Political Animal
Blog
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) made an appeal to super-committee members yesterday, urging them to work towards a debt-reduction solution built on areas of agreement between the parties. If only his argument was as sensible as it sounds.
Boehner encouraged the committee to hone in on working to reform entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in order to meet the committee’s mandate to drop $1.5 trillion from the deficit in the next decade. […]
Explaining that common ground is not analogous to compromise, the speaker called on Democrats and Republicans to come together on areas of agreement without violating the principles that brought them to elected office.
“Common ground doesn’t mean compromising on your principles. Common ground means finding the places where your agenda overlaps with that of the other party, locking arms, and getting it done, without violating your principles,” Boehner said. “The jobs crisis in America today demands that we seek common ground, and act on it where it’s found.”
That seems fair, doesn’t it? Democrats have a policy agenda; Republicans have a very different agenda; and to get something done, the two sides should focus on areas of commonality.
The context, however, makes all the difference. In this case, Boehner was talking about entitlements, and support in both parties for making structural “reforms” to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. If Democrats and Republicans agree that entitlement changes are worthwhile to address long-term financing challenges, in the Speaker’s mind, it means the parties should “lock arms” and adopt these changes.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) made a very similar argument over the summer: “We both agree on doing something that’s good for the country, which is dealing with entitlements. Why don’t we just do that? Why do we have to sit here and say we still got to raise taxes when we don’t agree on that?”
The problem here is that GOP leaders don’t seem to understand what the words “compromise” and “common ground” mean.
Consider an example. Let’s say I go to pick up some lunch at the sandwich shop around the corner. The guy behind the counter and I are prepared to engage in a transaction — I’ll give him $5 and he’ll give me a sandwich. But I decide I’m not fully satisfied with the terms. “Look,” I tell the guy, “both of us agree that I should get the sandwich. It’s already right there on the counter, and this is the area where both of our agendas overlap. So, let’s focus on this area of common ground, I’ll eat the sandwich, and we can argue about the $5 later.”
This is, in effect, what Republican leaders are telling Democrats. Leading Dems in Congress and at the White House have told the GOP they’re willing to accept some entitlement “reforms” in exchange for some additional tax revenue from the wealthy. It’s a balanced approach that calls for broad sacrifice, which addresses the debt problem created by Republicans over the last decade.
Boehner and Cantor are saying, “Well, we both want to tackle entitlements, but we disagree about taxes, so just give us what we want since it’s an area of ‘common ground.’”
What GOP leaders don’t seem to understand — or at least choose to be confused about — is that giving one side everything it wants, and demanding no concessions at all from that side, is in no way similar to “finding the places where your agenda overlaps with that of the other party, locking arms, and getting it done.”
Facebook
Twitter
Brenna on November 01, 2011 10:41 AM:
What I'm most concerned with is will Patty Murray and the other super committee dems concede and offer up cuts to entitlements. If they don't realize how mad people are at Congress and the lack of fairness in the system, boy are they going to find out fast.
It worries me a lot because than the republicans will have a decent shot at the presidency + senate & house. I just can't understand what Patty Murray is thinking. Clueless.
chopin on November 01, 2011 10:43 AM:
To follow up on your prior post of great ads, can we expect the Democratic party to produce an ad that highlights the GOP definition of compromise? One that acts out your scenario? So that the idea is permanently ingrained in every voters head that every time the GOP talks about compromise they laugh the GOP leadership off the stage? PLEASE!!!!!
jim filyaw on November 01, 2011 10:48 AM:
i recall jfk pointing out the soviet's approach to bargaining as being, 'what's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable.' he said he didn't bargain like that. neither should the democrats.
stormskies on November 01, 2011 10:48 AM:
Boner, et-al, makes these duplicitous sound bytes so that the corporate puppets like Brian Williams can peddle them on their nightly propaganda = news shows.
