TIMOTHY NOAH DECEMBER 20, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
I haven't been able to get much inside dope about the negotiations that produced the bipartisan Senate deal to extend the payroll tax for two months. This is the deal that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives refuses to pass, apparently because the Tea Party won't let it. It's their "Braveheart moment," according to Rep. Phil Gingrey, a Republican member of the Tea Party caucus, and John Boehner has an opportunity to be their William Wallace. (Gee, thanks, Boehner must be thinking; at the end of the film Wallace gets beheaded.)
Nobody seems to have much detail about the Senate negotiations that produced a deal that gives so much offense to House Republicans. But it seems pretty clear that Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell left town thinking it was all copacetic with House Speaker John Boehner. Now Boehner says the deal is reprehensible because it only extends the payroll tax cut for two months.
Boehner would like you to think this is the Democrats' fault, but quite clearly his (newly-acquired) disagreement is with the Senate Republicans. It's been reported that the Senate negotiators extended the payroll tax-cut extension only two months because Democrats and Republicans couldn't agree on offsets. But surely the larger problem was that the Senate Republicans, and especially Senate Republican whip John Kyl, don't want to extend the payroll tax cut at all. Kyl has said so publicly, and when Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell introduced a GOP alternative to the Obama payroll tax-cut plan--a plan that did not include the millionaire surtax that Republicans can't abide because it victimizes "job creators"--this GOP compromise failed to win not only a majority of Republican votes but also most of the votes within the Republican leadership. Twice. So it's reasonable to think that the only reason Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid could get only a two-month extension of the payroll-tax cut, when President Obama had been pressing for a full year, was because that was all Senate Republicans were willing to give, and that they were only willing to give that much if President Obama swallowed a provision pressing him to make a quick decision on the Keystone XL pipeline, which previously he'd branded veto bait. Obama swallowed it, a deal was cut, and the Senate went home.
House Republicans now feel they've been mousetrapped into accepting a deal that will give Obama the opportunity to beat up on Republicans if they don't agree to extend the payroll tax cut. And that does appear to be true. But a two-month deal is not what the Democrats wanted. They wanted a deal for a full year. They still want that, and Reid says he's happy to negotiate one when everybody gets back from Christmas break. To get it, the Democrats will probably have to give up something else to the Republicans. That's good for Republicans and bad for Democrats. But House Republicans insist on believing that they're getting screwed. They claim that almost everything in their bill has been accepted by the Obama White House. David Rogers of Politico has demonstrated that claim to be false even before you take into account the House GOP's grotesque "you're too stupid to get unemployment benefits" reform of unemployment insurance.
The truth is that the Democrats have already given up too much to extend the payroll tax cut, and the GOP still can't give it to them, because it's at war with itself over whether it can stomach tax breaks that don't go to the rich. I don't really see how obstructing the payroll tax cut extension helps the GOP even with its nut-bar Tea Party constituency. But it seems determined to go the way of William Wallace, shouting "Freedom!" before the axe falls.
Update, 8:20 p.m.: Sam Stein reported yesterday in the Huffington Post that before the House GOP was against a two-month payroll-tax cut it was for it. The 56 House GOP supporters for the Jan. 2009 bill, which called for a complete payroll-tax holiday for two months, included some of the most conservative members of Congress, among them Michele Bachmann. So apparently it isn't just the Senate GOP vs. the House GOP. It's the House GOP versus itself. Sort of like William Wallace being against Scottish independence and then deciding on a whim to be for it.
13 comments
Well, would somebody swing that damned axe already??!!
- cspencef
December 20, 2011 at 10:37am
As usual the republicans are being unintentionally hilarious. "Braveheart" moment, indeed. In the sense that when they tell their story later it will be entertaining but will bear only a passing resemblence to actual events.
- Tristan
December 20, 2011 at 10:39am
The beheading was merely the coup de grace in the execution of Wallace. The details of his prior mutilation were much too gruesome for the movies.
- aduncanson
December 20, 2011 at 10:54am
The Republican Party has gone insane.
