Political Animal
Blog
The Republican National Committee today sent out what has to be the strangest press release I’ve seen in a long while. The RNC, in turns out, is outraged that President Obama hasn’t embraced the Simpson-Bowles debt-reduction plan.
There’s quite a bit of this going around. The Wall Street Journal recently published a similar condemnation, and a variety of Republican lawmakers have begun calling for a vote on the Simpson-Bowles blueprint.
This is getting pretty weird.
Look, I’ve never been especially fond of the Simpson-Bowles plan — its approach to Social Security “reforms” is a mess — so I’m delighted Democratic leaders didn’t pursue it, but perhaps now is a good time to remind the RNC and other conservatives of a significant detail: Republicans used to hate the Simpson-Bowles plan. In fact, the reason it’s called the “Simpson-Bowles plan” as opposed to the “Simpson-Bowles commission plan” is that GOP officials on the commission refused to support it, guaranteeing the commission’s failure. Indeed, how many of the Republican lawmakers on the commission agreed to support the chairmen’s plan? Zero.
(As with the super-committee, there’s a pattern of these panels coming up short because Republicans don’t believe in compromise.)
And why did Republicans hate Simpson-Bowles? Because it, among other things, raised taxes — a lot more than Obama’s debt-reduction plan, by the way — and slashed defense spending. It also allowed all of the Bush-era tax breaks to expire on time at the end of 2012.
Matt Yglesias recently asked a good question: “Do Simpson-Bowles fans know what’s in it?”
The Obama White House was the prime mover behind the creation of the Bowles-Simpson Commission and liberals didn’t really like its output, so ever since Obama chose not to throw his presidential weight behind the terms of their proposal citing Bowles-Simpson has become a staple of the president’s critics. The problem is that most of these critics don’t seem to be familiar with the content of the plan which has double the tax increases and double the defense spending cuts of the more recent plans out of the White House.
If it were really true that Bowles-Simpson represented the right pole of the debate in Washington, we’d be having a very different conversation. The more likely reality is simply that Bowles-Simpson is “bipartisan” and not what the president put on the table. Since various people want to criticize Obama, and want to be bipartisan, this is the flag they’re waving even while they simultaneously object to the president proposing more modestly scaled versions of the same ideas.
Part of me is left to assume that Republicans have decided they like Simpson-Bowles as some kind of bizarre knee-jerk reaction — Obama hasn’t embraced it, so it must be good. Two weeks ago, two Republican senators — Lindsey Graham and Mark Kirk — voiced support for the plan, apparently without having read it, and today, the Republican National Committee is pretending to be outraged that the president hasn’t endorsed the proposal.
News tip for the right: Simpson-Bowles is much further to the left that anything Republicans have been willing to even think about on debt reduction. Do they not understand this?
Here’s an even more salient question: if Obama were to announce today that he’s on board with Simpson-Bowles — he shouldn’t, but if he did — would the RNC, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and Republican lawmakers rejoice, or would they decide en masse that they’ve suddenly changed their minds?
Facebook
Twitter
Ken D. on December 01, 2011 2:57 PM:
In answer to your final question: Yes, they would change their minds. That is primarily what is going on here. The number one Republican priority is helping the very rich get even richer. The second is disagreeing with whatever seems to be to view of liberals and Democrats. And that is pretty much it.
Curmudgeon on December 01, 2011 3:00 PM:
In a world based on functional reality Obama should never and probably would never endorse Simpson-Bowles. But with the near certainty that Republicans will go negative on it as soon as he opens his mouth, it sure would be funny to watch them squirm if he did.
No, I guess that wouldn't happen either. They'll just deny they ever supported it in spite of all the evidence and go on sabotaging the country for Emperor Grover.
Peter C on December 01, 2011 3:06 PM:
They liked how it gutted Social Security and Medicare; that's all they really liked about it. They'd like those bits to be adopted since those bits of the package are acceptable to them. The other provisions will have to be removed (or better yet, inverted) to make them happy, though.
rockfish on December 01, 2011 3:08 PM:
Well if they are so fond of S-B, why not just draft it up as legislation and submit it for a vote? Why not throw it on the table as the starting position in place of the failed Super Committee since they still have to do something to cut $1.2T or face sequestration? There is nothing stopping them from doing this! Go ahead...make my day!
crw on December 01, 2011 3:11 PM:
I'm sure Republicans don't care what's in Simpson Bowles; it's just an excuse to blame Obama for the failure to pass any deficit reduction legislation- which is Congress' job, by the way.
Daryl McCullough on December 01, 2011 3:15 PM:
I think that, should Obama get re-elected, he should use Obama Derangement Syndrome to his advantage against the Republicans. On any particular issue, he should figure out what he wants, then get someone else to public announce the plan. Then Obama can condemn it as totally unacceptable. When the Republicans latch onto it, he can, after putting up a little fight, cave in and accept it, grudgingly, and apologize to his base about it.
Hmm. Maybe he's been using this tactic all along.
Gandalf on December 01, 2011 3:18 PM:
This is where Obama needs to take a page out of the Romney playbook. If he simply states he's against the Simpson-Bowles plan the republicans will go balls to the wall to get it done. As soon as they all get on board with it Obama should then come out in support of it. There, all the problems fixed except the dervish like consternation the republicans will be suffering enmass.
FriscoSF on December 01, 2011 3:23 PM:
...It also allowed all of the Bush-era tax breaks to expire on time at the end of 2012....
Sorry
If President Obama is re-elected....
(and he probably will be)
Obama will reach an 'Historic Compromise' in the 'Spirit of Bi-Partisanship' and Extend the Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich
Wait for it
Kurt Rex Cooper on December 01, 2011 3:24 PM:
The GOOP (Grand Old Obsteperious Party) does not care, any insult they can toss at Obama they are tossing... True or not they toss it.
Perspecticus on December 01, 2011 3:28 PM:
Givent he Right all weekend to spit and howl about how they want a vote on Simpson-Bowles. On Monday morning, Obama should come out strongly in favor of the vote. By Monday afternoon the Right will be in full-throated opposition. Then, come Tuesday morning, Obama should come out against a vote on Simpson-Bowles, triggering the mandatory swing in the other direction, accompanied by complaints about Obama's flip-floppping. Let it all stew until; Friday when, first thing in the morning, the White House releases a statement that the president has considered the GOP's position and supports a vote on Simpson-Bowles. By this time, I anticipate half of the heads in Republican circles will simply fall off, and another 25% will explode.
Of course, nothing would be accomplished by all this, but it sure would be funny.
DAY on December 01, 2011 3:39 PM:
I watched a bit of the House today, giving their speeches on various topics, and I have come to the conclusion that much of the Republican party lives in a fantasy world. One where endless Mad Max movies play out in real life. "Fetch ma .30-.30, Maw, them no good welfare city people is acomin' down the road!"
Redshift on December 01, 2011 3:39 PM:
This is not that complicated. The "like" it because it allows them to pretend they have an alternative and they're serious about the deficit. For reference, see "health insurance mandates."
zeitgeist on December 01, 2011 3:44 PM:
I am no fan of S-B, but I think Obama should take the risk of calling their bluff. He should schedule an immediate press conference, make a big deal of it:
"After no Republicans on the committee supported the plan of the co-chairs, I took Simpson-Bowles to be a stalled effort. And after the Republican congressional leadership rejected my grand compromise for $4 trillion in debt reduction this spring, which went further in many ways than Simpson-Bowles, it appeared they would reject any proposal that raised revenues. This seemed even more true when the Republicans first took the country to the brink of economic disaster in the debt ceiling negotiations, and then refused to consider any tax reforms in the supercommittee.
So imagine my pleasant surprise to hear today that the Republican National Committee and several leading Republicans are now complaining that I wont support Simpson-Bowles. They did make one misstatement, however: while I think Simpson-Bowles is an imperfect plan, and that the compromise I offered would do more good with less impact on our seniors and disabled, if they now are willing to sign Simpson-Bowles, so am I. I will in fact support it, and I call on Mitch McConnell and John Boehner to meet me in the Oval Office 3 hours from now to sign an agreement to those very terms."
Most likely, this is painless because it never happens.
But even if it does, despite its flaws that I dislike, I would be fine with it because in the end I fear the Congressional Dems will ultimately cave and do something even worse. At least this way the extent of the damage is known and balanced with some substantial political upside.
Rick Massimo on December 01, 2011 3:51 PM:
Two possibilities:
1) They love Simpson-Bowles EXACTLY because Obama is against it - i.e., because it won't come to pass. It's a free way of pointing at a deficit-reduction plan (granted, a crappy one) and saying "Hey, we were for that!"
2) Simpson-Bowles was what they wanted all along, and they pressed for something more draconian because why not? There is absolutely no penalty in Washington for advocating that poor people starve to death. Now they realize that it's the end of the line, that they're not going to get anything worse than Simpson-Bowles, so they're settling.
Which of these is the case? I don't know and I don't care. I learned from George W. Bush not to offer sympathy and understanding to people who hate America.
sven on December 01, 2011 3:56 PM:
Benen is still not cynical enough when it comes to modern politics. Key Republicans almost certainly know what is in the plan but recognize that most in the press do not. They will pretend to support this plan so long as they can beat up on Obama and rail against social security. As Redshift says, it allows them to pretend to care about the deficit. The MSM will talk about budget "hawks" and "fiscal conservatives" while ignoring the reality of their position. Until the press is ready to use the word 'lie' in public, Republicans will continue to use these tactics.
MNRD on December 01, 2011 4:00 PM:
I don't think that they are really "embracing" Simpson-Bowles. They are trying to have it both ways: being outraged that the President didn't embrace Simpson-Bowles and at the same time rejecting Simpson-Bowles themselves! They are trying to claim that the President has failed at achieving the "grand bargain" because he didn't embrace Simpson-Bowles, and at the same time maintain their own opposition to Simpson-Bowles!
