Conservatives may disagree on whether Republicans are “winning” the debate on spending, but at this point it’s fairly clear that liberals have lost it, and they’re annoyed that President Obama has (once again) left them, and all of their coveted “investments,” out to dry. National Journal reports:
Wherever the final line is drawn, Democrats appear willing to accept a deal close to Republican leaders’ original plan. White House aides say that such a deal could pay political dividends when the bigger fights start because the agreement would establish the president as the most reasonable politician in Washington. Progressives are not happy, however, even if Democrats are able to remove controversial GOP policy riders, such as those that eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood and hamper the implementation of the health care law.
“Progressives could reasonably expect something that was more progressive than the House Republicans’ starting position,” said economic expert Michael Ettlinger of the Center for American Progress.
“There’s no victory here,” concurred Heather McGhee, the Washington director of the progressive think tank Demos. “Technically, not having any policy riders would be a win, but in terms of the pure economic impact of the budget, it is all bad for the recovery.”
White House and Senate leadership aides argue that the composition of the cuts is as important as their size, and say that they will fight to make sure that reductions aren’t borne by the most vulnerable. They also say that the need to gain at least nine Republican votes in the upper chamber to pass anything weakens their advantage. Yet many Democrats maintain that after laying out his 2012 budget, President Obama hasn’t done enough to draw a real contrast with Republicans, relying instead on a more subtle argument about balancing cuts with investment.
Is there any limit to the amount of “disappointment” the Left will swallow before it affects their willingness to vote Obama in 2012? Perhaps, but I reckon that’s an almost impossibly high bar. And no one understands this better than Obama himself.
UPDATE: The Left may be beaten, but they’re already gearing up for the next fight:
Senate Democrats are discussing plans to introduce tax policy changes that they say would raise federal revenues and broaden the budget debate beyond discretionary spending cuts.
[...]
Democrats want to take the offensive and propose higher tax rates for millionaires, companies that move factories overseas and wealthy people who make charitable contributions.
[...]
Democratic lawmakers said they will be in a stronger position to offer tax increases after agreeing to between $30 billion and $61 billion in discretionary spending cuts for the rest of 2011.
“We Democrats have demonstrated that we’re willing to make these cuts; we’ve gone over halfway. Are they being so unreasonable to say we can’t raise any revenues?” said the senator.
More here.
UPDATE II: House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.) responds:
After 40 days of stalling on the need to cut spending, Senate Democrats have finally called the only play they know to finance their out-of-control spending: raising taxes on the American people. Not only is this a terrible move in the current economic environment, but it speaks to the Democrat agenda to keep spending money to support big-government programs and overreach on the backs of American taxpayers. The total revenue that currently comes into the federal coffers through individual and corporate taxes is just over a trillion dollars, while America’s expected deficit for this year is $1.6 trillion and our debt is more than $14 trillion. In order to address our debt crisis, Democrats would have to more than double taxes on families and businesses throughout the country. It’s time for Democrats to do what the American people are doing and tighten the belt, not raise taxes. I call upon Leader Reid and Senator Schumer to rule out raising taxes in our current economy.
Liberals will vote for Obama, yes. And I doubt there will be a serious primary challenge (Obama's lock on the black vote makes it very hard for someone to challenge him from the left), though I wouldn't be surprised if an anti-war candidate at least went through the motions.
But Obama is counting on an *energized* liberal vote in 2012, the way he had it in 2008. He's losing centrists and independents, he's loathed by conservatives--he needs an enthusiastic base. And that's looking less likely to me.
Oh, sure, we could lose this one. We're Republicans, we have a positive genius for losing with winning hands. But so far, things look promising.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIsn't anyone going to catch on to the pre-agreement drip that those to the left of the president are angry with him? On every issue we hear of some group upset at Obama, it's all strawmen junk. Even in Lybia he gave his "..there are those who say we should go in on the ground, and there are those who say we shouldn't do anything at all" strawman setup. Really? There were people who said we should invade Lybia? He is forever trying to position himself as the middle, reasonable choice, by setting it up in speeches and by having some 'critic' to the 'left' of the president say something so he can come off as reasonable. He is having mini-Sister Soulja moments. It is as common as "Let me be clear".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDemocrats want to take the offensive and propose higher tax rates for millionaires, companies that move factories overseas and wealthy people who make charitable contributions.
Please, let this be true. I want to see the remainder of the year spent arguing about Obama's attempts to tax the Lowry[1] out of the country.
[1]Hence forth every time the awful dirty world filter blocks a nice word it will be replaced with "Lowry." Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe have a trillion dollar annual deficit and these people think that cutting $60-$80B is an achievement? When they've cut $600-$800B, maybe then they can start patting each other on the back.
A number I would really like to see is the ratio of income tax receipts to GDP. Are we taking in more, less or the same amount of annual tax receipts relative to the annual GDP.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseZman, that is a BRILLIANT suggestion, and one that I will personally be adopting forthwith.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat a bizarre post. You say that liberals have "lost the debate." Who's judging? Most Americans favor tax cuts on the wealthy and not cutting our safety net programs or education. So if the American people are the judge, they haven't lost.
Of course, what you really mean is that they've lost politically - that there's no one looking out for the left's -- or the majority of the country's interests. That both parties work for big business.
That's hardly "losing the debate." But admitting as much, would mean giving up the pretense that the drive for spending cuts comes from the American people, and not from wealthy elites and water carriers like Mr. Stiles.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Democrats want to take the offensive and propose higher tax rates for . . . wealthy people who make charitable contributions."
Read: "We Democrats want to go on the offensive against the interests of those most vulnerable, by encouraging philanthropic and charitable-minded people to curtail their kindness toward the 'vulnerable' people we allegedly care so much about."
Gosh, seems like whomever came up with that idea has had ears burning for the last couple days, because many of us commenters here have been involved in a running colloquy on how progressives specialize in highly ineffective and counterproductive measures to solve problems they are animated to solve.
If progressives had even ONE SHRED of compassion for the "vulnerable", as alleged by Schumer, they would not be able to countenance providing a disincentive for private citizens with extra resources to donate them to those who who don't have enough to subsist.
"Let's take money away from the 'vulnerable' and claim we care about them, and that way we can shift even MORE of the efforts to 'help' them toward the public sector - i.e., WE progressives - in order that we can say we 'care', take all the credit for every morsel of food these 'vulnerables' are able to muster, and we can increase our own power at the same time. So we kill three birds with one IRS stone."
This logic is brought to you by:
A wild assumption that the American polity is just too stupid to catch on to their juvenile narcissism that they camouflage as compassion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFreidman -
If your definition of "the majority of the country's interests" is the 20% of society that identifies as "liberal", then you successfully pinned the tail on the donkey!
[insert sound donkeys make]
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSilly little Madison. I wasn't referring to what labels people refer to themselves by, but what their actual opinions are. A majority of Americans would rather see taxes go up on the wealthy than see major cuts to education, safety net programs, police departments, etc .. .
That doesn't seem so hard to understand. But maybe it is for a guy who thinks donkey puns are funny.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is wonderful news. Dems win Illinois in a squeaker? Bad news until they raise taxes. Some voters are like rats who don't learn not to hit the button until they've been zapped a few times.
Dems raising taxes, or even trying to, nationally is a very good thing. That makes it marginally more difficult to lie their way through 2012.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusevator, about the incessant strawmen arguments from this Empty Suit:
One conservative blogger last week astutely and amusingly stated: "If these strawmen ever unionize, Obama could be in real political trouble."
Clever.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseInstead of the eternal debate over tax hikes versus tax cuts, I'd like to see tax simplification with lower marginal rates across the board. Chances are that this would give Democrats what they want, which is higher tax payments at the upper income levels, and Republicans what they want, which is rate cuts for all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDemocrats DON'T want higher tax revenue. They want to manipulate and control the electorate and punish those who vote against them. When taxes are raised, revenues fall; when taxes are lowered, revenue soars. And they know it, making their raise-revenue-by-raising-taxes proposal a canard and/or a lie.
"Not wrong, just evil."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAm I missing something? Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution provides that "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." I am no expert on Congressional procedure. Can someone please explain how the Senate can constitutionally 'introduce tax policy changes that they say would raise federal revenues."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"They want to manipulate and control the electorate and punish those who vote against them."
That's a big part of the rationale behind our convoluted tax code--though I would argue that both parties have played the game of favorites in terms of tax credits, income adjustments, and loopholes that riddle it. People scream when a story like the recent one about GE surfaces, but their anger is misdirected. GE did not create the tax code that let it off the hook (at least directly, though its lobbying efforts likely had some effect)--lawmakers using the tax code to curry favor with constituents and campaign donors did.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI get such a kick out of "balancing cuts with investment"...which is really just cutting spending to spend more.
The Democrats are bluffing about the "shut down", and are walking around bragging about how much they would love a shut down. Sounds like they're afraid of a shut down...for exactly the reasons laid out in the original post.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusefireTomFriedman,
Unfortunately, you are correct. Too many Americans have become so conditioned to wanting things paid for by others. It is not an an admirable quality, and certainly not one the left should trumpet, but is pervasive nonetheless.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat a majority of people want govt to take other people's money and give it to them is hardly surprising. It's also the reason why this govt is finished. The only question remaining is when the funeral will be.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGriswel: The head of Catepillar just sent an open letter to the gov of IL letting them know, that thanks to the new tax increases, they are looking into moving their corporate headquaters out of IL.
That's several thousand high paying jobs, plus 10's of thousands of support positions.
This is why you can't solve budget problems by raising taxes. A lesson the Dem's in Washington need to learn as well.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse