Chait thinks not:
Now, by all accounts, Obama is prepared to extend the Bush tax cuts up to $400,000 a year. Or maybe more. As of Friday, Obama had told Republicans they could have the tax cuts extended on income up to $400,000 if they would accept the estate tax rising from its Bush-set rates. As of last night, Democrats were conceding the estate tax plus the higher exemption on tax rates, which had risen to $450,000. And Republicans still hadn’t agreed to it! Why would they, when Democrats keep hurling money at them? By midnight, Republicans might be getting the Saturday Night Live version of Obama’s offer (“a 1% raise on the top two Americans — just two people“). * * *
The negotiating style Obama has displayed in these instances is what poker players call “tight-weak.” A tight-strong player avoids throwing in his chips, saving them for a big hand, which he plays aggressively in hopes of a huge win. A loose-weak player plays lots of hands, bluffing frequently. Tight-weak is the worst of all worlds — when you have a weak hand, you lose, and when you have a strong hand, you fail to maximize your position.
Y’know, it may not have been Harry Truman’s worst quality that he played poker every week with his pals.
It might behoove the TNR writers, to say nothing of the hysterics in the Huffington Post headline writing cubicle, to wait for the final parameters of an actual deal before they start ridiculing the president for living up to his own promise that nobody would get all or even most of what they want in this pathetic end-of-the-year anti-morality play.
If the president and the Democrats do concede a higher figure on the upper bracket Bush tax cuts (cuts that are, in tandem with the two wars GW launched, the principal contributors to the debt), I don’t see how that is anything but a small gain for them, because it means either of two things will happen: (1) the GOP will destroy the deal because of their superstition against raising taxes on anybody, push the negotiations over the cliff and prove that they are the nihilistic hostage-takers that they are or (2) The GOP will agree and some small measure of tax equity will be enacted that is roughly consistent with the Clinton tax rates. Clinton campaigned on the $250K division in 1992, and it has always bugged me that Obama didn’t simply adjust that figure for inflation and campaign on its 2012 equivalent. $250K seems low to me, so if he signs a deal that draws the line somewhere between $400K and $500K, that seems more reasonable to me. And wouldn’t that be consistent with basic car-lot negotiating: you start low or high, depending on your position, and head for something in the middle? It seems a low price, actually, for avoiding the real pain that would be extracted by gutting unemployment, raising taxes on the lower middle and middle income brackets and injecting even more pessimism into this wobbly “recovery.”
The Republican opposition to tax hikes exposes their hysteria over the debt as a sham. If the debt were so important, they would be willing to raise taxes. It really is that simple.
On a broader note, I thought that somehow when Obama won, Republicans would calm down with the realization that over half the country *agrees* with the President. But things have gotten much worse, the shrillness has risen an octave. Hell, a woman can’t even get a concussion that results in a blood clot without wingnuts accusing her of trying to dodge Congressional hearings. Republicans aren’t about sane, practical policy. They are about Fox News and TV ratings, and the more contrary they are, the longer the battle, the more publicity they get, the more full are their coffers.
I certainly didn’t expect them to get with reality, Ignatius; but I did expect Obama to develop more confidence. Can’t say I was any less wrong than you.
Ignatius wrote:
>>
I thought that somehow when Obama won, Republicans would calm down with the realization that over half the country *agrees* with the President. But things have gotten much worse, the shrillness has risen an octave.
<<
I never thought the Republicans would take a message from any of that. They don't have to do so– until the scales drop from the eyes of the folks who elected them, facing reality puts Republican congressmen's careers at risk. And to my ears, the shrillness seems about the same.
One problem with a couple of blogs I read (Lawyers Guns and Money is a major example) is the folks there read and follow certain lunatics whose views I could live forever and not encounter, happily. I've just got to quit hitting the links to confirm the drivel is as fool-tastic as reported. It is consistently appalling to me that Althouse and Reynolds teach constitutional law at accredited law schools (when one of the LGM folk posted about Reynolds looking a fool for doubting Clinton was ill, and noted that the blood clot proved the point, I thought, "Nope. Reynolds will double down on this, would be my bet, and look an even bigger fool." And, of course, he did it with an assist from Althouse. Ooh, they wrote, the blood clot isn't that serious, and I'll bet those lefties weren't sympathetic when Nixon had one in his leg! How do people get so far out there?).
Have you read what Obama said in the press conference today, Anderson? It’s interesting, because he highlights what is not part of the deal in a way that removes a lot of cover the Republicans needed, and may actually blow the deal up in an interesting way, by provoking a Republican renege. It almost– almost– makes me want to withhold judgment while the next two hands play out. Even if he makes it work, though, I don’t think he should ever have drawn such a firm line at $250K and then allowed the negotiations to move the line.
I saw that. Talk is cheap, whiskey costs money. We shall see.
As I explained to my politely neutral (but leaning-right) colleague today, Republicans hate Democrats 90% of the time, their own party 10% of the time, whereas with Dems, it’s more 50-50. One must have a certain degree of self-loathing to be a Democrat.
Yesterday afternoon I wrote: “provoking a Republican renege”
Apparently, that’s what’s about to happen– the House Repubs are going to amend the bill so it won’t pass. Two observations: First, I don’t know how you negotiate with the Congressional Republicans, who do not negotiate in good faith. They always leave themselves this out: Oh, we have to take it back to that other guy. The one who wouldn’t talk to you. I don’t think it’s a viable alternative to say: “Well, they don’t negotiate in good faith, so we refuse to talk to them.” But I’m not sure what the alternative is. In business dealing, you can almost always say, “I don’t deal with people who operate that way.” Obama doesn’t have that alternative. Second observation: Whatever the right answer may be, it has seemed clear to me that Obama is picking a clearly wrong one. He bids against himself, every time, apparently in the interest of seeming to be willing to deal. Two things I find unbearable in negotiations: Someone on my side wanting to bid against himself, and someone on my side who draws clear lines in the sand, says they will not cross them, and then does so. Obama manages to do both. I can’t imagine why, except perhaps that this sort of negotiation is one thing he has never been called on to do before becoming president. As a legislator, he never got to that level, I would assume.
Yep, Obama is maddening. Not looking forward to the debt-ceiling fight if this is how he’s going to act.
Tho I do hear that some of the Senate Democrats themselves are not giving him solid support, agreeing with the GOP on some things.