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 The Inside Story of How Obama Could Have Gotten a Better Tax...

PLANK JANUARY 9, 2013

The Inside Story of How Obama Could Have Gotten a Better Tax Deal Without Biden

Even for Barack Obama's liberal critics, there was much to like about the way he set up last week's fiscal deal, not least the use of his presidential perch to drive home his message on taxes. As my colleague John Judis argued, it's easy to see how Obama could reprise this approach for the next installment of our ongoing fiscal soap opera. The GOP's plan to force Medicare and Social Security cuts under threat of a debt default could prove wildly unpopular with the right White House framing, and Obama has proved himself pretty capable in this department.

The problem is what happens when, having crafted a favorable backdrop to the negotiation, it comes time for him to close the deal. And this is where the just-completed "cliff" episode is still disconcerting. Because it turns out Obama made a critical if underappreciated mistake in the final hours of the back and forth: sending Joe Biden to haggle with Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell once McConnell's talks with his Democratic counterpart, Harry Reid, had broken down.

From my after-the-fact discussions with Democratic aides in the House and Senate leadership, it’s clear that Reid had a plan for resolving the cliff and considered the breakdown of his talks with McConnell very much a part of it. By involving Biden, Obama undercut Reid and signaled that he wanted a deal so badly he was unwilling to leave anything to chance, even when the odds overwhelmingly favored him. It suggested that even if Obama plays his cards exceedingly well in the run-up to the debt-limit showdown, he could still come away with a worse deal than he deserves because of his willingness to make concessions in the closing moments.

Here’s what happened near the end of the cliff talks, as I understand it. On Friday, December 28, Obama handed off the negotiations to Reid and McConnell, with the caveat that he wanted a vote on a fallback plan to raise taxes on income above $250,000 for couples (and $200,000 for individuals) if they couldn’t strike a deal by Monday the 31st. The two Senate leaders made some progress but hit a wall Saturday afternoon. Reid had offered to move the threshold up to $450,000 for couples and $360,000 for individuals in exchange for a one-year extension of federal unemployment benefits and delaying the automatic spending cuts known as the sequester for a year. McConnell was unwilling to go so low on the income-tax threshold or so long on the sequester delay. He was also asking for a change to Social Security’s cost of living adjustment—a fairly significant benefit cut. After huddling with his staff late Sunday morning, Reid told McConnell he had no more concessions to give.

Not long after, McConnell went to the Senate floor saying he had placed a call to Biden but hadn’t heard back. Sunday night, Reid’s staff went to bed aware that Biden had returned McConnell’s call but assuming nothing would come of it. “There was no indication [Biden] would engage,” says a Senate Democratic leadership aide close to the talks. Alas, it didn’t work out that way. Reid’s staff woke up Monday morning to discover that Biden had opened up his own negotiation with McConnell. The Republican leader had accepted a $450,000 income-tax threshold ($400,000 for individuals) and Biden was offering him a three-month delay of the sequester. (The eventual deal was a two-month delay.)

Reid was furious. In a call, he told the president that he or Biden would have to come to the Senate and pitch the deal to Democrats themselves--Reid wanted no part of it himself. But while other accounts have portrayed Reid’s frustration as stemming from the substance of the deal, Reid was just as frustrated over the fact that he'd been in the middle of executing his own plan, which was now moot.

According to the Senate aide, Reid believed that one of two things would happen if the negotiations were allowed to play out his way: Either McConnell, who obviously wanted a deal, would have come slinking back to him and basically accepted Reid’s last offer. “It would have been great if he called Biden and no one called him back,” says the leadership aide. “He would be so desperate for a deal that he took whatever he could get.” Or, less likely, McConnell would have thrown in the towel, allowing Reid to hold a vote on the Democratic fallback bill, which would have moved the income threshold back to $250,000 while extending unemployment insurance and a series of tax credits for the poor and middle class.

The latter might well have passed the Senate—Reid believed there were close to 60 votes for it—but would have been unlikely to pass the House, sending us over the cliff. In that case, Reid assumed the House GOP would have taken the blame, and that Republicans would rapidly soften up. Reid’s plan was to then work out another deal with McConnell that would have provided a small fig leaf—perhaps a slight rise in the income threshold above $250,000, but not close to $400,000 or $450,000—which would have likely passed on Saturday, January 5 (basically the soonest possible date). The aim was to pass this new bill with a large bipartisan majority (just as the eventual compromise did), thereby isolating the House GOP and forcing them to pass it too.

