washington, dc

The Democratic Strategist

Political Strategy for a Permanent Democratic Majority

Month: January 2013

The “platinum coin” alternative may be a “gimmick,” but it can play a very useful role in restoring balance to a negotiation that is deeply unbalanced by the equally outrageous gimmicks proposed by GOP extremism.

Stephen Stromberg hits the nail on the head today about negotiating strategy. As he says:

Skillful negotiating can begin with taking an utterly unrealistic opening stand and making it seem like you’re not. In advance of this year’s approaching budget battles, Mitch McConnell tried that strategy on Sunday.

McConnell’s pitch? The current GOP mantra: “We don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem”
Now some people may actually have rational reasons for thinking that certain specific categories of government spending should be reduced — I certainly do — but the simple fact is that the statement above is nothing but logical gibberish. It is logically equivalent to saying “the problem isn’t that the ladder is too short, it’s that the roof is too tall.” It’s substantively meaningless but has the outward appearance of reason and misleadingly suggests that a longer ladder is not one perfectly sensible approach to solving the problem while the only viable option is lowering the roof.
The entire GOP communications strategy has been predicated on superficial sound-bite memes of this kind. It’s essentially relies on (1) most people’s limited understanding of fiscal policy and (2) the MSM’s willingness to act as stenographers for anything the RNC says, no matter how egregiously absurd.
This is where the Platinum Coin can play a very useful role in rebalancing the currently lopsided way in which the two poles of the upcoming negotiations are being framed by the MSM.
Here’s how Paul Krugman summarizes the case for the “platinum coin.”

Should President Obama be willing to print a $1 trillion platinum coin if Republicans try to force America into default? Yes, absolutely. He will, after all, be faced with a choice between two alternatives: one that’s silly but benign, the other that’s equally silly but both vile and disastrous. The decision should be obvious.
For those new to this, here’s the story. First of all, we have the weird and destructive institution of the debt ceiling; this lets Congress approve tax and spending bills that imply a large budget deficit — tax and spending bills the president is legally required to implement — and then lets Congress refuse to grant the president authority to borrow, preventing him from carrying out his legal duties and provoking a possibly catastrophic default.
And Republicans are openly threatening to use that potential for catastrophe to blackmail the president into implementing policies they can’t pass through normal constitutional processes.
Enter the platinum coin. There’s a legal loophole allowing the Treasury to mint platinum coins in any denomination the secretary chooses. Yes, it was intended to allow commemorative collector’s items — but that’s not what the letter of the law says. And by minting a $1 trillion coin, then depositing it at the Fed, the Treasury could acquire enough cash to sidestep the debt ceiling — while doing no economic harm at all.
So why not?
It’s easy to make sententious remarks to the effect that we shouldn’t look for gimmicks, we should sit down like serious people and deal with our problems realistically. That may sound reasonable — if you’ve been living in a cave for the past four years. Given the realities of our political situation, and in particular the mixture of ruthlessness and craziness that now characterizes House Republicans, it’s just ridiculous — far more ridiculous than the notion of the coin. So if the 14th amendment solution — simply declaring that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional — isn’t workable, go with the coin.

Under current circumstances, a “gimmick” like the platinum coin actually plays a constructive role in the debate by placing the GOP’s gimmicks on the same plane with the comparably superficial “solution” to America’s economic problems offered by the coin. The MSM is easily manipulated by conservatives when they are willing to use gimmicks while Democrats feel obligated to limit themselves to patiently explaining the more complex realities of the situation.
To see this clearly, just consider the following: every single sound-bite in which the conservative commentariat is forced to discuss a notion like the platinum coin is an instance in which it cannot be promoting its preferred and more effective sound-bite messaging. It essentially degrades the GOP slogan, “America is going broke” — which the MSM treats as a serious statement — down to the same ridiculous level as, “OK, let’s print a very expensive coin” and reestablishes a basic balance in the debate.
Krugman concludes his column by indicating the real role of the platinum coin in the debate as follows:

This still leaves the question of whose face goes on the coin — but that’s easy: John Boehner. Because without him and his colleagues, this wouldn’t be necessary.

Average Americans don’t understand the intricacies of serious fiscal policy but they do indeed understand the inherent insanity of threatening to throw the U.S. economy into default and crisis simply as a partisan tactic in a policy negotiation between Democrats and Republicans. The one-trillion dollar “Boehner-coin” argument simply exposes the even more absurd Republican “solution” in a way that no sensible and sober explanation of normal fiscal realities ever could.
And anyway, isn’t it time a nation as great as America finally had a public figure with an orange face and a lit cigarette on its currency? After all, George Hamilton doesn’t smoke and Dean Martin never went in for ultra-tanning.


Lessons of 2012, Part I: For All the Turbulence and Hype, No “Game Changes”

We’re now far enough beyond November 6–and the distractions of the holiday season–to venture some basic judgments about what we learned from the 2012 election cycle. The first I’d offer is not a new lesson, but a confirmed one: For all the endless hype and more-intense-than-ever media coverage of what was often described as a tense and turbulent campaign, the results were almost exactly what you’d expect given the existing party coalitions, a “down” but modestly improving economy, and a significant if not overwhelming Democratic advantage in both strategy and tactics.
The composition of the electorate in 2012 was in almost every respect remarkably similar to that of 2008, despite constant predictions that it would differ, usually in ways undermining Obama’s prospects for victory. The party ID breakdowns were almost identical. So, too, were the racial breakdowns (a slight increase in the percentage of the vote for Hispanics and Asians, and a 2% drop among whites). The percentage of the vote cast by the various by age cohorts barely changed, either; under-30 voters were actually a somewhat higher percentage of the vote in 2012, contradicting expectations from just about everyone other than the Obama campaign itself.
In terms of candidate performance in this stable electorate, Obama generally lost vote share where you’d expect it given the economic situation and the likelihood of 2008/2012 switches among “wrong track” voters: among independents (from 52% to 45%); whites (43% to 39%); college-educated whites (47% to 42%); men (49% to 45%); white men (41% to 35%); and under-30s (66% to 60%). Each and every one of these vote-share losses were cited at various points during the campaign as being incompatible with victory, primarily by analysts who were either using outdated profiles of the electorate, or who assumed (from an assortment of questionable estimates of turnout based on questionable measurements of “enthusiasm”) an electorate closer to 2010’s than 2008’s.
It is impossible, of course, to deduce how much of the 2008-level turnout in Obama’s coalition should be attributed to the campaign’s undoubtedly effective GOTV operation. But there are indications it was pushing an open door. To cite one example: in Indiana, a state that was an intensive focus of the 2008 Obama campaign but written off early in 2012, the under-30 percentage of the vote increased from 19% to 20%, the African-American percentage from 7% to 8%, and the Hispanic vote from 4% to 6%.
In any event, there is little evidence that the many ballyhooed events of the campaign, or the occasional turbulence in the polls, had a residual effect on the outcome. The extremism exhibited by the overall candidate field during the Republican primaries definitely reinforced the president’s efforts to turn the election into a “choice” rather than a straight-forward “referendum.” But primary-season polls showing Romney trailing Obama by large margins–mainly because of relatively low approval ratings from conservatives–turned out to be ephemeral and meaningless. Monthly job creation reports–nearly all of them trumpeted as large developments in the campaign–almost never produced any significant effect on support for the two candidates. The Obama “bump” produced by the two conventions was no more long-lived than the Romney “bump” after the first debate. The endlessly discussed predictions that late undecideds would break decisively to Romney never panned out; Obama’s margin among voters reporting they had decided in October and November (4%) was almost the same as among those deciding earlier. It was all mostly noise, and in fact, the illusion of a tied race or a Romney lead during the last month of the campaign was largely attributable to LV screens that more often than not produced less accurate measurements than the RVs surveys they “corrected.”
Another illusion of the campaign was that battleground states were behaving differently than others because of ad saturation and the heavy deployment of GOTV resources. But most of those perceptions faded at the end. Obama’s margin of victory in Ohio dropped from 5% in 2008 to 3% in 2012: a nearly proportionate decline as compared to national margins. His margin in Virginia fell from 6% to 4%, again closely reflecting the national percentages. In Iowa, for all the talk of the state being razor-close in 2012 or leaning to Romney, Obama won by 6%, as opposed to 9% in 2008–about two points above the national margin in both years. Colorado, considered even more perilous for Obama in 2012, wound up giving him a 5% victory as opposed to 9% in 2008. Given the heavy concentration of ads, GOTV, and campaign events in the battleground states, this is additional evidence that the campaign itself did relatively little to shift votes as compared to the overall strength of the candidates and their parties all along.


