The simplest way to summarize the current moment in U.S. politics is to note that both Congress and the presidentially-appointed deficit commission are engaged in highly symbolic posturing in which some observers see an eventual bipartisan convergence and others see the ultimate triumph of partisanship.
The maneuvering over the fate of the Bush tax cuts is a prime example. After a procedural wrinkle gave House Democrats the sequence of votes they wanted, they succeeded in passing the long-promised extension of tax cuts targeted to the middle class (though those at the top end, of course, will benefit as well). But prospects for passage of such a bill in the Senate have, of course, fallen prey to that chamber’s 60-vote requirement, and to the Republican conviction that the White House will ultimately agree to an across-the-board extension of tax cuts, either as a temporary measure, or as part of a deal that would extend unemployment benefits and pursue other worthy priorities. The single-minded GOP focus on the best possible deal for upper-income Americans (or as Republicans like to call them, “job creators”) arguably gives them greater leverage.
Meanwhile, 11 of the 18 members of the Bowles-Simpson deficit commission voted for a package of recommendations, three short of the supermajority required to trigger congressional action. Given the “third rails” in the report, such as major structural changes in Social Security and the closing of very popular tax exclusions, you could say it’s amazing a majority (including significant congressional players like Dick Durbin and Tom Coburn) voted for it, however reluctantly and conditionally. On the other hand, none of the House Republicans would support it, and rank-and-file Democratic opposition would be fierce given the totemic nature of Social Security. And if Republicans and Democrats can’t cobble together something they can support with the cover of a blue-ribbon commission and a presidential mandate, what makes anyone think they can get anything done in Congress starting all over again?
The spin wars over the Bowles-Simpson report between now and the end of the lame-duck session may well determine whether the commission will later be perceived as a breakthrough, or just another confirmation that the two parties disagree too much on basics to get anything fundamental done. It is, after all, a bit difficult to compromise between the points of view that the preeminent economic problem facing the country is (a) insufficient consumer demand, and (b) too heavy a burden on investors, since these perspectives guide public policy in diametrically opposed directions. But if continued partisan gridlock is inevitable, it is true that both parties would like to avoid blame for it, particularly among the segment of voters who either believe strongly in bipartisan compromise or support incompatible policies.
It is worth remembering that the faction of the Republican Party usually credited with making deficit reduction a priority after years of happy indifference to the subject, the Tea Party movement, is also the faction most resistant to any cooperation whatsoever with the Obama administration and with congressional Democrats. And the faction of the Democratic Party traditionally most interested in deficit reduction and most open to bipartisanship just got disproportionately damaged in the midterm elections. So don’t hold your breath waiting for big compromises.