This may seem a bit far-fetched—how could Reid be so confident, after all? Obama, for one, worried that missing the cliff deadline could mean waiting for weeks if not months to resolve the situation. According to a senior White House official, the embarrassing failure of John Boehner’s “Plan B” meant the House might “never be able to act … and this would bleed into debt ceiling.” The official added: “Our hand is weakened on the debt ceiling if the economy is spiraling out of control and everyone’s taxes were up.”

But there were good reasons to believe the endgame would play out the way Reid envisioned. Reid’s model was the payroll tax cut fight of late 2011, when he and McConnell struck a deal to renew the tax cut for two months because they couldn’t agree on how to pay for a year-long extension. The deal passed the Senate overwhelmingly, at which point conservatives in the House revolted. For a day or two, the outcome looked uncertain—polls showed the public favored the tax cut, but the House had dug in. At that point, Obama suggested to Reid that they reopen the negotiations, but Reid, according to the Senate aide, told him, “Don’t you dare.” Democrats held the line, and the House GOP abruptly folded. When all was said and done, Democrats got an even better deal than they’d hoped for. The Republicans were so eager to put the episode behind them they dropped their insistence that the tax-cut extension be offset with spending cuts.

Long story short: Reid’s strategy would have at worst produced a slightly better deal than Biden negotiated had McConnell accepted his final offer before the cliff (a slightly lower threshold for the new top income tax rate and a one-year suspension of the sequester rather than a two-month suspension). At best it could have produced significantly more revenue (closer to a $300,000 threshold) had we briefly gone over. But Reid never got the chance to execute it. “Their guys were running around asking to be forced to vote for this so they could move on,” says the Senate aide of the GOP. “Everything Republicans were doing signaled weakness and desperation for a deal. Unfortunately, everything out of the White House did, too.”

It is, of course, important not to romanticize congressional Democrats here. Senate moderates didn’t exactly earn any glory during the last Bush tax cut fight in 2010. At the time, many were panicked about the idea of letting them lapse for anyone, even the wealthy, which massively complicated the administration’s efforts to phase out the tax cuts at higher income levels. The White House official argues that Reid’s cliff scenario would have hinged on Reid’s ability to hold Senate Democrats together this time around, too, which Team Obama considered an open question at best. Indeed, when Reid called Obama urging him not to take the Biden-McConnell deal, Obama was quick to ask what would happen if the House somehow passed a bill raising the threshold to $500,000—could Reid keep Senate Democrats from peeling off to support it? Reid insisted he could, but the White House was skeptical. (The White House official says that, during the December 28th meeting between the president and the top four congressional leaders, Reid even put a 500,000 income-tax threshold on the table. But aides to both Reid and Nancy Pelosi deny this.) 

Still, the Senate Democrats had actually shown surprising discipline this time around, having passed a bill in July that would have lowered the threshold to $250,000. There had been little wavering by individual senators since then—and none since the election. “No one more than us had come around to the idea that our political leverage was greater now,” says the Senate aide. “In 2010 we thought we were vulnerable in a million ways. In 2012, we did the ass-kicking.”

Whatever the case, allowing your adversary to decide who he’s going to negotiate with is a terrible precedent to set. The evidence suggests that McConnell got a better deal from Biden than he could have gotten from Reid. But even if you disagree, McConnell himself clearly believed this to be true. The lesson he surely took from the White House's sidelining of Reid is that Republicans will be rewarded with concessions if they hold out in the run-up to a deadline. With that in mind, McConnell will almost certainly repeat the exercise during the next round. And since, by the White House’s own accounting, failing to raise the debt limit would have far more serious economic consequences than going over the fiscal cliff, it’s hard to believe that the president will be in any position to call him on it.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 28 comments

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

28 comments

Biden is a lovable buffoon, the uncle best kept in the attic. It's not Biden's fault he is let out of the attic. My view of Biden fits with Scheiber's reporting. On the other hand, Scheiber could be wrong (I'm confident I'm not), and it could be that Reid and Obama (not Biden) orchestrated the events that led to the fiscal cliff deal (Biden as Mutt, Reid as Jeff), letting Biden out of the attic with instructions to follow a very tight script. History doesn't support this alternative, but it is a hopeful (if naive) alternative as we approach another negotiation.

- rayward

January 9, 2013 at 7:43am

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

Whatever the case, allowing your adversary to decide who he’s going to negotiate with is a terrible precedent to set. My memory is that McConnell did this in the 2011 extension of the Bush Tax Crap (plus a $5 million exemption for estate taxes with the option of zero or the exemption) when McConnell insisted he would meet with the President instead of Reid. Is my memory incorrect?

- Nusholtz

January 9, 2013 at 7:48am

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

Obama has said that he will not negotiate at all with regard to the debt limit. The next fisscal "cliff" (sequestration deadline) is something over which to negotiate. The new budget will be something over which to negotiate. Obama should not offer anything in exchange for raising the debt limit. He also should make clear to the world that the US will not default on its debt obligations, regardless of what Congress does. I concede that there is reason to believe that Obama will not hold firm. Dhurtado

- NR143296

January 9, 2013 at 8:15am

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

We often read that these negotiations are like playing poker. I'm not sure the analogy is valid, the better analogy being a business transaction, in which the most important tactic is patience, and I mean patience. Everyone has a natural tendency to close the deal, as that is how we define "success". Being the one holding up the closing can make one very unpopular, especially among those paid (and paid a whole lot) only if the deal closes (the brokers and bankers). But business transactions are like poker if both are viewed as a series of transactions, or negotiations, leading to the final deal. My line of work is business transactions, and each is built on a series of minor (but important) negotiations and deals leading (hopefully) to the final deal. Expert poker players have told me that's how they play, the tournament built on a series of minor negotiations (games) leading to the final deal, winning (or losing) the tournament. And they don't expect, or even intend, to win every "negotiation", using them to learn their opponents and their opponents' predilections. I've been negotiating business transactions for 35 years, and I can confirm that maintaining patience is the most difficult of skills, made even more difficult when the brokers and bankers threaten to throw you out of the 38th floor window. See, business transactions and budget/debt ceiling negotiations are much the same, both involving a cliff, over which neither I nor Obama wants to go.

- rayward

January 9, 2013 at 8:16am

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

I disagree with the premise of the article, which seems to me to be based almost solely on a reconstruction of events from Senator Reid's staff. If you look at the outcome from the standpoint of real people and their needs, not to mention keeping the economy on track, the deal worked as well as you could have realistically hoped. Certainly, the Republicans don't think they won this round-- and the polls support that conclusion. Moreover, in reading the article, I didn't see anything substantive that the Reid alternative would have gained for the people - as opposed to Washington Point Scoring - that the Obama/Biden deal did not. I am concerned, however, that Obama may have wanted to make more concessions toward the end, when Boehner was still having trouble rounding-up sufficient Republican votes. If that is true - and I emphasize "IF" - then that is troubling-- and I'm glad that Reid told Obama "no way." What was it that Margaret Thatcher told the first George Bush-- "Don't go wobbly on us now, George." Ditto, Barak.

- CABChi

January 9, 2013 at 9:06am

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

I'm on board with CABChi -- for a reporter as smart as Scheiber, accepting so much of what Senate staffers say about how the negotiations would have turned out better if only the people in charge took THEIR advice is kind of Woodwardian. Sure, Senate Democrats held firm on extending the payroll tax cut in 2011 -- because they were extending a tax cut for everyone at all earned income levels AND it was the only issue on the table. And that was about the easiest situation in which they could hold firm, as practically every member of the conference was in favor of a payroll tax cut (as were lots of Republicans) and offsetting it with spending cuts was a massively unpopular proposition. In the case of the expiring Bush tax cuts, there were real cleavages among Democrats as to where to set the cutoff for maintaining the lower rates, as well as some cleavages on the non-income tax portions of the legislation. Reid may have been confident that he could have scrounged up 51 or 53 Democrats to pass a tax cut only for income below $250K, but he would then have had to do a conference with a House-led tax cut with a $1 million cutoff or something similar, all in the teeth of a big fat tax hike on howls of outrage from everyone to the right of Harold Meyerson. Is there a reason to think he would have been able to hold the line on $250K as a cutoff, any better than he held the line at the end of 2010 with the original Bush tax cut expiration? There is a reason, but probably not a very good one. What does this all mean for the debt ceiling? I think that it means that Democrats' position on it will only be as firm as Obama's position. In other words, if the President refuses to negotiate on raising the debt limit -- whether by invoking the 14th Amendment, platinum coins, ignoring Congress and just borrowing and paying bills in the ordinary course, shutting down various government agencies or what have you -- then Senate Dems will support him. If the President decides that some sort of substantive concessions to Republicans are necessary to stave off a major crisis, Senate Dems will not stop him. On this issue, it's really all in the White House's hands and not Harry Reid's.

- wildboy

January 9, 2013 at 10:12am

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

It's incontrovertible that the clock was ticking and that the public was anxious to see a deal formed. It's also noteworthy that during these negotiations, both "sequester" and the debt ceiling debates were around the corner. The circumstances could not create the best possible deal but only a livable one.

- Doug12

January 9, 2013 at 10:33am

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

wildboy kills it.

- WandreyCer

January 9, 2013 at 10:49am

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

It's not Biden. It's BHO. "By involving Biden, Obama undercut Reid and signaled that he wanted a deal so badly he was unwilling to leave anything to chance, even when the odds overwhelmingly favored him. It suggested that even if Obama plays his cards exceedingly well in the run-up to the debt-limit showdown, he could still come away with a worse deal than he deserves because of his willingness to make concessions in the closing moments." Amen. And get ready for a repeat on the bebt ceiling of this meme already seem a half-dozen times or more on domestic issues in the last four years. Too many Dems are as insane/inane on BHO as TEA Partiers are on Hooverian economics. Doesn't matter how much data they get... they KNOW they're right.

- drofnats1

January 9, 2013 at 11:18am

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

The deal that resulted was an unprincipled sell-out that accomplished almost nothing and in general made the situation worse, but it still was probably better than what Reid's hare- brain scheme (as described) would have produced.

- mlottman

January 9, 2013 at 11:32am

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

I've been despairing as many here about BHO's poor negotiating skills. But I'm hoping against hope that he partly punted this time around because he's counting on the following unfolding by March: a) the business interests that heavily influence the Republican Party saying that this debt ceiling uncertainty and insanity has to stop and b) those interests' having a enough sway to get the Congressional Republicans (particularly in the House) to rein themselves in. If those things happen, BHO and the country could emerge from this mess in relatively good shape. I'm not betting on this scenario, but I think it's conceivable.

- Thunderroad

January 9, 2013 at 12:28pm

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

drof is surely correct. Biden didn't just inject himself into the negotiations without leave from Obama, nor did he offer anything that Obama didn't want him to. He was just the messenger. More evidence that Obama refuses to lead his party, but rather undercuts it at the drop of a hat. Politics is a team sport, not a solo act as Obama persistently seems to think. If you give no loyalty, in the end you will get no loyalty. Whatever deal they made or did not, whether better or worse than the one they did make, it would have been vastly better for the country if Obama had worked out his moves with congressional leaders and stuck with a coordinated effort at all times, even if conceding defeat. That is his single worst offense in this situation. Beyond that, no guts, no glory. Having spent years negotiating deals as a principal not just as a banker or broker or lawyer (although I first did that too), my own money and that of my partners on the line, I quite agree with rayward. If you are too afraid of losing to be patient, you will get taken. I confess that I am developing a profound dislike for Obama, although I have no regret about supporting his re-election. He seems to have an ego that is very much in his way as a leader.

- roidubouloi

January 9, 2013 at 1:18pm

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

The lawyer who worked for me when I was buying and selling businesses was a very experienced guy who used to say, "The deal can't close until it can't close." He meant that there always had to be a crisis near the end when it looked like the deal would collapse at an impasse. And, until we reached that crisis and successfully overcame it, we were not really there yet no matter how good it looked. He was 99% right, and whenever we hit the impasse and he would deliver his wisdom, we would laugh and be pretty composed in the face of what came next, almost invariably with ultimate success. Obama could use a bit of that wisdom and patience.

