And that is a new world record for hyphenization. Ism.
Let me unpack that storyline in reverse. First, Ezra:
A bit more information has trickled out over the last few days detailing the exact state of the budget negotiations when they collapsed. Both sides, as they often said, were shooting for about $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years. They'd already agreed on around $1 trillion in spending cuts and were making good progress on the rest of it. But Democrats insisted that $400 billion -- so, 17 percent -- of the package be tax increases. And that's when Republicans walked.
Then Rortybomb's Mike Konczal on Ezra's observation:
So the Democrats are proposing 17% tax increases, 83% spending cuts, and the Republicans are rejecting it. Well, this just forces us to ask: What’s the ideal conservative Republican ratio here?
So if you opened the Republican economic study that their whole argument is based on, you would find that they recommend 15% tax increases, 85% spending cuts. There’s even a chart! Remember, the Democrats are proposing…..17% tax increases, 83% spending cuts, and getting rejected.
Finally, Ezra concludes:
By the end of the debt-ceiling negotiations, the Obama administration had agreed to a deal that would reduce the deficit by $2.4 trillion, with $2 trillion of the total coming from spending cuts and $400 billion coming from tax increases. Taxes, in other words, would be about 17 percent of the final deal. Republicans rejected it. But as little as four months ago, it was the Republican ideal.
So when the GOP’s economic policy team sat down to make the strongest case they could for growth-inducing deficit reduction, they recommended a mix an 85:15 mix, not a 100:0 mix. And then, when the Obama administration agreed to an 83:17 mix, the Republican leadership walked out of the room and demanded that taxes be excluded from the deal altogether. How do you negotiate with that?
Got it? So, bottom line: Republicans in March said they wanted to see an 85:15 ratio in cuts to tax increases. Dems offered 83:17. Republicans said F you, we're outta here. President says that's childish. DC pundits declare president a dick.
I am not shitting you.
All this, by itself, is not news to you, I'm sure. But I'm bringing it up in order to point out that once again,reading Daily Kos is like getting the paper a week early:
At this point, analyzing Republican duplicity any further than simply stating it as a conclusion is just too tiresome to contemplate. Even writing this post is in many ways too tiresome to contemplate. So I'm going to make it easy on myself and on you, the reader. Why is it time—indeed, well past time—to call out Republicans, as Senate Dems did earlier today?
Here are a few, but by no means all, easily recalled examples. Consider:
- Mitt Romney's Massachusetts health insurance mandate morphs into the Affordable Care Act, but Republicans suddenly learn to hate the individual mandate at the heart of both plans
- Republicans insist tax cuts never have to be "paid for" with spending cuts, then demand that the 1099 reporting provisions that have the effect of increasing tax liabilities for business be repealed; Democrats agree to repeal them (thus lowering business tax liabilities), and Republicans block the move because the cuts aren't paid for
- Senate GOP demands a vote on permanent extension of Bush tax cuts, is offered such a vote, then blocks their own deal
- January's Senate rules reform fight ends with an agreement that, in part, includes a deal to pass a bill reducing the number of presidential nominations requiring Senate approval, thus lowering the number of potential filibusters gumming up the works. When the bill is ready to move to the floor, Republicans attempt to block it
Since we're going by playground rules today and calling people dicks, we might as well call this what it is. In G-rated parlance, it's Lucy and the football. In MSNBC-rated parlance, it's fucking bullshit, and everyone on the playground should kick you in the ass.