Political Strategy Notes

From Peter Beinart’s “Why Hagel Matters” at The Daily Beast: “At the heart of the opposition to Hagel is the fear that he will do what Republicans have thus far largely prevented: bring America’s experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan into the Iran debate…And Hagel was changed, in large measure, because he bore within him intellectual (and physical) scar tissue from Vietnam.”
Is filibuster reform toast? Maybe not, explains Dave Weigel at Slate.com. Seven of nine new Democratic Senators support the ‘talking filibuster’ reform, reports Alexander Bolton at The Hill.
At The Nation Herman Schwartz faults President Obama with a limp response to GOP stonewalling of his judicial appointments — and the President’s non-appointments, explaining “As a result of the White House’s laggardness, right-wing justices continue to dominate the federal courts–meaning that many of Obama’s most important legislative achievements could be eviscerated and his legacy dissipated, because most of the circuit courts of appeal are controlled by Republican appointees…Obama’s response to these GOP tactics has been weak and ineffectual. First, he has failed to send up enough nominees. Second, he has neglected to think and act strategically with respect to those he has nominated.”
At The Campaign for America’s Future Terrance Heath puts “The House GOP’s Disaster Relief Disaster” in perspective. John Avlon’s “Callous Conservatives: Gulf State Republicans’ Sandy Shame” piles on at The Daily Beast.
Good video and content for Democratic attack ads against Republicans’ failure to respond to Hurricane disaster right here.
MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry hosted an informative forum on “Long-term party Building for Democrats,” featuring Governor Howard Dean, and Democratic strategists Karen Finney and John Rowley.
At The Daily Beast Will Marshall opines about The Deal that “the result was a one-sided victory for Obama, who got $620 billion in revenue from raising rates on very wealthy households, plus an extension of the stimulus tax breaks for low-income families and $30 billion in new spending on unemployment, without having to convince Democrats to swallow cuts in entitlements…without significantly more tax revenue, lawmakers would have to make truly draconian cuts in entitlements to fix the debt. They shouldn’t and they won’t.”
E. J. Dionne, Jr. agrees, explains why and lights the way forward for President Obama: “if Obama hangs as tough as he now says he will; if he insists on more revenue in the next round of discussions; and if he immediately begins mobilizing business leaders to force Republicans off a strategy that would use threats to block a debt-ceiling increase to extract spending cuts. Real patriots do not risk wrecking the economy to win a political fight…He needs to move the discussion away from a green-eyeshade debate over budgets and foster a larger conversation over what it will take to restore broadly shared economic growth. His presidency really does depend on how he handles the next two months.”
At TNR Alec MacGillis has an informative tribute to the late Jerry Tucker a union reformer who advocated broader worker education, corporate campaigns and pioneered the “work to rule” strategy, “in which workers frustrate employers by slowing down operations all the while technically hewing to the letter of their contract. Work-to-rule appealed to Tucker because its success depended on the full understanding and empowerment of the entire workforce.”
John Rodgers and David Friedman, both officials of the Union of Concerned Scientists, urge “Don’t listen to the Chicken Littles: Obama made smart investments in green tech” at The Monitor: “Despite the critics’ naysaying prophecies, clean tech is on the rise nationwide in large part due to federal investment….Of course there are risks when government and industry invest boldly in new technology. But if they don’t, America will cede its leadership on clean transportation and energy technology to other nations like China that already have thriving green industries that also benefited from government assistance.”


Fiscal Cliff Vote: What the House Tally Says

This item by J.P. Green was originally published on January 2, 2013.
Democrats will be arguing about President Obama’s strategy in negotiating the fiscal cliff deal for months, and there is a lot to criticize from all points on the Democratic spectrum. Senate passage of the compromise was predictable enough. But one day out, it’s worth looking at the breakdown of the votes in the House of Representatives to fairly evaluate the white house and Democratic strategy.
The New York Times has the complete House roll call, along with a good roll-over map. The final House vote was 257-167. In all, 172 Democrats and 85 Republicans voted for the bill. In opposition were 16 Democrats and 151 Republicans.
Among Republicans Speaker Boehner and Rep. Ryan supported the compromise, with Majority Leader Eric Cantor and other GOP “leaders” opposing it.
The 16 Dems who opposed the compromise included a few strong progressives, who objected on principle to elements of the compromise and a small group of remaining Blue Dogs who couldn’t accept any tax hikes. Eight members did not vote, for varying reasons, some personal. (e.g. Liberal stalwart Rep. John Lewis’s wife, Lilian just died). Of course, most of the ‘Yes’ votes included strong progressives, who disliked elements of the deal, but held their noses and took one for the team. Here’s the Democratic breakdown of the “no” votes, according to the Washington Post:

The 16 Democrats voting no split between the liberal and the moderate. More liberal Reps. Xavier Becerra (Calif.), Earl Blumenauer (Ore.), Peter DeFazio (Ore.), Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), Jim McDermott (Wash.), Brad Miller (N.C.), Jim Moran (Va.), Bobby Scott (Va.), Pete Visclosky (Ind.) voted no. But they were joined by moderate-to-conservative Reps. John Barrow (Ga.), Jim Cooper (Tenn.), Jim Matheson (Utah), Mike McIntyre (N.C.), Collin Peterson (Minn.), Kurt Schrader (Ore.) and Adam Smith (Wash.).

Without getting into the elements of the deal and the specific concerns of the members who voted, the tally reflects a fairly comfy pillow of 39 more votes than were needed for passage, since 218 votes were needed to pass the compromise. From a purely bipartisan standpoint, the bigger the ‘pillow,’ the better the compromise. From a progressive perspective, the smaller the margin, the better the indication that “the best possible deal” has been negotiated.
Of course it can be argued, as many do, that the negotiating strategy was flawed from the get-go, so the tally on this vote means little with respect to all of the more optimistic ‘might-have-been’ scenarios. Not surprisingly, much of the progressive critique falls into the ‘Obama-gave-away-the-store-too-early’ category. See here, here, here and here, for example.
The vote tally reflects a pretty good measure of tea party strength in the House. It appears that there are 151 unrepentant tea party votes in the House. These Republicans are unfazed by national economic concerns and narrowly focused on what right-wing activists in their district want. Most of them are well-protected by gerrymandered districts. These are the obstructionists Dems have to work around to get any legislation passed until the new congress is seated in January, 2015.
From my perch, maybe the President could have hung a little tougher. But it was a tough call with all of the bluffing and bluster going on to determine how many Republicans were running scared enough to be persuadable.
We Dems must have our hour of self-flagellation before we can move on to the next struggle. But it would be folly to overlook our party’s failure to mobilize a good voter turnout in 2010 as a root cause of the fix we’re in now. Instead of hand-wringing about the deal we are going to have to live with, let’s apply what we have learned in this vote and in our successful 2012 voter mobilization — to win back control of the House in 2014.


The political centrism of the 1990’s played a major role in the evolution of today’s broad Democratic coalition. The superficial, “Dems are part of the problem” centrism that Third Way has been presenting lately offers a radically different perspective

This item by James Vega was originally published on December 24, 2012.
Back in the 1990’s, the perspective called “political centrism” played an important role in the intellectual and organizational growth of the Democratic Party. While progressives often deeply and passionately disagreed with particular centrist policies and tactics, in retrospect most Democrats will now agree that centrist politicians like Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Al Gore and others played a significant role in building today’s broad Democratic coalition. Today’s Democratic Party is a coalition of both progressives and centrists that has come of age in the era of Barack Obama, a man who personally embodies a very unique fusion of both centrist and progressive impulses and views.
In fact, most politically serious centrists as well as most progressives would today agree that although Obama has championed major progressive initiatives like national health care, he is more accurately described as closer to a 1990’s Clintonite centrist than to a traditional post-war New Deal Democratic progressive.
There are, to be sure, still very deep disagreements between the centrist and progressive wings of the Democratic coalition. Right now these are reflected in very substantial arguments over the extent of Obama’s concessions in his negotiations with the GOP. But these disagreements exist within the context of an extremely powerful underlying Democratic consensus – one that was emphatically ratified by the November election. The consensus is that there is a profound and fundamental difference between the views and values of today’s Democratic coalition and the right-wing extremist views and values of today’s conservatives and Republicans. Bill Clinton’s passionate defense of Obama and his agenda at the Democratic convention symbolized the basic unity and agreement that exists on this core issue within all sectors of the Democratic community.
That’s why it is genuinely dispiriting to see the distorted way that “centrism” is now being redefined by the current group “Third Way.”
Consider the recent Op-Ed commentary by two principals of the group that appeared in the weekend Washington Post. The commentary repeatedly implies that most or at times all “Democrats” and “Progressives” hold views that most political observers would more accurately describe as the views of “the left-wing” – or even “the most extreme left wing” — of the progressive coalition. The op-ed commentary does this in order to invent an artificial space for Third Way’s own “centrist” alternative – one that presumes to identify a moderate middle ground between what the commentators clearly imply is an unacceptable degree of partisan extremism on the part of many Democrats and progressives as well as Republicans.
Here’s how the commentary re-frames the views of the present Democratic coalition:

“If Democrats and their progressive allies are to achieve real gains during Obama’s second term, they must understand how we got here, and they must be willing to challenge some of their most cherished ideas and messages. If they do not, this historic opportunity could easily be squandered.”

Notice that the “they” who must “challenge some of their most cherished ideas and messages” refers without distinction to all Democrats and also to all progressives. Many of the most basic views of most Democrats and progressives are, it seems, so deeply wrong that they must be “challenged” or disaster will result.
The authors then apply this implicit criticism of the excessively extreme views of Democrats and progressives to a range of major issues, in each case identifying a new “centrist” middle ground alternative to the implied Democratic left-wing partisan extremism on the one hand and the right-wing views of the GOP on the other. In order to make this dubious argument, in each case they create either a “straw man” left-wing Democratic position or a non-existent opportunity for political compromise that Democrats have ignored.
Watch how this is done:
Taxes and Spending
The commentary says:

“Democrats can demand tax increases on the wealthy, but only as part of proposals that also include sizable spending cuts. A plan involving tax increases alone would be rejected by moderate voters and clearly is immovable in a divided government.”
Questions:

1. Has any major faction within the Democratic Party -the Progressive Caucus in Congress, for example or the largest progressive organizations — ever actually demanded that Obama only propose or accept deals that involve absolutely no spending adjustments at all? Has any major faction within the Democratic coalition ever threatened to withdraw support from Obama unless he embraced a plan of pure tax increases and no spending reductions? The answer is obviously no.
2. Is a deal involving a genuinely balanced mixture of tax increases and spending cuts actually “movable” in the current “divided government”? Again the answer is obviously no.

In short, the implicit criticism of the supposedly extremist position of many Democrats and progressives combines both a “straw man” left-wing position that Democrats and the major progressive organizations have not actually insisted upon and a non-existent missed opportunity for compromise.


Latest GOP Scam: Gerrymandering the Electoral College

This item by J.P. Green was originally published on December 18, 2012.
At Mother Jones, Kevin Drum flags Reid Wilson’s National Journal article, “The GOP’s Electoral College Scheme,” which warns Democrats of a coming battle:

Republicans alarmed at the apparent challenges they face in winning the White House are preparing an all-out assault on the Electoral College system in critical states, an initiative that would significantly ease the party’s path to the Oval Office.
Senior Republicans say they will try to leverage their party’s majorities in Democratic-leaning states in an effort to end the winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes. Instead, bills that will be introduced in several Democratic states would award electoral votes on a proportional basis.

Drum adds that “If, say, Michigan switched to a proportional system, then Mitt Romney wouldn’t have won zero of its 16 electoral votes this year. He would have won eight or nine. Voila! More votes for Mitt.” Further, says Drum,

Do this in other states that are either solidly Democratic or trending Democratic, and you could snag 40 or 50 extra electoral votes for the Republican nominee. Needless to say, there are no plans to do something similar in states that tend to vote for the Republican candidate. Texas and Georgia have no intention of going proportional and allowing the Democratic nominee to get a share of their electoral votes.

In his post, “Electoral College Shakeup: How Republicans could put a lock on the presidency” at In These Times, Rob Richie explains:

If Republicans in 2011 had abused their monopoly control of state government in several key swing states and passed new laws for allocating electoral votes, the exact same votes cast in the exact same way in the 2012 election would have converted Barack Obama’s advantage of nearly five million popular votes and 126 electoral votes into a resounding Electoral College defeat.
The power of elector-allocation rule changes goes further. Taken to an extreme, these Republican-run states have the ability to lock Democrats out of a chance of victory in 2016 absent the Democratic nominee winning a national landslide of some 12 million votes. In short, the Republicans could win the 2016 election by state law changes made in 2013.

Richie notes that the scheme is already in motion in Pennsylvania and “In the last year, Republican leaders have indicated interest in dividing electoral votes in such states as Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and, just this week, Virginia, where state senator Bill Carrico has introduced a bill to allocate Virginia’s electoral votes by congressional district.” He crunches the numbers and provides an interesting chart showing two scenarios using the ‘allocation by district’ method under which Romney would have won an electoral college majority. He demonstrates that under existing political realities, there is no possibility of Democrats using the technique to their advantage.
Jamelle Bouie’s post on the topic, “Republicans Float Plan to Make Electoral College More Unfair” at The American Prospect adds “Republicans…want to “reform” the system by adopting the worst of all worlds–winner-take-all for Republican states, proportional distribution for Democratic ones…it amounts to little more than a scheme to rig presidential elections in favor of GOP candidates.”
As Richie concludes,

…The very fact that such a scenario is even legally possible should give us all pause. Election of the president should be a fair process in which all American voters have equal ability to hold their president accountable. It’s time for the nation to embrace one-person, one-vote elections and the “fair fight” represented by a national popular vote. Let’s forever dismiss the potential of such electoral hooliganism and finally do what the overwhelming majorities of Americans have consistently preferred: Make every vote equal with a national popular vote for president.

This may indeed be the most viable strategy for Democrats, since some Republicans will likely join the direct popular vote movement, concluding that direct popular vote gives them a better shot than trying to ‘run the table’ in winning district allocation of electoral votes reforms in all the swing states. Democrats on, the other hand, will continue to have a growing edge caused by demographic trends. It’s the only way to insure a fair playing field for all parties.


Questioning Some Shaky Memes

With things happening pretty fast in Washington right now, it’s important to deal with some questionable media memes that will if not challenged become established fact. I’ve brought up a few at Washington Monthly this week.
We continue to hear that one consequence of the 2012 elections is that the “culture wars” are finally, conclusively over. If you take a look at what’s been happening at the state level over the last two years when it comes to reproductive rights, a declaration of victory is certainly premature (though defenders of such rights won some tactical victories in 2012). And indeed, some conservative expressions of despair on the cultural front don’t represent acceptance of change, but perhaps a change in strategy, and an actual intensification of contempt towards those of us trying to live in the 21st century.
Meanwhile, on the fiscal front, both angry progressives and solace-seeking conservatives have adopted the line that Obama and congressional Democrats “enshrined” the Bush tax cuts in the New Year’s deal. I think that misses the practical reality that most Americans viewed the pre-deal income tax rates as the status quo, and the deal as a selective tax increase (though one they supported).
Above all, widespread reports of splits in the Republican Party (based on the tax vote, the mini-revolt against Bohner’s re-election as Speaker, and a lot of fiery rhetoric) are vastly over-stating the significance of differences of opinion over legislative strategy and tactics. If anything, McConnell and Boehner are taking a maximum hard line on early positioning in the debt limit/sequestration fight, and there is zero evidence of any significant reconsideration of conservative ideology beneath the legislative maneuvering.


Judis: Why Obama Won Big and How Dems Can Win the Battle Ahead

For an exceptionally-lucid take on The Deal, check out John Judis’s New Republic post, “Obama Wasn’t Rolled. He Won!,” which explains:

…In the election, Obama framed the campaign in classic Democratic terms as a contest of the party of the common man against the party of the rich, while carefully targeting the new Democratic demography. And in the two months since his reelection, he carried through on the promise of the campaign by centering the fiscal cliff negotiations on ending tax cuts for the wealthy.
The bill, the American Tax Payer Relief Act, raises tax rates back to 39.6 percent for those making over $400,000; limits deductions and credits for those making over $250,000; extends unemployment insurance; expands the earned income tax credit; and gives Congress another two months to prevent sequestration. Some of my colleagues argue that he could have gotten more, but I don’t think so. The final result, approved by the House of Representatives, saves the country from another fiscal train wreck. It also positions Obama and the Democrats very well in future fights with a Republican Party that is becoming an embattled outpost for addled billionaires and white Southern revanchists. It may not happen during Obama’s second term, but the GOP may be on the way to marginalizing itself as a political party.

“An embattled outpost for addled billionaires and white southern revanchists” has to be the most apt description of today’s GOP yet written. It’s tempting to add “and their equally-unhinged political munchkins,” but that would be gilding the lily.
Judis credits President Obama with successfully achieving his central goal in the negotiations — securing a compromise which “protected consumer demand and jobs” needed to prevent imperiling the recovery. he adds,

…The very act of avoiding the fiscal cliff and the ensuing weeks of clamor or crisis will protect America’s global reputation as a “safe haven” for investors. That’s no small matter, because foreigners’ willingness to hold and invest in dollars is a major reason why interest rates have not gone up.

In addition, adds Judis, Obama and Democratic leaders maneuvered Republicans into “a position where, in order to protect tax cuts for the wealthy, they had to risk increasing taxes for everyone by letting the country go over the cliff,” which “robbed them of what has been their defining issue. They are now left with advocating spending cuts, which, as it turns out, are only popular in the abstract.”
The President did an excellent job of leveraging the bully pulpit, explains Judis. “He campaigned publicly. He framed the issues. He put the Republicans on the defensive in a way that he failed to do during much of his first term.”
Judis acknowledges that there are legitimate concerns that “about whether Obama got enough from the negotiations.” and wonders “…Could Obama have gotten an agreement on the debt ceiling or the sequester instead of postponing these battles?” But he concludes that “Obama did not have the power to force Senate and House Republicans into a last minute deal on these issues without making very unfortunate concessions on spending and taxes.”
Looking ahead, Judis adds,

…The fiscal cliff deal took tax rates out of the discussion. What’s left are spending cuts. If Obama allows the Republicans and obnoxious groups like Fix the Debt to frame the issues, he’ll be in trouble.And he did seem to fall into this trap briefly when he proposed changing the cost of living index for Social Security. But if he reminds the public that what the Republicans andBut if he reminds the public that what the Republicans and their allies want to do is cut their Medicare and Social Security, he and the Democrats should be in good shape.

As a consequence of The Deal, Judis sees the GOP being ripped apart by divisions between House and Senate Republicans, widening regional differences and even a split in conservative lobbying groups who had oppositional interests in the fiscal cliff negotiations. As Judis notes, the reverberations included this enjoyable capper for Dems:

…After the Republican leadership refused to bring a Sandy hurricane relief bill to the floor before the end of the session – effectively killing it – New York Republican Peter King called on New York and New Jersey Republicans to withhold donations to the GOP. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie blew his top at the House Republicans.

Democratic unity is going to be critical in the months ahead to hold the edge we have achieved. Says Judis “…A process of erosion is under way that will weaken the Republicans’ ability to maintain a united front against Democratic initiatives. That could happen in the debates over the sequester and debt ceiling if Obama and the Democrats make the kind of public fuss that they did over fiscal cliff.”


Creamer: Raising Top Tax Rates a Big Win for Dems

This article by Democratic strategist Robert Creamer, author of Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, is cross-posted from HuffPo:
Politico quotes conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer as saying that the “fiscal cliff” bill passed by the Congress last night was a “complete rout for Democrats” and ‘”complete surrender” for the GOP. That may be overstating the case, but there is little question that raising tax rates for top income earners is a very big deal.
The last time Republicans joined Democrats to increase taxes on the wealthy was 1990. Yesterday, they were forced to join Democrats in increasing the top income tax rate to the Clinton-era levels of 39.6 percent — and increasing the capital gains tax rate from 15 percent to 20 percent.
The top earners’ rate was last increased in 1993. Then, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and still won in the House with only one vote to spare. Vice President Gore was brought in to cast the deciding vote in the Senate.
For two decades, the protection of high-income people from tax rate increases has been the central driving principle of the Republican Party. It has been their Holy Grail. It is the one thing that the right-wing oligarchs who spent all that money on Republican elections last year really care about.
Unfortunately, the Republicans have leverage in our government, since they still control what comes to a vote in the House.
The fact that the president, Democrats in Congress and the Progressive Movement pushed the Republicans into a place where they felt compelled to help pass an increase in the top rate is an astounding political achievement — particularly without being forced to trade cuts in programs for the poor and middle class like Medicare and Social Security.
In the debate leading up to the vote that increased the top rate in 1993, Republicans predicted it would cause a giant recession. What followed instead was the creation of 22 million new jobs, and ultimately federal budget surpluses as far as the eye could see.
The increase in the top rate will not immediately create 22 million new jobs. Nor will it create a budget surplus. But it is an indispensible ingredient in any serious plan to assure the long-term economic and fiscal health of our country — and the long-term survival of the middle class.
The fundamental economic problem facing America is growing income inequality. This is not just a problem of fairness — it is a ball and chain on our long-term economic growth.
Over the last 20 years our per capita Gross Domestic Product has grown — so has our per capita productivity. That means that each of us can produce more goods and services with the same amount of work.
But the wealthiest two percent has syphoned off all of that economic growth, and as a result everyday Americans haven’t had the money to buy the new products and services that the economy produced. That has been a formula for economic stagnation — and the demise of the middle class.
Long-term economic growth requires that the fruits of that growth be spread fairly throughout the economy or it cannot be sustained. It’s that simple.
The increase in the top rate generates about $700 billion of new revenue (including interest savings) over the next 10 years. That will lessen pressure to cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, college grants, and the vast array of other government services that go to benefit – and increase the incomes – of everyday Americans. It is a step in the process of creating a fairer – and more economically sustainable — distribution of the benefits of economic growth and the restoration of the American middle class.
These increases in revenue from the highest income earners must be viewed as just a down payment in the new revenue from the wealthy needed to close the long-term structural deficit that opened up when George Bush the GOP passed the Bush tax cuts and launched two unpaid-for wars. But it is a critical first step.
The same is true of the increase in the estate tax rate from 35 percent to 40 percent — although the president had pushed hard for the old rate of 45 percent. The only people who pay estate taxes, by definition, are the sons and daughters of multi-millionaires.
In the case of both the income threshold for the highest tax rate and the exemption for the estate tax, Democrats made concessions to Republicans. Instead of making the income tax rate apply to incomes above $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples, the president agreed to $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for couples. And instead of a $3.5 million individual exemption and $7 million per couple for the estate tax, the exemption went to $5 million for individuals and $10 million for couples.


Fiscal Cliff Vote: What the House Tally Says

Democrats will be arguing about President Obama’s strategy in negotiating the fiscal cliff deal for months, and there is a lot to criticize from all points on the Democratic spectrum. Senate passage of the compromise was predictable enough. But one day out, it’s worth looking at the breakdown of the votes in the House of Representatives to fairly evaluate the white house and Democratic strategy.
The New York Times has the complete House roll call, along with a good roll-over map. The final House vote was 257-167. In all, 172 Democrats and 85 Republicans voted for the bill. In opposition were 16 Democrats and 151 Republicans.
Among Republicans Speaker Boehner and Rep. Ryan supported the compromise, with Majority Leader Eric Cantor and other GOP “leaders” opposing it.
The 16 Dems who opposed the compromise included a few strong progressives, who objected on principle to elements of the compromise and a small group of remaining Blue Dogs who couldn’t accept any tax hikes. Eight members did not vote, for varying reasons, some personal. (e.g. Liberal stalwart Rep. John Lewis’s wife, Lilian just died). Of course, most of the ‘Yes’ votes included strong progressives, who disliked elements of the deal, but held their noses and took one for the team. Here’s the Democratic breakdown of the “no” votes, according to the Washington Post:

The 16 Democrats voting no split between the liberal and the moderate. More liberal Reps. Xavier Becerra (Calif.), Earl Blumenauer (Ore.), Peter DeFazio (Ore.), Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), Jim McDermott (Wash.), Brad Miller (N.C.), Jim Moran (Va.), Bobby Scott (Va.), Pete Visclosky (Ind.) voted no. But they were joined by moderate-to-conservative Reps. John Barrow (Ga.), Jim Cooper (Tenn.), Jim Matheson (Utah), Mike McIntyre (N.C.), Collin Peterson (Minn.), Kurt Schrader (Ore.) and Adam Smith (Wash.).

Without getting into the elements of the deal and the specific concerns of the members who voted, the tally reflects a fairly comfy pillow of 39 more votes than were needed for passage, since 218 votes were needed to pass the compromise. From a purely bipartisan standpoint, the bigger the ‘pillow,’ the better the compromise. From a progressive perspective, the smaller the margin, the better the indication that “the best possible deal” has been negotiated.
Of course it can be argued, as many do, that the negotiating strategy was flawed from the get-go, so the tally on this vote means little with respect to all of the more optimistic ‘might-have-been’ scenarios. Not surprisingly, much of the progressive critique falls into the ‘Obama-gave-away-the-store-too-early’ category. See here, here, here and here, for example.
The vote tally reflects a pretty good measure of tea party strength in the House. It appears that there are 151 unrepentant tea party votes in the House. These Republicans are unfazed by national economic concerns and narrowly focused on what right-wing activists in their district want. Most of them are well-protected by gerrymandered districts. These are the obstructionists Dems have to work around to get any legislation passed until the new congress is seated in January, 2015.
From my perch, maybe the President could have hung a little tougher. But it was a tough call with all of the bluffing and bluster going on to determine how many Republicans were running scared enough to be persuadable.
We Dems must have our hour of self-flagellation before we can move on to the next struggle. But it would be folly to overlook our party’s failure to mobilize a good voter turnout in 2010 as a root cause of the fix we’re in now. Instead of hand-wringing about the deal we are going to have to live with, let’s apply what we have learned in this vote and in our successful 2012 voter mobilization — to win back control of the House in 2014.