SW on November 01, 2011 10:48 AM:
I blame Democratic messaging for this. They should always be saying, "Social Security is a stand alone program that pays for itself. It has generated a huge surplus unlike the rest of the federal budget. We believe that the program is best put on a footing of long term fiscal stability by asking the well off to pay more. End of story. When our colleagues across the aisle are prepared to compromise they will find a willing partner. Medicare and Medicaid are victims of out of control health care costs. We believe that their fiscal problems are best solved by serious efforts to control health care costs. When our friends across the aisle are prepared to compromise they will find a willing partner. End of story" This is not difficult. The rest can be settled at the ballot box.
Neil B on November 01, 2011 11:01 AM:
For one thing, Cantor is such a jackass he doesn't realize that a tax increase - lifting the cap on income subject to FICA etc. - would be the easiest way to resolve what problems there are with Social Security etc.
Rachel on November 01, 2011 11:02 AM:
Unfortunately, the Democrats are all too willing to give that sandwich away for free.
DAY on November 01, 2011 11:02 AM:
I am not concerned. Congress- both parties- have long perfected the game of "Kick the Can Down the Road".
Nothing will happen until 2013. And not then, because a new congress will be in place, ready to kick the can again.
c u n d gulag on November 01, 2011 11:08 AM:
Somehow, I don't see this ending well for 99% of us.
The only "Common Ground" I see between the two parties are rich and corporate donors.
Josef K on November 01, 2011 11:10 AM:
While I don't put it past the Democrats on this panel (I refuse to call it a super-committee) to bollocks things at the last moment and craft something truly hideous, my more immediate concern is the cuts that are supposed to be triggered if said panel fails.
Personally, I suspect Congress will find some excuse not to initiate said cuts, and we'll be right back where we started. Wash, rinse, repeat...at least until the Republicans crash the economy on purpose. Then its guillotine time.
Conservative1 on November 01, 2011 11:29 AM:
To even suggest that Boehner "doesn't understand" or "is confused about" the consequences of what he's saying (if the other side falls for it) is ludicrous. He's deploying a carefully crafted tactic the entire purpose of which is to dupe the American people into thinking that the Republicans are "reasonable," even though entirely unwilling to ever compromise (he adds, "on our principles" because that makes it sound like he has some). There's no way around it: the Republicans are out to destroy the American Dream and put in its place the Social Darwinist's Dream.
Tony Greco on November 01, 2011 11:36 AM:
Boehner's argument can be turned against him. It takes positive legislative action to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond 2012. Most Dems agree with most republicans that the middle-class tax cuts should be extended. The disagreement is over the tax cuts for the rich. So why not extend the middle class tax cuts (common ground!) while allowing the tax cuts for the rich expire?
Marko on November 01, 2011 12:08 PM:
"nothing will be agreed to until everything is agreed to" - John Boehner March 31, 20100
Dredd on November 01, 2011 12:10 PM:
Mr. Boehner appears to be an expert in chaos theory, otherwise his base would think worse of him.
JJM on November 01, 2011 12:22 PM:
With 9% approval rating for him and his "Congress" one wonders at the continued belligerence he displays: the belligerence of the cornered rat? Does he think this makes him look John Wayne-esque?
I just do not get the GOP's complete and utter intransigence; its determination to undermine everything beneficial that the government does and to ramp up the bombing and military side. (See Krugman, yesterday's NYT column.)
They are NOT speaking to the people, just to their 1% donors and puppetmasters.
What I also do NOT get is why the 1% puppetmasters are so shortsighted, greedy and destructive? They actually do not have to be so.
FRP on November 01, 2011 12:26 PM:
It is not only vanity that makes our dear friends on the right clamor for an M C Escher architectural impossibility , it is for cash too .
When all is said and done it is nice to think the elaborate finesse of the possible devoted in fact to the endurance and commitment to the unreal reduction of society to grovelers (Takers) , and real mens (and wimins tu) (Makers) .
Accomplishing this will permit the perfectly sane and logical opening of the floodgates where necessary to control the disgusting proliferation of grubby (and whiny) Takers .
