PLANK DECEMBER 21, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size

With the caveat that no one knows anything, not least of all me, it’s very hard to see how we don’t go over the fiscal cliff at this point.
Here’s why: Once the House GOP deserted John Boehner last night, there were basically two options for striking a deal before January 1. Either Boehner passes a cliff-averting deal with a majority of House Republicans, or he passes one with a few dozen Republicans and a majority of House Democrats. Alas, I see neither of these things happening this year.
The first one isn’t going to happen because there’s simply no way Boehner and Barack Obama are going to reach a compromise that a majority of House Republicans will embrace. Boehner clearly couldn’t muster a majority (or anything close) for the compromise he and Obama tossed around Monday—about $1.2 trillion in revenue, with tax rates rising on income over $400,000 per year, and about the same amount in spending cuts, including cuts to Social Security benefits via a stingier cost-of-living adjustment. If Boehner could have gotten remotely close to a majority of his caucus behind this, he would have brought it up for a vote instead of detouring into his cockamamie and disastrous “Plan B.” Clearly, he could not.
Meanwhile, Obama can’t really make a more generous offer to Boehner at this point. Liberals were essentially told Monday night that this was the offer that was going to secure the deal. They spent the next 24 hours agonizing over whether they could support it. Most came to the conclusion that it was borderline offensive, but that they could hold their nose and accept it rather than risk the uncertainty of going over the cliff. But, having told them this what they’d have to swallow to get a deal done, the White House is going to find it damn near impossible to get them to swallow more. At least anything else meaningful. Long story short, there’s no deal that wins a majority of House Republicans that Obama can sign off on. And no deal that Obama can sign off on that wins a majority of House Republicans.
That leaves option two: Boehner passes a bill with a rump group of Republicans and a majority of House Democrats. There are actually two ways this could happen. First, Boehner could essentially accept the offer on the table from Obama, perhaps with a tiny symbolic concession that lets him claim he squeezed more out of the president. Or Boehner could take up the bill the Senate has already passed, which extends the Bush tax cuts for families making under $250,000 per year and lets them expire above that.
Unfortunately, it’s extremely hard to imagine Boehner embracing either of these measures and putting them to a vote, for the simple reason that passing either one over the opposition of his caucus would leave him incredibly vulnerable only days before he stands for re-election as Speaker. (That happens on January 3.) If Boehner wants to keep his job, this just isn’t something he’ll screw with. And for whatever reason—certainly not the quality of life it affords him—Boehner comes across as a man who wants to keep his job.
So, as I say, we’re probably going over the cliff. Then what?
Well, at that point, the world starts to look pretty good for the Democrats and the White House. First, as Jonathan Chait and Ezra Klein have pointed out, because all the Bush tax cuts will have expired, the $1.2 trillion in tax increases Obama is seeking suddenly become a $3.8 trillion tax cut. (The expiration of the Bush tax cuts would produce about $5 trillion in revenue over 10 years; $5 trillion minus the $1.2 trillion Obama in revenue wants will leave $3.8 trillion for taxpayers to pocket.)
Better yet, polls overwhelmingly show that the public will blame Republicans for pushing us over the cliff. As things stand today, House Republicans can tell themselves voters are on their side. Many won re-election with upward of 60 percent of the vote. In their minds, Obama has no more of a mandate than they do. It’s only the arbitrary coincidence of the Bush tax cuts expiring and the automatic spending cuts kicking in next year that gives him leverage. If we go over the cliff, on the other hand, that self-delusion will get harder to maintain by the hour. The public backlash will be intense. The media coverage will amplify it to the nth degree. Conservative pundits will turn on them, as will Senate Republicans (whose leader, Mitch McConnell, was conspicuously silent after Boehner’s Plan B went down in flames). The House will be completely isolated and will see that it’s not Obama who’s trying to pull one over on them, it’s voters who are demanding that they act. It will play out in much the same way as their surrender on the payroll tax cut last year, with House Republicans completely intransigent until they were abruptly squashed by public opinion and abandoned by their own party. So the middle class tax cuts will be extended and the upper income cuts will mostly expire.
