Obama should call Republicans' bluff: Embrace key GOP proposals -- and see if they play ball

[one...two...tree 2,762]

by Steve Benen

Two short years ago, one of the presidential tickets had the wisdom to not only acknowledge the climate crisis, but also to present credible solutions to address it.

If elected, the tandem told Americans, they intended to do what the Bush administration would not: establish "a cap-and-trade system that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions" and pursue "alternatives to carbon-based fuels." The result, they said, would be "a better future for our children."

The candidates were John McCain and Sarah Palin.

The nuances matter, but the differences between the Democratic vision on energy policy and the McCain-Palin platform are relatively minor. In fact, if the White House were prepared to open negotiations with a Republican-led House next year, President Obama could do worse than starting with the McCain-Palin plan.

With that in mind, why doesn't he do just that? What better way for a Democratic President to demonstrate a commitment to bipartisanship than by embracing specific Republican proposals?

The conventional wisdom is that Obama is in a nearly untenable position in the wake of the midterm elections. He could continue to fight for his top priorities, butt heads with GOP lawmakers intent on destroying his presidency, and run into inexorable gridlock. Or he could drift to the right, concluding that more conservative policies are better than a stagnant government, running the risk of alienating his liberal base.

But there's an alternative behind door #3: embrace the handful of Republican ideas he already likes, effectively challenging the GOP to take "yes" for an answer.

There are more such ideas than you may realize.

Energy policy is arguably the easiest area for common ground, given the McCain-Palin agenda of 2008. Obama could endorse it with relative ease. Though it's unlikely today's GOP, which has lurched far to the right, would appreciate the gesture, it would be somewhat more challenging for Republicans to characterize a plan presented by their own party's presidential ticket as some kind of communist plot.

Second, there's immigration. The White House's vision of a comprehensive reform plan is already in line with the last administration's approach on the same issue. The President can keep the bipartisanship going by endorsing the Bush-Cheney immigration proposal, almost to the letter.

Likewise, the Dream Act, intended to help children of illegal immigrants with a path to citizenship, was written in large part by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).

Republicans want to make cuts to government spending? No problem - several prominent GOP lawmakers, including hard-line conservatives like Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), have recently endorsed trimming the enormous Pentagon budget, an idea Obama could also get behind.

And if the President were feeling particularly mischievous, he could endorse the tax rates adopted by Ronald Reagan, who oversaw rates considerably higher than the ones in place today. Would Republicans really condemn Ronaldus Magnus' tax policy?

The goal of the nation's leading Democrat endorsing GOP proposals would have less to do with magnanimity and more to do with throwing emboldened Republicans off-balance. It's easy for GOP attack dogs to snarl when Obama is pushing his own ideas; it's a challenge to their credibility when they start attacking Republican ideas.

To a very real extent, the White House has already taken some steps down this road, albeit subtly, and with limited success. Since his inauguration, the President has endorsed a series of Republican ideas - an independent deficit commission, an individual mandate in health care, trying terrorist suspects in U.S. civilian courts.

Each and every time, GOP leaders have cynically tacked away from their own policies after learning of Obama's support, and much of the public has conveniently forgotten that Republicans ever believed in the ideas in the first place.

That's all the more reason for the President to be explicit in pursuing the strategy. Let people know that, in several key areas, the White House isn't fighting Republican ideas, but, on the contrary, endorsing them, challenging their proponents to put up or shut up.

If even then John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and their cohorts announced that Obama's overtures weren't good enough, it would send a pretty clear signal to the country about who's willing to compromise, who's willing to listen to the other side and who's sincere about finding solutions to the nation's challenges.

http://www.nydailyne...gops_bluff.html

[Pooky 3,347]

Second, there's immigration. The White House's vision of a comprehensive reform plan is already in line with the last administration's approach on the same issue. The President can keep the bipartisanship going by endorsing the Bush-Cheney immigration proposal, almost to the letter.

The BushBaby Immigration reform was rejected overwhelmingly by the American people and a bi-partisan opposition in Congress, and they have not changed their minds. Taking up this proposal would be like flogging a dead horse. Nice try, but ...

[Danno 1,228]

Thanks Steve, it's always educational to consider another example of how, Republicans embracing left-wing positions .... seldom pan out.

Pont two: Looking back two years ago and basing a forward moving political plan is rather foolish, everything has changed now, in another two years we may see another avalanche of change.

Edited November 14, 2010 by Danno

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The author has missed the entire health care debate. What Congress passed and the President signed into law earlier this year is in all essence the GOP health care reform plan from 1993. When the GOP plan was up for a vote this year, it was a government takeover of health care, death panels (a specific component of the package that was put on the table by the GOP), and unconstitutional. Cap and trade is another one of these items - it was Johnny and Sarah's platform. Until that's what was on the table. Then it became cap and tax. It's all in the verbiage and propaganda.

The GOP is not going to cooperate in any way, shape or form. Period. I cannot believe that there are still people out there entertaining the idea that there will be any bit of bipartisanship after having been through the last two years.

