End of the Grand Bargain - Brooks

[scandal 951]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/opinion/26brooks.html?_r=1

Op-Ed Columnist

Congress In the Lead

By DAVID BROOKS

Published: July 25, 2011

Some of us like to think big. We thought at the beginning of this debt crisis that it might be possible to reach a Grand Bargain. This deal would make a serious dent in the country’s awful debt problem. It would begin to reform entitlements. It would involve enough revenue to forestall ruinous cuts in domestic programs.

The Grand Bargain would yield obvious political benefits. President Obama would show independents that he could move to the center. Republicans would be able to brag about a big reduction in the size of government.

Alas, the dream of a Grand Bargain died Friday evening for three reasons.

First, it was always going to be difficult to round up the necessary Congressional votes. Republicans didn’t want the tax increases. Democrats didn’t want the entitlement cuts.

Second, the White House negotiating process was inadequate. Neither the president nor the House speaker ever wrote down and released their negotiating positions. Everything was mysterious, shifting and slippery. One day the president was agreeing to an $800 billion revenue increase; the next day he was asking for $400 billion more. Spending cuts that seemed to be part of the package suddenly seemed hollow. Negotiating partners disappeared.

It was phenomenally hard to figure out exactly who was offering what. Democrats in Congress were kept in the dark and were understandably suspicious. It was all a recipe for misunderstandings, hurt feelings and collapse.

Third, the president lost his cool. Obama never should have gone in front of the cameras just minutes after the talks faltered Friday evening. His appearance was suffused with that “I’m the only mature person in Washington” condescension that drives everybody else crazy. Obama lectured the leaders of the House and Senate in the sort of patronizing tone that a junior high principal might use with immature delinquents. He talked about unreturned phone calls and being left at the altar, personalizing the issue like a spurned prom date.

Obama’s Friday appearance had a gigantic unintended consequence. It brought members of Congress together. They decided to take control. The White House is now on the sidelines. Democratic and Republican Congressional leaders are negotiating directly with one another.

The atmosphere has changed. It now seems more likely that we will get a deal. It just won’t be as significant as we Grand Bargainers originally wanted.

John Boehner and Harry Reid will continue to verbally abuse each other. But there’s a script to their taunts. Nobody’s feelings are hurt. The old pros are perfectly capable of exchanging clichéd volleys in the morning and then going off and negotiating with each other in the afternoon.

Furthermore, the negotiating process has changed. On Monday, both Boehner and Reid produced proposals. The main points were written down and available for all to see. Each side not only represented its own views, it sent signals about where future agreements could be found.

Boehner released a plan that involved statutory spending caps with an enforcement mechanism to make sure the cuts are real. Reid released a plan involving bigger long-term spending cuts, with much of the heavy lifting done by a bipartisan select committee. These two carefully coordinated plans are different, but they naturally fit together.

With a little imagination, it’s easy to see how they could be merged to give everybody something. Republicans would get some guaranteed spending reductions. Democrats in swing states could campaign on a nominal multitrillion-dollar debt reduction while protecting entitlements. Republicans wouldn’t have to vote on raising the debt ceiling until after some guaranteed spending cuts. Democrats could count the reduced Iraq and Afghanistan war costs as part of the spending reductions.

It’s not clear if an arrangement would really push the next debt ceiling fight until after the 2012 election, but even that could presumably be fudged, especially if Democrats were willing to give the Republicans broader spending cuts and a balanced-budget amendment vote in the Senate.

On the one hand, there has been an outbreak of sanity since Congress took control. On the other hand, the deal they are working on doesn’t come close to cutting the $4 trillion or so many say would be required to prevent a downgrade of the U.S. debt.

This should be a humbling moment for the White House, and maybe a learning experience. There are other people who have been around Washington a long time. They know how to play this game. As a result of their efforts, we may see some debt reduction but nothing big and transformational. Obama won’t get his centrist election boost. Republicans won’t have to wrestle with tax increases. Democrats won’t have to wrestle with entitlement reform.

The Old Guard wins. Obama’s televised campaign speech Monday night was behind the times. The action has moved to Capitol Hill.

[Ban Hammer 13,651]

He talked about unreturned phone calls and being left at the altar, personalizing the issue like a spurned prom date.

[mawilson 2,133]

Some of us like to think big. We thought at the beginning of this debt crisis that it might be possible to reach a Grand Bargain. This deal would make a serious dent in the country’s awful debt problem. It would begin to reform entitlements. It would involve enough revenue to forestall ruinous cuts in domestic programs.

Really? "Some of us" must be really naïve. I never thought that for a second.

Edited July 26, 2011 by mawilson

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Really? "Some of us" must be really naïve.

Either that or "some of us" have simply not paid any attention for the last couple of years.

[mawilson 2,133]

Either that or "some of us" have simply not paid any attention for the last couple of years.

Bottom line, the government never cuts anything. Never has, never will. The best they

can do is cut the rate of growth. Which is the equivalent of your wife saying,

"Honey, I just saved us money by buying this really expensive thing which was on sale

(and for which we have no earthly use)"

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Bottom line, the government never cuts anything. Never has, never will. The best they

can do is cut the rate of growth.

Just read in an article that in real dollar terms, the only time federal spending has decreased year-over-year was in 2010. Given the extraordinary measures passed as a result of and in response to the economic crash, that's neither surprising nor a real cut. However, measured on GDP, federal spending has actually been reduced quite often on a year-over year basis - I think 19 times over the last four decades was what the article stated. Which makes sense seeing that federal spending has been hovering around 20% - 21% on average over the last few decades. The overall trend is up, though.

Which is the equivalent of your wife saying, "Honey, I just saved us money by buying this really expensive thing which was on sale (and for which we have no earthly use)"

Good, at least I'm not alone on this. So let me ask you, do you also get in trouble for daring to make the absurd suggestion to your wife that she would have actually saved a lot more if she had simply resisted buying that thing that nobody needs altogether?

Edited July 26, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[mawilson 2,133]

Good, at least I'm not alone on this. So let me ask you, do you also get in trouble for daring to make the absurd suggestion to your wife that she would have actually saved a lot more if she had simply resisted buying that thing that nobody needs altogether?

Naturally