The Agenda

David Weigel on the Meaning of Compromise

I’m a bit confused by David Weigel’s latest dispatch on the supposed Republican efforts to deflect blame for the failure of the Super Committee. Two things I’d like to see clarified:

(1) Republicans claim that they offered an increase in net tax revenues, crossing what had previously been a red line for the GOP, e.g., in an op-ed Weigel cites published in the Washington Post:

The essence of the plan was to dramatically reduce the deductions and credits wealthier taxpayers can claim to reduce their tax liability. That would generate enough revenue to both permanently reduce marginal rates for all taxpayers and provide more than $250 billion for deficit reduction. Added to other receipts, taxes and fees, the Republican plan amounted to more than $500 billion in deficit reduction revenue and $900 billion in spending reductions. We believe this lowering of the rates and broadening of the tax base would have spurred economic growth, created jobs and, in the process, generated billions more in revenue from growth in the economy.

Now, here’s the key: None of this can happen if the current law’s automatic tax increases occur on Jan. 1, 2013. We can’t both reform the code as Republicans propose and undo it all 12 months later.

Democrats made a point of saying that they would accept the new tax revenue in the plan but that they still also wanted the 2013 tax increase — which, of course, would negate the benefits of the proposal.

Is this not actually true? If it is true, then it seems fair for Republicans to say that they did indeed budge on taxes, but because they were unwilling to contemplate a tax increase congressional Democrats considered large enough they found themselves at an impasse. So yes, Weigel is right when he writes:

Saying that the other party wanted “$1 trillion in new taxes” is saying that you wouldn’t compromise on taxes.

But only if our definition of compromise is “conceding not just that we need increased tax revenues but rather accepting $1 trillion.” Which seems strange. If we accept that it is true that Republicans have resisted net tax increases before the Super Committee, accepting net tax increases represents movement “leftward” — and that is what we tend to think of as a willingness to compromise. 

(2) House Republicans embraced a Medicare reform proposal that included an unrealistic growth rate for premium support. According to congressional Republicans, the conservatives on the Super Committee embraced a bipartisan proposal sponsored by Alice Rivlin and Pete Domenici as a starting point. The Democrats on the committee rejected this proposal. Is it reasonable to describe the BPC proposal as a compromise? I think it is, as it implies a somewhat higher level of growth in federal expenditures than some conservatives had previously been willing to countenance.  

This actually doesn’t mean that a compromise was possible — it seems likely that congressional Democrats see no percentage in brokering a deal. Among the progressives I’ve encountered, including a sitting member of the House, the consensus seemed to be that the success of the Super Committee would have represented a victory for the forces of austerity, and so defeat was a good thing politically and otherwise. This, of course, would mean that the congressional Republicans are basically right. 

Granted, this is not a particularly clever or exotic interpretation: Democratic base voters don’t like fiscal austerity, so agreeing to entitlement reforms isn’t very attractive even if it means getting the right to budge on taxes. But that doesn’t mean it’s not right. 

Reihan Salam — Reihan Salam is executive editor of National Review and a National Review Institute policy fellow.

Most Popular

Politics & Policy

San Francisco Bans Fur Sales

San Francisco has banned the sale of fur. From the CBS-SF story: San Francisco has become the first major U.S. city to ban the sale of fur clothing and products. Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a measure that prohibits the sale of fur clothes, accessories, even souvenirs in stores and ... Read More

For the First Time in Weeks, Relief Sweeps over Austin

Making the click-through worthwhile: The Austin bomber is done in by one of his own devices; some new numbers suggest that a small but significant portion of Trump voters are tiring of the chaos and aren’t showing up to support other Republicans in 2018; and the mixed news for conservatives coming out of the ... Read More

The Baleful Effect of #MeToo on Campus

Remember the series of hurricanes that pounded the Caribbean last summer? Something like that has been occurring on college campuses, as they're hit by one destructive mania after another: diversity, Title IX, anti-speech protests. Now it's the #MeToo Movement. In this Martin Center article, British academic ... Read More


For your amusement, I hope, I’ve done a Jaywalking episode. It begins with a bit of the overture to Semiramide -- a Rossini opera I reviewed from the Met last week. Then I get into Russia and, after a while, China. The Marriott company fired an employee for “liking” a tweet by a Tibetan independence group. ... Read More
Politics & Policy

A Time for Choosing

This year’s Conservative Political Action Conference was controversial. Invitations to European nationalist populists such as Nigel Farage and Marion Maréchal-Le Pen (the niece of Marine Le Pen) caused many longtime conservatives to question whether they still belong to the conservative movement. Vocal critics ... Read More