The only question is what else gets thrown into the mix—unemployment benefits, infrastructure, the payroll tax-cut extension, low-income tax credit extensions, etc., to say nothing of the spending cuts the White House and Boehner have been negotiating. My hunch is that, because Obama’s position will be enhanced, post-cliff, and House Republicans will be grasping for something—anything—that puts them out of their misery, Obama will win on most of these issues, too.
But not all of them. The GOP is in such disarray that it’s tempting to believe Obama has played his hand masterfully. He hasn’t. In fact, he’s made some serious negotiating mistakes that will result in a worse deal than he should by all rights achieve. In particular, by prematurely backing off his “non-negotiables” in order to clinch a deal that wasn’t clinchable this year—by going up to $400,000 for the income threshold at which the Bush tax cuts expire when he previously insisted on $250,000, by agreeing to Social Security benefit cuts when he previously said they were off the table, and by negotiating over the debt limit (don’t get me started on that one)—Obama has weakened his bargaining position for when the eventual deal is struck, presumably in January. Despite the additional leverage he’ll gain once we’re over the cliff, it’s very difficult to imagine Obama reneging on these offers. Yes, in theory, he can say they were only good before January 1, and that the price of a deal has gone up. But, in practice, I suspect the media will cover the episode as one continuous negotiation rather than two separate negotiations. And it’s very difficult to pull back a concession during a negotiation once you’ve made it.
In the end, what Obama failed to understand is that, appearances notwithstanding, he was never negotiating with Boehner. He was always negotiating with the majority of the House GOP, which is obviously well to Boehner’s right. Making concessions to them didn’t make a deal more likely. It just undermined his own position. (It’s also why the suggestion that it may get easier for Obama and Boehner to strike a deal over the next few days, in the relative calm afforded by the House’s adjournment for Christmas, seems to miss the point.) It's also why going over the cliff always looked more or less inevitable. Whatever Boehner’s desire to avoid that outcome, he was never the relevant decision-maker. It was always his conservative rank and file, a group that can’t be reasoned with, and which only understands the language of total victory or defeat. As luck would have it, it looks like they’ll be getting an outcome they comprehend.
Update: Tweaked the first mention of the $400,000 threshold, which was a bit imprecise.
Update II: It's probably worth briefly laying out what I think is the most likely path to avoiding the cliff. I'd say it's Boehner bringing up the Senate's under-$250,000 extension bill, which passes with a lot of Democratic support and a handful of Republicans. As Philip Klein has argued, House conservatives have tended to give Boehner a pass when they think he's completely out of options. And, sometime between Christmas and New Year's, they may come to that conclusion in this case. So Boehner may be able to get the Senate bill through the House without risking his speakership, even though it will pass with mostly Democratic votes.
A more ambitious deal with Obama, on the other hand, would appear to be a nonstarter, mostly for the reasons I lay out above. I doubt Boehner would get the "out of options" pass on that one, since the Senate's bill would be preferable. As with the deal that resolved the debt-ceiling crisis last year, the House GOP caucus would do what needs to be done to avoid a catastrophic PR hit, while conceding the absolute minimum to the president.
18 comments
"The expiration of the Bush tax cuts would produce about $5 trillion in revenue over 10 years; $5 trillion minus the $1.2 trillion Obama in revenue wants will leave $3.8 trillion for taxpayers to pocket." What a strange world we live in: increasing taxes will leave more for taxpayers to pocket. What's implicit but unstated is that the "Obama tax plan" can include tax cuts that a partial extension of the "Bush tax plan" could not; once the baseline is moved on January 1st, what had been a tax increase before January 1st becomes a tax cut after January 1st. And Obama becomes the new Reagan - a tax cutter! [To be clear, neither Reagan nor GWB was a tax cutter; they were tax deferrers; a tax "cut" that creates (or increases) a deficit is a tax cut only in the Land of Oz.]
- rayward
December 21, 2012 at 6:54am
As things stand today, House Republicans can tell themselves voters are on their side. Many won re-election with upward of 60 percent of the vote. In their minds, Obama has no more of a mandate than they do. Republicans ran on cutting spending. Obama ran on increasing top rates. This makes sense if voters are worried about the debt. Perhaps the public trusts Republicans on spending cuts and President Obama on taxes. But the Republicans have not come up with how they want to cut spending. So, they should leave.
