Actually, the deficit issue is real easy because we only control one House right now. If we just say "no," to anything but a bare-bones austerity budget, then the Senate and the POTUS will have to move right, similar to what happened to the extension of the Bush tax rates. The deficit issue becomes really tough when we contol both houses and the POTUS because every act or failure to act will be the GOP's responsibility.
What if the Senate and President refuse to move to the right? I mean, you're assuming that the game of chicken ends with the other side swerving. That may not happen.
Look, I agree with trying to push as tough a deal as possible. I also think there is a point at which you've gotten as much as you're going to get, and that's the point at which you make a deal. I don't know enough about the internal politics to determine where that point is, which is why I don't really know which side is correct.
The deficit issue becomes really tough when we contol both houses and the POTUS because every act or failure to act will be the GOP's responsibility.
I don't care about the political repercussions once we've got the power to do what we want to do. The only reason to get power is to use it, whether it makes you popular or not. That's why I admire the Democrats -- in a strategic political sense -- for pushing through the ACA despite public opposition.
My concern is getting to the point where we get that power. Yes, we can gum up the works to some extent right now by controlling the House, and we should leverage that stuff as much as possible without damaging our political fortunes in 2012. And as I said, that's a political calculation that I lack the expertise or knowledge to make.