• Comment (1)

Obama Win or Loss, Deficit Fix Will Still Require a Grand Bargain

January 25, 2012 RSS Feed Print

Ross Douthat rightly calls out President Obama for proposing a bevy of costly new populist microinitiatives in his State of the Union address.

Douthat also rebukes Obama for failing to put on the table a concrete plan to reform entitlements and the tax code:

[T]he rhetoric of fairness is not a substitute for a long-term deficit reduction plan, a real blueprint for overhauling the entitlement system, or a comprehensive tax reform—none of which this White House will be offering, apparently, in the 2012 campaign.

[Read State of the Union trivia and history.]

If you asked the White House, I'm sure you'd hear some version of this response: "Been there, tried that."

In his speech, Obama alluded to the collapse of debt-ceiling negotiations:

As I told the Speaker this summer, I'm prepared to make more reforms that rein in the long-term costs of Medicare and Medicaid, and strengthen Social Security, so long as those programs remain a guarantee of security for seniors. But in return, we need to change our tax code so that people like me, and an awful lot of members of Congress, pay our fair share of taxes.

[Read Mort Zuckerman: Social Security Has Reached a Tipping Point]

In other words, the terms of the Grand Bargain—entitlement cuts in exchange for higher taxes on the wealthy—remain the crux of our paralyzed deficit-reduction politics. Even if Obama loses in November, Democrats in Congress are going to continue insisting on those terms. And with the power of the routine filibuster on their side, as well as public sentiment in favor of hiking taxes on the rich, Democrats won't need control of the White House or either house of Congress in order to hold out for the Grand Bargain.

For the next several months, both sides are going to ignore this reality. But come January 20, 2013, it will rear its head once again.

Tags:
social security,
Obama administration,
taxes,
deficit and national debt,
politics

Reader Comments Read all comments (1)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

"In other words, the terms of the Grand Bargain—entitlement cuts in exchange for higher taxes on the wealthy—remain the crux of our paralyzed deficit-reduction politics. Even if Obama loses in November, Democrats in Congress are going to continue insisting on those terms."

Bill C. increased taxes on rich and Newt reduced. Newt got better results. Have you missed Newt saying he balanced budget 4 times. Bill C. before Newt didn't. Liberal thinking is reduce tax on rich and revenue goes down. Newt sucess was reducing cost not allowing big Bill C. growth. Bill added debt and Newt surplus:

"Debunking Liberal Myths About Tax Cuts and the Economy"

"MYTH: Raising taxes in the 1990s caused the boom years of that decade. This proves that raising taxes leads to economic growth."

"FACT: Tax cuts, not tax hikes, caused the boom years of the 1990s. The economy grew modestly after Clinton raised taxes in 1993, but the economy grew even more after Clinton signed the tax cuts that were passed by the Republican-controlled Congress under Newt Gingrich’s leadership in 1997."

"Dr. J. D. Foster":

"Following the [Clinton] tax hike, the economy performed reasonably well, but not as well as one would expect given the conditions at the time. The real economic boom came later in the decade, just when the economy should have slowed as it made the transition from a period of recovery to normal expansion. Further, this acceleration coincided to a remarkable degree with the 1997 tax cut. . . ."

"In 1997, the Republican-led Congress passed a tax-relief and deficit-reduction bill that was resisted but ultimately signed by President Clinton."

"In 1995, the first year for which these data are available, just over $8 billion in venture capital was invested. Venture capital is especially critical to a vibrant economy because high-risk/high-return investment permits promising new businesses to blossom, rapidly spreading new technologies and new ideas into the marketplace and across the economy. Such investments, when successful, generate returns to investors that are subject primarily to the tax on capital gains. By 1998, the first full year in which the lower capital gains rates were in effect, venture capital activity reached almost $28 billion, more than a three-fold increase over 1995 levels, and by 1999, it had doubled yet again." (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm1835.cfm)

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/taxcutmyths.htm

Bill Hedges of MO 6:07PM January 25, 2012

Scott Galupo

Scott Galupo

Scott Galupo is a Washington-based freelance writer. He formerly worked for House Republican Leader John Boehner, and was a staff writer for The Washington Times.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

Political Enemies: Good vs. Perfect

In politics the perfect is often the enemy of the good.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement