Wonkbook: Three reasons the debt deal collapsed
By Ezra Klein
WashPost
Last week's sudden and inexplicable burst of debt-deal optimism is over. But don't ask why the $4 trillion deal collapsed. That's like asking why John Boehner didn't sprout wings and fly. Ask why anyone ever thought it'd take off in the first place.
Nothing changed between Thursday, when the grand bargain was apparently alive, and Sunday, when the papers solemnly recorded its time of death. But the real tell was that nothing had changed between the week before last, when a $2 trillion deal was too tough for the negotiators, and last week, when a $4 trillion deal was suddenly posited as possible. So asking "what went wrong?" isn't so much about what we've learned in the last few days as it is about what we already knew, but perhaps did not want to admit.
It does not matter if John Boehner is a reasonable man. The White House likes John Boehner. They feel -- or at least felt -- he's someone they can do business with. But they're learning that they're not actually doing business with Boehner. They're doing business with the Republican Party. And Boehner isn't the Republican Party. In fact, of the four major figures in the GOP leadership -- Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor, and Jon Kyl -- Boehner is perhaps least representative of the modern Republican Party. The main reason people thought we might have a deal last week was because Boehner said he wanted one. The deal's collapse is, first and foremost, a reminder that what Boehner wants really doesn't matter.
For Republicans, this isn't about deficits. It's about spending and taxes. If this were really about deficits, a win-win would be possible. Easy, even. Republicans want spending cuts, and those cut the deficit. Democrats want revenues, and those cut the deficit. See where I'm going with this? But where Democrats really are arguing over deficits -- note their willingness to give more in spending cuts if Republicans will give more in revenues -- Republicans want less deficit reduction because it'll mean Democrats have less leverage with which to demand tax increases.
(More here.)
WashPost
Last week's sudden and inexplicable burst of debt-deal optimism is over. But don't ask why the $4 trillion deal collapsed. That's like asking why John Boehner didn't sprout wings and fly. Ask why anyone ever thought it'd take off in the first place.
Nothing changed between Thursday, when the grand bargain was apparently alive, and Sunday, when the papers solemnly recorded its time of death. But the real tell was that nothing had changed between the week before last, when a $2 trillion deal was too tough for the negotiators, and last week, when a $4 trillion deal was suddenly posited as possible. So asking "what went wrong?" isn't so much about what we've learned in the last few days as it is about what we already knew, but perhaps did not want to admit.
It does not matter if John Boehner is a reasonable man. The White House likes John Boehner. They feel -- or at least felt -- he's someone they can do business with. But they're learning that they're not actually doing business with Boehner. They're doing business with the Republican Party. And Boehner isn't the Republican Party. In fact, of the four major figures in the GOP leadership -- Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor, and Jon Kyl -- Boehner is perhaps least representative of the modern Republican Party. The main reason people thought we might have a deal last week was because Boehner said he wanted one. The deal's collapse is, first and foremost, a reminder that what Boehner wants really doesn't matter.
For Republicans, this isn't about deficits. It's about spending and taxes. If this were really about deficits, a win-win would be possible. Easy, even. Republicans want spending cuts, and those cut the deficit. Democrats want revenues, and those cut the deficit. See where I'm going with this? But where Democrats really are arguing over deficits -- note their willingness to give more in spending cuts if Republicans will give more in revenues -- Republicans want less deficit reduction because it'll mean Democrats have less leverage with which to demand tax increases.
(More here.)
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home