PLANK DECEMBER 19, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
What part of "You're holding all the cards" don't the Democrats understand?
President Obama has the GOP over a barrel on taxes. Don't believe me; ask Grover Norquist, who just cried "Uncle!" His group, Americans for Tax Reform, now says (with more accommodation than logic) that it "will not consider" raising tax rates on income above $1 million (House Speaker John Boehner's latest proposal) to be "a violation of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge." If a $1 million threshold doesn't violate Norquist's pledge, then Obama's proposed $250,000 threshold doesn't, either. (Me, I still prefer a $100,000 threshold.) Norquist was never the Washington colossus he was purported to be, but he remains a decent indicator of where the leverage lies.
Meanwhile, Democrats have Republicans over a barrel on the filibuster. They've been planning to change Senate rules at the start of the new Congress to require all filibusters to be the talk-yourself-hoarse kind. The change can be achieved by simple-majority vote. Some people call this the "nuclear option," but the Republicans have abused the filibuster so badly that they've lost whatever right they once had to complain. The New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg recently calculated that during the past three years Republicans achieved "very nearly one filibuster for every single goddam day the Senate is in session" [italics and impiety his, though I endorse both]. Meanwhile, I've calculated that during the current Congress the Senate's ratio of cloture votes (roughly speaking, filibusters) to bills passed doubled. This after Majority Leader Harry Reid two years ago extracted (under threat of filibuster reform) a promise from Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to ease up on filibusters. McConnell recently achieved self-parody by filibustering his own bill!
Nice hands to be dealt, right? But there is something in the modern Democrat that abhors the raw exercise of power as a little bit, I don't know, vulgar. Franklin Roosevelt didn't have this handicap. Neither did Lyndon Johnson. But their latter-day successors do.
I thought Obama had been cured of his impulse to over-compromise by the 2011 debt-ceiling showdown. But now Obama has offered to raise the tax-increase threshold from $250,000 to $400,000, which might (depending on the details and according to Citizens for Tax Justice) yield as little as 24 percent of his earlier proposal. Obama has also agreed to "chain" Social Security cost-of-living increases, a benefit cut disguised as a technical fix. Chaining might be a necessary concession as the best of a very bad lot of spending-cut ideas—it's certainly better than raising the age for Medicare eligibility—but playing this card when there are two whole weeks left before the fiscal-cliff deadline (which we'd in any case be better off not meeting, because it isn't a cliff, it's a slope, etc., etc.) is just bad poker.
Meanwhile, over on Capitol Hill, the Huffington Post reports that Sen. Carl Levin is on the verge of persuading his fellow Democrats to drop the talking requirement for the filibuster (even though they've got enough votes, even with Sen. Dan Inouye's death, to pass it). Instead, the Democrats would favor an almost entirely cosmetic change eliminating filibusters on certain procedural votes (which is all Reid really wanted anyway). Levin argues that the majority can force filibustering senators to do the Mr. Smith routine under current rules. But to do so they need to keep 51 senators on the floor, and that would be difficult if not impossible to achieve.
TNR's Noam Scheiber argued pretty forcefully the other day that the Democrats won't achieve much of anything during the next four years unless Republican extremism is broken. I agree. I don't want Obama to offer a $400,000 threshold. I want him to make the Republicans beg, "Pretty please, sir, may we have a $250,000 threshold?" I don't want to see Senate Democrats compromise with Republicans on the filibuster. They tried that two years ago and we saw where it led. I want the Democrats to get rid of the silent filibuster for good, so that if a Republican wants to filibuster a debt-ceiling increase, he'll have to yak and yak and yak until he wets his pants on the Senate floor. These Republicans need a schoolin', and I wish to God Obama and his fellow Democrats had more appetite for giving it.
And, oh, Democrats? When a gun-control bill comes to the floor (and it's looking like last week's ghastly Newtown child-massacre might actually result in one), don't be too quick to negotiate with the newly chastened Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association. Lives may depend on learning to stand your ground.
22 comments
I don't get it; the DC Dems don't even try to act tough. Why can't they act ruthlessly just once, especially this president?
- tmmats
December 19, 2012 at 4:43pm
We heard this before with debt ceiling arguments and earlier, stimulus arguments, only to see editors argue later that in the end, all the Democrats could probably get was what they got and rationalizations were provided. So, before I go press my congressman firmly about these issues, I'd like more be sure there's a better chance of getting more.
