Green Room

The “grand bargain” as campaign ploy

posted at 1:52 pm on July 10, 2011 by

Ed Morrissey does a good job of explaining the apparent collapse of any “grand bargain” between Pres. Obama and the Conressional GOP regarding the public debt bomb. He’s no more partisan about it than the faux-objective Politico (seriously, even compared to the WaPo and McClatchy(!) coverage, David Rogers and Jake Sherman should be ashamed of their unbalanced hackery). But I want to go a step further to explain why the “grand bargain” is an extension of Pres. Obama’s re-election campaign.

First, as James Pethokoukis (who beat the establishment media like a drum on this story) suggests, there is little political downside for Pres. Obama in such negotiations, so long as he insists on major, unambiguous tax increases and opposes entitlement reform. If Republicans caved in to such a deal, it would demoralize the GOP base and possibly prompt Tea Party challenges, splitting the vote on the right. Moreover, a deal would help fool the casual, low-information voter that Obama cares about and is addressing the public debt bomb.

Second (and perhaps more significant), failing to reach a “grand bargain” is Pres. Obama’s current campaign strategy. You need not take my word for it. Instead, you can observe what Pres. Obama has done since before the midterm elections.

Consider the general political environment before the midterm election. The right and the Tea Party raised the political temperature on the issue of the public debt bomb. Pres. Obama punted on the issue by forming the Simpson-Bowles commission. After the election, he tossed their recommendations in the trash bin. However, in doing so, Obama created a politcal vacuum, which was filled by the House GOP budget devised by Rep. Paul Ryan. The left needed a response.

Accordingly, Pres. Obama (as he always does) gave a speech (which was not a budget, and has never been made into one). While much of the establishment media spun that speech as an embrace of the Simpson-Bowles recommendations, it was not. Simpson-Bowles sought to clothe its tax increases in the garb of the Tax Reform Act of 1986: lowering tax rates and eliminating deductions. But the Simpson-Bowles recommendations were not revenue-neutral. Even so, they were at least structurally similar to the House GOP budget, which proposed similar tax reform that was revenue-neutral. Any purveyor of Beltway conventional wisdom could see the type of deal to be struck.

However, Obama’s non-budget speech did not adopt the basic structure of the House GOP or his bipartisan commissioners. Rather, Obama proposed raising tax rates and eliminating deductions. Moreover, Obama’s proposed enforcement triggers would exempt more than 90% of government spending from his supposed automatic across-the-board cut. Combined with grossly hypocritical demagogy on entitlements, Obama’s speech was not a forerunner to a serious plan, but an attempt to rerun the Clinton ’95 re-elect playbook.

Anyone harboring any doubt over who is repsonsible for the failure of a “grand bargain” must consider Pres. Obama’s record. He avoided the debt before the election. After the election, he submitted a budget so absurd it got zero votes in a Democrat-controlled Senate. [Indeed, Senate Democrats have yet to submit a budget of any kind.] He has not moved from the positions he staked out in April. His position is not balanced, no matter how much the White House and the establishment media try to spin it as such.

Furthermore, there should be no expectation that Obama will budge on the budget. Obama’s non-budget speech was a tacit admission that he cannot run for re-election on his record, but must demonize his opponents with class warfare and MediScare. He would be willing to entertain a GOP surrender on his terms, because he likely calculates that the liberals put off by any deal will be outnumbered by demoralized conservatives and libertarians, while he gains casual, low-information independents. Otherwise, he has already announced his intentions. He will do the only thing for which he has shown any talent: campaign. Whether he can run a negative campaign running from his record, as opposed to standing as the blank slate of Hope and Change, remains to be seen.

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Nice recap, well presented, Karl.

massrighty on July 10, 2011 at 3:30 PM

Exactly.

juanito on July 10, 2011 at 4:40 PM

Yes. And the Cheshire cat sits on his massive mountain of spending and purrs. “I dare you to take any of it away, even a small slice.

AshleyTKing on July 10, 2011 at 8:21 PM

The White House is fearful of a double dip recession, and they want GOP complicity if/when that happens. They want the GOP to agree to raise taxes, just like GHWB did but with the branches of govt. reversed. This will depress the GOP base and also make them complicit in whatever happens to the economy between now and 2012.

Barring that, they want the GOP to be perceived as causing a default.

Boehner is right to a simple raising of the debt ceiling with equivalent cuts (even if they are empty promises). That gives Obama nothing to blame the GOP for on the economy. But Boehner must refuse any/all tax increases.

The only thing Obama can do to improve the economy are supply side measures, and that would repudiate his entire first term. He is desperate for some way to hang this economy on the GOP, and we must not fall for it.

Right now the only thing he has to run on is Mediscare, class warfare, blame Bush, and the race card. That’s a far cry from Hope and Change.

commodore on July 10, 2011 at 8:27 PM

Whether he can run a negative campaign running from his record, as opposed to standing as the blank slate of Hope and Change, remains to be seen.

Considering the fact that a whole bunch of folks are standing hip-deep in shite…and know it, makes Obozo’s ‘electioneering stance’ look like sheer insanity.

NO amount of faux sunshine from the MSM can mask this stench.

CPT. Charles on July 10, 2011 at 8:42 PM

Well said, Karl.

FloatingRock on July 11, 2011 at 12:14 AM

Thanks Karl, but a big question is left unanswered: if the “grand bargain” effort was nothing more than a piece of political theatre, as you suggest, then isn’t the Boehner walk-away also the same? Does it all mean that they’ll just agree to disagree, paper over the dispute with some sort of minor deal, and raise the debt ceiling enough to get the government through to mid-2013 at essentially Obama spending levels so as to let the election settle the issue? Punt to the voters, in other words, along with all the other big issues that have come to impasse (like the regulatory crap sandwich the Democrat Congress has shoved down our throats, the executive branch overreach at EPA, NLRB and every other board/agency, the war on energy production, and of course ObamaCare).

Are there no leading Democrats in national politics who care more about prosperity and limited government than they do about socialist ideology?

MTF on July 11, 2011 at 2:38 AM

massrighty on July 10, 2011 at 3:30 PM

2nd that

cmsinaz on July 11, 2011 at 8:07 AM

Yep, if the GOP caves to President Pull-Ups (and they probably will), it gives conservatives less reasons to go to the polls, feeling to resignation that NO ONE represents the American People.

If the GOP refuses to budge – conservatives can take heart but liberals will blame, blame, blame. Those that don’t pay taxes (about 40% of Americans) don’t seem to care how high taxes go. They should of course IF they want to work because increased taxes give employers less incentive to create jobs and gives “workers” less incentive to work hard.

Anyone else starting to feel doomed?

katablog.com on July 11, 2011 at 8:18 AM