Let them become clean in the flood of opportunity that will , Johnstown like , leaving the remaining to rise , this kind of charitable right wing challenge . So we will see the more able ready to float to the top .
Anonymous on November 01, 2011 12:50 PM:
"It’s a balanced approach that calls for broad sacrifice, which addresses the debt problem created by Republicans over the last decade."
Steven there is nothing remotely "balanced" about the proposal the Democrats have put forward. Huge cuts that will negatively impact middle class and poorer Americans for a tiny increase in tax rates for the richest of the rich.
You keep using words like "balanced" and "moderate". I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.
TCinLA on November 01, 2011 1:06 PM:
“Common ground doesn’t mean compromising on your principles. Common ground means finding the places where your agenda overlaps with that of the other party, locking arms, and getting it done, without violating your principles,”
I well remember, 30+ years ago in Sacramento, when a "bloodsport" diehard Democratic partisan like myself could engage in exactly this kind of effort with equally-committed Republicans, and come up with those "areas of common ground" we both could accept, writing it down on cocktail napkins and each taking it to our respective bosses, secure in the knowledge each would stick to what had been agreed. But that was back when both sides had the "common values" of wanting to advance the common good. Unlike today. I'm sure even a moronic asshole like Bonehead remembers too, in the dark of the night when he wakes up wondering how the hell he got there and what he's going to do to keep Eric the Kapo from stabbing him in the back.
Dan B on November 01, 2011 3:30 PM:
Both sides agree that serious cuts to entitlements need to be made. Our promises to pay greatly exceed our ability to pay, so both sides are right.
The Republicans don't want to raise taxes because they're worried...
1) Increasing taxes on the rich may decrease revenue (taxes collected from the rich increased after the Bush tax cuts).
2) "The Rich" is code for "Small Business" which is the primary job creation engine in this country. We have a job problem, increasing taxes on small business won't help.
3) There's serious concern that Obama and his fellows will pocket any tax increases and not reform entitlements. A tax increase now in exchange for a promise that future congresses will deal with entitlements isn't a good deal, but that is what has been offered.
4) After the Tea Party nearly shut down the government over spending... government spending still went up, not down. "Spending addiction" is a good analogy.
The Dems on the other hand want to raise taxes for social justice and never talk about whether raising taxes is a good idea from an economic standpoint.
I'm also not impressed with the concept you should force someone to do something they think is bad for the country before you'll do something you both think is good.
Doug on November 01, 2011 8:53 PM:
Dan B @ 3:30 PM, a few points:
1) That increase in taxes paid by the rich; it wouldn't have been simply because they had MORE of the national wealth, now would it? A lot more, actually.
2) Nor is "the rich" code for small business. It's a description of people and companies that in no way can be described as "small businesses" without flimflamming, obfuscation or outright lying. Small businesses actually contribute to this country's economic well-being, while most of those classified as "the rich" shirk their financial responsibilities or try to place them in the wallets of the remaining 90-95% of the population.
3) In this instance it's Republicans using "code" words: when they say "reform entitlements" they actually mean "gut something I'll (presumably) never need".
The only "entitlement" that has ANY need of actual reform would be Medicare. Any reforms contemplated, however, DO NOT include either raising the eligibility age OR providing "vouchers" of decreasing value for retirees. Annual increases in Medicare costs are already at a lower rate than PRIVATE HCI! If you're truly worried about slowing the increasing costs of providing HC, to the elderly or anyone else, I'd suggest you check out the ACA. There are several parts of that legislation specifically designed to contain and reduce the cost of providing HCI to those who need it.
SS pays for itself. We boomers have paid into the Trust Fund to provide for our retirements. Republicans want to privatize SS, thus destroying its' ability to provide the service it was set up for in order to provide even greater profits for Wall Street operators. And much riskier retirements for the vast majority of the citizenry. How either of those actions would qualify as "reform" is beyond me.
