home

Madman Negotiating And Negotiating With Madmen

Ezra Klein writes that To govern responsibly, the White House will need to negotiate like Republicans. Not only do I agree, I said so from the beginning of Obama's Presidency. I developed my thoughts further in my Madman Political Bargaining Series. Enough with the 'I told you sos.' Here's Ezra:

Just as Republicans planted a trigger for 2011 that ensures spending cuts, Democrats should use the Bush tax cuts as a trigger in 2012 to force revenue. Which is not to say they should campaign for raising taxes. They should campaign against an outdated, inefficient, unfair tax code as well as the Washington way of leaving hard problems for somebody else to handle.

[MORE . . .]

The White House should announce that it won’t extend any of the Bush tax cuts and will instead insist on a Gang-of-Six-esque plan that cleans the code, lowers rates for everyone, and raises $2 trillion or more in revenue. If the GOP refuses, the tax cuts will expire, our revenue problems will be solved, and Republicans will suddenly find themselves much more interested in tax reform. Sometimes, to govern like a Democrat — or even just to govern responsibly — you need to negotiate like a Republican.

I'm leery of "tax reform" myself (the reform always gets taken out later) but I agree on the need for this type of negotiating strategy.

A few weeks ago I wrote about Seeking Maximum Leverage In Political Bargaining:

You want to negotiate a deal when your bargaining leverage is at its maximum, not at its minimum. This is basic bargaining. It amazes me how few people understand this point. In 1995, Bill Clinton searched for moments of maximum leverage to bargain with the Republicans. Luckily for Clinton, the GOP never played the debt ceiling card on him. But Obama should have known the GOP would with him. A good bargainer would have known not to give up his best chip (tax cuts) without making the other side take theirs (the debt ceiling) off the table.

Ezra writes:

Democrats will have exactly one chance to overcome the GOP’s resistance to tax revenue. Next year, the Bush tax cuts expire. If Congress does nothing, we revert to Clinton-era tax rates for everyone, and the federal coffers fill with $3.6 trillion in additional revenue over the next 10 years — enough to stabilize deficits. This is a rare opportunity in which it’s Democrats who hold the hostage and Republicans who have to compromise.

But tell this to the folks at the White House, and they’ll say that this is like pointing a gun at their own head and threatening to pull the trigger. Raising taxes on anyone but the rich is unpopular, and a large tax increase is not what the economy needs right now. They’re right on both counts. But in this case, two rights make the wrong policy.

The right policy is to act now and insist on tax reform rather than some variation in, or even expiration of, the Bush tax cuts. Tax reform doesn’t have to raise taxes right this second, and could lower taxes on many people even as it raised revenue overall. And if Republicans say no? Well, that’s on them.

(Emphasis supplied.) Ezra has two rights that add up to a wrong there. Now is not the moment of maximum leverage for Dems on taxes. Frankly it won't come until after the 2012 election.

Moreover, the maximum POLITICAL advantage comes for Dems who propose extending tax cuts for ordinary Americans and saving Social Security and Medicare by raising taxes on the wealthy.there will be no short term deal that will be advantageous politically to Dems. The political advantage comes from having the GOP defend the rich at the expense of everyone else.

None of this is in Obama's political DNA, but it is so clearly the right call that I hope someone convinces him to adopt this approach.

Speaking for me only

< Burnishing Bill Clinton's Reputation | The Problem With Exchanges As Reform: Medicare Eligibity Age, Mandates And Subsidies >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Sanity vs insanity doesn't matter.... (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by lambert on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:15:41 PM EST
    if both sane and insane are seeking the same policy outcomes.

    Obama set up the Catfood Commission himself, after the Senate refused to, and staffed it from the Peterson Foundation. His inaugural was all about sacrifice, and I haven't seen the banksters doing a lot of the sharing. He advocated Social Security "reform" in 2008 as far back as IA.

    Obama's doing what he believes in. He's not weak, and since his goals are being achieved, he is not a poor negotiator.

    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:27:33 PM EST
    I disagree completely with almost every single aspect of Obama's economic views and proposals. Why am I supposed to care whether he is good or bad at negotiating when he is so bad on policy?

    Parent
    Agreed.... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by masslib on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 02:16:21 PM EST
    In fact, let's go one further.  He wanted to force up or down votes in Congress on his catfood commission, and Congress shot him down.  Now he's got a brand new catfood commish in the debt with the up or down vote, mission accomplished.

    I am so sick of the smallness of our debate here. He couldn't make the argument to raise taxes on the wealthy for two and a half years now, why would anyone think that would change next year?  I frankly could care less if my taxes went up slightly if it meant the wealthy finally paid theirs. I don't think that is a stunningly difficult argument to make.

    Parent

    Obama's Surrender (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by norris morris on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 07:12:27 PM EST
    The plain facts are that Obama is not a leader and he has faked his way into the presidency.

    His deplorable surrender and benefits to the wealthy are not the only issues he's collapsed on.

    He has gone along almost 100% with the right wing of the GOP and has betrayed his party.  His party
    has been impotent in voicing a demand for Obama to stand up to the GOP or face a primary fight.

    Obama will lose the election.

     The FAA fiasco is but another disaster of two disfuntional parties and a president who has been outfoxed and out manouvered at every turn.  We have two GOP parties as the democrats have seceeded from anything they are supposed to be.

    Parent

    only if you believe (none / 0) (#37)
    by NYShooter on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 09:53:19 PM EST
    his goals are different than the Far Right Wing opponentes he, seemingly, is battling.

    Parent
    A twist on the Ed Meese (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 02:21:03 PM EST
    School of Governing: corruption masquerading as incompetence.  (gee, I didn't know that the shredding machines were going).  The New School, as adapted by the Obama Administration : co-conspiracy masquerading as inept negotiation (we offered more than they wanted and it was the best we could get). Fundamental to both Schools is a willingness to be perceived as hapless.

    Parent
    Hapless and Feckless (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by norris morris on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 07:19:16 PM EST
    Yes, a good cover as it appears he's just a young inexperienced pol. Poor guy.

    But it's more than that if you just look at his advisors, the secret dealings with BigPharma and Insurance, etc. He won't let anyone look at the visitors log inspite of time has run out on entries and we are entitled to see them.

    It may be that you're right.....feckless and helpless are words for and SOB who is screwing us all.

    And WHERE is the democratic leadership? MIA as well. Cowards,weaklings, and covering for this
    betrayal.  They should all pay at the polls and we should start a primary fight in as many areas as possible. Our $$$ to them not the DNC,etc.

    Parent

    I hope you're incorrect. (none / 0) (#4)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:24:45 PM EST
    But I also hope that Auburn, without Cam Newton, will repeat as National Champions.

    A tenuous thing, hope.

    Parent

    Obama on Soc Sec reform in 2007: (none / 0) (#7)
    by Farmboy on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 02:10:33 PM EST
    "Social Security is not in crisis; it is a fundamentally sound system, but it does have a problem, long-term. We've got 78 million baby boomers who are going to be retiring over the next couple of decades.  That means more retirees, fewer workers to support those retirees.
         It is common sense that we are going to have to do something about it.  That is not a Republican talking point.  And if we don't deal with it now, it will get harder to deal with later.
         So what I've said, and I know some others on this stage have said, is that among the options that are available, the best one is to lift the cap on the payroll tax, potentially exempting folks in the middle -- middle-class folks -- but making sure that the wealthy are paying more of their fair share -- a little bit more."

    Transcript link

    Parent

    Raising the cap (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 02:57:13 PM EST
    is a good idea.  Adjusting COLA was what was discussed during debt ceiling negotiations though, and that is not a good or progressive idea.

    Parent
    Not only not good (none / 0) (#17)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 03:03:06 PM EST
    it's flat-out cruel.

    Parent
    Iowa... (none / 0) (#10)
    by masslib on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 02:24:23 PM EST
    Obama refers to the Social Security Crisis:

    "You know, Senator Clinton says that she's concerned about Social Security but is not willing to say how she would solve the Social Security crisis," Obama told the National Journal. "I think voters aren't going to feel real confident that this is a priority for her....

    Yet Obama has frequently addressed what he describes as a Social Security funding shortfall, which many experts say is overstated. "I can't understand how Obama can be this out of touch," economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote recently. "As a political matter, I don't understand why he would essentially try to undermine the first big victory progressives won against the Bush administration and the rightward tilt of the Beltway consensus."

    By the way, does anyone remember when Obama sent that proposal for raising the SS cap down to Congress?  I can't remember.

    Parent

    February 31st (none / 0) (#11)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 02:40:00 PM EST
    2009.

    Parent
    LOL... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by masslib on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 02:46:01 PM EST
    It took me a moment to get that.

    Parent
    So stating that Social Security is facing a crisis (none / 0) (#13)
    by Farmboy on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 02:49:46 PM EST
    in the future if nothing is done is a lie? And suggesting that the best option is to make the wealthy pay more is out of touch?

    From the most recent SSA trustees report:

    After 2014, cash deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers ... After 2022, trust fund assets will be redeemed in amounts that exceed interest earnings until trust fund reserves are exhausted in 2036.

    I consider exhausting the trust fund reserves a bit of a problem, for me and lots of people. But since Krugman thinks the very concept is preposterous I'm sure that I'm wrong about this. Carry on.

    Parent

    Yes, it is a lie... (none / 0) (#14)
    by masslib on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 02:56:49 PM EST
    There is no crisis.  Only in the worst doomsday scenarios does SS go down to partial funding in 24 years and then it is still 70% funded, and after the boomers die off it sores in funding.  Yes, it's not true, there is no crisis.

    Parent
    If not a lie, certainly hyperbole. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 03:33:42 PM EST
    from the Social Security report cited by the commenter:
    ".....exhausted in 2036, one year earlier than that projected last year.  (in the face of reduced taxes due to the current unemployment)  Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay about three-forths of scheduled benefits through 2085."  

    A "bit of a problem" is probably accurate--a highly manageable problem, and one that should be considered the envy of other governmental programs (and many private ones).  Senator Obama's response during the presidential debates was a solid one then,  and one President Obama should stick to now.

    As even Cat Food I recognized, Social Security need not have been a part of the deficit reduction plan.   But, social security was played as a lure to the Republicans while, at the same time, was an opportunity to achieve a desired goal--a goal that seems to be we need to cut benefits now, so that we do not have to do so in 25 years.

    Parent

    That's the point. The "reform" Obama (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Farmboy on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 04:07:43 PM EST
    mentioned back in the campaign was limited to raising the income cap, which would push the expected fund exhaustion in 2036 out into the far future - at least past any of our lifetimes. Yeah, he called the projected trillion dollar shortfalls a crisis - a crisis nearly 30 years in the future that could be averted now. And after the debt ceiling circus, one would think the idea of being an ant instead of a grasshopper might be appreciated.

    BTW, the "Obama wants granny to eat cat food and die" meme must have Norquist laughing every time he reads it. He probably even collects royalties for its use.

    Parent

    That social security reform (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 04:47:48 PM EST
    is now social security change, and raising the cap has given way by Obama to increasing the retirement age (a cut in benefits) or a "change" in the cost of living calculus (a cut, and a mean one at that)..   The 1983 "reform" was based on the anticipated baby boomers, and any problems in social security are now related less to living longer than to the growth in income inequality.  After all, an individual making $310,000 a year or more pays no more social security tax than someone making $107,000.

    And, the number, 310,000,  reflects the characterization of social security by President Obama's co-chair of Cat Food I, Alan Simpson:" a milk cow with 310,000 tits". President Obama kept Simpson on as co-chair after that crass and demeaning remark.  Grover Norquist probably got a lot of chuckles out of it,  unlike the social security beneficiary who contributed during working years and gets, on average, $14,000 per year.

    Parent

    May, 2007 Obama appeared on "This Week" (none / 0) (#32)
    by MO Blue on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 04:55:08 PM EST
    his "fixes" were not limited to raising the income cap.

    STEPHANOPOULOS: You've also said that with Social Security, everything should be on the table.

    OBAMA: Yes.

    STEPHANOPOULOS: Raising the retirement age?

    OBAMA: Everything should be on the table.
    STEPHANOPOULOS: Raising payroll taxes?

    OBAMA: Everything should be on the table. I think we should
    approach it the same way Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan did back in 1983. They came together. I don't want to lay out my preferences
    beforehand, but what I know is that Social Security is solvable. It is not as difficult a problem as we're going to have with Medicaid and
    Medicare. link

    The only line he drew in that interview was on privatization. It was only after his primary opponents went after him on putting everything on the table that he changed his tune.  

    Parent

    When as President has Obama (none / 0) (#33)
    by masslib on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 05:51:11 PM EST
    sought to eliminate the cap, do tell?

    Parent
    So your solution is for 78 million people (none / 0) (#18)
    by Farmboy on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 03:04:27 PM EST
    to "die off" and then everything will be fine.

    I think I prefer the raise taxes on the rich idea instead.

    Parent

    As much as I might like to think (none / 0) (#19)
    by itscookin on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 03:13:20 PM EST
    that I and my baby boomer cohorts will be a drain on the social security trust fund forever, we will like all other generations die off. The crisis, if indeed there is one, will resolve itself eventually.

    Parent
    Something that's so easily and (none / 0) (#16)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 03:02:35 PM EST
    painlessly fixed ain't a crisis, in my book.

    Parent
    In order for the scary scenario to be (none / 0) (#26)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 03:40:03 PM EST
    true, the assumption has to be that the present economic situation remains exactly as it is now - and I don't know of anyone who believes that it will be, and history backs that up.

    But, it's very effective at scaring people, and getting them to go along with policies that are averse to their own interests.

    Parent

    Obama negotiates like a Repub, but only w/ Dems (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by jawbone on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:57:40 PM EST
    Seriously.

    Joe Biden told a Dem caucus that Obama had actually been willing to use the 14th Amendment, but he didn't tell the Dems that -- bcz he WANTED his little Politburo in order to go after those silly liberal programs.

    Obama despises liberals and progressives and treats them accordingly.

    a story posted on CNN (none / 0) (#34)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 06:00:30 PM EST
    on Monday night denies this:

    The Vice President said the 14th amendment was NOT an option for the President.  Context: Rep. DeFazio (D-OR) wanted to know why the President didn't just use the 14th amendment. The VP explained the President had his legal scholars look into it and decided it was not appropriate. We've previously been advised that VP Biden consulted with the White House counsel's office about options - including whether the 14th amendment could be invoked. He chaired the Judiciary Committee when he was in the Senate so is probably familiar with the issues.

    your source is FDL, whose source appears to be Twitter

    it seems that this was a rumor that has been denied

    do you have different information?

    Parent

    I've asked David Dayen if he's heard anything (none / 0) (#39)
    by jawbone on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 09:08:31 PM EST
    about the possible Joe Biden getting cover for what he said---or did he not say it.

    No reply since yesterday evening.

    Parent

    Not gonna happen ... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 03:28:20 PM EST
    Obama will continue to negotiate like a Dem, and govern like a Republican.

    The worst of both worlds.

    Couple of things: (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 03:36:28 PM EST
    If Democrats in the Congress want something other than the garbage Obama keeps pushing, then they have the obligation to reject it, to work around him, to send the message that they are not beholden to the executive branch, but stand on equal footing with it.

    Second, before we can expect the WH to negotiate for the positions and outcomes we want him to, he first has to actually hold those positions - or be schooled in the reality that unless he convincingly pretends to hold them, he can kiss any possibility for re-election goodbye; I'm sure "acting" would be easier, and the appeal of getting re-elected a better incentive than, you know, actually believing in these things.

    So, does the Democratic caucus support the president's policies?  Do they think austerity is really the way out of this economic hole?  If "no" is the answer, then they have to stop waiting for their daily instructions from the WH.  I would suggest they review the list of presidential decisions and actions while substituting the name "Bush" or "Reagan" for Obama, and perhaps that will convince them that they have been willing enablers of Republican policy now for over two years.

    And, the president needs to be confronted with the real question - "Mr. President, if you align yourself with conservative, Republican policies, why don't you do the principled thing, change your party affiliation, and allow the Democratic Party to find someone who can better represent what they stand for?"

    This is all, of course, a fantasy scenario, but no more so than the one where Obama sees the light and starts advocating for Democratic ideas and policies.

    Oh, well.

    It's simple (none / 0) (#28)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 03:54:37 PM EST
    Because he will still bring in money from the true believers and all those Congress critters will still need his goodwill to get a cut of those campaign donations.

    Parent
    Hmm (none / 0) (#1)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 12:45:42 PM EST
    I think this argument is best made by emphasizing only taxes.  My only concern is that I think Obama if he pitches it will also pitch it with entitlement cuts, etc.  Which will change the message from the popular "the rich don't deserve these tax cuts" to Grand Bargain-ese.

    So far, the economy has made the Obama Administration very timid about taxes.  I'm not sure they'll change their tune but I hope so.

    Obama's strategy for (none / 0) (#2)
    by observed on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 12:52:41 PM EST
    negotiating with madmen is to be a Nerf ball.


    Today on NPR I heard Nate Silver refer to (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 03:23:11 PM EST
    the "liberal elite," i.e., people who donate the big bucks and "chattering class," i.e., us.  

    And on "Fresh Air," just now:  many of the newly-elected GOP members of the House of Representatives came to D.C., not caring if they are re-elected.  Think that's true?

    Possibly (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 03:31:17 PM EST
    Many of them have turned down plum committee assignments because they don't want to be beholden to towing the party line.  Seems like that's a good indication they don't care about re-election.

    We'll see the closer we get to next year.

    Parent

    "towing." good one. (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 03:32:59 PM EST
    "Toeing" (none / 0) (#27)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 03:53:28 PM EST
    That's what I get for trying to work and read blogs.  :)

    Parent
    "Chattering class" (none / 0) (#38)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 10:55:33 AM EST
    refers to MAM pundits and commentators, not us.

    And yes, I do believe a fair number of these Tea Party reps. don't care if they get reelected or not.  That may well change as time goes on, but a lot of them have no political history whatsoever and see themselves as "citizen legislators."  Many of them have made no effort to get even the most basic understanding of congressional rules and procedures, never mind any deeper understanding of little things like fiscal and budgetary policy.

    They take pride in having no other considerations than "principle."


    Parent

    I look forward to tax reform being part (none / 0) (#31)
    by BTAL on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 04:51:28 PM EST
    of both the next year's congressional actions and the general election debates.

    I'll put money on our side in said "negotiations".