Two circles of hell
by digby
Greg Sargent explains:
The first circle represents the more than $1.7 million in spending cuts Dems agreed to, in exchange for zero in new revenues, as part of the debt ceiling deal of 2011. The second circle portrays the state of play after Republicans agreed to some $700 billion in new revenues as part of the recent fiscal cliff deal. As you can see, the ledger is still tilted lopsidedly in favor of Republicans: Some 70 percent of the deficit reduction we’ve seen thus far came in the form of spending cuts Republicans want, while only 30 percent came in the form of the new revenues Democrats want.
Here’s what this means: Even if the parties reach a deal in the third round of deficit reduction to avert the sequester with something approaching an equivalent sum of spending cuts and new revenues, the overall deficit reduction balance would still be heavily lopsided towards Republicans. Yet they continue to insist on resolving round three only through cuts, anyway.
The simple reality here is that there is an easy way for Republicans to get the very spending cuts they want. All they have to do is drop their opposition to more in revenues via the closing of loopholes — something they were prepared to accept last year in any case. There’s simply no doubt that Obama and Dems are prepared to give them more in spending cuts if they do. And if Republicans gave ground on this point, the math shows that they would still emerge the “winners” — our deficit problem will have been resolved mostly their way. Yet this still isn’t good enough: They would rather allow a sequester to go through than make any more concessions.
Greg is absolutely right. The Republicans have been winning at every step of the way and they just keep demanding more, more, more. And they will win again, even if they agree to the president's proposals. And that's because the President's proposals at every step of the way have also been Republican proposals. (One could even make the case that allowing the tax cuts to expire on schedule was also a Republican proposal.) In fact, sometimes his proposals have been more Republican than the Republicans'. After all, it's been the most conservative members who have spared us the "entitlement" cuts the president has proposed in both deals.
These charts perfectly illustrate the travesty of our bipartisan economic policy of the past few years. It's certainly true that Republicans have been intransigent and obstructionist. I think we all know that if you give them an inch, they'll take a mile. But at some point it would be nice if the president didn't open every negotiation, as he did again yesterday, by offering up a proposal that is, even if it's taken at face value with no further discussion, a GOP wet dream. He gives them a mile before the game has even started. Is it any wonder those charts look the way they do?
Greg's piece shows exactly why progressives are completely exasperated with the administration on these issues. Even when they "win", we lose. And, many of us feel that since Democrats control one house of congress and the presidency, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense that it would be this lopsided if the Democrats weren't pretty much on the same page.
Update: Here's how the Congressional Progressive caucus proposes to even things up.
.