- liberalref
December 20, 2011 at 11:04am
I approve of this revised headline. The question is how to play this. Why not demand a clean payroll tax expansion, let the Republicans oppose and the tax cut expire, then crush them for raising taxes until they give up.
- subterran
December 20, 2011 at 11:14am
Like almost any political movement based around resentment, modern conservative politics demands that Republicans consider themselves marginalized victims, fighting a desperate, rear-guard battle against the overwhelming forces of socialism, perversion, and evil. It is, after all, of absolutely vital importance for their self-image to not notice that in this "Braveheart moment," Boehner and his cronies stand with Edward Longshanks, trying their damnedest to execute a foe who's already surrendered. libref: Agreed.
- janus
December 20, 2011 at 11:17am
"Braveheart moment"? Worthy of the Newt himself. What's next? "¡No pasarán!"? Oh, wait a minute . . .
- timteeter
December 20, 2011 at 11:19am
Under these circumstances, I have trouble wrapping my head around the top Republican Tea Party priorities. It's not deficits. It's not tax cuts. I don't know how foreign policy fits into their priorities. I can't believe its protecting the mythical "job creators" at the expense of the unfortunate; but that has to be it. At least, that assumption predicts their behavior. If so, it would do as much good and make as much sense if they fought to protect the people who still use Windows 98.
- Nusholtz
December 20, 2011 at 11:54am
Let's see -- the House passed a bill that was dead on arrival, but McConnel prevented the vote on that bill for 4 days, finally arriving at a last minute compromise on the Senate bill allowing a two-month extension. Finally, vote held, Senate adjourns. But wait! Now the House refuses to pass the Senate's two-month extension, because they SAY they want a full year extension (AND all the poison pills the Senate bill left out). Well, logically, if you WANT a year extension, then you'd pass the two-month extension, then come back and pass the year extension. In Republican Tea-Party land, that's too "uncertain", and so you conclude... kill any extension? Thereby giving America unconditional notice that the Tea-Party Republicans in the House simply do not deserve the seats they currently hold. If we want reasonable honorable responsible negotiations to move forward, those people have got to be replaced. Ideally with Democrats, but moderate Republicans would do.
- AllanL5
December 20, 2011 at 11:56am
The Tea Party priority, above all others, is to return the country to the end of the eighteenth century.
- ironyroad
December 20, 2011 at 12:05pm
Hate to cut against the grain here, but assuming the Democrats get their wish and the tax cut is extended, has anyone thought through how we will ever actually end it? It's hard to see the Democrats objecting to another extension in a year, and if the Tea Partiers come to their senses, it's hard to see them voting against an extension either. So then what?
- ATLeft
December 20, 2011 at 1:09pm
Sure. Democrats are Keynesian. You stimulate the economy when you're in a recession, to smooth out how bad it can get. Then when you get into a recovery, you stop stimulating at some point. Now, in Republican eyes, "stimulate" means cut taxes, and "stop stimulating" means cut taxes -- but at some point we're going to actually have to balance the budget. Or at least quit bleeding deficits at such an enormous rate. So we need the Bush tax-cuts to expire. And frankly, saving $1,000 a year doesn't do much -- shoot, that's a Cable-TV bill. So if we have full employment, restoring the Social-Security taxes to something sustainable should be a no-brainer. Though as the current House Republicans keep demonstrating, they're quite capable of making something simple into an economy-threatening crisis.
- AllanL5
December 20, 2011 at 2:39pm
Democrats are Keynesian sometimes, when it suits them politically, but they are almost always brow-beaten by Republicans into voting for tax cuts -- even in the good times. Plus, I hate to agree with John Kyl, but this is a separate revenue stream from general revenues -- allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire doesn't put money back into Social Security and Medicare. Finally, you say "but at some point we're going to actually have to balance the budget" like it's easy, like "at some point I'll actually have to do the laundry." It's not that simple, or we'd have done it already. Point is, I'm all for pressing a political advantage, but we need to give at least some thought to the end game here.
- ATLeft
December 21, 2011 at 1:03am