- Nusholtz
December 21, 2012 at 8:09am
Joe Scarborough was ranting this morning about how insane his party, the GOP, has become. With the collapse of Plan B that raises taxes on millionaires only, they have now branded themselves as the party of millionaires only. And because they still publicly support the sale of assault weapons, they have become the party of survivalists only. So Boehner cares more about remaining Speaker than helping the American people, and Republican Congresspeople are terrified of losing their jobs to fanatics. There's still hope that Obama can work with McConnell in the Senate to produce a bill that the House would be forced by public opinion to accept, but then McConnell might filibuster the bill that he helped write. Republicans hate the U.S. government, and they are determined to sabotage it. Downshift, people. We're going down the fiscal slope.
- magboy47.
December 21, 2012 at 9:14am
What's ironic is that business leaders want Republicans to give a bit and make a deal. Eventually the GOP may lose the support of the people they claim to represent. And fanatic voters will be the only thing holding them up. Morning Joe is right--this is true insanity.
- magboy47.
December 21, 2012 at 9:21am
Once again, as pointed out by Krugman in todays column and opined by yours truly for weeks, the incompetent BHO is saved by the insane GOP. The pattern will continue in Groundhog Day style. Progressives must learn that they need regard BHO as a wussy moderate/conservative 1980's Republican. And work to elect a Dem in 2016, a task that may well mean running against many policies and pronouncements of BHO. It's not a great plan, but the best of a bad lot.
- drofnats1
December 21, 2012 at 9:24am
I am perfectly happy with Obama's last deal, simply extending the rates for the Middle class is not enough, most people are still ignoring the very real pain when unemployment benefits expire and the EITC and education credits do as well. Couple that with 600 billion in domestic spending and higher taxes on both payroll (with the expiration of the payroll tax cut) and regular income taxes then a lot of poor and middle income people will be in real trouble. I was hoping to use the EITC tax refund to pay for my property taxes, if that goes away I won't be able to save for my kids college education or save for my own retirement. But hey libs here, if it can punish some rich Republicans then why not, right drofnats? Of course I support Obama's last position. How many people need lose their homes to get your pound of flesh from the Republican party? And where is there any evidence that Republicans will come to their senses after Jan. 3. They will simply pass a Plan C which is even more draconian than Plan B (it will probably look like a Romney fantasy budget, cut taxes on the rich and eliminate medicaid while extending the Bush tax cuts for the middle class). They will say Obama is holding the middle class hostage. Our only hope is for Boehner to go down, as his last act he allows the Senate bill to be voted on and a handful of Republicans join the Democrats (we would only need 15 after the new session starts)
- blackton
December 21, 2012 at 10:24am
Drof: surely if "once again" BHO is "saved by the insane GOP", and both you and Krugman see it, it stands to reason that BHO and Biden and Reid and Pelosi and all their advisers see it as well. Which means, unless you have special insight that eludes the entire Democratic political class, perhaps they are not so "incompetent" after all - they know what is coming, and they act accodingly. You are as predictable as a Three's Company plot, and about as insightful.
- icarus-r
December 21, 2012 at 10:26am
I disagree with Scheiber, here, that Obama can't take back concessions. His concessions were made in exchange for GOP agreement on certain matters. All he has to say is that the GOP refused to deal. If they refuse to compromise, then he and the Democrats will take matters into their own hands. Indeed, Boehner said exactly this in his pitiful remarks last night! (a truly remarkable abdication of responsibility.) And regardless of rhetoric, it's hard to see how a package passed by the Democratic Senate and a Democratic/ rump GOP group in the House would not be more favorable than Obama's latest offer. I understand the tendency towards pessimism in these matters (drof's comments, Timothy Noah's "Dems are wimps" foolishness, and even Scheiber's more reasoned concern about the concessions), but Obama is winning, folks, and the GOP is being discredited by the hour.
- polcereal
December 21, 2012 at 11:12am
Blackie: "Our only hope is for Boehner to go down" ... oh, but he will. The only question is, on whom?
