SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home What Should Liberals Demand From the Super Committee?

JONATHAN CHAIT AUGUST 2, 2011

What Should Liberals Demand From the Super Committee?

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

The next step of the deficit fight moves to the super committee, in which each party appoints members. Since the committee can't recommend any deficit reduction without a majority, each party has the incentive to appoint members unamenable to compromise. I would like to see the committee come up with a sensible bipartisan compromise. But since Republicans are already vowing to insist that any appointee disavow any increase in tax revenue, it makes sense for Democrats to reciprocate.

But what does "reciprocate" mean? Think Progress says that any member must oppose plans that don't contain revenue. Greg Sargent adds:

One idea making the rounds, which was first floated by Think Progress, is to demand that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid — who each appoint three members to the committee — pledge to only appoint people who will vow to hold the line on core liberal priorities.

At her presser today, Nancy Pelosi was asked by a reporter if she would do that, and she came close to endorsing the idea. Asked if she would “require” that her appointees to the committee draw a bright line protecting Medicare, Pelosi replied that protecting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits is a “priority” for Democrats.

Wait. Think Progress says the red line is revenue. Sargent is defining the red line as no entitlement cuts -- or, at least, quoting Pelosi sort-of defining it that way. These are completely different things!

You could agree to entitlement cuts on the condition that they come attached to more revenue. Think Progress's criteria would allow that, while Sargent's wouldn't. Meanwhile, Sargent's criteria would allow huge cuts to discretionary programs with no entitlement cuts or revenue, while Think Progress's would not. [Update: upon closer reading, Sargent is defining the criteria in terms of both revenue and entitlements.]

Personally, I like the Think Progress idea a lot more. I'd add my own twist to it. I'd insist on revenue as part of the deal, and I'd also insist that the revenue come outside of the framework of the Bush tax cuts. They can't agree to lock in large segments of the Bush tax cuts, sunset others, and define that as a revenue increase. Just leave that to 2012.

On the other hand, there is room to play with things like the Alternative Minimum Tax. That, as I've explained before, offers a path to raise revenue while not technically increasing taxes. I'm not going to go through my explanation again -- read my explanation if you're curious -- but it offers a way to increase revenue over the likely baseline if Republicans are inclined to cut a deal rather than sock it to the defense and medical industries.

The one commonality between all the liberal positions is the common belief that another all-cuts deal should not be acceptable. The default is a better option, even though it stinks.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 20 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

20 comments

That's a great photoshop. Where'd you get it (or is that your handywork JC)?

- tmmats

August 2, 2011 at 4:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

- First, Republicans are on the record with a signed pledge to a third party so Democrats need say nothing until said members declare they will negotiate without a divided loyalty. The general position of liberals on entitlements is known but they've proved in the past to be reasonable. Asking them to do anything more is negotiating in public. But it is fair to ask Republicans if they will abandon the pledge or place the Grover oath above their duty on the committee. Put them on the defense and do it now.

- michaelg

August 2, 2011 at 4:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seconded on the awesome Photoshop job. I think the most important thing is to draw our lines in the sand and make sure all 6 Dem committee members are people who will hold those lines. (This may require kidnapping Harry Reid, making a latex mask of his face, and putting it on Nancy Pelosi for a few days.) For me, the correct lines would be: #1: No cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security. These are the bedrock programs of the Democratic Party. If we can't hold the line on these, we can't hold it on anything, and frankly we need the AARP on our side as much as we can get it. Make Republicans bring a high-profile fight on Medicare and the old people will f*** them up. #2: All cuts are backloaded as far as possible, at least to 2013 and preferably past that. Not jeopardizing the present economy is crucial, and the farther back the cuts are pushed, the greater the chance that a future Congress will weasel its way out of them. Revenue hikes would be nice but not mandatory. I'd rather have the whole thing take the form of enormous, politically dubious cuts scheduled to take place in 2017 or so. Congress is real, real good at finding ways to not do these things when the time comes.

- Dausuul

August 2, 2011 at 4:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

P.S. Yes, I'm being nakedly political with point 1, but some naked politics are in order right about now. Democrats need to prove to the American people that we are fighting for things important to them and that we will stick to our guns for those things. Right now, they don't think that's true, and it's hard to blame them.

- Dausuul

August 2, 2011 at 4:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Agreed, Dausuul. The Republicans are making no bones about being nakedly political about THEIR appointments to the council, I don't see why the Democrats should not reciprocate. The Tea-Party Republicans have already demonstrated their willingness to drive the American Economy over a cliff in order to get their way. Three times now. I see nothing in their current rhetoric that indicates anything but exultance that this suicidal strategy has worked so well. "Compromise" to them STILL means "our way or the highway". We've just kicked the can down the road a few months.

- AllanL5

August 2, 2011 at 4:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

- I don't agree with Dausuul because naked politics in an election year will mean something different in VA than it does in NY or what may fly in NY may haunt in NC. The GOP is already signing anything to the right of Mussolini and that only works in their primary. Hang them now on their pledge to Grover and shut the hell up. Do not say what we will or won't do and focus on what they have already promised.

