Calling the Wrong Bluff

[Tom Rinaldo]

Apoologies to those who already came across this OP embedded as a reply in other threads, but rather than keep pasting it into more threads it makes more sense to create an OP and focus discussion regarding it here:

There is more than one way to look at the reports coming out of the default talks taking place in Washington DC this weekend. The Hill reports that the White House says it was willing to pursue entitlement cuts as part of a grand bargain but Republican balked at including any new revenue sources in a final deal. Some say the Republicans blinked, and maybe they did. Some say the White House called their bluff, and maybe they did.

I think the White House called the wrong Republican bluff. Democrats had offered trillions of dollars in spending cuts and showed willingness to settle on closing a couple of outrageous tax loopholes that even Bohener couldn't defend with real conviction. The spending cuts Democrats were poised to sign off on cut 4 or 5 times much from the deficit than the loophole closings would have contributed.

That was when to call their bluff. Republicans got to slash trillions from government spending in return for sacrificing stuff like tax write offs on private jets and ending tax subsidies for Big Oil, the most profitable corporations in America who get more from the government than they give to it. Try to sell refusing that deal and forcing an economic crisis instead to the American public, and you can see how weak a hand Bohener was holding.

By not simply calling that bluff instead of offering a grand bargain instead here is what the Democrats lost.

Number one, as unlikely as you say it may have been that Republicans would ever have taken that deal, stranger things have happened before in politics. Yes it was a long shot, but would you feel comfortable playing Russian Roulette with one bullet in a hundred chamber gun instead of in a standard six shooter. It is reckless to unnecesarily bet your politcal soul no matter how good the odds are in your favor

Number two, Democratrs just blunted the best political argument in their favor heading into the 2012 elections by putting Medicare Medicaid and Social Security on the potential chopping block. The clearest most winning contrast to Republicans that Democrats had was a reputation of being time tested true guardians of those programs who will defend them to their political death. Now that no longer is so clear cut. Now it looks like Democrats could sell them out if the price is right.

Number three. An offer once made never simply vanishes without a trace. It permanently establishes that Democrats were open to making that type of deal with Republicans. You might hsave noticed that the need to raise the debt ceiling has a tendency to come along again every so often. What if Republicans insist that cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits be placed on the table for the next round of talks, and what if Republicans prove slightly more flexible next time? It is much harder to refuse to do something that you have shown a willingness to do before. Think of it as gathering dust somewhere, sitting on a table.

I'm pretty certain what the next Republican move is going to be now. They will propose taking the notes from those never completed negotiations with Biden and pulling out of them all of the spending cuts that Democrats showed a willingness to consider. They will say, "This isn't enough, we need more, but for the sake of the nation we propose moving forward now and craft a solution that implements those cuts and doesn't raise taxes. It's a compromise we all need to make for our country even though no one is getting exactly what they want." What will Democrats do then?

[ProSense]

1. "I think the White House called the wrong Republican bluff. "

Since this is speculation season, what if the WH continues to pursue a deal even after getting Boehner to back down (tactical win)?

The entire OP is based on a premise that lacks knowledge of a not yet announced deal.

"I'm pretty certain what the next Republican move is going to be now."

Let me guess: They'll trick the Democrats?

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. I was typing a reply while you were posting yours that speaks to points you raise

I think it narrows down what is and what is not speculation. Regarding what I think the next Republican move will be, you don't have to guess, I described exactly what I think it will be.

[bahrbearian]

4. Bohner didn't lose anything by "backing down" he saved face with

his party, they know how far Obama will capitulate, he will just come back and ask for more. Obama can't take back things he put on the table. They never give an inch , and why should they. when they are given everything they want.

[bornskeptic]

5. Boehner would have a hard time selling $40 billion in tax increases to the teabaggers.

Obama's proposal included $1 trillion in tax increases. If Boehner agreed to that they would crucify him. President Obama is far more astute than his online critics could even imagine. I don't know the details of his proposal, but he wouldn't have made it if he weren't sure that he could get solid support from Congressional Democrats on it. Republicans may want to cut benefits, though they won't admit it, but the President only wants to cut costs. Of course he also knew that even if Boehner accepted it, it could only pass if most of the votes came from Democrats, which would heat up the brewing civil war in the Republican Party even further.

[pscot]

7. I wish I had access to whatever it is that you smoke

Your fantasy life is a lot richer than mine. All I can see is what's in front of me.

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. Here is the closest thing I've seen to a reliable source indicating the President's willingness

...to pursue a grand deficit reduction grand bargain that would, among other things, "give ground on entitlements":

White House says Boehner balked over taxes, not entitlements
By Sam Youngman - 07/09/11 10:01 PM ET
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/170553-white-house-says-boehner-balked-over-taxes-not-entitlements

Boehner "couldn't do revenues from wealthiest Americans," a White House official said.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) all but extinguished hopes for a big deficit reduction deal because he refused to support any tax increases for the wealthiest Americans, a senior administration official said Saturday night.

The White House official also disputed the charge that President Obama was not willing to give ground on entitlement programs, saying that is "not true."

" couldn't do revenues from wealthiest Americans, he walked away over that," the official said. "They are telling people we couldn't do entitlements, not true."


It is duly noted that no definition was given over what "giving ground on entitlements" means exactly. Nor is the White House official named. But it is extremely unluikely that The Hill would use that phrasing if the source was not, in fact, a White House official who agreed to be quoted. There are other terms used to describe leaks and trial baloons that are not official; terms like "unidentified source", "official who asked not to be named", and "someone close to the President" come to mind.

While "giving ground on entitlements" is admittedly a vague term that leaves ample wiggle room, the impression conveyed by that term is far less vague. It is natural to make the assumption that "giving ground" means giving ground to the Republican position on that matter. We know the Republican position on that matter, it was authored by Paul Ryan and passed by the House in the Republican budget plan. So "giving ground" naturally implies some movement in that direction. At the very least the Administration has to know know that many will, fairly justifyably, read it that way. It opens Pandoras Box and allows suspician to enter that Democrats are willing to consider a future Social Security system and Medicare program that falls somewhere in between the way Republicans and Democrats now want it run.

[TheKentuckian]

6. I don't get what the upside is supposed to be other than framing that we are "the adults in the

room" for the benefit of a small and fickle audience that does not appear to pay attention to "inside baseball".

Especially when the President still is talking "a balance approach", "trimming benefits", and "moving in their direction".

[pscot]

8. If we move any further in their direction

we're going to meet ouselves coming around the other side, and we'll look hust like them.