- jet
December 19, 2012 at 5:00pm
Where's drofnats to screetch, "I told you so!" In this case, tho, I'd agree with him and with TN. Obama appears to be constitutionally incapable of NOT negotiating with himself. The only way to explain it is that he is legitemately afraid of the "fiscal cliff" and therefore wants a negotiated solution so badly that he's willing to step in and make offers on the Republicans' behalf when they fail to do so themselves. What he fails to acknowledge is that GOP-government-by-blackmail is a greater threat to America than any economic fallout from the cliff and that driving a stake through the heart of that beast should be the Democrats' first priority.
- AaronW
December 19, 2012 at 5:28pm
Nothing to say but Bravo, Timothy.
- TARFON
December 19, 2012 at 5:45pm
Luckily for Democrats, Republicans can't muster nearly enough votes to approve the tax rise for incomes over $400,000 and now have staked their claim on only raising taxes for $1 million and up in income. And, since Obama has already said that he would veto that, it looks like the $400,000 issue is going away in this Congress. Although it will probably still be part of the Obama Middle-Class and Lower-Upper-Class Tax Cut Act of 2013. On the filibuster issue, the only thing to say is that long-serving Democrats like Levin and Reid are so committed to the super-majority rule that they have a hard time truly putting it aside even in the face of all evidence to the contrary that it has been abused beyond belief. Kind of like the NRA being committed to the belief that semi-automatic assault rifles with 30 bullet clips don't kill people.
- wildboy
December 19, 2012 at 6:08pm
I have never imagined that Republicans currently elected to the US Senate are protectors of the oppressed and downtrodden; yet they have been compelled to filibuster so often. Is it because because of repeated efforts by the Democratic majority to enact legislation that stomps on recognized minority rights (those of African Americans, Native Americans, gays and lesbians, the disabled, other minorities)? Any change in procedure should require a US Senator intent on starting a filibuster to describe the injury to any recognized minority right within the offensive legislation.
- Doug12
December 19, 2012 at 6:20pm
I take no pleasure in screetching, or whatever it is. I'm convinced Dems don't have to continue to be wimps (Omit "reverting" from the title of this article, as that implies previous non-wimpiness which hasn't happened for some time.) Dems need non-wimpy leadership in the White House and Senate. That just an't gonna happen with BHO and Reed et al. [Pelosi will do just fine in the House.] For example, the nuclear option is usable to do away with the filibuster . Period. Forget about using it to end just "talking filibusters" or "cosmetic filibusters" or "no filibusters for Uncle Joe but Aunt Emma is allowed" or whatever. That is, the "end filibuster" proponents are wimps acting as if they are Profiles in Courage.
- drofnats1
December 19, 2012 at 6:22pm
There may be a different calculation going on here. The White House may want Boehner to stay rather than providing an opportunity for him to be overthrown and e.g. Cantor elected in his place. It's possible that this is all to make B. look better to his caucus and to set a narrative in motion that makes it look as if any result came from a meeting between equals. Personally, I don't think that Obama can get burned a second time but it's also worth remember that the first time around in 2010 actually was a better deal than it looked on the surface. I could be wrong about that -- but I'm still surprised that the people who thought Romney was running rings around Obama a couple of months ago just assume now that Boehner is doing the same.
- ironyroad
December 19, 2012 at 7:47pm
I totally agree with this article and every time the President concedes something, I think he has sold the cow for the promise of magic beans.
- Nusholtz
December 19, 2012 at 8:33pm
As has been said, the big difference between evil and good is their motives -- not the means they use to reach their motives. Democrats don't always understand this. Obama, in particular, has wanted a "more collegiate" atmosphere so much, that he long ignored how the Republicans were using this desire to destroy his Presidency and his policies. Not out of some principled "difference of opinion", but more because they could. And because their main goal is "Starving the Beast" and destroying the social safety net and talking down Government. I agree with Obama it "would be nice" if the Republicans behaved in a collegial manner. But since his election, they certainly have not. It would be the height of irresponsibility after 6 years of suffering their abuse of the system, to relax now and enable FURTHER abuse of the system. It's only two more weeks, then we can talk about LOWERING taxes. I agree, the Democrats hold all the cards, for a little while longer. They should use that position to improve how well Congress works.
- AllanL5
December 19, 2012 at 8:35pm
Nothing significant is going to change until the voters give the Democrats control of Congress (while keeping the White House) again. Obama should take what he can get and move on. The Republicans are simply very skilled saboteurs. Speaking of such, I just found out yesterday that Grover Norquist is an NRA Board member. So, he wants to drown the U.S. government in the bathtub and sell Bushmasters to people who slaughter little children. That toad makes Charles Manson look like Mister Rogers. And the great majority of Republicans and many people who vote for them are exactly like him. Nothing will change in the way of real progress until the Democrats take the House back and keep the Senate and the White House. Und dat ist dat, as the Germans say. We need two new political parties--a conservative one that isn't insane and a liberal one that knows how to educate Americans how insane the conservative one has been.
