{"id":1704,"date":"2013-12-05T06:06:48","date_gmt":"2013-12-05T11:06:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.dougsbriefcase.com\/blog\/?p=1704"},"modified":"2013-12-04T23:08:55","modified_gmt":"2013-12-05T04:08:55","slug":"politics-art-spurning-compromise","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.dougsbriefcase.com\/blog\/politics-art-spurning-compromise\/","title":{"rendered":"Politics as the Art of Spurning Compromise"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"It<\/a>

It may take a big\u00adger gav\u00adel for House Bud\u00adget Com\u00admit\u00adtee Chair\u00adman Paul Ryan (R\u2011WI<\/span>) and his Sen\u00adate coun\u00adter\u00adpart Pat\u00adty Mur\u00adray (D\u2011WA<\/span>) to ham\u00admer out a bud\u00adget agree\u00adment. (Cred\u00adit: Swamp\u00adland Times)<\/p><\/div>\n

Bud\u00adget nego\u00adtia\u00adtors have strug\u00adgled for near\u00adly two months to find agree\u00adment on the out\u00adlines of a spend\u00ading bill that would fund the gov\u00adern\u00adment after Jan\u00adu\u00adary 15.  The tar\u00adget date for a deal is next Fri\u00adday. They hope to meet it.<\/p>\n

The agree\u00adment that con\u00adtin\u00adues to elude them, if it comes at all, would be a small one. Gone are aspi\u00adra\u00adtions for a \u201cgrand bar\u00adgain\u201d that would reform enti\u00adtle\u00adments and the tax code and replace future across-the-board cuts with some\u00adthing less mind\u00adless. Changes to Medicare, Med\u00adic\u00adaid, Social Secu\u00adri\u00adty and oth\u00ader \u201cmanda\u00adto\u00adry\u201d spend\u00ading pro\u00adgrams, which togeth\u00ader con\u00adsti\u00adtute 63 per\u00adcent<\/a> of non-inter\u00adest gov\u00adern\u00adment spend\u00ading, are off the table.  So, too, are taxes.<\/p>\n

The issue they aim to resolve is this: is there a frame\u00adwork accept\u00adable to a major\u00adi\u00adty of the House and Sen\u00adate to reduce across-the-board cuts in mil\u00adi\u00adtary and domes\u00adtic spend\u00ading sched\u00aduled for 2014 and 2015?<\/p>\n

Chris Van Hollen (D\u2011MD<\/span>), the lead nego\u00adtia\u00adtor for House Democ\u00adrats, calls it a \u201c<\/span>50\u201350 propo\u00adsi\u00adtion.\u201d<\/a>   Hal Rogers (R\u2011KY<\/span>), who chairs the House Appro\u00adpri\u00ada\u00adtions Com\u00admit\u00adtee and who wants a deal to soft\u00aden seques\u00adtra\u00adtion, pro\u00adnounced him\u00adself \u201csome\u00adwhat opti\u00admistic<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Speak\u00ader finds him\u00adself on unfa\u00admil\u00adiar ground . For the past three years, prob\u00adlems have emanat\u00aded from his right flank, with con\u00adser\u00adv\u00ada\u00adtive Mem\u00adbers last win\u00adter scut\u00adtling his Plan B<\/a> and then dur\u00ading the fall forc\u00ading him to pur\u00adsue a strat\u00ade\u00adgy that led to a polit\u00adi\u00adcal\u00adly dam\u00adag\u00ading gov\u00adern\u00adment shut\u00addown.  Those Mem\u00adbers at least some\u00adwhat chas\u00adtened, Boehner\u2019s prob\u00adlems today come from his more mod\u00ader\u00adate col\u00adleagues \u2013 appro\u00adpri\u00ada\u00adtors like Rogers, who com\u00adplain that dis\u00adcre\u00adtionary spend\u00ading already has been squeezed too much, and defense hawks like Armed Ser\u00advices Com\u00admit\u00adtee Chair\u00adman Buck McK\u00adeon (R\u2011CA<\/span>), who fear that anoth\u00ader round of auto\u00admat\u00adic cuts will impair mil\u00adi\u00adtary readiness.<\/p>\n

The Speaker\u2019s plan to seize the ini\u00adtia\u00adtive by bring\u00ading a stop\u00adgap fund\u00ading mea\u00adsure to the House floor next week has met resis\u00adtance from these mod\u00ader\u00adates.  Rogers told reporters that such an action could under\u00adcut nego\u00adti\u00ada\u00adtions over a pos\u00adsi\u00adble com\u00adpro\u00admise<\/a>.<\/p>\n

This chart (click on it to enlarge<\/em>), pre\u00adpared by the Bipar\u00adti\u00adsan Pol\u00adi\u00adcy Cen\u00adter<\/a>,<\/span> shows in detail the chal\u00adlenge that nego\u00adtia\u00adtors face.<\/p>\n

\"BPC<\/a><\/p>\n

Bud\u00adget con\u00adfer\u00adees need to close a $91 bil\u00adlion spend\u00ading gap between the House and Sen\u00adate.  The Sen\u00adate wants to allo\u00adcate $1.058 tril\u00adlion this year (the same as the \u201cpre-sequester\u201d statu\u00adto\u00adry cap), while the House wants to lim\u00adit dis\u00adcre\u00adtionary spend\u00ading to $967 bil\u00adlion (the \u201cpost-sequester\u201d statu\u00adto\u00adry cap).  Both would appro\u00adpri\u00adate $552 bil\u00adlion for nation\u00adal secu\u00adri\u00adty, breach\u00ading the $498.1 bil\u00adlion post-sequester cap on such spend\u00ading.  The House would cut non-defense dis\u00adcre\u00adtionary out\u00adlays by $49 bil\u00adlion (10.6 per\u00adcent) below cur\u00adrent lev\u00adels (from $464.5 bil\u00adlion to $415.4).  The entire $91 bil\u00adlion gap between the House and Sen\u00adate bud\u00adget res\u00ado\u00adlu\u00adtions thus lies in domes\u00adtic dis\u00adcre\u00adtionary spending.<\/p>\n

If the two sides can\u2019t agree to some alter\u00adna\u00adtive, across-the-board cuts will begin to bite some\u00adtime next month<\/a>.  Last time around, seques\u00adtra\u00adtion was a clear win for Repub\u00adli\u00adcans. Not so this time. Across-the-board cuts now offer pos\u00adi\u00adtives and neg\u00ada\u00adtives to both par\u00adties. They would drop over\u00adall dis\u00adcre\u00adtionary spend\u00ading to $967 bil\u00adlion, a win for Repub\u00adli\u00adcans.  But defense spend\u00ading would fall to $498 bil\u00adlion, less than the gov\u00adern\u00adment cur\u00adrent\u00adly allo\u00adcates and $54 bil\u00adlion less than House Repub\u00adli\u00adcans seek.  Non-defense spend\u00ading would rise to $469 bil\u00adlion, $5 bil\u00adlion high\u00ader than this year and $54 bil\u00adlion more than the House would like to spend.<\/p>\n

Seques\u00adtra\u00adtion is thus not the slam-dunk win for Repub\u00adli\u00adcans that it was last March. Absent some kind of deal to reduce or elim\u00adi\u00adnate the sched\u00aduled across-the-board cuts, nei\u00adther par\u00adty will be hap\u00adpy with the result.<\/p>\n