- icarus-r
December 21, 2012 at 11:41am
yeah Blackton. Just like Neville C had a deep understanding of Adolph H and a long-term strategy to keep Great Britain out of any war with Germany and let Adolph and Uncle Joe destroy each other while GB reaped the benefits. All of which a twit named Winnie ruined. It, too, is a meme out there that some tout. About as believable as the BHO set up the Repubs and the Tea Party to win in 2010 so BHO could win in 2012. Sorry, but often what looks imcompetent IS imcompetent. In fact, you'll rarely lose money by betting on what looks, acts and flies like a duck--- IS a duck.
- drofnats1
December 21, 2012 at 12:54pm
"Just like Neville C had a deep understanding of Adolph H" You didn't just say that? Really? Are you so far lost, is your brain so completely putrified, are your senses so dulled, that you actually use the Hitler chestnut? And what's with Neville C and, er, "Adolph" H (it's Adolf, but who's counting) - you think yourself Kafka? "All of which a twit named Winnie ruined." What in the name of Sweet Lost Sanity are you on about? "About as believable as the BHO set up the Repubs and the Tea Party to win in 2010 so BHO could win in 2012." Er - who in the name of God has put forward this silliness - who but YOU could have dreamt up this idiocy? Remember, this scenario that you impute to whomever, is the obverse of your pet desire for 201: LET'S LOSE TO THE REPUBLICANS SO WE GET A TRUE PROGRESSIVE IN 2016. Then a twit named Barry ruined your scenario not only by winning, but increasing the Senate majority and keeping House Republican votes below 50%. You are getting increasingly more deranged. BHO's win has evidently destabilised you further. But then again, every time I think you have outdone yourself and can't get better, you do better. :) keep 'em coming.
- icarus-r
December 21, 2012 at 1:06pm
polcereal, absolutely a sudden ending of the payroll tax cut, income tax cut, and EITC will be very harsh for untold millions of families, a chained COLA will equal to 3/10ths of one percent, long term it will add up but for now it can easily be borne and the key is it can be reversed by a future Democratic Congress running on restoring it. Personally I would have preferred a stimulus, a suspension of the sequester for a year, a continuation of the payroll tax cuts and EITC and Unemployment and a McConnell bill to end the debt ceiling as laid out in exchange for a contiuation of the Bush tax cuts for a year (with the Republican plan of closing tax loopholes for a revenue gain of 300 billion). I don't know how much we could have gotten but it would give another year of steady growth and lowering unemployment that in 2014 we could afford the expiration of the tax rates if worse comes to worse.
- blackton
December 21, 2012 at 1:43pm
Look guys. Drof isn't wrong about the lack of progressive idealism in the White House. And you're wrong about our motives. We aren't trying to get a pound of flesh from the GOP. We are trying to stop our country from becoming an outright plutocracy. And, social safety nets should NEVER have been on the table in the first place, especially Social Security. Maybe it's no big deal to you blackton but it is to millions and millions of poor and disabled people, not all of them seniors, many of them vets or children. Damn right it's going to "add up." You're talking about basic survival here. But while we're on the subject of progressive or not progressive, there is also lack of real movement on civil rights, on war, on environment, in support of unions. Going after Social Security is a bridge WAY too far. And, raising that number from $250,000 to $400,000 doesn't help the country nearly enough on the revenue side. We need more stimulus, but also our infrastructure is outdated and dangerously old and needs to be fixed and we are dealing with environmental disaster after environmental disaster: fire, flood, drought, storm. Krugman's right.
- Sophia
December 21, 2012 at 2:27pm
So is Noam. This weakened the Democratic position, gave the impression that we can't trust the President to live up to his campaign positions, for which people stood in line for hours and hours to vote, for which people scrabbled up scarce dollars to contribute, for which we gave up our time to volunteer. These issues are clear, the election was won, a majority of votes in the House supported these position even though gerrymandering has robbed us of the seats that would have given us a majority there as well as in the Senate and of course the White House. People by large majorities think the top 2% should pay more taxes and that Social Security should be left alone. The end. Now: as for the other issues that will hit hard if we go off the cliff: that would be just lousy. But they can be fixed. The tax deductions that benefit middle income people can be written into law. That is a TAX CUT so the GOP will go along with them and I don't think they want to go down in history as the party that starved the unemployed (I hope). So don't panic. It's easier to tinker with narrowly written laws than get back the farm after you've given it away for nothing.
