JONATHAN CHAIT DECEMBER 14, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Jonathan Bernstein predicted the other day that House Republicans might suddenly turn against the tax deal en masse. This morning, Mitt Romney has an op-ed denouncing the deal:
President Obama has reason to celebrate. The deal delivers short-term economic stimulus, and it does so at the very time he wants it most, before the 2012 elections. But the long term health of our great engine of prosperity will remain very much in doubt.
Is this a straw in the wind? Certainly if anybody has reason to oppose a deal that will increase economic growth in 2012, it's the guy who hopes to be running against the incumbent in 2012. Charles Krauthammer's column on the deal made a similar point:
In the deal struck this week, the president negotiated the biggest stimulus in American history, larger than his $814 billion 2009 stimulus package. It will pump a trillion borrowed Chinese dollars into the U.S. economy over the next two years - which just happen to be the two years of the run-up to the next presidential election. ...
At great cost that will have to be paid after this newest free lunch, the package will add as much as 1 percent to GDP and lower the unemployment rate by about 1.5 percentage points. That could easily be the difference between victory and defeat in 2012.
Notice that neither Romnmey nor Krauthammer quite say that the growth-boosting effects of the deal are a reason to oppose it. Rather they argue that the higher growth isn't worth the budgetary cost, making it surely the first time either one of them has rejected a debnt-financed tax cut on the basis of its effects on the national debt. It will be interesting to watch anti-deal Republicans try to make their case by hinting at electoral ramifications without coming out and saying so directly.
7 comments
when has mitt romney ever been anything but a straw in the wind?
- miceelf
December 14, 2010 at 10:16am
Do these guys realize that the national media and the White House would squarely blame the cratering of the tax deal (and higher rates come January 1) on Republicans? The White House was right that the public would blame the President for a jump in tax rates if he didn't reach a deal with Republicans, but the deal has been reached and the public has now moved on, or so it thinks. Oh, and talk about a black eye for incoming Speaker Boehner and the rest of the House leadership.
- wildboy
December 14, 2010 at 10:30am
I'm beginning to realize what Boehner has been crying about.
- Nusholtz
December 14, 2010 at 10:42am
Note that Romney only made his move after the Senate voted 83 - 14 to move to a final vote, with final numbers in favor actually likely to be higher. Romney is trying to have it all ways--appeal to tea partiers, look like an "outsider," and safely be against something he knows will pass with or without his approval.
- timteeter
December 14, 2010 at 11:22am
Wild, your post is excellent and I think it outlines the major reason why the Republicans will stay on the reservation as regards The Deal.
- liberal reformer
December 14, 2010 at 11:32am
Thanks, Lib. Right back at you. And also a great observation by Tim on the Mittster's timing. Just about everything Romney says puts me in mind of Bill Clinton's views of how he would have voted on the Gulf War (probably in the majority if it was close, but in opposition if it was electorally safe to do so).
- wildboy
December 14, 2010 at 11:37am
Not so fast wildboy. What if a coalition in the House of left wing Dems and conservative Repubs who agree with Romney and Krauthammer kill the deal? Then who gets the blame? I'm pretty confident about the Republicans' party discipline. Democrats have apparently never heard of such a thing, and if they break the deal of their own President they will deserve the blame and surely get it.
- Robert Powell
December 14, 2010 at 11:52am