What the President and the lame duck session of Congress ought to do it put the gun to the GOP's head on the Bush tax cuts. Extend them for anyone below the 200K/250K income level and put that up for a vote. If the GOP rejects it, the tax hikes at the beginning of next year will be squarely on them. They are on them to begin with since it was the GOP that passed those "tax hikes" in the first place. But their opposition to grant relief to the middle class now would be almost impossible to turn into a winning argument.

Edited November 14, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What the President and the lame duck session of Congress ought to do it put the gun to the GOP's head on the Bush tax cuts. Extend them for anyone below the 200K/250K income level and put that up for a vote. If the GOP rejects it, the tax hikes at the beginning of next year will be squarely on them. They are on them to begin with since it was the GOP that passed those "tax hikes" in the first place. But their opposition to grant relief to the middle class now would be almost impossible to turn into a winning argument.

Yep. I sure hope so.

[RDDIXON 0]

x

Edited November 14, 2010 by RDDIXON

[DEDixon 39]

extend bush cuts for 250K and less. i like this but what if you make 251,000? it kind of sucks. i'm ticked over this one. if 1 buck over 250k, should still qualify for a cut just maybe not the entire cut.

at this rate, obama just might not get the nomination to run in 2012. he just might go down in history as a jimmy carter too. i actually don't think he can do anything any different than he has (he shouldn't have did health care, however), just goes to prove what i've always said, the economy is bigger than all the governments on earth combined. the economy can't be manipulated with a snap of one's fingers so maybe a nice wake up call to gov'ts around the world... get deficit spending under control in good times or else when bad times hit, next time, it won't be just a few countries (greece, ireland) to basically go bankrupt.

you liberal dems that are always advocating yet another social safety net on deficit spending better get a clue or else eventually your own kids will be paying in ways you can't imagine.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

extend bush cuts for 250K and less. i like this but what if you make 251,000? it kind of sucks. i'm ticked over this one. if 1 buck over 250k, should still qualify for a cut just maybe not the entire cut.

And you would. Income up to 200/250 would continue to be taxed as it has been in years past. Only what you make above that would be taxed at pre 2001 / 2003 rates. So even those making over 200/250K would benefit from an extension of the lower tax rates up to that level.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

OK, lets see if he does.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

you liberal dems that are always advocating yet another social safety net on deficit spending better get a clue or else eventually your own kids will be paying in ways you can't imagine.

Funny that many industrialized countries with stronger social safety nets actually have less of a deficit and debt problem than the US. Maybe the clue is to be obtained elsewhere on the political spectrum. You can't tax cut your way out of economic and budget troubles. Hasn't really worked anywhere, certainly hasn't worked here at the beginning of this century. Tax cuts aplenty, we've seen jobs grow at a pace of 300K/year until the economy finally collapsed. Over the course of the last year, for comparison, we've added roughly a million jobs in the private sector. Clinton averaged 1.75 million / year. Damn that tax and spend liberal, eh?

[DEDixon 39]

Funny that many industrialized countries with stronger social safety nets actually have less of a deficit and debt problem than the US. Maybe the clue is to be obtained elsewhere on the political spectrum. You can't tax cut your way out of economic and budget troubles. Hasn't really worked anywhere, certainly hasn't worked here at the beginning of this century. Tax cuts aplenty, we've seen jobs grow at a pace of 300K/year until the economy finally collapsed. Over the course of the last year, for comparison, we've added roughly a million jobs in the private sector. Clinton averaged 1.75 million / year. Damn that tax and spend liberal, eh?

clinton's policies did not create those jobs. the internet revolution created those jobs and just before clinton left office, a lot of those jobs were long gone. i remember very clearly nancy pelosi complaining about job when bush entered office and then the housing boom began so she shut up and started complaining about port security. internet boom and bust under clinton and housing boom and bust under bush/obama.

those other industrialized countries you mentioned, do they have the same responsibilities that we have around the world? nope. that is partly why they can do more internally. AUS is a great example - very isolated and not looked upon to solve any of the world's problems so they do very well. AUS even lets the rest of the world invent all the technologies they use so well so they save there too. i've heard Norway is doing well - again, who is looking for them to do anything big on the world stage? also, do they have same percentage of illegals in their country soaking up benefits?

OK, lets see if he does.

got my finger crossed that he does.

[mawilson 2,133]

extend bush cuts for 250K and less. i like this but what if you make 251,000? it kind of sucks. i'm ticked over this one.

You're ticked off over having to pay 3 cents more on that extra buck?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

extend bush cuts for 250K and less. i like this but what if you make 251,000?

You're ticked off over having to pay 3 cents more on that extra buck?

It's not that hard, is it? Somehow there's a lot of outrage out there simply because people are ignorant as to what is actually debated. They have some crazy ideas planted into their skulls by the RWN alternate universe and then they're outraged over that crazy ####### that has nothing to do with reality.

[^_^ 5,021]

You're ticked off over having to pay 3 cents more on that extra buck?

You need to teach them about marginal rates again. You did once, but they appear to have forgotten.

[mawilson 2,133]

You need to teach them about marginal rates again. You did once, but they appear to have forgotten.

Twice, actually. I only have enough energy left for a sarcastic one-liner.