Nego\u00adtia\u00adtors are try\u00ading to devise some\u00adthing to make both sides less unhap\u00adpy, with\u00adout increas\u00ading the deficit \u2014 cut\u00adting oth\u00ader pro\u00adgrams and\/or find\u00ading rev\u00adenue to sub\u00adsti\u00adtute for seques\u00adtra\u00adtion. The most obvi\u00adous solu\u00adtions are off the table.  Repub\u00adli\u00adcans have said no to tax increas\u00ades, and Democ\u00adrats have said that they can\u2019t abide cuts to enti\u00adtle\u00adment pro\u00adgrams. That\u2019s dri\u00adven bud\u00adget con\u00adfer\u00adees to the the\u00adsaurus, look\u00ading for tax\u00ades that aren\u2019t tax\u00ades, and enti\u00adtle\u00adment cuts that aren\u2019t enti\u00adtle\u00adment cuts as a way to loosen the caps on appro\u00adpri\u00ada\u00adtions<\/a>.  The \u201cnot a tax\u201d list includes things like rais\u00ading 9\/11 fees on air\u00adline tick\u00adets and auc\u00adtion\u00ading broad\u00adband spec\u00adtrum; requir\u00ading fed\u00ader\u00adal work\u00aders to con\u00adtribute more to their pen\u00adsions tops the list of \u201cnot an enti\u00adtle\u00adment cut.\u201d<\/p>\n

If House and Sen\u00adate con\u00adfer\u00adees could agree to such a list of changes, post-sequester spend\u00ading caps report\u00aded\u00adly might rise from the cur\u00adrent $967 bil\u00adlion to a lev\u00adel at or near $1 tril\u00adlion<\/a>. That\u2019s still well below the $1.058 tril\u00adlion the Sen\u00adate wants and sub\u00adstan\u00adtial\u00adly high\u00ader than the $967 bil\u00adlion cap that the House has embraced and that seques\u00adtra\u00adtion now requires.<\/p>\n

It would be, in oth\u00ader words, a com\u00adpro\u00admise and one that would have to be rat\u00adi\u00adfied by a major\u00adi\u00adty in both the House and Sen\u00adate.  (Bud\u00adget res\u00ado\u00adlu\u00adtion con\u00adfer\u00adence agree\u00adments can\u00adnot be fil\u00adi\u00adbus\u00adtered and take effect with\u00adout requir\u00ading Pres\u00adi\u00adden\u00adtial sig\u00adna\u00adture.)  Such a com\u00adpro\u00admise would allow appro\u00adpri\u00ada\u00adtors to write bills (or, more like\u00adly, one big bill, known as an \u201comnibus\u201d appro\u00adpri\u00ada\u00adtion) for the fis\u00adcal year that began last Octo\u00adber 1 that com\u00adplied with the revised caps.<\/p>\n

Mem\u00adbers will dif\u00adfer over whether any com\u00adpro\u00admise that might emerge from the nego\u00adti\u00ada\u00adtions is a good one. There are cer\u00adtain\u00adly good rea\u00adsons why a Sen\u00ada\u00adtor or Rep\u00adre\u00adsen\u00adta\u00adtive, regard\u00adless of par\u00adty, might find it unap\u00adpeal\u00ading. Com\u00adpro\u00admis\u00ades, by nature, are rarely obvi\u00adous\u00adly good or obvi\u00adous\u00adly bad.<\/p>\n

The chal\u00adlenge is that many in Con\u00adgress seem to view com\u00adpro\u00admise as inher\u00adent\u00adly bad. This sen\u00adti\u00adment is not con\u00adfined to the Tea Par\u00adty.  Many Democ\u00adrats, too, equate com\u00adpro\u00admise with capit\u00adu\u00adla\u00adtion.  Some are grow\u00ading more restive<\/a> with their lead\u00ader\u00adship, whom they believe have been far too accom\u00admo\u00addat\u00ading of Repub\u00adli\u00adcans.  They fault the Pres\u00adi\u00addent for being insuf\u00adfi\u00adcient\u00adly pro\u00adgres\u00adsive, just as many Tea Par\u00adty adher\u00adents con\u00adsid\u00ader the Speak\u00ader insuf\u00adfi\u00adcient\u00adly conservative.<\/p>\n

Lib\u00ader\u00adals cer\u00adtain\u00adly don\u2019t see John Boehn\u00ader that way and con\u00adser\u00adv\u00ada\u00adtives can\u2019t imag\u00adine how peo\u00adple might regard Barack Oba\u00adma as a squishy mod\u00ader\u00adate.  Yet those per\u00adcep\u00adtions are out there and they will sure\u00adly col\u00ador how peo\u00adple view any pend\u00ading bud\u00adget deal.<\/p>\n

A grow\u00ading num\u00adber of Mem\u00adbers defines vic\u00adto\u00adry as the refusal to com\u00adpro\u00admise, regard\u00adless of the result.  It is why pay\u00adroll and income tax increas\u00ades took effect last Jan\u00adu\u00adary and why they were fol\u00adlowed by across-the-board cuts in mil\u00adi\u00adtary and domes\u00adtic spend\u00ading that laid waste the pol\u00adi\u00adcy pref\u00ader\u00adences of both par\u00adties.  Democ\u00adrats would rather see their favorite pro\u00adgrams slashed than com\u00adpro\u00admise with Repub\u00adli\u00adcans.  Repub\u00adli\u00adcans would rather see the Pres\u00adi\u00addent get the tax hikes he advo\u00adcat\u00aded than com\u00adpro\u00admise with Democrats.<\/p>\n

All of that seems strange, though, in the con\u00adtext of these bud\u00adget nego\u00adti\u00ada\u00adtions. This isn\u2019t a debate about cre\u00adat\u00ading a new pro\u00adgram or expand\u00ading fund\u00ading for an exist\u00ading one.  It is not a dis\u00adpute over the government\u2019s prop\u00ader role, over whether it should redis\u00adtrib\u00adute income, raise or reduce tax\u00ades, reform enti\u00adtle\u00adments or repeal Oba\u00admacare.  It\u2019s not about increas\u00ading or cut\u00adting the deficit or oth\u00ader\u00adwise affect\u00ading the government\u2019s debt load.  It is not an argu\u00adment over whether or not to leg\u00adis\u00adlate, since Con\u00adgress must even\u00adtu\u00adal\u00adly pass a bill to fund the government.<\/p>\n

That is not to say that there are no impor\u00adtant issues at stake or that the dif\u00adfer\u00adences between the par\u00adties are incon\u00adse\u00adquen\u00adtial.  It is only to say that this is the sort of mea\u00adsure that would seem to lend itself to com\u00adpro\u00admise.  That com\u00adpro\u00admise will come only with great dif\u00adfi\u00adcul\u00adty, if at all, on a res\u00ado\u00adlu\u00adtion that avoids the biggest and most con\u00adtentious fis\u00adcal issues is telling.<\/p>\n

Pol\u00adi\u00adtics once was believed to be the art of com\u00adpro\u00admise. Today\u2019s pol\u00adi\u00adtics is the art of spurn\u00ading it.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Bud\u00adget nego\u00adtia\u00adtors have strug\u00adgled for near\u00adly two months to find agree\u00adment on the out\u00adlines of a spend\u00ading bill that would fund the gov\u00adern\u00adment after Jan\u00adu\u00adary 15.  The tar\u00adget date for a deal is next Fri\u00adday. They hope to meet it. The \u2026 Con\u00adtin\u00adue read\u00ading \u2192<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":1709,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","wp_typography_post_enhancements_disabled":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"nfd_image_url":"","nfd_onboarding_generated":"","footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[481,479,12,17,482,480,690],"tags":[722,721,554,725,718,209,557,27,719,723,116,720,28,724,203],"class_list":["post-1704","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-appropriations","category-budget","category-debt-ceiling","category-entitlements","category-government-shutdown","category-government-spending-2","category-taxes-2","tag-bipartisan-policy-center","tag-buck-mckeon","tag-budget-2","tag-budget-resolution","tag-chris-van-hollen","tag-congressional-budget-office","tag-entitlements-2","tag-federal-budget","tag-hal-rogers","tag-house-budget-committee","tag-john-boehner","tag-patty-murray","tag-paul-ryan","tag-senate-budget-committee","tag-sequestration-2"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t