- magboy47.
December 19, 2012 at 9:03pm
AaronW I answered you on that other thread. TARFON are you the late departed liberal reformer?
- basman
December 19, 2012 at 9:20pm
AaronW I answered you on that other thread. TARFON are you the late departed liberal reformer?
- basman
December 19, 2012 at 9:20pm
basman I was wondering about TARFON too. LOL. Anyway, bravo Mr. Noah. Poker 101, our President should have made $100K the starting point then let it go up to $250,000. $400,000 in exchange for throwing SS under the bus? That's terrible and it won't help the Democrats win in 2014 or beyond let alone fix the economy, the infrastructure and a more just society. As for NRA + Grover, no kidding. NRA and other right wing groups are behind a great deal of really bad legislation on the state level + obstruction in Washington. Hillary wasn't kidding about TGRWC.
- Sophia
December 19, 2012 at 10:50pm
I will be sick in my stomach, not to menton my head & my heart, if BHO & Co. fail to play the winning hand they have. They hold the cards - please, dear (insert deity of your choice), don't let them trade them away!
- Haole45
December 19, 2012 at 11:00pm
Meanwhile, as the rich get richer, young people, working people, are living on the streets: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/us/since-recession-more-young-americans-are-homeless.html?src=me&ref=general Throughout the campaign, we got promises, promises to create a better, more just society, and people stood in line to vote, for hours and hours, and we worked hard to help. If somebody in Washington is reading this, please please don't let us down.
- Sophia
December 19, 2012 at 11:07pm
"Are Democrats Reverting to Wimps?" Only if we let them.
- arnon1
December 20, 2012 at 12:15am
Let us not let them betray us. There is a mid-term election in a bit less than two years. It could be the election that allows Obama to cement his legacy - or which blows it into splinters. What will hold us togehter until, & through, then? It sure won't be wimping out on the putative core values Obama ran on in 2012.
- Haole45
December 20, 2012 at 12:46am
All this commentary--Noah's post and the comments on it--are rather funny. Every conservative outlet I read claims the exact same thing--about Boehner. Boehner is a terrible negotiator, he's going to give away the store, why doesn't he have a backbone? So we all need a little perspective. Obama is winning right now, and is likely to win this battle. His concessions so far were in pursuit of disarming Republicans on tax and fiscal issues. He can easily walk those concessions back if Republicans aren't willing to deal and we go over the cliff.
- polcereal
December 20, 2012 at 11:50am
I was thinking the same thing as polcereal actually. Some of us sound exactly like the folks who are mad at Boehner. So LOL in a way. However, the issues are not equivalent. The "harm" to rich people is in no way equal to the harm to vulnerable older, poor, working and disabled people. It's outrageous to make a trade-off like this. That's a very serious issue and it's a core issue. False equivalence is something we should avoid, philosophically and politically. And, no Democrat should reinforce the Romney 47% bull****, essentially saying he was right and that people making less than $50K/annum are simply worthless so who cares, and older people are worthless so who cares, they are mooches anyway, and poor seniors will die sooner anyhow so the chained-CPI won't hurt them too much since the probability of our living to be really old is quite slim.
- Sophia
December 20, 2012 at 1:59pm
As for "getting those concessions back," good luck. Once the GOP have succeeded in attacking Social Security, with Democratic help no less, where will they stop? They have been trying to get rid of SS, or "privatize" it, taking our money for themselves and using it to speculate, I mean, "invest," since FDR's day. Have people forgotten Medicare vouchers already? And privatized prisons? This isn't footsy the right wing is playing. Now, some on MSNBC are saying President Obama is outfoxing the GOP, he is doing the rope-a-dope. I hope so but this makes me nervous. We shouldn't be trading extra dressage horses for people's lives. Trading food for pills or giving up glasses and shoes - that's a real calculation for a lot of people. This chained CGI "basket" - does that include rent? What about medical care? For seniors or people with serious illnesses a daily pill can run hundreds of dollars. One pill. And at what point do rents stop rising? Where are people supposed to live? The idea that people have pensions, savings and investments is nice but not realistic. Baby Boomers now retiring have gotten creamed recently but also, we haven't had, in many or even most cases, long term, stable jobs. Rather we've been subject to serial recessions, falling real wages, housing booms and collapses, ever increasing costs of medical care and housing and energy. So?
- Sophia
December 20, 2012 at 2:10pm
Hurrah for Noah!
- mg1977
December 20, 2012 at 6:37pm