It's typical Obama Derangement Disorder: they cannot resist making ANY attack on President Obama even if it contradicts their other attacks on the President and even if it contradicts what they themselves stand for!
Best recent example of Obama Derangement Disorder: Liz Cheney claiming that the President is deliberately trying to keep the unemployment rate HIGH in order to HELP his reelection chances! Thus, if the unemployment rate is high the President is certain to lose, but the President is deliberately trying to keep the unemployment rate high in order to HELP his reelection chances. Brilliant logic there!
Mitch on December 01, 2011 4:02 PM:
@zeitgeist,
I love you man. I really do (and have for years); even when I disagree with you, your intelligence and eloquence shine through. Your suggestion is exactly what Obama should do right now; put it all 100% on the Republicans, and make as public of an announcement of it as possible.
I'm not a huge fan of S-B either, but I can live with it. So can the nation, I think.
Though I think that the Repugs would try to squirm their way out of it, and it would never actually pass. Or they would want to send it back to committee and neuter it.
It would be fun to watch them scurry like ants.
martin on December 01, 2011 4:05 PM:
News tip for the right: Simpson-Bowles is much further to the left that anything Republicans have been willing to even think about on debt reduction. Do they not understand this?
If by "further to the left" you mean "heading in the direction of far right of center" then, ok. Otherwise, there is nothing "left" about Simpson-Bowles."
T2 on December 01, 2011 4:16 PM:
if you have heard Simpson interviewed lately, you know he is a blowhard crackpot who should never have been allowed on that commission (by Obama). The current GOP attraction to S/B has been to show Obama didn't heed his "own" commission's recommendations and therefore is not serious about debt reduction. Of course S/B was not the result of the commission's work and was defeated by vote. The "commission" never made any recommendation and that is why the Super C was formed...to try and get a consensus. They failed for the same reason the first commission did - GOP refusal to add taxes and GOP desire to kill Medicare and SocSec. S/B just provided Simpson a platform to get on a bunch of Talking Head shows and bloviate - something he does very, very well. Warning: don't watch him bloviate after you've eaten.
DisgustedWithItAll on December 01, 2011 4:19 PM:
There's only one explanation for the Tea-publicans: they need outrage about something. It doesn't have to make sense. It doesn't have to be consistent with anything they've done before. Hence, we've got:
- this
- requiring emergency FEMA funds be paid for by cutting somewhere else
- supporting the expiration of the payroll taxes
- supporting debt increase proposals to the debt reduction super-committee
- ...
The only question is what stupid shit will these single-digit IQ idiots come up with next?
digitusmedius on December 01, 2011 5:52 PM:
Steve, your gift for understatement is non-pareil.
Garlock on December 01, 2011 7:07 PM:
Steve, your posts are always wonderful, but I do have to correct you on a minor bit with this one.
You say that, "Indeed, how many of the Republican lawmakers on the commission agreed to support the chairmen’s plan? Zero."
Actually, that's not exactly true. All 3 of the Senate Republicans voted for it (Coburn, Gregg, and Crapo). 3 Democrat lawmakers actually voted against it as well (Baucus, Becerra, and Schakowsky).
Just thought you might want to know, or maybe make a correction.
Anonymous on December 02, 2011 12:12 AM:
Simpson-Bowels plan is fairly good but i think many liberal-leaning thinkers didn't like income tax rate on the top to be 25% from 35% even with elimination of tax expenditures and carbon tax.
their medicare and social security cut plans are much more gradual and thoughtful than anything Republicans suggested with a public option to obamacare which is why Paul Ryan voted against it.
election should decide if the plan should be adapted toward lift or right.
polls seem to show that people would want to keep obamacare with public option and raise income tax on the rich, though, especially because i think people will universally HATE carbon tax.
we dont have that much time left. we will see if anything happen in the lame duck session in 2012.
American Elect 2012! (those jokesters can sprit the Republican votes!!)
bigmama on December 02, 2011 12:16 AM:
wow, i can't believe some liberals who still don't believe that we need to cut medicare cost. simspon-bowels is centrist, which is left to today's far right republicans.
if you don't see it that way, you need to get out of your bubble, honey.
Jim V on December 19, 2011 9:19 AM:
Yeah Steve, like one commented, what do you mean by "left"?? S/B ain't 'left'??! S/B ain't perfect, but it's a good plan. Now on Obama and the GOP and the politics, who knows?
The GOP are very hypocritical, but so is the White House.
I didn't know the GOP was in favor of S/B all of a sudden?! Here's something to mull over. Right now the max tax rate on 'investment income' is 15%,(a historical low!). Investment income should be treated as "ordinary income"! Under S/B it would be! Buffett would pay more than 18% on his millions!
Now here's my question Steve.. You say the GOP wants to adopt S/B. Do you realize every one of those GOP candidates, wants to tax "investment income" at 0%!!!! Instead of Buffett paying his current low tax rate of 18%, it would be like 3% or 4%???!! Apparently the RNC and the candidates and the Tea Party; didn't get the same memo!??