- roidubouloi

January 9, 2013 at 1:22pm

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

I don't get all the hissy fits, two things, Republicans will cave with the debt deal when they find that they will be alone in calling for massively unpopular entitlement cuts or they don't cave, extort Obama and America into passing these massively unpopular entitlement cuts and then Democrats spend all of 2014 running against the Republicans promising to explicitly restore those cuts then Democrats can win back the House, and if they don't Seniors would only have themselves to blame. More than anything else I have to imagine it was Republican idiocy in 2011 that lost them the White House, the Senate and a bunch of seats in the House, and it seems they want to triple down on that policy except this time the cuts will be real. The other option is that there is a true bipartisan entitlement reform with a combination of revenues and cuts, I think with the death of the precedent of the Hastert rule this might actually be a real possibility.

- blackton

January 9, 2013 at 3:04pm

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

"I confess that I am developing a profound dislike for Obama, although I have no regret about supporting his re-election. He seems to have an ego that is very much in his way as a leader." Hey, roid, an outsized and in many respects counterproductive ego goes with the territory of being president. It's part of what sustains people through the ridiculous grind of running for office and not getting beaten down by it. I'm not justifying it; just explaining it. And not that a comparison of egos justifies Obama's, but I'll take his over Clinton's selfish, self-destructive ego any day. More generally, we take the good with the bad with this guy, just as we did with Clinton, in terms of both personalities and policies. On the budget, the economy, financial regulation and a few other issues, BHO has fallen far short. On many others, not least foreign policy, he's done fine. And let's give the guy at least a partial break in terms of the huge challenges he inherited and continues to face.

- Thunderroad

January 9, 2013 at 3:06pm

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

"The lawyer who worked for me when I was buying and selling businesses was a very experienced guy who used to say, "The deal can't close until it can't close." He meant that there always had to be a crisis near the end when it looked like the deal would collapse at an impasse." Roi, I don't know what kind of businesses you were buying and selling, but if the norm of your deals was that they couldn't close unless there was some sort of crisis afoot suggests that the sellers were not fully motivated to sell at the previously agreed-upon price, the buyers were not fully motivated to buy at the previously agreed-upon price or a combination of the two. In my 15 years' experience as a transactional lawyer, that shouldn't be the norm in any business, certainly not one where at least some of the offers are solicited by the selling party.

- wildboy

January 9, 2013 at 3:29pm

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

Well, wildboy, I was buying businesses from entrepreneurs and founders for whom it was a once in a lifetime transaction. They were not financial professionals nor were they in most cases experienced sellers (the exception being the occasional purchase of a subsidiary from a larger corporation). They were typically nervous that, we, being professional buyers, might somehow take advantage of them. The emotional expression of this fear was the inevitable crisis at the end. I don't find this behavior surprising when people feel they have something on the line personally and want to feel sure that they have gotten the best deal they can get. In no instance that I can recall did the crisis result in a change in the price. Rather, there was some other fix, usually a figleaf, to address some imagined contingency or other. In the years before I became a principal and was negotiating as someone else's lawyer, I saw plenty of similar behavior. If both sides of the deal were professionals, however, this tends not to occur as they do not harbor the same set of fears of leaving something on the table. There is also the simple matter of experience. People who have been through it before have a clearer idea of how to comport themselves. People who have not, don't. We were successfuly because we took the freakouts in stride, responding with calm concern rather than reciprocal panic, resentment, or withdrawal.

- roidubouloi

January 9, 2013 at 4:20pm

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

Yes, thunderroad, we have to take the good with the bad. But I don't have to like the bad.

- roidubouloi

January 9, 2013 at 4:22pm

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

"People who have not, don't. We were successfuly because we took the freakouts in stride, responding with calm concern rather than reciprocal panic, resentment, or withdrawal." Roid, you seem to be describing Obama here. Frankly, I see no panic, resentment or withdrawal. It would seem, in fact, that in your reading of Obama - how his ego wants to get a bipartisan deal no matter what - there is cold selfish calculation, rather than panic or withdrawal. As well, when someone here called for humiliating the Republicans, you agreed - is that taking freakouts with calm concern or rather resentment? I have to say that I actually don't agree with you that his initial instinct is for a deal over grandstanding on principle. We know, of course, that he has no compunctions ordering a kill - not just Osama, but Bain. So the question boils down to this: why is he recoiling from a war in one forum and actively engaging in it in the other? The answer cannot be intrinsic weakness domestically facing Boehner but strong internationally. There must be some other reasons. You think it's his ego; I think it is a mix of ego (History's Verdict), principle (2 million UI benefits) and pragmatism.