- michaelg

August 2, 2011 at 5:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Let me get this straight... liberals want higher taxes?? OMG

- mr_rationale

August 2, 2011 at 5:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chait has one thing wrong, if the super committee doesn't pass anything, or if they pass something with higher revenues, the Republicans will shoot it down and trigger the trigger of automatic cuts. Democrats can then run on restoring the cuts and Republicans will then own the cuts in Social Security, Medicare, etc. If nothing gets out of the supercommittee then Democrats can simply show how Republicans wanted to gut medicare, social security, etc. and how they held firm in that. I think the Republicans blew a golden opportunity not to take the Reid plan which would have gotten them these cuts without the far more politically painful cuts the trigger will give or the ones they will propose.

- blackton

August 2, 2011 at 5:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good advice from michaelg and blackton. We have to assume that the trigger is what will eventually happen, and unless the Republicans on the committee are willing to negotiate something better this all becomes about making sure they own the consequences.

- JEFF FREY

August 2, 2011 at 5:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think the photo is the original and the public version put out earlier was the Photoshop job. How else to explain recent events other than John Boehner is an alias used by Lex Luthor, who carries around a chunk of Kryptonite in a lead chest whenever he meets with the President?

- scorn

August 2, 2011 at 5:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

scorn = correct:)

- Sophia

August 2, 2011 at 5:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

All I want the Supercommittee to do is to tell it like it is. Without tax hikes we have some serious pruning to do; like tree stump type pruning as in death to the tree. And if Reid and Pelosi are asked about their appointments, they should declare, "I am not going to do what the Republicans are planning, I intend to appoint responsible people." We have had ten years of the most irresponsible tax cuts and a sh*tty economy to show for it.

- Nusholtz

August 2, 2011 at 6:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

@michaelg - Find me a state in the Union where "Republicans want to take away your Medicare and Social Security, and we're not gonna let them" won't play well. Even in Texas, they like their Medicare. That's sort of the point. The only place where so-called entitlement cuts are popular is inside the Beltway, where wanting to gut Medicare makes you a Very Serious Person. Everywhere else--EVERYWHERE else--it's about as popular as Osama bin Laden. @blackton and Jeff Frey - The problem with the trigger is that it's heavily front-loaded, which means a big hit to the economy. I agree that we need to be ready to make the Republicans own it if the trigger gets pulled, but if we can get a better deal, we should. Insisting on tax hikes will just guarantee the trigger pull. So if we have to have all-cuts-no-revenues, let's push the cuts back as far as we can, and make this about defending Social Security and Medicare. With any luck a future Congress will weasel its way out of making the cuts anyhow.

- Dausuul

August 2, 2011 at 7:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

First, we should make the Supercommittee watch this (and send a copy to The White House too) http://www.thewrap.com/media/column-post/jon-stewart-blasts-barack-obama-tea-party-over-turd-debt-deal-29668

- Sophia

August 2, 2011 at 7:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree with Michaelg, Blackton, and Jeff Frey. The path forward is clear. Make the Norquist pledge an issue beyond the GOP primaries--hang them with it. And if they adhere to the no-tax pledge, make sure the GOP owns the consequences of not having a deal. The defense industry knows this is coming. I'm not completely certain they won't end up winning the fight against Norquist; forcing the GOP to actually choose against defense, even passively, will be a tough for them to swallow, and, frankly, revenues are the obvious solution. We can take in enough taxes to fund all current priorities in the medium term and still be a low-tax nation.

- Curran1

August 2, 2011 at 7:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

- Even Grover knows loyalists would fold on his pledge when constituents demanded money and the poor sap couldn't deliver. The Pentagon and allied contractors have tentacles in every district and they have remained immune from the tax-spend debate. Need I say financed wars? No longer with the trigger, but defense will be the one beast the GOP won't starve. No one has dared and they won't be the first. If the choice is more revenue or piss them off then Grover lost that fight.

- michaelg

August 2, 2011 at 8:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sane conservatives (this leaves out rationale's Heritage creator) realize the need for more revenue to close the deficit.

- liberalref

August 2, 2011 at 10:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Sane conservatives (this leaves out rationale's Heritage creator) realize the need for more revenue to close the deficit." Who are these sane conservatives? Can you name any of them?

- AaronW

August 3, 2011 at 9:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

- I have a name. June 14, 2011 “Between now and the next year, as we go to solve this problem, everybody knows there’s going to have to be a compromise on some sort of revenue increases. We’re going to fix the country, and some of that is going to be revenue increases, that’s the only way you’re going to build a compromise and get it signed by this president.". - Tom Coburn Hey, we still have till next year...

- michaelg

August 3, 2011 at 10:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Senator Tom Coburn, David Frum, and Bruce Bartlett, to name three.

- liberalref

August 3, 2011 at 12:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close