- Sophia
December 21, 2012 at 2:34pm
magboy: McConnell's going to work with us? I wish. People maybe the GOP really means what they say about drowning the US in the tub. I think South Carolina is trying to pass a bill making Obamacare illegal in that state. Maybe we should split up the country. Do you guys seriously see compromise on these issues? One side openly thinks it's ok to let people die for want of medical attention, for example. How do we compromise with them?
- Sophia
December 21, 2012 at 2:38pm
"Drof isn't wrong about the lack of progressive idealism in the White House." There are several responses to this. I think, strategically, the most relevant one would be that it is a good thing that policy is not driven by idealism of any kind. To be sure, policy needs to be informed by vision and principle, and I suspect that neither drof nor you would go so far as to say that the White House lacks either, or that Obama is "not progressive". But idealism is a different issue altogether. Public policy is not about pursuing an ideal; social programs are not idols to be worshipped from afar, never touched and forever sacrosanct. Especially in divided government - between the President and Congress, between Democrats and Republicans, between the federal government and the states - the pursuit of idealism just gives rise to bad policy (see "split up the country", above; or Drof's favourite: let's elect a warmongering plutocrats so we could have a pure progressive after he's done boinkoing the country for four years) after prolonged posturing. Whether Obama is a strong negotiator or a weak one is open to debate. That he is a liberal by philosophy, conservative by temperament, and deeply caring by orientation is not, I think, open to much debate. This is why I think Drof's point is at best idiotic.
- icarus-r
December 21, 2012 at 3:38pm
I sure hope not. Look, Obama offered much more in August of 2011, and that was rejected. They didn't open negotiations this December by saying "Okay, that's your offer, now what MORE can you give us?" Similarly, in January, I fervently hope Obama can offer, yet again, the same $250K limit he's been offering for 4 years now -- only then, it'll be a Tax-Cut. Republicans love voting for tax cuts, right? And if they try to hold America hostage to get their tax-cuts for the over $250K cohort -- then nothing gets done, and the Republicans get blamed, and Government gets a lot of money to work with. I don't expect the Republicans to just roll over -- they're going to use the tax-cuts and the debt-ceiling as yet another attempt to force America to accept the unacceptable. Obama needs to know that he's holding all the cards, though. It didn't work for Gingrich when he shutdown the Government, TWICE, in 1995, and it won't work for the current crop of Tea-Party Fox-News Republicans either.
- AllanL5
December 21, 2012 at 4:26pm
The following is the strategy I recommended in February 2012: Instead of opposing the president, give him everything he wants. Don't oppose him on anything. He will then "own" anything that happens, and won't be able to blame anything on the opposition, for there would have been none. If my thesis is correct, the market and the economy would promptly tank, proving once and for all that the Keynesian theories of the Administration are an ineffective response to the current economic malaise, particularly in light of the business-bashing, growth-inhibiting, regulation-expanding rhetoric, behavior, and actions of the current Administration. That would put the Republicans in a good position for the 2014 and 2016 elections, after which the disastrous policies and statutes of the previous 8 years could be reversed and repealed. Speaker Boehner actually hinted at such a strategy when he recently said: "Mr. President, we're ready to be led." The Republican base and the far right would no doubt complain bitterly, but because of the demographic shifts in the electorate, that strategy might be the only way to achieve the long-term goals of the party and return the nation’s balance sheet to a relatively healthy condition. We need to demonstrate to the electorate that the current path will not lead to an “economy built to last,” but to just the opposite. Certainly, what the far right did to the Republican Party by opposing Boehner’s Plan B was unforgivable. Plan B was an excellent strategy and I hope that Republican donors will begin now to VISIBLY work on defeating in the next Republican primaries those who prevented its passage. They are ruining the party. They need to know right now that they are at risk. What we need is an anti-Grover Norquist. Lest any Democrats complain that such a strategy means the Republicans are willing to put the economy into a recession to achieve their goals, the response is: "What do you mean? Those are your policies, not ours! We haven’t opposed anything you’ve wanted to do. If your policies are correct, you have nothing to worry about." Purists might complain that the electorate has returned control of the House to Republicans to provide a check on the power of the President and the Senate to wreck the economy. The answer to that is, if you think the President and the Senate might wreck the economy, why did you vote for them?”
- truthman
December 21, 2012 at 10:10pm