Writing in two consecutive posts on the Huffington Post, Robert Rubin argues, as I understand him, that Democrats and President Obama may be ill advised to push too hard for a "compromise" with Republicans in the House and Senate.
The fact is, those Republicans who feel honor bound by their pledge of allegiance to Grover Norquist--No new taxes--may not be able to give much on the revenue collection side of the equation. They are already staking out their territory: Oh, we can go along with cutting back on allowable deductions, like the home mortgage interest deduction, but we cannot agree to raising the tax rate on billionaires back to where it was under Clinton. So they are stuck.
To get the meager concessions the Republicans in the box are willing to give up, the Democrats will have to slash Medicare and maybe Social Security.
Rubin argues we've been through this scene before: The Secretary of Treasury, Geitner gave away the store to Wall Street last time around: He did not demand a reinstatement of the Glass-Steigall Act which would have prevented the debacle in the banking sector and prevented much of the financial collapse; he did not insist on a limit to the size of the biggest banks to prevent the "too big to fail" scenario from playing out again; he did not insist on a purge of guilty bankers from positions of wealth and power. He was, in a phrase, simply not a traitor to his class. He was of and for Wall Street, not Main Street, not because he is an evil man but because that is all he knows.
What Rubin suggests is to allow the deadline to expire and then to come back in January and pass what even the Republicans know they must pass: Tax cuts for the middle class, i.e. for anyone making up to $250,000. This way the Republicans have not voted to raise taxes; in fact, they can claim to have voted for another round of tax cuts. The Democrats get what they want by default--they have the tax cuts which have expired for the billionaires still expired, an effective raise in their tax rates.
Republicans can claim technical purity--they haven't technically violated their pledge and Democrats get higher taxes on the rich, after January 1.
Win, win.
Now, we have to ask ourselves: What would Grover Norquist do?
Well, we know that already, but we can't really ask what would Jesus do, so let's just drop it there.
Mad Dog,
ReplyDeleteThat seems like a plausible end to the fiscal cliff saga don't you think? Keeps Grover happy in the sense that it wouldn't require outright defiance of his sacred pledge by the spineless Republicans unable to make a move without wondering ,as you said, WWGD..
Have you seen "Lincoln" yet-I have, but don't worry I won't talk about it until I know you've seen it. Also did you see the article on Lincoln's sense of humor in the New Yorker on-line? It was interesting..and yes I believe you really do like your fellow Granite Staters.
Maud
Maud,
ReplyDeleteNo, but I'm hoping to see Lincoln this weekend.
I get the print version of the New Yorker and I will check out the on line version.
I loved Ken Burns's response when they asked him about his opus maximimus,"The Civil War," if there was any one character who, after all the time he had spent with the various characters, Grant, Lee, Sherman, Sheridan, who stood out as the most remarkable. It was one of those typical journalist's questions: Tell us your number one. But, anyway, Burns did not even blink, and answered as if it should be obvious, "Oh, well, Lincoln," he said. "Who else?"
--Mad Dog
Mad Dog,
ReplyDeleteYes, but in the movie there is someone who for me would come in an extremely close second as far as remarkable (or at least exceptionally interesting) is concerned-but I'll wait until you've seen it.
Maud