By the way, "entitlements" means just what it says: we taxpayers have paid into these programs and are "entitled" to receive the benefits they provide. These are REAL entitlements, not the faux type that many Republicans believe accrue to themselves only due to their "Republicanism"; ie, power, wealth, bigotry, etc.
A little Consitutional note: No Congress can limit what a future Congress can do. The present one can pass a LAW that says all budgets MUST be balanced. The very next Congress can repeal that law. Or, if Republicans control it, most likely they'd just ignore it.
4) Government spending went up after the shut-down because that "spending" was already authorized and Republicans, rather than agree to very modest tax increases in exchange for rather drastic and IMMEDIATE spending cuts, blew off a chance to CUT spending. Such actions could lead one to believe they really don't care about the deficit. Imagine.
YOU can refer to it as "social justice" if you wish, but as I abjure the use of "code", I call it what it is: "national economic well-being". The greatest economic expansion experienced by this country occurred when top marginal rates were 80-90%. During that period, the rich got richer and so did everyone else. Apparently that really p*ssed off the rich; what good is it just to "get richer" if everyone else is as well? However, that's been rectified under the present tax structure as ONLY the rich are getting richer; everyone else is, if they're lucky, standing still or, most usually, falling behind.
Should you not believe the assertions in my above, feel free to look up the data for the period covering 1946-1980. You might also wish to check the stock market results for those periods when a Democrat occupied the White House, very instructive.
If what you really care about is the deficit and the national economy, that is...
Dan B on November 02, 2011 4:50 AM:
Doug,
First of all, Paragraphs are your friend.
RE: 1
There's a difference between "income" and "wealth". If you don't understand it, educate yourself.
RE: 2
The upper 1% of income starts at about a quarter million dollars a year. The WSJ has reported north of 70% of 'people' falling into that income category are reporting business income.
RE: 3 Doug: "The only "entitlement" that has ANY need of actual reform would be Medicare."
The US's GNP is 14 Trillion dollars. The Present value of the unfunded obligations of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security is 45.8 Trillion. That doesn't include the debt or other obligations, but if we put them in then we're up to $62 Trillion.
Just to take Social Security (which is the least problematic), it needs to be indexed to life expectancy (which increases by a year every 4 on average), and we need to do something about the trust fund not existing. I.e. SS is paygo, it has no way to save money, the Trust Fund was a promise that future politicians would cover SS out of general taxes. If SS were to fund itself from payroll taxes, they'd eventually have to increase them by 50%.
Doug: "By the way, "entitlements" means just what it says: we taxpayers have paid into these programs and are "entitled" to receive the benefits they provide."
"Paygo" means you're wrong, $62T means you're wrong, and the Supreme Court disagrees with you. They've already ruled that Congress change benefits with a stroke of the pen.
Doug: "No Congress can limit what a future Congress can do"
Correct. See also previous statement about the Supremes.
Doug: "The present one can pass a LAW that says all budgets MUST be balanced. The very next Congress can repeal that law. Or, if Republicans control it, most likely they'd just ignore it."
This is an amazing statement considering how many years it's been since the Dems produced a budget.
RE: 4 Doug: "Republicans, rather than agree to very modest tax increases in exchange for rather drastic and IMMEDIATE spending cuts"
10 year budget accounting, remember? The only reason Obama insists on that is because the tax increases were right away, but the cuts were in the future. On a side note "washington-speak" is deliberately confusing on this matter. Most politicians, specifically including Obama and all Dems, insist on mislabeling "reductions in the increase of spending" as a "cut", even if absolute spending goes up even after the "cut".
THAT is why even after the tea party's "cuts", spending still went up.
Doug: "The greatest economic expansion experienced by this country occurred when top marginal rates were 80-90%... 1946-1980"
World War 2 destroyed the rest of the world's infrastructure and killed their young men. THAT is the context in which you got to combine "boom" and "very high taxes" (it's also important to adjust the top rates for inflation but that's a side note).