- icarus-r

January 9, 2013 at 5:41pm

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

Yes, icarus. It is his genius. It is simply too far above my paygrade to recognize that a shit deal is really a good, principled, pragmatic deal. Nope. Sorry. It is panic, icarus. There is no other way to explain opening at $1.6 trillion as a bid and dropping in no time flat to $600 billion, less than the $800 billion the Republicans thought was the rock bottom. Panic that he won't get a deal, won't know how to deal with the consequences if he doesn't (maybe he doesn't even bother to think that far ahead, kind of like Romney not drafting a concession speech), and will look bad as a result, foolish, not in control, uncool. The big reason Obama is willing to lop heads with drones is because there is so little downside. It is a very safe play. I applaud, but I don't kid myself that it takes a lot of nerve. In my negotiations, I didn't fold when the other side decided it wouldn't close. I was patient, visibly sympathetic, listened to the story (repeated many times), kept talking, found some things I could give at little or absolutely zero cost to my position, and ultimately prevailed because I knew exactly what cards I held and exactly how far I was prepared to go. I didn't meet refusal with concessions. Only when the refusal stopped did I start to offer things that would allow the other side to back down without actually getting much. Does that sound like Obama? Maybe to you it does. Not to me. Then again, we could adopt your view, that, "Everything is for the best in this the best of all possible worlds."

- roidubouloi

January 9, 2013 at 8:13pm

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

Do you think that by now Republicans guffaw whenever they hear an opening offer by Obama? Do they have a betting pool on how quickly he will come down to less than 40% of what he initially asks for?

- roidubouloi

January 9, 2013 at 8:15pm

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

"There is no other way to explain opening at $1.6 trillion as a bid and dropping in no time flat to $600 billion, less than the $800 billion the Republicans thought was the rock bottom." What were the Republicans asking for, in return for the $800 billion? How were they proposing to raise it? How credible was the ask after the failure of Plan B - remember, the whole point of that was to humuliate Obama, and even then it failed. What did Obama give away in spending cuts in return for the $600 billion? What were the real chances of Obama getting his $1.6 trillion? And if that was too high, how would you all have reacted if he had gone with a "reasonable" number? I think it is impossible to credibly assess a deal when all you are doing is looking at only one side of the ledger. As well - above, I meant to say, I don't *disagree* with you that Obama wanted a deal - I do not think that our different appreciations of the deal and of Obama's negotiating prowess is not related to your realism and my Pangalossian dreaminess. Rather, it is instructive that you harp on your negotiating experience in the private sector, and also on your partisan prowess. I have spent most of my professional in the public sector, and have never been active in partisan politics of any kind. I am not suggesting Obama is post-partisan or anything silly like that, but rather, that he does think that once elections are over, government is more important than partisan politics. Now, criticise his dreamyness or ego or weakness on that score, but I think I am correct in that assessment. And if I am correct, then his negotiating stance is different from your because contexts are different. When I told you about my professional conscience coming to a deal that at the time people thought was weak, you simply dismissed it as irrelevant. Well, it is no more nor less relevant than your negotiating skills or experience, with one difference: I did a deal in the public interest that I would not necessarily have negotiated if I were in the private sphere. The consequences were vastly different. I had to deal with 60,000 jobs; Obama has to be concerned with 2 million unemployed whose benefits were running out - the public sphere and governance considerations are the same, and they are vastly different from buying and selling businesses for profit. (That, in a nutshell, is also why Romney's "business experience" - it could have been Iacocca or Welch, for all I care, left me cold. So what - they can run a business. But can they govern?)

- icarus-r

January 10, 2013 at 10:26am

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

Let me get this straight: McConnell wanted chained CPI in exchange for raising taxes on individual incomes above $360,000? I don't see how that's a drastically better deal than the one we ultimately got. Sure, we have less revenue than we potentially would have, but at least we didn't have to accept chained CPI.

