-jet owners to the carried-interest outrage that helps Mitt Romney pay a lower rate than you do. Republicans say they’re willing to ditch some of those goodies but only if the proceeds are used to lower rates. Fine! Obama can insist on lowering middle-class rates, which would boost the economy and enable him to keep his long-standing promises to give ordinary Americans a permanent tax break. He provided temporary relief to the nonrich throughout his first term, but it expired with the fiscal cliff in January. This might be his best, last chance to make the tax code more rational and more progressive.

On spending, Republicans have already signaled that they want more cuts but that they don’t care too much about what gets cut. They’ve even offered Obama some flexibility to make the cuts, hoping he’ll be blamed for unpopular ones. Fine! Obama can whack programs that don’t promote his priorities, like fossil-fuel subsidies and sprawl roads; he can also demand back-loaded cuts that won’t kill jobs now. And he can protect the “win the future” stuff he cares about, like research and clean energy, as well as the safety net that Paul Ryan’s budget aims to shred.

Ultimately, Republicans might say no. They seem O.K. with the sequester, their base hates deals with Obama, and a stagnant economy could help them in 2014. So maybe there’s no deal. But Obama has spent the past four years pursuing change that’s possible, not change that’s perfect. He’s usually tried to do what he’s said he would — on energy, health care, education, taxation — but he’s also emphasized deeds over words. If he’s willing to surrender his demand for new taxes, he might be able to improve the status quo.

Perhaps it seems unfair that a newly re-elected President should have to settle for half a loaf, especially when he has to accommodate such unreasonable opponents. But they were re-elected too. So if Obama wants to keep making change, he’ll need to keep working in their crazy world. http://swampland.time.com/2013/03/21/give-in-to-the-irrational-gop/


Sounds wild to me, whaddya think?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 21, 2013 7:48 AM

STORYMARK


The moment Obama agrees with the GOP on anything, they change course, so I don't see this making much difference. They'll just turn again, and find a new way to do nothing.




Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 21, 2013 7:51 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


You're probably right. Fun to imagine him doing it IF it worked out the way the author posits, tho'...


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 21, 2013 10:00 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
The moment Obama agrees with the GOP on anything, they change course, so I don't see this making much difference. They'll just turn again, and find a new way to do nothing.


Clearly you didn't read Woodward's book.

He talk's about the original grand bargain. The one where Obama and the Republicans worked out an agreement and then Obama decided...lets ask for more and was sure the Republicans would give in. Then he was shocked when they didn't give in. Then he proposed the compromise that is commonly known as sequester. Problem solved.

Its oddly familiar to what happened with fiscal cliff. He wanted tax increases. Republicans offered to increase revenue by closing loopholes. He declined and got tax increases only to turn around in February and demand closing loopholes. He was shocked when we didn't give in on sequester and even more shocked when a handful of real journalists, like Woodward, remembered that it was all his idea. I mean how could it be his idea? He only propsed it and signed it...he didn't pass it, Republicans did that, with not a single Democratic vote in the House or Senate (just don't do the numbers on that one).

I suspect he'll be shocked in a few weeks when we don't give in on the Budget.

He gets shocked a lot after he makes a deal and does not stick to it.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Kamala Harris for President
Tue, November 5, 2024 09:40 - 638 posts
Multiculturalism
Tue, November 5, 2024 08:22 - 52 posts
Is Elon Musk Nuts?
Tue, November 5, 2024 08:04 - 418 posts
More men contract and die from Covid-19
Tue, November 5, 2024 07:57 - 17 posts
Elon Musk
Tue, November 5, 2024 07:52 - 30 posts
All things Space
Tue, November 5, 2024 07:23 - 258 posts
Elections; 2024
Tue, November 5, 2024 06:48 - 4514 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Tue, November 5, 2024 06:17 - 7422 posts
South Korea
Tue, November 5, 2024 05:00 - 4 posts
Worst poll yet!
Tue, November 5, 2024 04:43 - 19 posts
Poll Shows Americans' Massive Disapproval Of Both Parties: "Now It's Just An Oligarchy"
Tue, November 5, 2024 04:36 - 24 posts
New CNN Poll Raises Eyebrows
Tue, November 5, 2024 04:32 - 10 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL