One
of the oldest axioms in politics is that you should never let a good crisis go
to waste. Now that the hopelessly divided deficit reduction super committee has
failed, it is apparent to just about everyone that Washington has a serious
crisis of governance.
Question:
What -- if anything -- will President Barack Obama do about it? With the 2012
election season already under way, should he assume a deal is impossible and
use the panel's failure as a campaign weapon? Or is he better off knocking
heads together on Capitol Hill and trying to ram through a deal that will
prevent unpopular automatic spending cuts from taking effect starting in 2013?
Veteran
political observers are divided, and the answer could have serious
ramifications for the economy and policies Americans will live with for the
foreseeable future. The president promised Monday to veto any attempt to undo
the $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts -- including $600 billion from the Pentagon
-- slated under current law.
"There
will be no easy off ramps on this one," he declared. "We need to keep
the pressure up to compromise."
Don
Baer, communications director in Bill Clinton's White House, says Obama has a
lot to gain by making a serious push for a new deal, maybe starting with the
high-profile State of the Union address in late January or early February.
"From
a political standpoint, the president will be better served by showing that
he's ready to be a leader regardless of what actually happens," Baer told
CNN. "(Obama should) push for Congress to engage ... and show that perhaps
he alone is the true grown-up leader of the country."
Doing
so puts Obama in "a better position than being at the same level as
Republicans, pointing fingers about who is to blame," Baer said.
"What the country is looking for is for someone to deliver solutions and
perform the role they were elected to do."
He
added, "It's amazing how often the right thing to do is also the right
thing politically. Right now the perception is everyone's playing politics
(and) that's a not a healthy situation."
And
what about the Democrats' liberal base? If Obama somehow did manage to cut a
deal that includes new major spending reductions, wouldn't that risk deflating
the president's core supporters at a time when conservative Republicans are
already itching to get to the polls?
Nonsense,
according to Baer. Fear of the Republicans will help drive liberal turnout in
November.
"Where
are they going? Are they going to vote for Romney? Are they not going to turn
out in droves? Presumably, they're still going to rally around Obama," he
said.
Norman
Ornstein, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute,
said the response that GOP members of Congress get from their constituents over
the Thanksgiving holiday could help determine the probability of reaching an
agreement.
"We
know how it plays out immediately, which is that members go home for
Thanksgiving, and they're going to get an earful," Ornstein said.
"The
question is which earful will matter the most. Is it going to be those members
who hear from their constituents, 'What's wrong with you morons? Get together
and cut a deal?' Or is it going to be from those who give the earful, 'If you
raise one dime in taxes, we're going to kill you in a primary'?"
Constituents'
reactions "could harden positions, especially among tea party Republicans,
or could provide a little more urgency to act," he said.
But
Thomas Mann, a senior political analyst at the Brookings Institution, sees
little possibility that congressional Republicans will yield on taxes any time
soon. Trying to cut a deal with them is not only futile, it risks dragging the
president down politically by more closely associating him with a seemingly
dysfunctional Congress, he said.
"If
I were Obama, I would invest little if anything in trying to do something
before the election to avoid" the automatic cuts, Mann said. "He
should push aggressively to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment
benefits, and keep all the of Bush tax cuts on track to expire at the end of
2012."
Any
deal with congressional Republicans, Mann argued, would almost certainly
include a permanent extension of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts.
"This
would greatly worsen the deficit problem and remove the only political lever
Obama would have, if re-elected, to force revenue raising," he said,
noting the tax cuts' estimated $4 trillion value over the next decade.
Adam
Sheingate, a Johns Hopkins University political scientist, agreed that
Republicans are locked into their anti-tax position, a fact that makes any
pre-election deal unlikely. Sheingate insisted that the Democratic-controlled
Senate will ensure Obama won't be put in the position of having to veto any
unacceptable proposal.
The
only real question now is how the president plays it politically, he said.
"Presidents
adopt a leadership stance above the partisan fray when the opposition is likely
to take more of the blame for inaction or obstruction. Both Truman in 1948 and
Clinton in 1996 showed the electoral benefits of such a strategy,"
Sheingate said.
"Given
that the likelihood of failure by the super committee was so high, Obama took a
calculated risk by remaining somewhat removed from the process," he said.
"Whether that strategy pays off depends on his ability to pin the failure
on the Republicans and to portray the GOP as out of touch with voters."
Sheingate
said that "it is now up to Obama to craft his campaign in a manner that
draws out the sharp distinctions between his vision for the future and that of
his Republican rivals."
But
Northeastern University political scientist Bill Mayer said that, from his
perspective, congressional Republicans were the ones who showed a bit more
flexibility in the super committee talks. Mayer pointed to a proposal from
super committee member Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pennsylvania, to raise taxes by $250
billion by limiting individual deductions.
Democrats
-- including Obama -- would "rather have an issue than a bill, which is
not all that uncommon," Mayer said. Lately, he noted, Obama has been
gaining traction in some opinion polls through a combination of economic
populism and blasting the GOP for inaction.
The
president "may make a few attempts (at a deal) so that he can claim he
tried to reach a compromise, but any attempt will be designed so that
Republicans will reject them," Mayer said.
Mayer
also noted that since none of the automatic spending cuts are scheduled to take
effect before 2013, there will still be a brief window to get things done after
the election. Key decisions will almost certainly be postponed until November or
December 2012, he said.
Democratic
strategist Steve Murphy, who ran Dick Gephardt's 2004 presidential campaign,
said it's possible for Obama to pursue a deal seriously while also using the
super committee's failure to boost his standing in the polls.
"Of
course, he's going to use it as a campaign issue," Murphy said, referring
to Republican opposition to higher taxes on the wealthy. "Republicans may
still think it's 2010, but we're a long way from there."
By Alan Silverleib, CNN
No comments:
Post a Comment