- maxhencke

January 10, 2013 at 12:54pm

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

These analyses are quite fascinating; however, I think that they did not address some simpler overarching points: 1. Obama wanted the deal that he ultimately got; specifically, other than moving the line at which taxes would go up, what did Obama really give up? 2. Biden wants to be president in 2016, and will carry Obama's water. 3. Reid does not want to be President, and will carry Obama's water only to a point. From my perspective, Obama is very much in control of who does and says what when it comes from his office. I don't know whether Biden liked the particulars of the agreement, but he apparently will play ball so that he has a shot for the nomination in several. It makes one consider the virtues of a "warm bucket of piss."

- Ari111

January 10, 2013 at 1:16pm

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

I'm totally disillusioned - neither Obama nor his political advisors are up to the task. Its hard to watch Mitchell give it to Obama from behind. DonMc

- NR138704

January 10, 2013 at 1:47pm

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

Forget my negotiating experience, Icarus. Obama is a shit negotiator who runs from conflict, panics, to make a deal. That is my opinion, and you have said not a single relevant thing that in my opinion weighs on the other side. You merely declare that Obama is a great statesman for his compromising, as if that is self-evident, and that everything is for the best in this the best of all possible worlds. Fact is, he made an economically contractionary deal, made the Bush tax cuts permanent, and THAT was when he held all the cards. How much worse do you imagine he could possible have done than he did? To that, you will answer, "But we do not know what would have happened if he had been willing to go over the fiscal cliff." Of course we don't. We can never know anything counter-factual by definition. Which means that, in the absence of anything to say that a thoughtful person would find persuasive, you merely insist that there is nothing to discuss, because we cannot know. No balls. No guts. That is my opinion. You are welcome to yours as to Obama's wisdom and prudence and statesmanship. Empty words.

- roidubouloi

January 10, 2013 at 8:42pm

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

Say, icarus, you consider yourself a first-class, top-notch, kick-ass, take-no-prisonsers, negotiator (although you have never suggested that you have negotiated with your own ass on the line rather than somebody elses). Do you negotiate like Obama, name a high figure that no one takes seriously and you don't have any intention of defending and then collapse in a heartbeat? Is that how you kick ass and take no prisoners? I'd love to see that in action.

- roidubouloi

January 10, 2013 at 8:45pm

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

Roid: I don't. I am merely relating an experience. And in negotiations, I would not consider myself kick-ass or take-no-prisoner. Precisely the opposite; too much at stake to behave like a petulant, entitled jerk. I have said that in litigation I behave differently from negotiations, but that is a different matter. And, being Canadian, we never have unreasonable positions :). You would find living here, and working here, especially in the public sector, very frustrating. Go on heaping ridicule :) that's not persuasive either. ... "We can never know anything counter-factual by definition." But we can speculate. More to the point, I have never suggested we should not discuss a matter. What I am saying is simply that context matters. Not just that the Republicans are immoral hostage-takers, which I readily concede; but that governance is about more than posturing and calling bluffs. I think, for example, that he really cares about the millions on unemployment insurance - and that much of his "weakness" can be understood in those terms. We cannot know the counterfactual, but that very thing creates uncertainties and risks. I think also that he really cares about containing health care costs. Not, I stress, because he does not believe in public health care as a principle, but because he knows that an out of control health care system is an unsustainable one - regardless of what you bring in on the revenue side. (We know that in Canada full well. Unless you tackle the expenditure, the people will not be moved to pay for the system.) You think Obama's ego gets in the way of his negotiating; I think he is looking to history and knows that the judgement of history on him, the first Black President, is going to be very different from how history judges the others. Great statesman? Not my judgement to make and I challenge you to find anything in my hundreds of posts on Obama that even suggests anything of the kind. A sharp, sometimes ruthless, and generally effective politician? Certainly - the evidence is there, on January 20. Flawless? Not by any stretch of imagination. It was impossible to watch Clinton at the Convention and not see the difference between the two. And, by all evidence, Obama was unprepared for the treatment he got from the Republicans in his first term (similarly, he was likely rattled by Romney's ease in lying in the first debate). Whether that means you call him a naïf or Republicans unscrupulous shape-shifters, that is a different matter. But to decribe him as someone who runs from conflict and who panics is, in my view, a little exaggerated.

- icarus-r

January 11, 2013 at 1:08pm

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close