So who blinked?
Too early to tell; we need to see how the expiration of the Bush tax cuts play out.
The obvious answer is that the Democrats blinked. That’s probably the safe answer as well given Republicans were successful in maintaining their fealty to their pledge to Grover Norquist to not raise taxes. In addition they’ve also went against the will of the people per congressional elections by gaining an equal amount of seats on the new congressional group to debate the budget.
I think Republicans’ pledge to not raise taxes, but more importantly their fealty to their pledge, convincingly demonstrates their disinterest in what is required to better manage the debt, improve the labor market, and optimize economic growth, i.e., the country’s interests. It of course also reveals their hypocrisy when it comes to voting with popular opinion which they claimed was the proper framing for the health care debate (where they also lied about what that popular sentiment was).
I haven’t seen enough analysis yet to figure out who the Democrats sold down the river (doctors?), but I’m sure their compromises yielded losers beyond those harmed by the Republicans’ position. However I would vote yes if I were a Congressman for the simple matter that we can’t allow the country to go into default where we know far more Demorats demonstrate this behavior than Republicans. It is the Democrats’ superior integrity that allows the Republicans to hold the country hostage.
What’s particularly repugnant is the recent results of compromise over the past eleven or so years. Instead of a compromise that leads to better results, which is what I’m used to normally happening in the business-world (though obviously not always), we instead consistently experience an arguable though I think flawed Democratic approach compromising with the obviously catastrophic position of Republicans.
Was it God who blinked?
Michael, I haven’t done a lot of business negotiating but the rule I always heard was that the side most willing to walk away from the table had the advantage.
Hypothetical question: how bad would a debt-extension deal have to be for the Democrats to decide that it would be better to run up against it and trigger a massive but temporary reduction of Government services?
Given that there is no tax break included, it would seem the Dems blinked. But given that the trigger–if insufficient budgetary adjustments are made, which will require tax increases–slashes defense spending, did Boehner actually blink? (Or did he just trick the Tea Partiers by putting them in a position where they would have to face up to the reality of budget choices?) (Of course he doesn’t have their votes on it yet…)
But given that the trigger … slashes defense spending, did Boehner actually blink? (Or did he just trick the Tea Partiers by putting them in a position where they would have to face up to the reality of budget choices?)
Or is there now nothing, absolutely nothing anymore, so sacred as tax cuts?
D.C. Sessions to me:Michael, I haven’t done a lot of business negotiating but the rule I always heard was that the side most willing to walk away from the table had the advantage.
There are quite a few factors that determine who has more power than the other party, that being one of them. However in most negotiations I’ve been involved in both parties need the other; therefore other factors play a part beyond negotiating power and abilities. An example of one of those factors is the workloads on both parties’ agents, they both normally seek to be productive which results in both parties willingly incorporating the interests of each so a fair, equitable arrangement is met for both in an efficient manner. One should also remember that nearly all negotiations occur within an environment where the two parties have other on-going dealings as well which at least in business, limit one party taking too much advantage over the other.
I think the public has this idea that negotiations are always formal with agents of each party negotiating and then going back to their principals and legal teams for input/authorization. Examples of this form are management-union negotiations which make the news (but not the ones which don’t) or a deal to buy a company from another company where the buyers and sellers have no major plans to do business each other after the sale. This effectively makes it an “arms-length” deal with no concern about future implications if one party takes advantage of the other. However these two types of negotiating frameworks don’t relate as well to legislation debates or even most business negotiations since the two parties are also simultaneously negotiating on other matters and plan to do so in the future as well. What I do find strange is the Democrats allowing Republicans to negotiate as if each legislative debate is an ‘arms-length’ deal on our most pressing matters; this is an advantage to Republicans where I can’t discern why Democrats are allowing them to get away with it except for love of country. They need to learn how to fuck-over the Republicans where that lack of a killer instinct is a long-identified bug which frustrates even many Democrats.
that lack of a killer instinct is a long-identified bug which frustrates even many Democrats.
Only “many?” You mean there exist Democrats who aren’t frustrated by it?
Or is there now nothing, absolutely nothing anymore, so sacred as tax cuts?
That is my assumption except to also add in an even more energetic defense of not raising taxes (given they know taxes are currently low). My biggest aggravation with the media is they rarely even bring up the pledges most Republicans in Congress have taken to not raise taxes. It’s the elephant in the room which is continually avoided, e.g., David Gregory’s horrific interviews yesterday morning on Meet the Press where he assumed the GOP talking points are both true and the proper framing for this debate.
Only “many?” You mean there exist Democrats who aren’t frustrated by [lack of a killer instinct]?
Harry Reid and Barack Obama appear to be two of them. Sen. Reid’s especially soft on his caucus’ conservatives.
Or did neither side blink because all the tough decisions are put off ’til later?
@Michael, to clarify, I meant Democrats who aren’t elected officials.
Precisely, it’s a classic ‘kicking it into the long grass’ manouver that looks like a solution if you don’t pay attention. The one interesting thing I’ve heard is that if the proposals from the delaying, sorry review, committee are not passed fairly major cuts to military spending would kick in. This is presumably meant to scare Congress into passing the proposals but might not be a bad thing anyway.
I think it would be hard for Obama to have a killer instinct because he doesn’t seem to believe he’s engaged in any sort of contest. I’m not sure he even thinks of himself as a Democrat anymore, but sees himself perhaps as an ombudsman who is above party. So he wants a compromise above all, even with those who won’t compromise. Worse yet, he seems to believe that he has to portray every deal as a success and will never acknowledge that his side (if he even has a side) has lost a round. The result is that he now co-owns all the Republican policies and can’t even use their failures against them.
Since it seems to have gotten overlooked in favor of the “walk away” observation:
D.C., Maybe a Republican demand that the Democratic Party dissolve itself, immediately after repealing the 1965 Voting Rights Act?
Nah, who am I kidding. They’d still roll over and let the savage dogs disembowel them.
Seriously, though, it’s hard to imagine these days. I suppose a demand for privatization of Social Security might have been more than they could choke down.
Comments are closed.
Join 30 other followers