Associated Press House Speaker John Boehner
That's a striking achievement, especially if you remember how this year started. We began the debt-ceiling debate on Democratic terms, with President Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner insisting on a "clean bill" that had no conditions attached. Then came threats about grandma not getting her Social Security check if Republicans didn't do as the president demanded, and folks likening Republicans and tea partiers to terrorists.
At the Economic Club of New York in May, Mr. Boehner calmly laid down his marker about what he called "the arrogant habits of Washington":
"[L]et me be as clear as I can be. Without significant spending cuts and reforms to reduce our debt, there will be no debt limit increase. And the cuts should be greater than the accompanying increase in debt authority the president is given. . . .
"And with the exception of tax hikes—which will destroy jobs—everything is on the table."
By this measure, Mr. Boehner comes away with most of what he wanted. He comes away with even more once you recognize that these negotiations typically are less about balancing the budget than about getting Republicans to agree to discredit themselves on taxes, usually in exchange for promises of spending restraint that never materialize. Ask George H.W. Bush.
This time the Democrats miscalculated. One mistake was thinking they were forcing the GOP into a rerun of 1995-96, when a Republican House overplayed its hand and ended up being blamed for shutting down the government. This time Republicans showed they had learned their lesson.
First, Mr. Boehner said he was against a shutdown, and put forth different solutions that would raise the debt ceiling without raising taxes. Second, by rejecting everyone else's plan while offering no plan of his own, the president effectively took himself out of the game. This curious exercise of presidential "leadership" transformed Mr. Obama into the Newt Gingrich of this debate, while Mr. Boehner looked serious and reasonable.
That seems to be the liberal reading as well. The New York Times appears to be reeling. Maureen Dowd quotes a Democrat as saying we're watching President Obama "turn into Jimmy Carter right before our eyes." The headline over Paul Krugman's column declares, "The President Surrenders." Equally gloomy is the editorial: "To Escape Chaos, a Terrible Deal."
Over at the New Republic, Jonathan Chait asks, "Did Obama Get Rolled?" Peter Beinhart at the Daily Beast answers the question with a piece headlined "How the Tea Party Won the Deal." Most argue that the president should have stood his liberal ground.
The problem with this view is that the more people see the president, the less they seem to like what he's selling. That's particularly true for the people he will need to win re-election. A new Gallup poll shows that only one of three independents now approves of how Mr. Obama is doing his job.
As for the right wing, at least for the moment the wounds on both sides of the debt-ceiling divide remain raw. Some who see the deal as another Republican sellout will fight down to the wire. Others rightly point out that the gains here are neither guaranteed nor all that substantive.
In this, the liberals are closer to the truth. Yes, Mr. Obama got a deal that takes him past next year's election, and can play himself up as the greater compromiser. The price, however, was high. Effectively he has surrendered to the Republican framework for debate on taxes and spending.
That puts 2012 on terms much friendlier to the argument that Republicans need to make to the American people. It runs like this: If you are want a government in Washington that spends less, that taxes less, and encourages our private sector to grow, you need a Republican in the White House.
Even Murphy might find the glass half-full.
No comments:
Post a Comment