Update: Post-press conferences, this still seems right. In fact, it's likely the key sticking point. [GP]
___________________
John wrote about this Washington Post article to point out what's apparently going on in Republican-land. I'd like to look at the Democratic side, as discussed in the same piece.
Keep in mind there are four discussions — revenue increases or not; safety net cuts or not; massive spending cuts or really massive spending cuts; McConnell's complex clean bill offer.
This is about the revenue discussion only, and only on the Dem side. If the Tea Party caves to a Dem "best offer" — if they find a point where there's no more juice in the orange and take what they have — what are the choices on the Dem side? What does that offer look like?
Here's the Wash Post on the Democratic side of the discussion (my emphasis):
President Obama and House Speaker John A. Boehner rushed Thursday to strike agreement on a far-reaching plan to reduce the national debt but faced a revolt from Democrats furious that the accord appeared to include no immediate provision to raise taxes.Reid goes on to discuss the president's need for "balance" — "this can't be all cuts" he is quoted as saying.
With 12 days left until the Treasury begins to run short of cash, Obama and Boehner (R-Ohio) were still pursuing the most ambitious plan to restrain the national debt in at least 20 years. Talks focused on sharp cuts in agency spending and politically painful changes to cherished health and retirement programs aimed at saving roughly $3 trillion over the next decade.
More savings would be generated through an overhaul of the tax code that would lower personal and corporate income tax rates while eliminating or reducing an array of popular tax breaks, such as the deduction for home mortgage interest. But the talks envisioned no specific tax increases as part of legislation to lift the debt limit, and the tax rewrite would be postponed until next year. ... When “we heard these reports of these mega-trillion-dollar cuts with no revenues, it was like Mount Vesuvius. . . . Many of us were volcanic,” said Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.). ... After a lunchtime meeting between Lew and Senate Democrats, Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) made no attempt to hide his anger, telling reporters that his caucus would oppose the “potential agreement” because it appeared to include no clear guarantee of increased revenue.
Given that the "balance" Obama offered earlier was heavily tilted toward spending cuts (80%–20% is not my idea of "balance"), and given that this was Obama's pre-shrunk starting position (with room on the downside to negotiate to) — I wonder if a 95%–5% split would make the angered Reid and the "volcanic" Mikulski feel calmer or more dormant. How about 96%–4%? Or 99%–1%?
Clearly, any revenue increase in that range has to be called "token." Would the Tea Party accept that? Dunno.
The other alternative is no revenue increase whatsoever, which Nancy Pelosi is talking about as we speak, so to speak (h/t Digby). And the way that's being talked about is as a "later date" discussion about revenue. In other words, a phantom revenue increase, a shimmering ghost of one, perfect for those ready to pretend to believe.
So what will it be? Phantom revenue or token revenue? It's amazing how small this discussion has been reduced to, and how little Team Legacy is going to get in exchange for those recovery-killing (and election-killing) spending cuts.
No drama? It's been nothing but.
GP
