Posted on 12/17/2012 10:07:19 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Full Title:
Change of plans: Now the GOPs going to agree to raise the ceiling for another year, right up front. Wait, what?
Boehner offered to let tax rates rise for income over $1 million. The White House wanted to let tax rates rise for income over $250,000. The compromise will likely be somewhere in between. More revenue will come from limiting deductions, likely using some variant of the White Houses oft-proposed, oft-rejected idea for limiting itemized deductions to 28 percent. The total revenue raised by the two policies will likely be a bit north of $1 trillion. Congress will get instructions to use this new baseline to embark on tax reform next year. Importantly, if tax reform never happens, the revenue will already be locked in.
On the spending side, the Democrats headline concession will be accepting chained-CPI, which is to say, accepting a cut to Social Security benefits. Beyond that, the negotiators will agree to targets for spending cuts. Expect the final number here, too, to be in the neighborhood of $1 trillion, but also expect it to lack many specifics. Whether the cuts come from Medicare or Medicaid, whether they include raising the Medicare age, and many of the other contentious issues in the talks will be left up to Congress
As for the debt ceiling, that will likely be lifted for a year, at least. In contrast to a week or so ago, when the White House was very intent on finishing the debt ceiling fight now, theyre sounding considerably less committed to securing a long-term increase in these negotiations. The argument winning converts, Im told, is that since the White House wont negotiate on the debt ceiling now and wont negotiate on it later, theres little reason to make it the sine qua non of a deal.
So in exchange for a tweak to Social Securitys benefit formula, Boehners agreeing to tax hikes on the rich and limits on deductions and a mere promise of future spending cuts and a debt-ceiling increase that would formally abandon the live-to-fight-another-day strategy? Note the at least part, too. Matt Yglesias is entirely right about this:
Punting 12 months on the debt ceiling so it comes in the middle of a congressional campaign seems like a recipe for disaster.
If youre a House Republican, youre much more apt to drive a hard bargain next spring than you are in early 2014, when election day will be less than a year away. In fact, if the economy starts to pick up and revenue increases next year, then the next debt-ceiling might be delayed by months which could mean a showdown right before the midterms. No Republican facing reelection in a purplish district will go to the mat under those circumstances and Boehner knows it, so I assume the one-year deal will quickly become a two-year deal. Will, er, House conservatives who are already irritated at Boehners offer on tax hikes go along with that? Or is Boehner now prepared to write them off and govern with a coalition of Democrats plus a small group of moderate Republicans? If Im Pelosi and JB comes back to the House with the sort of deal described above, Id instruct my troops to vote no (at least on the first pass) just to watch Boehner be humiliated as waves of conservatives vote no too and the bill fails.
But maybe this is just a trial balloon. Heres what his spokesman said about raising the debt ceiling:
Boehners offer signals that he expects a big deal with sufficient savings to meet his demand that any debt limit increase be paired dollar for dollar with spending cuts. That would permit him to keep a key vow to his party and head off a potentially nasty debt-limit fight at least until the end of next year.
Our position has not changed, Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said Sunday. Any debt limit increase would require cuts and reforms of a greater amount.
A Boehner aide told CNN the same thing no debt-ceiling hike without an equivalent amount of cuts. Now that theyve drawn that line publicly, they cant cave without Boehner losing whatever remaining credibility he has with the House. So maybe this is just a tactic to pressure Obama on cuts by wringing a little positive PR from the negotiations for the GOP, with Boehner angling to come off as the responsible, compromise-minded side of the table whos willing to give O what he wants in exchange for a little fiscal responsibility in return. If I were Obama, though, Id call his bluff. Given how the polling worked out for the GOP after the last debt-ceiling standoff, Boehner will have tremendous difficulty holding the caucus together if/when theres a new standoff in the spring. Why would O give him the cuts he wants now when he could try to split the House by forcing another debt-ceiling showdown a few months from now?
Update: I wonder what this concession bought from Boehner:
President Barack Obama has proposed a deficit-reduction package to House Speaker John Boehner (BAY-nur) that would increase the top tax rates on taxpayers earning more than $400,000, cut more spending from health care programs and add $200 billion more in spending cuts over 10 years to his earlier offer.
Boehner had proposed an earnings threshold of $1 million for higher rates. Obama dropped his demand that individuals making more than $200,000 pay higher rates.
A higher threshold for the top bracket means less revenue raised once the new rate goes into effect, which in turn means less deficit reduction. But the tax part about this has never been about deficit reduction. If Obama cared about that, hed have a serious entitlement reform plan on the table. This is about fairness, in all its arbitrary glory. The new threshold for whats fair: More taxes from people who makes $400,000 or more.
“Government spending is such a big part of GDP now that cutting spending would cut GDP and that would cut tax revenue and presto, bigger deficit.”
So, you’re a Keynesian?
YEP
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.