Americans overwhelmingly support raising taxes on the rich to help make up the budget deficit.
Americans overwhelmingly oppose dramatic cuts to Medicare and Social Security, especially if millionaires and billionaires are not asked to share the sacrifice. The Ryan plan is extremely unpopular and seemed like a golden issue on which Democrats from the top of the ticket to the bottom could run.
Americans overwhelmingly oppose the Republican plans on deficit reduction.
Americans are far more worried about jobs and the economy than they are about the deficit.
Yet somehow, our Democratic president seems willing to cut a very unpopular deal with unpopular people on an unpopular issue that will make Democratic chances to retake the House all the more unlikely.
Can someone please explain this to me?
Does the president have polling that we don't have? Does he and his team have some endgame where dramatic cuts to the most popular and successful government programs in American history can somehow turn into a winning political strategy?
Cause it damn sure isn't good policy.
There is no way -- NO WAY -- you can ever balance the budget without dramatically increasing revenue. Period. Any deal that does not raise revenue from mega corporations and the mega wealthy is not worth the crap that I would wipe from my ass with the paper it's written on.
Dramatic cuts to Medicare, Social Security, and other important government programs will depress economic growth far more directly than any tax increases ever could. So, that damn sure can't be the argument.
The government defaulting would be horrible -- for sure. But, first of all, I don't see any way that at the end of the day Republicans would actually allow that to happen. You will be able to find 218 reps and 60 sens to vote for clean extension. It may only be for a few months and the GOP may be really splintered and upset about it. But, so what? Let them be upset.
Second of all, Obama had already won this game. Polls show that he is seen as the adult at the table and that the petulant Republicans unwillingness to budge even an inch would be blamed for a possible government default.
I guess the Obama team thinks that a) if a default were to happen, the pain would be so great that the details wouldn't matter and everyone would get blamed and/or b) that a grand bargain, even if it's a terrible deal that will cut important programs for the sick and elderly without asking for one red cent from millionaires and billionaires, would be a political win in the 2012 election.
I don't see it. From where I sit, it's bad policy and bad politics. And worse, it's an unforced error. We would have Republicans either fractured or to blame for the default. We could go into 2012 saying -- this is what happens when you vote for lunatics who don't know what the hell they are doing. And you could say Democrats stood up for middle and working class families against draconian cuts to real programs that help real people.
But, even better, you'd be right on the policy, the basic point being if you want to get serious about balancing the budget, you must increase revenue. Period.