Curious that we haven't heard much about revenues in this shutdown fight.
Rand Paul blew Boehner's cover. Paul claims that not raising the debt limit will not trigger a default on Treasury bills. But there's only one way that doesn't happen -- excruciating pain on American voters, as Paul Krugman points out, including skating on very thin ice with Social Security and Medicare payouts. That pain will still be here in 2014, long after the squabble over monuments is forgotten.
To boost the credibility of his bogus default threat, Boehner claims a default--with whatever repercussions--would be Obama's fault for "refusing to negotiate." Whatever. It's more important to see that which party takes the blame is irrelevant. Post-default, the issue in 2014 on will be taxes on the wealthy, not blame. With the nation writhing in deficit agony, "fair share" will be the Category 5 political daikaiju emerging from the rim. Think 2012 squared, raging on steroids, and jacked on methamphetamine. Post-default, in a political fight over "fair share", Boehner knows he stands zero chance. Just ask Mitt Romney.
Why Romney Lost
The Tea Party will tell you "Obamaphone Lady" stole the election. My take is that Obama won with winning counters to two of Romney's three main lines of attack, the economy and spending. (Obamacare being the third.) Both counters were "fair share" arguments.
On the weak economy, Obama countered that the economy still suffered the effects of the Lehman Bros. meltdown. Romney claimed the meltdown had no effect on the economy by 2012, a silly, losing argument.
On the deficit, Romney lost the "fair share" argument with Obama. Romney campaigned as if the only answer to the deficit was spending cuts. There's obviously another side of the equation: revenues, i.e., "fair share." "Fair Share" is a good political hand for Democrats anyway, but much stronger in 2012 because of lingering hatred of Wall Street. Romney's cries of "Class warfare!" and "You Can't Blame Bush!" -- well, obviously they were inadequate.
So despite Obamacare, despite a weak economy, despite racism, Obama beat Romney in a recession because of "fair share." How strong was "fair share?" According to Brookings (writing in February 2012): "In the postwar period, incumbent presidents have run for reelection 10 times, winning 7 and losing 3. The winners all had strong job markets going for them ... The three losers all confronted economic issues."
Because of "fair share", Obama is the first post-war incumbent to win re-election in a weak economy.
2014
Tornado season hits flyover country with FEMA bankrupt. What will the Tea Party think -- not about Nancy Pelosi, but about "making the rich pay their fair share?" How much will we hear about small government? I don't know, but a tornado is a very shocking dose of reality.
The summer before the 2012 election, I had drinks with a fifty-ish white man out by the Rockaway Beach boardwalk. The fellow -- he had the same name as me, Peter -- owned a small hotel; he had 'Reagan Democrat' written all over him. On first glance, you'd take him for a Tea Party guy. He told me he'd voted for Obama and would again. Then he said, "anyone who isn't rich who thinks Romney is on their side is a moron." I can only imagine what he thinks of the Tea Party right now. His hotel was probably wiped out by Hurricane Sandy, to which the Tea Party said "go drown yourself in the ocean."
That wiped out ex-hotel owner Peter represents the 2014 electorate -- and on -- if things play out the way Rand Paul predicts: a hurricane election over "fair share" that brings a hurricane of new taxes on the upper 5%.
The See-Through Speaker
Politically, default is not about blame. It's about revenues. Boehner has more to lose by not rising the debt limit than Obama does. He risks both another global financial meltdown and/or a wave of new taxes on the rich.
Revenues is the deficit elephant that Boehner wants us to pretend isn't in the room. But it is in the room. It's why Boehner is "clinging" to his bogus default threat -- he doesn't want to go into the room with Obama and that elephant and talk "fair share" without his nuclear bluff. But he is bluffing. Revenues is what he's trying to protect. But if we default, he can't hold the line on revenues. In fact, he's better positioned to negotiate on revenues if he drops his gun now. Because if he shoots America, the political pressure for new revenues will be enormous.
So his threat of default is an illusion. If he goes with Rand Paul, he empowers Obama to close the budget gap on the backs of the wealthy. He wants to negotiate? Obama tells him, 'either you raise the debt limit, or I will run you over in 2014 and we will eat the upper 5% for lunch. Then maybe you can seek asylum in Russia. Hey, they got Vodka!'
Yoohoo and the Tea Party are crazy enough to do it. But I'm convinced Boehner is bluffing. Give him not a god damned thing, Mr. President.