Will the Republicans cut a deal that delivers President Obama passage of New START in the lame duck? Recent developments would seem to suggest that it’s a live possibility.
Senator Voinovich (R. Ohio), who previously expressed reservations about the treaty, now says he is leaning toward ratification and wants a vote this year. Senator McCain (R., Ariz.) told Good Morning America that he is also holding out hope for a lame-duck START vote. And perhaps most significantly, The Washington Post is reporting that the White House may be willing to trade a temporary, across-the-board extension of current tax rates in exchange for a vote on the ratification of New START:
The two sides discussed a series of issues that Obama has pushed to resolve before the end of the year, including unemployment benefits that are set to expire and the new START nuclear weapons treaty with Russia. McConnell deflected questions about the treaty, saying it was the “unanimous view” of all 42 Senate Republicans to first settle the tax dispute and to agree on a funding deal for the federal government.
Yet a possible end game that appeared to taking shape, numerous Senate sources said, could give Republicans the across-the-board tax-cut extensions that they are seeking, albeit in temporary form, in exchange for a Senate vote on the arms control treaty, a top priority for Obama.
But there are a few things wrong with this. One is that a top GOP Senate aide just told me the idea of such a deal is baloney (though he used a more colorful word).
“The two are completely unrelated,” the aide said, adding that he “would be surprised if any Republican would try to link a national security matter to avoiding the largest tax hike in the history of this country.”
But more to the point, the Democrats don’t really have the leverage to propose this sort of bargain, for both procedural and substantive reasons. The Post story gives the impression that Republicans are putting up procedural roadblocks preventing even an up-or-down vote on the treaty. But consider that New START sits atop the Senate’s Executive Calendar, meaning that per Senate rules Harry Reid can bring it to the floor at any time, without debate. Sure, once the treaty is on the Senate floor it is subject the usual procedural hurdles, including filibuster. But since treaties require a two-thirds majority for ratification anyway, the filibuster is redundant.
On the substance, Republicans have no reason to cave on tax cuts in the lame duck. As leaders Boehner and McConnell suggest in their Post op-ed today, if Democrats won’t give them a vote on an across-the-board extension of current rates in the lame duck, they’ll let the tax cuts expire and deal with the issue retroactively when the 112th is seated.
So no, it doesn’t look like the Republicans need to deliver the president his foreign policy parchment to prevent a massive tax hike. This is the deal that isn’t.
Never underestimate the power of republicans to cave in early.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLindsey Graham and Corker just threw cold water on this idea, via Reuters, but may have lit a match on a deal of a different sort.
According to Graham and Corker, they would be willing to discuss START and work towards its ratification if the Democrats were willing to make the needed time for it by dropping everything else on the block outside of the Bush tax cuts and a 2011 budget (meaning if the Dems dropped DADT repeal, along with the DREAM Act) they seem to be signaling that START's ratification would be a forgone conclusion.
This trade off seems like the more realistic of the bunch for the Republicans to ask for.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHELL NO!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGetting our missile defense for tax cuts? Let the dems take responsibility for raising taxes. START must fail.
I meant "gutting" our missile defense . . .
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTypical Beltway gossip = not gonna happen!
I say call the Social Democrats bluff and kill any vote on a decoupled tax rate move. As the article clearly states, the 112th Congress can retroactively scale back the tax increase and the vulnerable Dems in 2012 will vote for it out of sheer desperation to avoid being labelled as tax & spend liberals. In fact, they can even name the tax cut after Obama to throw him a political bone. The Chamber of Commerce and usual business lobbyists will howl about having to prepare returns for the new tax code and the costs of a last minute switch, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah. Just noise and belly aching whining, they've got more than enough 2010 profits to let their accounting departments work a little overtime and/or hire some new accountants.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWE must stop START. The old-guard Republicans will perhaps be hesitant to do so. Let them be warned that should the elite-Republicans cater to Obama and the Democrats and trade tax rate extension (NO tax cuts are even being proposed. We are bargaining for an extension of current rates!), it will enhance our efforts to throw them out in even greater numbers than we did in 2010. The silent majority is awake, and we know we are not represented by the "go along to get along, reach across the isle, McCain, old-boy Repbulican party." We will work within the party to overtake it if we have to.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe TEA will just love this.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhile I hope this won't happen, there could be an upside.
If the deal is for a PERMANENT extension of all tax cuts, the republicans can use backing out of this treaty (as GWB did with the ABM treaty) based on the need for missle defense, in 2012. Its not like Obama was going to advance missle defense in the next two years anyway.
Since the next 2 years are dead as far as defending us from rogue states anyway (6 years if Obama is re-elected), we might as well get something substantive from Obama in exchange for a temporary policy that we would pursue unilaterally anyway for the next two (or god forbid, six) years.
This of course assumes that backing out of this treaty will be easy. Otherwise remember what Nancy Reagan says, JUST SAY NO to linking the two and to New START.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd let's not forget about all the "help" we got from Russia concerning Iran for canceling the eastern European missile shield. This is just getting dupe-id.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWashpo mischief-making. Portraying the Reps. inaccurately as usual.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAll I can say is thank God that Bob Dole, Trent Lott, and the rest of reach-across-the-isle gang of leadership past are gone. McCain is still there, but at least he is a hawk. Maybe this GOP senate has a little more cojones than previous get along gangs.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLetter to my Senators.
According to a report in National Review On Line (“A Devil’s Bargain”, 30 November, 2010), Republicans may trade a vote for START in exchange for a vote to extend the Bush era tax rates. If this is true, as article’s title suggests; this, indeed, is a bargain with the devil.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe START treaty has been available for Senate confirmation since April; and, now, with just days to go, Obama wants this treaty approved by the Senate. What is Obama trying to hide from “WE THE PEOPLE”. If START is so important and good for “WE THE PEOPLE”, why didn’t Obama bring it up earlier this year for a considered vote?
In his 20 months in office, this is the third or fourth time when important Legislative Acts must be quickly taken or else. Now, he is demanding the Senate set precedence by approving a treaty during a “lame duck” session. We are sick and tired of Obama’s legislative tactics, and we demand that they be stopped.
We close with this quote from The Heritage Guide To the Constitution on page 205.
“Another reason for involving both President and Senate [in making treaties] was that the Framers thought American interests might be undermined by treaties entered into without proper reflection. The Framers believed that treaties should be strictly honored, both as a matter of the law of nations and as a practical matter, because the United States could not afford to give great powers any cause for war. But this meant the nation should be doubly cautious in accepting treaty obligations. As James Wilson said, “Neither the President nor the Senate, solely, can complete a treaty; they are checks upon each other, and are so balanced as to produce security to the people.”
Net, do not abrogate your oath to our Constitution, and do not trade tax rates for treaty requirements. Based on the results from the last election, and the earlier Scott Brown election, we believe a growing majority of Americans support our view.
Lucy's going to pull the football away one more time, or is this 'read my lips' 2 time. Maybe the two sides could exchange hostages.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Republicans (and columnists) desperately need to do a better job of educating the American public (and I guess themselves). What is going to happen next year absent legislation is a TAX INCREASE. If a vote happens and succeeds, that MAINTAINS THE CURRENT TAX RATES. There really is no cut on offer per se, only an increase.
Yet, the whole conversation revolves around "tax cuts" for the rich. Sigh.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually this sounds about right. I mean Lugar already is lobbying for START. We should add in the Maine Twins, Murkowsk, Voinovich, and Lindsay Graham. That's 6 GOP Senators, which gives Obama 65 votes in the Senate.
Lugar in particular seems in recent years to take perverse pride in going against his party. We certainly live in strange times. It is no longer Left vs Right, but the Beltway Aristocracy against the nation. It is almost as if the Democrats never suffered a historic defeat in the Mid-terms. It's business as usual, and many politicians like Lugar go on as if nothing has really changed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf Republicans agree to this kind of deal they should all be lined up and soundly beaten. The President doesn't have the votes on START in the lame duck from all indications. And Republicans probably already have more than 50 votes for a temporary extension of the current tax rates - which means Democrats would have to filibuster any bill to keep all of the current tax provisions in place (which is not good politics).
So Republicans would be giving up on something they can win on in order to get something they probably already have. If they're going to make trades in the tax area - they should trade a vote on START for making the current tax provisions permanent. At least that would be getting something they probably don't have the votes for as we speak.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAccording to my calculations, I'm willing to take the hit if the rich take the hit. So end the Bush Tax Cuts which started this defict mess. Then, if you want to reduce spending, cut back on all that intelligence and military waste that just winds up in the press anyway. End the current wars, including the drug war which cost 70 Billion a year. Do we need Homeland Security, really? Are we that whimpy? Stop being a wuss, and adopt these measures I propose and we can retire the national debt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse